UK Investigatory Powers Bill: Politicians exempt themselves from new laws(independent.co.uk)
independent.co.uk
UK Investigatory Powers Bill: Politicians exempt themselves from new laws
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/investigatory-powers-bill-a7447781.html
90 comments
I don't understand. If you're a good citizen, you should have nothing to hide.
I'm not sure how it's a positive feature at all, why should they be treated differently from the rest of us.
I'm not sure why anyone would expect the agencies to actually adhere to these laws (they didn't before anyway). Having a nice bucket of kompromat on every relevant politician is rather enticing.
The ultimate justification for spying on politicians is under the guise of counterintelligence. Have to make sure they're not under the influence of foreign powers, or leaking classified information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#2009_wiretap.2FAIP...
Of course, sometimes it's just easier to poorly fabricate supposedly-intercepted communications, do the political damage, and then refuse to divulge any evidence citing either classification grounds or the absence of an investigation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#2009_wiretap.2FAIP...
Of course, sometimes it's just easier to poorly fabricate supposedly-intercepted communications, do the political damage, and then refuse to divulge any evidence citing either classification grounds or the absence of an investigation.
They claimed to. The fact that oversight failed for years doesn't mean the agencies ignored the law - there are reasonable interpretations to most law. It's good some of it has been test by the courts. It's frustrating it took so long. It's worrying that new law is drafted that appears to ignore previous court rulings.
There are exemptions in English an European law about crime prevention but it's surprising that "slurp all the data" meets the prpotional test.
There are exemptions in English an European law about crime prevention but it's surprising that "slurp all the data" meets the prpotional test.
But now you've just got exactly that for every potential upcoming politician up to the point they take office.
Morally I don't disagree that it's indefensible.
From a pragmatic point of view, it may have some utility. It's easier to fight surveillance when you're not being actively blackmailed by said surveillance.
The counterargument there is that it's also easier not to care about surveillance reform when you know you're insulated from the surveillance in the first place. Likely a false sense of security, though.
From a pragmatic point of view, it may have some utility. It's easier to fight surveillance when you're not being actively blackmailed by said surveillance.
The counterargument there is that it's also easier not to care about surveillance reform when you know you're insulated from the surveillance in the first place. Likely a false sense of security, though.
It's unclear from the article though, does this protect politicians who haven't actually won a seat?
If it only protects those in power it's actually the reverse, since democracy is supposed to be a 'battle of ideas' to prevent physical battles, giving the winning side the upper hand would weaken the system
If it only protects those in power it's actually the reverse, since democracy is supposed to be a 'battle of ideas' to prevent physical battles, giving the winning side the upper hand would weaken the system
There's no protection - the people who have to sign off on it are both from the ruling party. If it had been "The Prime Minister AND the leader of each party in Parliament" then you could talk about some level of protection. But as is, it's just a way to tip the playing field to the ruling government of the day.
I'm not really convinced on the first part, any citizen can be coerced or blackmailed providing they are acting against some interests, not only politicians and this kind of exception does not prevent that. What about journalists or random activists?
> it (in theory) serves to protect politicians from being coerced or blackmailed
Fine, then let's protect ordinary people from being coerced or blackmailed, too.
Fine, then let's protect ordinary people from being coerced or blackmailed, too.
But how do you write it in such a way that billionaires are protected and yet we can still spy on dangerous radical protestors and labor movement organizers?
Oh you mean poor ordinary people? You sweet summer child.
Oh you mean poor ordinary people? You sweet summer child.
Just like high salaries prevent politicians from being bribed, right?
[deleted]
Slightly related question, does anyone know if these laws are backdated. I.e a year's worth of data retention is that available to the list of access from now? As in have ISP already been collecting?
Has the data collection started? Is it about to start?
Has the data collection started? Is it about to start?
> Has the data collection started? Is it about to start?
At the behest of this Act? No, not yet. It has yet to be determined and ordered how "Internet Connection Records" will be collected and stored; perhaps this will occur at backhauls and exchange levels, rather than at the terminating ISP level. Much easier to implement and for the 'authorities' to query.
At the behest of this Act? No, not yet. It has yet to be determined and ordered how "Internet Connection Records" will be collected and stored; perhaps this will occur at backhauls and exchange levels, rather than at the terminating ISP level. Much easier to implement and for the 'authorities' to query.
'Has the data collection started?'
I think we can assume it's been going on for years already.
I think we can assume it's been going on for years already.
