Britain to introduce legislation to monitor internet use

[News_Editor]

Britain to introduce legislation to monitor internet use

2012-04-02 21:16:49 GMT+7 (ICT)

LONDON (BNO NEWS) -- The British government is to introduce new legislation next month which would allow intelligence agency GCHQ to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visitors of everyone in the United Kingdom, the BBC reported on Sunday. The proposal has received a storm of criticism.

The BBC said the new legislation will require internet service providers to give GCHQ, Britain's electronic 'listening agency', access to communications on demand, in real time, to investigate serious crime and terrorism. It would not allow GCHQ to access the data without a warrant.

The new legislation, which is expected to be announced in the Queen's Speech in May, would enable intelligence officers to identify who an individual or group is in contact with, how often and for how long, although it will not include the actual content of phone calls and emails. But it would allow officers to see which websites someone has visited, the BBC reported.

In a statement, a Home Office spokesperson said the new legislation is needed to protect the public. "It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public," the spokesperson said. "We need to take action to maintain the continued availability of communications data as technology changes."

The spokesperson said the new legislation would not change the legal basis to intercept communications, and intelligence officers would not be able to access the actual content of private communications. "Communications data includes time, duration and dialing numbers of a phone call, or an email address," the spokesperson said. "It does not include the content of any phone call or email and it is not the intention of Government to make changes to the existing legal basis for the interception of communications."

It was not immediately clear when such new legislation could take effect, but the proposal is certain to enrage civil liberties campaigners and politicians. Emma Carr of the Big Brother Watch campaign group called the proposal an 'unprecedented step' which would see Britain adopt the same kind of surveillance as China and Iran.

"As set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review we will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows to ensure that the use of communications data is compatible with the Government's approach to civil liberties," the Home Office spokesperson said.

A similar proposal was considered by the then-ruling Labour party in 2006 but was abandoned after fierce opposition from Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-04-02

[Steely Dan]

http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=46534

This reflects something I've felt for a while, indeed every trip to the UK I see small but cumulative changes restricting freedoms which would otherwise be taken for granted. I suspect hard economic times ahead and society becoming more unruly are an environment likely to result in a more totalitarian future.

[midas]

this is beginning to look like a global trend

Exposed: Inside the NSA’s Largest and Most Expansive Secret Domestic Spy Center in Bluffdale, Utah

http://www.democracy...sas_largest_and

[wellred]

On one hand I know I'm not into anything dodgey so I'm quite happy as I know this is ultimately being done to protect my country. At the same time though it does feel a tad too much of an invasion into my privacy. What if such information were to fall into the wrong hands?

[GentlemanJim]

On one hand I know I'm not into anything dodgey so I'm quite happy as I know this is ultimately being done to protect my country. At the same time though it does feel a tad too much of an invasion into my privacy. What if such information were to fall into the wrong hands?

It is not being done to protect your country, it is being done to tighten the noose of control around you and the rest of us. Stop kidding yourself it is for the benefit of the country, the war on terror is a manufactured money printing scam. And yes, what about the data? One emergency order/decree and they could do away with the requirement for a warrant in an instant.

[Ulysses G.]

Terrorism is a FACT and conspiracy theory stuff claiming otherwise is ridiculous. I do not like these laws, but, unfortunately, there is plenty of justification for them. I always thought that 1984 was purely fictional, but it looks like things are headed that way and soon.

[TAWP]

If not a April first joke, then a step towards fascism...

[Mosha]

Yep Shrub's war on terror is working. Except it's the government that is doing the terrorising.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Mosha

[baboon]

Modern Britain - a police state without police. Every once in a while I dig out 1984. It seems to become more relevant as time goes by.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

Not every topic is about America...or Israel. The only other countries even mentioned in the OP are in this quote:

"....an 'unprecedented step' which would see Britain adopt the same kind of surveillance as China and Iran."

Please stay on topic.

[Steely Dan]

The big question is WHY are governments doing this? I can only think of two possibilities, one is to prevent Islamic terrorism, or more worryingly to break up resistance to mass immigration. The other is concerning cyber-crime, hacking etc. Whatever, either by happenstance or design there are good reasons why governments are doing this, though I don't approve for myself and this was a small part of my reason for being here.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Steely Dan

[folium]

The big question is WHY are governments doing this? I can only think of two possibilities, one is to prevent Islamic terrorism, or more worryingly to break up resistance to mass immigration.

