New quietly announced powers for 800 UK orgs to snoop on our phone records

[Guineveretoo]

What on earth does this mean? That statutory instruments shouldn't be challenged? That the rise of the use of such an undemocratic and unacountable executice tool shouldn't be challenged? That the drive of the exective to ever more power shouldn't be mentioned? That's just how things are done?

Fucking hell.

You read whatever you like into my posts, and curse and swear all you want. Once more, I refuse to waste my time engaging with you.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I'm not surprised at all; this sort of thing only ever appears as a result of pressure groups making a fuss and doesn't last long, the press don't give a monkey's unless it happens to be part of their campaign against whichever politician is in at the time (which is why you see it in the Mail).

Why _would_ it?

 

[butchersapron]

I agree that it is important that people know about this, I am just surprised that they didn't already see the stuff in the press and on here. Also, I don't think people should focus on the statutory instrument, or the way this was introduced, because that really is not the point.

The point, surely, is the extension of powers that authorities, whoever those authorities may be, now have to look at information about us which we all previously thought was private.

Also, the fact that mobile phone companies can be required to retain data for longer and hand over data on someone without a court order to ensure that it is only being handed over for good reason....

Amongst the point is the use of statutory instrument - like DB, it's not for you to decide what i'm concerned about. The rise of the powers that you meantion is tied up with the rise in the use of statutory instrument. To seperate the two is pointless. Or to try and brush over it.

 

[butchersapron]

You read whatever you like into my posts, and curse and swear all you want. Once more, I refuse to waste my time engaging with you.

You do what you need to G2.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Amongst the point is the use of statutory instrument - like DB, it's not for you to decide what i'm concerned about. The rise of the powers that you meantion is tied up with the rise in the use of statutory instrument. To seperate the two is pointless. Or to try and brush over it.

And neither is it for you to say what I think is important.

But you consistently fail to debate in any real way, and consistently read things into my posts which are not there.

If this debate is important, then why not leave your personal animosity against me out of the thread, and focus on the issues?

 

[laptop]

Anyone read this?

I've read about it - not the full text yet.


Some are interpreting it as his move to justify further restrictions - esp 56-day detention without charge: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7031078,00.html

Must get onto Lord Carlile with arguments against, in the morning...

 

[butchersapron]

And neither is it for you to say what I think is important.

But you consistently fail to debate in any real way, and consistently read things into my posts which are not there.

If this debate is important, then why not leave your personal animosity against me out of the thread, and focus on the issues?

I've mentioned the things that i consider important - i mentioned your differing opinion and the implications that you lazily missed. That's not personal animosity. That is debate. Carry on crying that you don't like me blah blah whatever

 

[Guineveretoo]

I've mentioned the things that i consider important - i mentioned your differing opinion and the implications that you lazily missed. That's not personal animosity. That is debate. Carry on crying that you don't like me blah blah whatever

 

[butchersapron]

Nothing to say about the extended use of statutory instruments and the associated drain of power from the legislature to the executive - beyond the simple bowing down and saying that's how it's done anyway *wink*?

 

[Guineveretoo]

Nothing to say about the extended use of statutory instruments and the associated drain of power from the legislature to the executive - beyond the simple bowing down and saying that's how it's done anyway *wink*?

You see? You are putting words in my mouth.

Until you stop doing that, I am not going to give a serious consideration to anything you may say. You don't have the courtesy to treat me with respect, so why should I do anything other than grin at you?

I don't think I "winked", but, if it makes you feel good, here you are, petal:

 

[butchersapron]

OK, on you go. On with your life.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Actually, I am working. Just taking a bit of a break on here occasionally.

Thanks for cheering me up and distracting me!

 

[Guineveretoo]

I agree that it is important that people know about this, I am just surprised that they didn't already see the stuff in the press and on here. Also, I don't think people should focus on the statutory instrument, or the way this was introduced, because that really is not the point.

The point, surely, is the extension of powers that authorities, whoever those authorities may be, now have to look at information about us which we all previously thought was private.

Also, the fact that mobile phone companies can be required to retain data for longer and hand over data on someone without a court order to ensure that it is only being handed over for good reason....

Back on topic, I just want to reiterate that, despite what DB says, I am concerned that it is now so much easier for people to snoop on personal data such as mobile phone use, whoever those authorities might be. I don't know if there are enough safeguards in place to stop a local council, who suspects someone of some crime or other, from demanding to see the records of lots of people in order to rule them out.

Whatever, it feels like this widening out of the RIP Act, which was pretty loosely worded in parts, so open to interpretations, and containing some safeguards to protect individuals, opens up the possibility of abuse.

 

[_angel_]

Yes. Words talking about the extended data retention period. Not the list of organisations.

And do you really think that the Food Standards Agency shouldn't be able to seek call data in a case where some twat is knocking out condemned meat at markets? Or the Environment Agency where some corporate suits are flooding rivers with pollution killing millions of fish and causing a serious hazard to public health? Or the Tradns Standards trying to work out who is flooding the Christmas markets with cheap crap toys from China which stand a rasonable chance of choking little children (Think of the Children!!!) or giving them lead poisoning ...

That's then a crime and if it's judged necessary the police can come up with the leads. No I *really* don't think it's necessary for the local council to get their hands on the details of mine or anyone elses mobile phone records.

How is having someone's call data going to stop someone knocking out dodgy meat necessarily?

 

[detective-boy]

That's then a crime and if it's judged necessary the police can come up with the leads. No I *really* don't think it's necessary for the local council to get their hands on the details of mine or anyone elses mobile phone records.

How is having someone's call data going to stop someone knocking out dodgy meat necessarily?

The point is:

THE POLICE DO NOT HAVE THE POWER / AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE, THE COUNCIL / OTHER AGENCIES DO ...

... so that is why the councils / other agencies are provided with the power to seek access to call data (and to carry out intrusive surveillance, etc under the rest of the RIPA provisions).

And can you really not see how access to call data may be important in any criminal investigation:

"Ah, a van load of contaminated meat. Now Mr Driver, where did you collect this from? And who are you distruibuting it to?"
"Fuck off and find out, you interfering council twat"
"OK ... is that a mobile phone in your pocket, or do you just get a kick out of getting questioned ..."