We begin therefore where they are determined not to end, with the question whether any form of democratic self-government, anywhere, is consistent with the kind of massive, pervasive, surveillance into which the Unites States government has led not only us but the world.
This should not actually be a complicated inquiry.
https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRe...
Surveillance is not an end toward totalitarianism, it is totalitarianism itself.
This should not actually be a complicated inquiry.
https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRe...
Surveillance is not an end toward totalitarianism, it is totalitarianism itself.
Whilst at first glance this doesn't look altogether fair, I can understand why its been done.
The government should not be able to use the tools of state to suppress legitimate parliamentary opposition. There would be nothing to stop the party in power using the law to specifically target opposing parties.
For the rest of us here in the UK, your traffic is already being collated and probably has been for some time.
The government should not be able to use the tools of state to suppress legitimate parliamentary opposition. There would be nothing to stop the party in power using the law to specifically target opposing parties.
For the rest of us here in the UK, your traffic is already being collated and probably has been for some time.
I think everyone can understand why it's been done. Because parliamentarians have looked at the legislation and come to the conclusion that it would infringe on what they believe to be their legitimate privileges.
It's just that they don't believe those same privileges should extend to everyone else.
Note the use of the word 'privileges' rather than rights, because once parliament starts making that distinction between groups that have them and groups that don't that's exactly what they become.
It's just that they don't believe those same privileges should extend to everyone else.
Note the use of the word 'privileges' rather than rights, because once parliament starts making that distinction between groups that have them and groups that don't that's exactly what they become.
> The government should not be able to use the tools of state to suppress legitimate parliamentary opposition. There would be nothing to stop the party in power using the law to specifically target opposing parties.
Why not introduce a law that further decouples intelligence agencies and the government. It could be made mandatory that information released by agencies are released to all members of parliament. This way, the government gets more transparency, and the people also get more transparency indirectly.
Just my 2 pence.
Why not introduce a law that further decouples intelligence agencies and the government. It could be made mandatory that information released by agencies are released to all members of parliament. This way, the government gets more transparency, and the people also get more transparency indirectly.
Just my 2 pence.
That would require all MP's to be vetted :-)
We could start by disclosing only (detailed) meta-information.
Or we could choose 1 MP per party to be informed.
Or we could choose 1 MP per party to be informed.
The Leader of the Opposition is already in Privy Council, which (I believe) means he'll get most of the security briefs he wants to. He should probably be in COBRA too, but I don't think that's the case at the moment.
I'd like to see the government forced to give Special Branch info to Sinn Fein, that would be hilarious.
It can only be accessed with a warrant, so what are the politicians worried about? If they have nothing to hide, they should have nothing to fear.
Why not go the other direction? All government business (emails, phone records, use of official computers, etc) should be public information. You can't blackmail someone with something everyone knows...
(Obvious exceptions would be necessary for things that are truly national security secrets, etc).
(Obvious exceptions would be necessary for things that are truly national security secrets, etc).
In theory it is. That's what the FOIA does. Problem is there are lots of exemptions.
Politicians making one rule for the plebs and one rule for themselves? Well I never!
Politicians are the new noble class, it's like middle age but instead of count/dukes and the rest we now have politicians. Maybe we need another french revolution.
Please, enough of this nonsense. What we need is for people to vote for better politicians. To my mind, the main obstacle to that is the awful UK press, and the increasing extent to which the BBC is a government broadcaster rather than a public broadcaster.
The problem is that the system is quite rigged. Not only in UK , in Spain when new parties have tried to enter the stage, the media, own by the corporations who benefit from the politicians , have attack them fiercely , blatantly lying and manipulating the truth so they could not disrupt the establishment, including personal attacks. You could not believe all the bad news about Venezuela we have seen, and being tied to a new Spanish party like they were trying to do the same in Spain, suddenly, the day after elections Venezuela disappeared from the news and many more things like that
It will be hard for people to vote for better politicians, so long as those politicians who are allowed to represent an existing party have to be selected by the party itself.
A large part of the problem is some of the existing parties, sure. But in Brighton, for example, we have Caroline Lucas, who is a wonderful MP.
Jeremy Corbyn for example is actually a decent human being (can vouch for this as work with him a bit in Westminster), despite some of his policies. However he is hounded out by the media and political class.
Maybe. But where was he, and where were the rest of his party when this abomination was being shoved through parliament? Abstaining in the commons and cheerleading it in the lords. So pardon me if I don't buy him being a decent chap having any bearing whatsoever on this issue.
