doctorow at July 9th, 2014 16:57 — #1
nelsie at July 9th, 2014 17:36 — #2
WTF? So, because the legislation is to do with terrorism, it has to be kept secret until Monday? Because if the terrorists find out before Monday, they might... what? Take the Palace of Westminster in a Die Hard stylee?
What could be so urgent and important that normal Parliamentary procedure needs to be subverted like this? If passed does it become law on Tuesday? Will a million terrorists suddenly look at their smart phones and laptops in a dawning realization that now the security agencies can now legally do something that they're probably already doing?
Has the government decided putting a bill written by fallible human beings through one of the few processes that can improve a badly-written bill is too dangerous to be risked. Has the opposition become the enemy?
kimmo at July 9th, 2014 17:59 — #3
What, those guys who get invited to all the same parties as the scumbags in government, who pretend to be some sort of alternative?
Don't think so. You're thinking of the electorate.
miker at July 9th, 2014 18:07 — #4
This is what is known as 'a mature democracy'.
If the Labour Party had any spine it would whip its members to oppose any legislation that has not been through the full parliamentary process. But with the very New Labour Yvette Cooper as shadow Home Secretary you can be reasonably sure they'll be perfectly happy to vote along with the government rather than be seen as 'soft on crime' by the Daily Mail. What they always forget is that the Mail and the Sun will always find something to beat up the Labour Party, so they don't lose anything by actually acting with a conscience.
phil_culmer at July 9th, 2014 19:43 — #5
That has been standard practice for ages - remember the Communications Data Act, which the previous regime slipped through with the current regime's connivance?
purplecat at July 9th, 2014 19:56 — #6
But this can't possibly be happening. I mean, look what they announced four years ago.
It's almost as if they were (gasp) blatantly lying.
miker at July 9th, 2014 20:45 — #7
Nick Clegg also promised recently not to allow the Snoopers Charter onto the books. By the sounds of what is being leaked tonight to the Murdoch press he's been given some kind of assurance that this will only be used for 'serious' cases. But we all know how New Labour's anti-terror laws have been misused, so by letting this through, Clegg has ensured the laws will be abused and extended in the future. I'm not sure if he's a knave or a fool, but he is certainly ensuring that he and his party deserve oblivion if they vote for this legislation.
davide405 at July 10th, 2014 00:20 — #8
If the suppositions turn out to be correct, I can only hope voters will rake over the coals those responsible for the deception and dirty dealing.
daneel at July 10th, 2014 00:24 — #9
Well, there won't be a Liberal Democrat presence to speak of after the next election, but Labour will be in power, and they were the jackasses who wanted to introduce all this authoritarian bullshit last time around.
davide405 at July 10th, 2014 00:26 — #10
I am grateful for the news, but sad for what it means
daneel at July 10th, 2014 00:32 — #11
I don't particularly like the man, but I do wish David Davis had won the Conservative leadership election instead of Cameron. On this subject at least, he talks some sense. But then, the Conservatives have been picking the wrong man for the job every time since Thatcher quit.
And who knows, maybe Miliband won't be as awful as Blair.
The LibDems are reaping what they sowed; for years they were all things to all men and never had to back anything up. Now they're in Government it's abundantly clear they're still two parties. That said, the Tories have stitched them up left right and centre.
boundegar at July 10th, 2014 01:09 — #12
Well let's see... the USAPATRIOT Act... NAFTA... the TPP...
Maybe it's unusual in the UK, but not over here.
kimmo at July 10th, 2014 04:29 — #13
Subverting the democratic process = treason.
peregrinus_bis at July 10th, 2014 06:07 — #14
But there's nothing to worry about. No-one has ever, in the history of mankind, or creatures in general, ever mis-used data.
Damnit! There's always an exception to the rule - but that proves the point, right?
aggro_naught at July 10th, 2014 06:38 — #16
Watching Theresa May making statement in Commons, all those self-satisfied MPs nodding like muppets pretending they understand the world we live in. Apparently we can not be kept safe by any of our security & police services without this legislation, shame. The shadow home secretary has just rolled over and offered her belly for a tickle.
(edit, sorry, iPad not playing nice)
peregrinus_bis at July 10th, 2014 07:08 — #17
The awful truth is, they do understand it. They may not know what Twitter is, but they understand perfectly what communication is, and what the digital age means in terms of mass communication.
aggro_naught at July 10th, 2014 07:33 — #18
I think their understanding of the world only goes as far as what imperils their very cosy gig.
peregrinus_bis at July 10th, 2014 07:59 — #19
peregrinus_bis at July 10th, 2014 08:23 — #20
Hey everybody, just slow down!
This is what the gov says:
We will establish a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board on the American model, to ensure that civil liberties are properly considered in the formulation of government policy on counter-terrorism. This will be based on David Anderson's existing role as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.
I'm so utterly reassured. If the Americans do it, so should we!
I confess the text emphasis is mine.
aggro_naught at July 10th, 2014 08:50 — #21
This bit irritates me:
We will appoint a senior diplomat to lead discussions with the American government and the internet companies to establish a new international agreement for sharing data between legal jurisdictions.
This bit makes me furious, what reasons or need has a local authority have to need access to this information?
We will restrict the number of public bodies that are able to approach phone and internet companies and ask for communications data. Some bodies will lose their powers to access data altogether while local authorities will be required to go through a single central authority who will make the request on their behalf.
next page →