I think we are all clear on your views on Islamic terrorism but I am intrigued about your "resistance to mass immigration" comment, and why this is more worrying than terrorism.

What such groups/people would the UK government want to monitor?

Edited April 3, 2012 by folium

[SaNim]

When I first saw this on the BBC I assumed it was an April 1st joke.

The I saw it again in The Telegraph.

Its another erosion of civil liberties.

The UK has lived with terrorism for a long time , previously there was an attitude of taking sensible precautions but not letting the terrorists change the way of life.

It seems now they have changed how people think and act, they have won this war. UK is now compared to Iran. Defeat is complete.

For UK et al to fight back they need to go back to leading a free and democratic way of life without being beholden to the fear of violence.

[Steely Dan]

The big question is WHY are governments doing this? I can only think of two possibilities, one is to prevent Islamic terrorism, or more worryingly to break up resistance to mass immigration.

I think we are all clear on your views on Islamic terrorism but I am intrigued about your "resistance to mass immigration" comment, and why this is more worrying than terrorism.

What such groups/people would the UK government want to monitor?

Worrying for governments, if their policies are anything like the Eurabia theory in order to secure energy supplies and give the left an ally against the U.S. We are governed by consent, in other words the population as a whole complies with the law and behavioural norms of society providing the government does not let any section of society stop cooperating thus gaining inordinate benefit or causing trouble. The recent Bradford West election was won on religious sectarian grounds against the backdrop of the working class populations rising alienation to the mainstream parties.

Bradford, as does Tower Hamlets might resemble a non-assimilating ghetto where British laws and norms increasingly become subordinate to alien ones. This may lead to increasing civil disobedience which the government are terrified will escalate, therefore in my opinion they use very heavy handed policing and try to vilify groups which oppose unrestricted immigration and the resulting social problems. Thus the internet monitoring may be to disrupt and stop the likes of the EDL or British Freedom party as much as say those of 'Muslims against the crusades', especially if the government favour the latter for their own reasons.

[billd766]

This will supposedly be announced in the Queen's Speech as the way the current UK government wants to go in the future.

However as far as I remember it has to be proposed as a bill in Parliament and discussed and voted on there.

IF it passes that hurdle it is then sent to the House of Lords for discussion and voted on there.

IF it passes both of those hurdles it then goes back to the House of Commons and then a law is enacted and I presume the Queen has to sign it off.

It can be modified or rejected in either house before final assent so it will take some time to happen yet.

[folium]

The big question is WHY are governments doing this? I can only think of two possibilities, one is to prevent Islamic terrorism, or more worryingly to break up resistance to mass immigration.

I think we are all clear on your views on Islamic terrorism but I am intrigued about your "resistance to mass immigration" comment, and why this is more worrying than terrorism.

What such groups/people would the UK government want to monitor?

Worrying for governments, if their policies are anything like the Eurabia theory in order to secure energy supplies and give the left an ally against the U.S. We are governed by consent, in other words the population as a whole complies with the law and behavioural norms of society providing the government does not let any section of society stop cooperating thus gaining inordinate benefit or causing trouble. The recent Bradford West election was won on religious sectarian grounds against the backdrop of the working class populations rising alienation to the mainstream parties.

Bradford, as does Tower Hamlets might resemble a non-assimilating ghetto where British laws and norms increasingly become subordinate to alien ones. This may lead to increasing civil disobedience which the government are terrified will escalate, therefore in my opinion they use very heavy handed policing and try to vilify groups which oppose unrestricted immigration and the resulting social problems. Thus the internet monitoring may be to disrupt and stop the likes of the EDL or British Freedom party as much as say those of 'Muslims against the crusades', especially if the government favour the latter for their own reasons.

So the UK government trades the establishment of Eurabia for securing its energy supplies, and becoming an ally of the left against the USA.

The UK government also plans to intercept and monitor the communications of groups such as the EDL, BFP etc as part of their campaign of policing and vilification of such groups opposed to migration, while the pro-jihadist type groups are favoured by comparison.

Have I got that right?

[Steely Dan]

So the UK government trades the establishment of Eurabia for securing its energy supplies, and becoming an ally of the left against the USA.