He is clearly not in control of his MPs in the commons, and even less so in the Lords (which are now stacked with Blair cronies). He has to pick his battles very carefully.
Mandatory reselection after boundary changes should see to that.
Mandatory reselection after boundary changes should see to that.
You don't know he's a decent human being. He seems nice but has never been tested. Lots of tyrants throughout history have come across as nice in casual interactions and then shocked people with their behaviour once they got power.
Corbyn catches flak because despite loudly proclaiming how straight talking and honest and pure he is, he refuses to disavow Marx (rather: dodged a question asking him to in a classic politician style), and praised Fidel Castro, both men whose ideas and policies caused profound suffering on a massive scale. That rather implies that if Corbyn ever got anywhere near actual power he'd rapidly start abusing it.
Corbyn catches flak because despite loudly proclaiming how straight talking and honest and pure he is, he refuses to disavow Marx (rather: dodged a question asking him to in a classic politician style), and praised Fidel Castro, both men whose ideas and policies caused profound suffering on a massive scale. That rather implies that if Corbyn ever got anywhere near actual power he'd rapidly start abusing it.
No, fair point but I do know for sure that people like May, Cameron, Osborne, Duncan Smith, Gove, Johnson aren't decent people to start out with...
>What we need is for people to vote for better politicians.
Doesn't the UK have a similarly entrenched party system to Canada and the US, with first-past-the-post districts for MPs and all that?
Doesn't the UK have a similarly entrenched party system to Canada and the US, with first-past-the-post districts for MPs and all that?
It does. And we even voted against reforms to introduce a more proportional system in the recent past[1].
But trying to coordinate your constituency to vote for someone from a minor party makes arguably a little more sense than demanding that politicians be sent to the guillotine, which is where my comment started.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot...
But trying to coordinate your constituency to vote for someone from a minor party makes arguably a little more sense than demanding that politicians be sent to the guillotine, which is where my comment started.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot...
When they say records are not able to be accessed without a warrant, do they mean that or do they mean it's illegal to access the records without a warrant?
That is an excellent question.
The NSA developments in recent years have shown that while privacy protections do exist that limit access to collected data (e.g. FISA warrants), they're still collecting everything on everyone regardless. The intercepted data then rots in a huge database for years at a minimum—in practice probably indefinitely.
In what was one of the the most brilliant legal/public relations plays in recent history, NSA decided to play a shell game with the definitions of the terms "collection" and "targeting", redefining them (when convenient) as the accessing of data—by humans—that's already been intercepted and stored.
The NSA developments in recent years have shown that while privacy protections do exist that limit access to collected data (e.g. FISA warrants), they're still collecting everything on everyone regardless. The intercepted data then rots in a huge database for years at a minimum—in practice probably indefinitely.
In what was one of the the most brilliant legal/public relations plays in recent history, NSA decided to play a shell game with the definitions of the terms "collection" and "targeting", redefining them (when convenient) as the accessing of data—by humans—that's already been intercepted and stored.
With accessing further defined as an actual human looking at it, not a computer parsing it or generating statistics over the collected data of individuals in aggregate.
Updated my comment to reflect that, thanks.
A good example of the distinction is the raw audio of a domestic phone call in the US. First it's intercepted in bulk, then automatically sent to DSP hardware for transcription into a searchable text log.
That wouldn't qualify as "collection" as the NSA defines it until a human analyst actually listened to or laid eyes upon the data.
Automated analysis programs looking for keywords or specific patterns of behavior within the data probably require legal authorization as well. However, it's unclear if the legal authorizations such programs operate under are broad in nature, or issued individually in a more explicit manner.
A good example of the distinction is the raw audio of a domestic phone call in the US. First it's intercepted in bulk, then automatically sent to DSP hardware for transcription into a searchable text log.
That wouldn't qualify as "collection" as the NSA defines it until a human analyst actually listened to or laid eyes upon the data.
Automated analysis programs looking for keywords or specific patterns of behavior within the data probably require legal authorization as well. However, it's unclear if the legal authorizations such programs operate under are broad in nature, or issued individually in a more explicit manner.
Seriously, bring out the guillotine.
We are WAY overdue for a culling of the ruling class.
We are WAY overdue for a culling of the ruling class.
Careful what you wish for - look what happened to Desmoulins, Danton, Robespierre etc.
"the Revolution devours its children"
"the Revolution devours its children"
A bit ironic that Robespierre and Danton ended up in that same list. :)
Revolutions are always followed by a new set of leaders, often worse than what was there before.
Often, not always.
I'm under no illusion that revolutions are bloodless, but I believe that sometimes they are the the only option when system becomes so corrupt and rigged in favour of a small, wealthy, ruling elite.
The French Revolution for example which was grisly as all fuck and the years of instability afterwards can not be understated. Yet I do believe that what eventually came out of it (the French Republic) is far, far better than what came before the people started chopping the heads off the insane, greedy, oppressive aristrocracy.
There are of course counter-examples. The Russian revolution. Though was the revolution itself the problem there, or the people that commandeered it for themselves in the years afterwards (e.g. Stalin)?
I cannot see a way to fix the current system. The populace is so suppressed in ways that are sometimes subtle as fuck. Decades of demagogue politicians playing on fears, dividing the demographics into us-versus-them tribes out for blood, fostering the paranoia and fear of the foreigner, engaging in massive orgies of deregulation of financial services that cause crash after econimic crash, where the average schmuck picks up the bill and those reponsible get to carry on as normal.
Repealing basic services like welfare and healthcare, fostering resentment between age groups, racial groups and classes as a misdirection of attention from the actual cause of our current ills, socially irresponsible banks and financial services that have no tangible value to society other than to move money around.
Intelligence services and police forces focused on inward threats from their own people lest they somehow upset the status quo of funneling up the wealth of nations into the hands of a few oligarchs at the top of the pyramid.
Western democracy is completely fucked. It has been corrupted and made a sick facsimile of what it was intended to be. There is no fixing this system without massive civil unrest, and that impending civil unrest is why (I believe) we are witnessing the insance lurch towards authoritarianism and watering down of basic rights all over Europe and the US, it's those with a lot to lose preparing themselves.
And they are winning. They will continue to fuck us all as long as we keep falling for the whole 'terrorist', 'immigrants', 'paedophile', 'hackers' bullshit as a reason why they must keep taking away our rights and liberties.
We are frogs slowly boiling alive in the cooking pot.
I'm under no illusion that revolutions are bloodless, but I believe that sometimes they are the the only option when system becomes so corrupt and rigged in favour of a small, wealthy, ruling elite.
The French Revolution for example which was grisly as all fuck and the years of instability afterwards can not be understated. Yet I do believe that what eventually came out of it (the French Republic) is far, far better than what came before the people started chopping the heads off the insane, greedy, oppressive aristrocracy.
There are of course counter-examples. The Russian revolution. Though was the revolution itself the problem there, or the people that commandeered it for themselves in the years afterwards (e.g. Stalin)?
I cannot see a way to fix the current system. The populace is so suppressed in ways that are sometimes subtle as fuck. Decades of demagogue politicians playing on fears, dividing the demographics into us-versus-them tribes out for blood, fostering the paranoia and fear of the foreigner, engaging in massive orgies of deregulation of financial services that cause crash after econimic crash, where the average schmuck picks up the bill and those reponsible get to carry on as normal.
Repealing basic services like welfare and healthcare, fostering resentment between age groups, racial groups and classes as a misdirection of attention from the actual cause of our current ills, socially irresponsible banks and financial services that have no tangible value to society other than to move money around.
Intelligence services and police forces focused on inward threats from their own people lest they somehow upset the status quo of funneling up the wealth of nations into the hands of a few oligarchs at the top of the pyramid.
Western democracy is completely fucked. It has been corrupted and made a sick facsimile of what it was intended to be. There is no fixing this system without massive civil unrest, and that impending civil unrest is why (I believe) we are witnessing the insance lurch towards authoritarianism and watering down of basic rights all over Europe and the US, it's those with a lot to lose preparing themselves.
And they are winning. They will continue to fuck us all as long as we keep falling for the whole 'terrorist', 'immigrants', 'paedophile', 'hackers' bullshit as a reason why they must keep taking away our rights and liberties.
We are frogs slowly boiling alive in the cooking pot.
From a discussion of 1984:
"beginning with the historical observation that societies always have hierarchically divided themselves into social classes and castes: the High (who rule); the Middle (who work for, and yearn to supplant the High), and the Low (whose goal is quotidian survival). Cyclically, the Middle deposed the High, by enlisting the Low. Upon assuming power, however, the Middle (the new High class) recast the Low into their usual servitude. In the event, the classes perpetually repeat the cycle, when the Middle class speaks to the Low class of "justice" and of "human brotherhood" in aid of becoming the High class rulers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oli...