The UK government also plans to intercept and monitor the communications of groups such as the EDL, BFP etc as part of their campaign of policing and vilification of such groups opposed to migration, while the pro-jihadist type groups are favoured by comparison.

Have I got that right?

The UK government, as with other E.U Countries has lost a lot of decision making power to the E.U and thus the left wing federalist policies come in via the back door. I won't post any links about Eurabia here as they are probably off topic, but they do make interesting reading and explain why it is that front groups for radical Islam get largely ignored compared to those that oppose them. I suspect there is currently a tug of war going on between the old multi-culturalists and the rejectionists so any measure that increases government power to monitor can be used both ways depending on the prevailing government policy at the time - both will lead to curtailment of freedoms.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Steely Dan

[folium]

So the UK government trades the establishment of Eurabia for securing its energy supplies, and becoming an ally of the left against the USA.

The UK government also plans to intercept and monitor the communications of groups such as the EDL, BFP etc as part of their campaign of policing and vilification of such groups opposed to migration, while the pro-jihadist type groups are favoured by comparison.

Have I got that right?

The UK government, as with other E.U Countries has lost a lot of decision making power to the E.U and thus the left wing federalist policies come in via the back door. I won't post any links about Eurabia here as they are probably off topic, but they do make interesting reading and explain why it is that front groups for radical Islam get largely ignored compared to those that oppose them. I suspect there is currently a tug of war going on between the old multi-culturalists and the rejectionists so any measure that increases government power to monitor can be used both ways depending on the prevailing government policy at the time - both will lead to curtailment of freedoms.

So the focus of the UK government electronic intercept programme will be the EDL, BFP and similar groups opposed to migration, as they are more of a concern to the UK government than potential muslim terrorists.

This electronic snooping will not only curtail the freedom and rights of British citizens but further alienate the British working class from mainstream political parties and set off a spiral of escalating civil disobedience.

[geriatrickid]

On one hand I know I'm not into anything dodgey so I'm quite happy as I know this is ultimately being done to protect my country. At the same time though it does feel a tad too much of an invasion into my privacy. What if such information were to fall into the wrong hands?

It is not being done to protect your country, it is being done to tighten the noose of control around you and the rest of us. Stop kidding yourself it is for the benefit of the country, the war on terror is a manufactured money printing scam. And yes, what about the data? One emergency order/decree and they could do away with the requirement for a warrant in an instant.

LOL.

[geriatrickid]

So the UK government trades the establishment of Eurabia for securing its energy supplies, and becoming an ally of the left against the USA.

The UK government also plans to intercept and monitor the communications of groups such as the EDL, BFP etc as part of their campaign of policing and vilification of such groups opposed to migration, while the pro-jihadist type groups are favoured by comparison.

Have I got that right?

The UK government, as with other E.U Countries has lost a lot of decision making power to the E.U and thus the left wing federalist policies come in via the back door. I won't post any links about Eurabia here as they are probably off topic, but they do make interesting reading and explain why it is that front groups for radical Islam get largely ignored compared to those that oppose them. I suspect there is currently a tug of war going on between the old multi-culturalists and the rejectionists so any measure that increases government power to monitor can be used both ways depending on the prevailing government policy at the time - both will lead to curtailment of freedoms.

So the focus of the UK government electronic intercept programme will be the EDL, BFP and similar groups opposed to migration, as they are more of a concern to the UK government than potential muslim terrorists.

This electronic snooping will not only curtail the freedom and rights of British citizens but further alienate the British working class from mainstream political parties and set off a spiral of escalating civil disobedience.

And?

One solution is to use live fire on rioters. Do it a couple of times and the mobs will get the picture.

Easy peasy.

problem solved.

[bigbamboo]

However, the good news is that this will be monitored by GCHQ... the UK equivalent of Wikileaks.

[maiphedmaiaroi]

On one hand I know I'm not into anything dodgey so I'm quite happy as I know this is ultimately being done to protect my country. At the same time though it does feel a tad too much of an invasion into my privacy. What if such information were to fall into the wrong hands?

It is not being done to protect your country, it is being done to tighten the noose of control around you and the rest of us. Stop kidding yourself it is for the benefit of the country, the war on terror is a manufactured money printing scam. And yes, what about the data? One emergency order/decree and they could do away with the requirement for a warrant in an instant.