"beginning with the historical observation that societies always have hierarchically divided themselves into social classes and castes: the High (who rule); the Middle (who work for, and yearn to supplant the High), and the Low (whose goal is quotidian survival). Cyclically, the Middle deposed the High, by enlisting the Low. Upon assuming power, however, the Middle (the new High class) recast the Low into their usual servitude. In the event, the classes perpetually repeat the cycle, when the Middle class speaks to the Low class of "justice" and of "human brotherhood" in aid of becoming the High class rulers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oli...
People forget two things when they quote Orwell as evidence for perma-cynicism:
1) Orwell as himself a democratic socialist, writing on behalf of democratic socialism.
2) The level of stratification between high, middle, and low varies massively across time and place. More egalitarian societies have actually existed.
1) Orwell as himself a democratic socialist, writing on behalf of democratic socialism.
2) The level of stratification between high, middle, and low varies massively across time and place. More egalitarian societies have actually existed.
For what it's worth I probably have very similar political views to Orwell - my reaction wasn't "perma-cynicism" but deep skepticism that a violent revolution that calls for "culling" and capital punishment would actually make things any better for the average person - just replacing one ruling class with another.
Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't "animal farm" by Orwell?
What happens to the pigs in the end? The farm seems much happier without them..
What happens to the pigs in the end? The farm seems much happier without them..
>What happens to the pigs in the end? The farm seems much happier without them..
If I recall correctly, they turn themselves into equivalents to humans (the bourgeoisie), invite the humans over for a big banquet, and gloat over their exploitation of the other animals.
If I recall correctly, they turn themselves into equivalents to humans (the bourgeoisie), invite the humans over for a big banquet, and gloat over their exploitation of the other animals.
I only saw the cartoon :-/
Well, to go back to cynicism for a moment, I think it partially depends on whether the ruling class has the basic sanity to relinquish enough of their power nonviolently that life for the masses can return to a tolerable norm. The French Revolution did not merely happen because inequality was too severe, but because of the "let them eat cake" attitude on the part of the elite. The English, in contrast, were once-upon-a-time willing to reform their system to reduce inequality rather than suffer yet another civil war.
I'd have said that the best example of a reform in the UK system was the post-war Attlee government that introduced the NHS. However, that required a desire for change that was driven by the "total war" exertions of WW2.
You have to cut through all the baddies!
"Internet connection records – a history of every website that someone has visited, but not every page – will still be collected for MPs"
So at least if a shifty employee feels like taking a look at the data, or leaks the data, or an ISP gets hacked, our MP's browsing history will be exposed too.
So at least if a shifty employee feels like taking a look at the data, or leaks the data, or an ISP gets hacked, our MP's browsing history will be exposed too.
Unfortunately I don't think that the retention aspect will be revoked - no matter how much it's detested - but I do believe the only way that the government will tighten access is when a few people inevitably leak at best embarassing data on members of the political class.
The lack of technological literacy amongst the populus and the utter contempt which the government has towards privacy and anonymity is very disheartening.
The lack of technological literacy amongst the populus and the utter contempt which the government has towards privacy and anonymity is very disheartening.
The UK is as corrupt as everyone claims Russia is, starting with the BBC. Theresa May has turned out to be a tyrant. As a Brit, I don't know if I'm more disgusted by the arrogance of the ruling class, or the apathy of the subservient working class. Dystopia is here. Talk of bloody revolution is not necessary - the first cyber revolution?
Please. This is hyperbole of the first order.
http://www.transparency.org/country#GBR
http://www.transparency.org/country#RUS
http://www.transparency.org/country#GBR
http://www.transparency.org/country#RUS
"Corruption perception index"
That's the problem. Corruption in the UK isn't perceived as such, because they go to greater lengths to hide it. That doesn't change the fact that UK politics are rotten to the core and their politics have a much bigger global effect. Remember when London bankers recently manipulated the stock market and got away with it?
And let's not ignore that Transparency International themselves are somewhat shady. They gave Hillary Clinton an award for integrity and that's only the funniest of their failings.
That's the problem. Corruption in the UK isn't perceived as such, because they go to greater lengths to hide it. That doesn't change the fact that UK politics are rotten to the core and their politics have a much bigger global effect. Remember when London bankers recently manipulated the stock market and got away with it?
And let's not ignore that Transparency International themselves are somewhat shady. They gave Hillary Clinton an award for integrity and that's only the funniest of their failings.
The fact that people feel compelled to go to greater lengths to hide it is itself a net positive, no? The higher the costs of doing X, the less X there will be.
>The higher the costs of doing X, the less X there will be.
That's a very simplistic and primitive way to look at it. For one, there are more and wealthier people involved so the costs are shared. Profits are also bigger, because the UK is better connected, so the increased investment costs are acceptable.
That's a very simplistic and primitive way to look at it. For one, there are more and wealthier people involved so the costs are shared. Profits are also bigger, because the UK is better connected, so the increased investment costs are acceptable.
My first thought is of the repeated derailing of the investigation into the political class paedophile investigation.
I am glad to see this rise in people who are actively realizing that BBC News is State Media. The government are using the grey vote to take away wiggle room that they don't understand and know that younger generations don't want. The BBC and News Papers play a strong role in where the country goes right now. It makes me sick and deeply irritated so I try not to think about that too much.
If its any consolidation the same is true of the US. I'd wager if you looked deep enough the same entities that have corrupted the UK also corrupted the US and Russia.
Next up, Politicians exempt themselves from losing office.
Before anyone looks down their nose at the UK. This is really common in the US as well. If the law is onerous, then there will be exceptions for the politically connected. If the law is helpful or permissive, then it will apply to the politically connected first.
A good barometer for deciding if proposed legislation is helpful or harmful: figure out who the law applies to first and who it applies to last.
A good barometer for deciding if proposed legislation is helpful or harmful: figure out who the law applies to first and who it applies to last.
The thing is, the exemption isn't relevant in the way that it seems to be. Sure, on the surface, it looks like a carve-out that exempts them from the bill, and we boo, but let's take a step back and consider what the exemption actually reveals.
Will it prevent their data from being collected? No. Do warrants magically seal data away from human eyes? No. Will contractors and administrators and bored people with access on the job have access? Yes.
Therefore, does it actually protect them from the force of the bill? Not really. Sure, the police couldn't use bulk collected data in a case against an MP without the PM's say-so, but what's to stop Boz Admin selling their porn history to a newspaper?
Nothing.
No, what is actually relevant about the exemption is the breathtaking naivety and shortsightedness of those in power when confronted with something they don't fully comprehend revealed by its existence. If they actually understood the Greek fire they're playing with they would not have passed the legislation.
It's up there with a president-elect saying "it's visually important for me to...", plainly echoing what a spin-doctor adviser said to him, equally revealing the small minds behind the great Oz.
The crushing nature of a surveillance state comes only in a small part from centralised orchestrated action. Most of it is crushingly mundane - an officer wants to boff your wife, so you are a pedophile and you divorce. The soviet's daughter got mud on her dress at your garage so the place is shut down for code violations, and mysteriously the soviet's son is running the place next week. Your neighbour who works at equifax doesn't like your face so your credit score goes down.
The more centralised the truth is the easier it is for dirty hands to rewrite it.
Will it prevent their data from being collected? No. Do warrants magically seal data away from human eyes? No. Will contractors and administrators and bored people with access on the job have access? Yes.
Therefore, does it actually protect them from the force of the bill? Not really. Sure, the police couldn't use bulk collected data in a case against an MP without the PM's say-so, but what's to stop Boz Admin selling their porn history to a newspaper?
Nothing.
No, what is actually relevant about the exemption is the breathtaking naivety and shortsightedness of those in power when confronted with something they don't fully comprehend revealed by its existence. If they actually understood the Greek fire they're playing with they would not have passed the legislation.
It's up there with a president-elect saying "it's visually important for me to...", plainly echoing what a spin-doctor adviser said to him, equally revealing the small minds behind the great Oz.
The crushing nature of a surveillance state comes only in a small part from centralised orchestrated action. Most of it is crushingly mundane - an officer wants to boff your wife, so you are a pedophile and you divorce. The soviet's daughter got mud on her dress at your garage so the place is shut down for code violations, and mysteriously the soviet's son is running the place next week. Your neighbour who works at equifax doesn't like your face so your credit score goes down.
The more centralised the truth is the easier it is for dirty hands to rewrite it.
That the politicians have no idea what they are dealing with and deciding on for the entire nation is well known.
Our organizations don't reward the smartest, but those who gain the most power and sway others.
Any law they strive to pass will increase their power. That they seek to circumvent any law is a clear sign they fear it will reduce the power of those impacted by it. They don't have to be effective in their efforts to reveal the truth of the situation:
This law weakens those it applies to people and democracy.