One of the best and most truthful posts i have read in a long time.

That facts are when you scare people and create fear you can control them. Fear is the easiest way to control. Tell them how you can protect them from their fear and they will accept without thinking for themselves.

Its to easy for them.

[Celticabdullah]

straght away,atv advert across the uk by aol offering a free computer tool,coincidence?

[Celticabdullah]

geriatrick.live rounds r serious.what is your opinion of hand cutting for thieves?

[geriatrickid]

One of the reasons I treat this topic so cavalierly is that the government already has this power, albeit in a more cubersome and roundabout manner. It has been able to monitor communications since the start of electronic communications. In previous years there were not even any safeguards or obstacles to the government accessing information. The introduction of privacy laws in the 80's and 90's created a regulatory mess for the government with conflicting statutes. National Security allowing it, but Privacy Act denying it. The need to set out a more specific framework is due to the mess arising from the hacking of people's mobile phones, facebook and twitter accounts by some "journalists". You know, the same group that bleats on about freedom of the press and expression.

The fact of the matter is that the legislation has yet to be debated, none of the people offering up negative assessments have seen the legislation and no one has paid attention to key requirements such as a warrant being required.

[Ulysses G.]

That facts are when you scare people and create fear you can control them.

“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you”

Kurt Cobain quotes

[folium]

One of the reasons I treat this topic so cavalierly is that the government already has this power, albeit in a more cubersome and roundabout manner. It has been able to monitor communications since the start of electronic communications. In previous years there were not even any safeguards or obstacles to the government accessing information. The introduction of privacy laws in the 80's and 90's created a regulatory mess for the government with conflicting statutes. National Security allowing it, but Privacy Act denying it. The need to set out a more specific framework is due to the mess arising from the hacking of people's mobile phones, facebook and twitter accounts by some "journalists". You know, the same group that bleats on about freedom of the press and expression. The fact of the matter is that the legislation has yet to be debated, none of the people offering up negative assessments have seen the legislation and no one has paid attention to key requirements such as a warrant being required.

OMG, I'm actually going to agree with you for once!

Governments have always monitored their populations, they would be neglectful not to, threats have always been both internal and external.

If you are really concerned about people snooping on your electronic conversations you will need to radically secure your home both in terms of the wireless links and all devices within lead boxes. Check out the link below re TEMPEST.

http://bss.sfsu.edu/fischer/ir%20360/readings/tempest.htm

[otherstuff1957]

Although the ostensible reasons for this sort of law is to protect people from terrorism, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it being used to chase offshore money movement, torrent sites, etc...

Just another curtailment of civil liberties, just as is happening elsewhere. (This GCHQ sounds a lot like our Department of Homeland Insecurity!)

[MAJIC]

This will supposedly be announced in the Queen's Speech as the way the current UK government wants to go in the future.

However as far as I remember it has to be proposed as a bill in Parliament and discussed and voted on there.

IF it passes that hurdle it is then sent to the House of Lords for discussion and voted on there.

IF it passes both of those hurdles it then goes back to the House of Commons and then a law is enacted and I presume the Queen has to sign it off.

It can be modified or rejected in either house before final assent so it will take some time to happen yet.

Unless things have drastically changed over the last decade? then the House of Lords,can only advise the Government,and their vote means very little, unless the Government of the day decides to accept their extra proposals.

[midas]

The fact of the matter is that the legislation has yet to be debated, none of the people offering up negative assessments have seen the legislation and no one has paid attention to key requirements such as a warrant being required.

this site maintains a warrant will not be required?

" TheOpinionSite.org can also report that the police and other ‘law enforcement agencies’ will not require a warrant to discover with whom you have been communicating, for how long, how often and by what means. Nor will they need a warrant to investigate which websites you have been visiting and how often you visit them. "

and this is so true.....and not only in GB !

" British citizens have lost the ability to think for themselves, stand up for themselves or to make decisions for themselves. Instead, they are content to allow their various governments to make as many decisions as possible and thus relieve themselves as individuals of any responsibility should anything go wrong with their lives."

http://www.theopinio...all-uk-citizens

Edited April 3, 2012 by midas