Our organizations don't reward the smartest, but those who gain the most power and sway others.
Any law they strive to pass will increase their power. That they seek to circumvent any law is a clear sign they fear it will reduce the power of those impacted by it. They don't have to be effective in their efforts to reveal the truth of the situation:
This law weakens those it applies to people and democracy.
Democracy? What democracy, this is an ochlocracy.
> Before anyone looks down their nose at the UK. This is really common in the US as well.
And so both deserve to be at the bottom of a nose gaze.
And so both deserve to be at the bottom of a nose gaze.
I am very curious about this phenomenon. Do you have any examples or references?
Insider trading not being illegal for congress comes to mind. Immunity from prosecution for revealing classified information on the house floor as well. Those are the two I always think of when pondering this subject.
> Immunity from prosecution for revealing classified information on the house floor as well.
That's not an exception added because the specific law was onerous; it's a consequence of the absolute Constitutional immunity for all floor action in the Speech and Debate Clause, which supercedes any attempt to criminalize anything. Congress has no power to criminalize Congressional debate.
The insider trading one is more legitimate, however.
That's not an exception added because the specific law was onerous; it's a consequence of the absolute Constitutional immunity for all floor action in the Speech and Debate Clause, which supercedes any attempt to criminalize anything. Congress has no power to criminalize Congressional debate.
The insider trading one is more legitimate, however.
But we don't even have insider trading laws. Insider trading is something the courts came up with based on an expanded meaning of fraud.
> But we don't even have insider trading laws.
Incorrect. While most insider trading prosecutions are done under antifraud provisions of the law, and SEC rules adopted ubder that provision, there is also law directly limiting certain trades of certain insiders (e.g., 15 USC 78p).
> Insider trading is something the courts came up with based on an expanded meaning of fraud.
Even to the extent that we're talking about the kind of insider trading that is prosecutrd,ubder antifraud provisions, this is somewhat misleading in that those provisions are themselves framed differently than the common law definition of fraud, it is not,that the courts have applied an expanded definition of fraud.
Incorrect. While most insider trading prosecutions are done under antifraud provisions of the law, and SEC rules adopted ubder that provision, there is also law directly limiting certain trades of certain insiders (e.g., 15 USC 78p).
> Insider trading is something the courts came up with based on an expanded meaning of fraud.
Even to the extent that we're talking about the kind of insider trading that is prosecutrd,ubder antifraud provisions, this is somewhat misleading in that those provisions are themselves framed differently than the common law definition of fraud, it is not,that the courts have applied an expanded definition of fraud.
Wait, are you saying insider trading laws are actually just extended use of fraud laws, but no laws specifically for insider trading? If so, I find that very interesting.
Yes. There is no law against insider trading, just the SEC and judges thinking it's really bad so we should punish it even if Congress never got around to passing an actual law against it.
See here for one example [0]. The SEC does have rules against it, so it's not entirely on a case-by-case basis [1]. It's just the SEC isn't supposed to write law.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-11/whats-nex...
[1] http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm
See here for one example [0]. The SEC does have rules against it, so it's not entirely on a case-by-case basis [1]. It's just the SEC isn't supposed to write law.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-11/whats-nex...
[1] http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm
> See here for one example [0]. The SEC does have rules against it, so it's not entirely on a case-by-case basis [1]. It's just the SEC isn't supposed to write law.
It isn't really.
https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2011/ts120111rsk.htm
> There is no express statutory definition of the offense of insider trading in securities.3 The SEC prosecutes insider trading under the general antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws, most commonly Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, a broad anti-fraud rule promulgated by the SEC under Section 10(b). Section 10(b) declares it unlawful “[t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”4 Rule 10b-5 broadly prohibits fraud and deception in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit all fraudulent schemes in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, whether the artifices employed involve a garden type variety of fraud, or present a unique form of deception,” because “[n]ovel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities laws.”5
Congress wrote some very broad anti-fraud laws, never amended them, and left it up to the SEC to exercise its discretion on what qualified as such practices.
It isn't really.
https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2011/ts120111rsk.htm
> There is no express statutory definition of the offense of insider trading in securities.3 The SEC prosecutes insider trading under the general antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws, most commonly Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, a broad anti-fraud rule promulgated by the SEC under Section 10(b). Section 10(b) declares it unlawful “[t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”4 Rule 10b-5 broadly prohibits fraud and deception in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit all fraudulent schemes in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, whether the artifices employed involve a garden type variety of fraud, or present a unique form of deception,” because “[n]ovel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities laws.”5
Congress wrote some very broad anti-fraud laws, never amended them, and left it up to the SEC to exercise its discretion on what qualified as such practices.
> It's just the SEC isn't supposed to write law.
And it doesn't write the law, it writes regulation. Which, on this specific subject, it absolutely is supposed to under the law [0] (and if the law didn't specifically authorize the regulations and criminalize violations of them, the regulations wouldn't support criminal prosecution.)
[0] 15 USC § 78j, particularly subsection (b)
And it doesn't write the law, it writes regulation. Which, on this specific subject, it absolutely is supposed to under the law [0] (and if the law didn't specifically authorize the regulations and criminalize violations of them, the regulations wouldn't support criminal prosecution.)
[0] 15 USC § 78j, particularly subsection (b)
If you find it interesting:
https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2011/ts120111rsk.htm
> There is no express statutory definition of the offense of insider trading in securities.3 The SEC prosecutes insider trading under the general antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws, most commonly Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, a broad anti-fraud rule promulgated by the SEC under Section 10(b). Section 10(b) declares it unlawful “[t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”4 Rule 10b-5 broadly prohibits fraud and deception in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit all fraudulent schemes in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, whether the artifices employed involve a garden type variety of fraud, or present a unique form of deception,” because “[n]ovel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities laws.”5
Its very, very broad anti-fraud laws.
https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2011/ts120111rsk.htm
> There is no express statutory definition of the offense of insider trading in securities.3 The SEC prosecutes insider trading under the general antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws, most commonly Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, a broad anti-fraud rule promulgated by the SEC under Section 10(b). Section 10(b) declares it unlawful “[t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”4 Rule 10b-5 broadly prohibits fraud and deception in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit all fraudulent schemes in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, whether the artifices employed involve a garden type variety of fraud, or present a unique form of deception,” because “[n]ovel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities laws.”5
Its very, very broad anti-fraud laws.
In the states, it is quite common for congress to exempt itself from laws. One that comes to mind involves hiring practices, specifically the consideration of race or gender.
Now it seems hypocritical on the surface for congress to not play by the rules it sets for others, especially when talking about diversity in hiring.
But keep in mind how anti-discrimination law works in the US. Usually someone who feels they were denied a job because of their outward appearance will complain to a government agency, such as the EEOC. In some cases, they will also file a lawsuit, which the government may join.
One can imagine how much havoc a group of people could wreak by applying for congressional staff jobs, then suing when they weren't offered one. Discovery alone in discrimination cases takes months if not years.
I think in the case of government surveillance, it might make more sense to pay more attention to those inside government - who historically have been the source of most successful coups d'etat - than to the proletariat.
And one would think that a body such as parliament or us congress would welcome additional scrutiny -- at least to counter the perception that they are all crooks -- but such conjecture strays into political heresy, I fear.
Now it seems hypocritical on the surface for congress to not play by the rules it sets for others, especially when talking about diversity in hiring.
But keep in mind how anti-discrimination law works in the US. Usually someone who feels they were denied a job because of their outward appearance will complain to a government agency, such as the EEOC. In some cases, they will also file a lawsuit, which the government may join.
One can imagine how much havoc a group of people could wreak by applying for congressional staff jobs, then suing when they weren't offered one. Discovery alone in discrimination cases takes months if not years.
I think in the case of government surveillance, it might make more sense to pay more attention to those inside government - who historically have been the source of most successful coups d'etat - than to the proletariat.
And one would think that a body such as parliament or us congress would welcome additional scrutiny -- at least to counter the perception that they are all crooks -- but such conjecture strays into political heresy, I fear.
Even prosecutorial discretion is an unofficial perk that benefits the wealthy and connected in this country.
Insider trading laws.
On the other hand, the protections may serve useful some day should they suddenly locate their spines—or perhaps a wave of vertebrate politicians somehow takes office. Either way, the protections would make it easier for the newly-granted surveillance powers to be revoked. Wishful thinking, of course.
At least the UK doesn't waste time on charades like we do here in the US—serving up deprecated or redundant surveillance programs on the altar of political sacrifice while other, more compartmented programs (usually broader and more invasive in scope) seamlessly take their place. Then again, perhaps there's just not enough public opposition to justify the effort in the first place.