PM: New Law To Listen To Calls And Read Emails

http://news.sky.com/story/1298294/pm-new-law-to-listen-to-calls-and-read-emails

MI5 and the police will be able to read people's emails and listen to people's mobile phone conversations under emergency laws, David Cameron has said.

The Prime Minister said the measures were needed to "maintain powers to help keep us safe from those who would harm UK citizens", which was essential given the threat from unrest in Syria and Iraq.

The laws will mean internet firms and other companies will be required to store data, "who contacted whom and when", for 12 months.

And he said security services would be able to listen to phone calls or read emails, although they would need to request a warrant, which would have to be signed off by a secretary of state, to do so.
I don't have a problem with the Police and security services listening to phone calls and reading emails of those reasonably suspected of serious wrongdoing, with the appropriate warrant.

I'm less comfortable with the idea that they need to keep my phone and Internet records for 12 months, 'just in case'. That information is private. May as well tag me and record my conversations for a year to be on the safe side.

More worrying is the 'slippery slope' that this leads towards.

I also have misgivings about the following two points.

The number of public bodies allowed to request phone and email details will be limited - Royal Mail, pensions bodies and charities no longer given access.
Then who does have access? If this is an emergency anti-terror law, why would anybody but the security services - and perhaps the Police in very limited circumstances - need access?

All powers are only temporary and will stop at the end of 2016.
Should we believe that?
 
A more balanced article from the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/10/surveillance-legislation-commons-support-critics-stitch-up

This has come about because of a European Court of Justice ruling in April that blanket data retention is illegal and ignores the fundamental right to privacy.

I just can't believe that collecting and storing data on every person in the country is a proportionate response, particularly as the government are unable or unwilling to specify the threat. Vague mumbling about terrorists and paedophiles doesn't cut it.
 
ME, 'what's that Tony ? '

Tony': Oh, it's that Internet thing, we are just keeping an eye on It !'
 

Chef

LE
Seems to fit in with the official attitude that the public is guilty of something so best to keep tabs on you all.

Remember the NHS national data base which would be 100% secure although celebs and politicos would get extra privacy?

I suspect the same to be suggested here, so no chance of accidently finding an MP's expenses claim for blue movies or similar.

I'd give it less than a year before some council does get to use it to do someone for the wrong bins, thought crime of some ilk or cheating on a school catchment area.
 

offog

LE
Think of itemised phone bill. With out a change to the law you would not get an itemised phone bill. The phone company will keep the info and Gov could request it from them when needed.
 
Think of itemised phone bill. With out a change to the law you would not get an itemised phone bill. The phone company will keep the info and Gov could request it from them when needed.
Yeah and redact what they (the government) felt like redacting. Like corrupt and/or sexually exploitative cabinet ministers' dealings. Or those of former terrorists who've been assured safe passage through life. And so it goes.
 
Todays Arrsers, tomorrows suspects. Just wait till neu arbeit get back in, some of you lot will be staring into bright lights explaining that your stated desire to twat the pm did not carry any substance..


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 

ottar

LE
they would need to request a warrant, which would have to be signed off by a secretary of state, to do so.
Not a Judge, then. So it's another law that will apply to everyone except MPs. Fantastic, this democracy lark.
 
Think of itemised phone bill. With out a change to the law you would not get an itemised phone bill.
Of course you would. By requesting an itemised bill, you're giving the company permission to store your information - and if you don't like it, you have the right to request a non-itemised bill.

The phone company will keep the info and Gov could request it from them when needed.
So it's OK because the phone company is doing the legwork?

The fundamental point here is that the state should not be spying on innocent people. Who you phone, text and email is your business. The one exception to that is if you're reasonably suspected of wrongdoing, in which case a properly considered warrant should be required.

A warrant is required to listen to your phone call or read your email, but here's what's not so clear:

- Which organisations will have access to data?
- What standards will have to be met for a warrant to be issued?
- Will a warrant be required to view metadata?

Over a period of several months, your phone records alone can build up an incredibly detailed picture of you - from things like when you're awake and asleep to who your friends are to your religion and sexuality to far more specific details. For example, what conclusions would you draw from phone records showing that a married woman has been phoning a man late at night for a few months, then makes a call to her doctor, then to an abortion clinic?

And that's without taking into account the fact that mobile phone records likely include location data.
 
DD
I suspect all this stuff is stored and never even looked at, until the day Mr x is involved in something at which point they use his recorded data to see who he speaks to and there data to see who they speak to.

In reality I bet our privacy isn't affected unless we have a dodgy associate.
 
Does anybody really believe that phone calls and emails aren't tapped in to now? We even let the Americans do it.

The only real difference between what happens now and the proposed new law is that they will be able to use it in evidence without any pesky civil rights getting in the way.

I don't believe the government should have an automatic right to listen/read our private communications but don't be under the illusion that they don't already do so.
 
DD
I suspect all this stuff is stored and never even looked at, until the day Mr x is involved in something at which point they use his recorded data to see who he speaks to and there data to see who they speak to.

In reality I bet our privacy isn't affected unless we have a dodgy associate.
Getting added to a list that says you're a 'known associate' can be a real pain in the ass if a local inspector has a hard on for someone you're even loosely associated with and can be an even bigger pain in the ass to have removed. But even at that it's usually just anpr harassment rather than communications interception.
 

ACAB

LE
I was under the impression the already could /were with the ECHELON set up?


Why is there a black helicopter hovering over my garden????
 
Of course you would. By requesting an itemised bill, you're giving the company permission to store your information - and if you don't like it, you have the right to request a non-itemised bill.



So it's OK because the phone company is doing the legwork?

The fundamental point here is that the state should not be spying on innocent people. Who you phone, text and email is your business. The one exception to that is if you're reasonably suspected of wrongdoing, in which case a properly considered warrant should be required.

A warrant is required to listen to your phone call or read your email, but here's what's not so clear:

- Which organisations will have access to data?
- What standards will have to be met for a warrant to be issued?
- Will a warrant be required to view metadata?

Over a period of several months, your phone records alone can build up an incredibly detailed picture of you - from things like when you're awake and asleep to who your friends are to your religion and sexuality to far more specific details. For example, what conclusions would you draw from phone records showing that a married woman has been phoning a man late at night for a few months, then makes a call to her doctor, then to an abortion clinic?

And that's without taking into account the fact that mobile phone records likely include location data.
This isnt new stuff. All the records are kept as a matter of course. When i worked in comms back in early 2001 I had to figure out why a companies phone bill was 10k over what it should be that quarter. All the info was there to discover that their new agency night guard had been tapping one out to £3 a minute international porno lines the entire time he'd been there.
 
I'm all for it. It will be nice to have someone taking an interest in anything I have to say for a change

EDIT: I draw the line at recording browser history though that's between me and my depravities
 
This is just the very thin edge of a very large wedge.
What was the score with the councils using Anti Terrorist or some such law to snoop on when you put your bins out, or something like that.
The kind of thing that frightens me about this is the "Law of un-intended consequences".
There you have told the missus you are late in the office, but you are shagging the secretary at her house.
That is your private affair.
A year later, something connects and the Police turn up with evidence that your phone call was not made from the office location, but 30 miles up the road at your secretarys house.
There was a robbery in the area and we have scanned the phones and you were in the area for 4 hours, did you see anything, etc etc.
They leave, and now the missus is giving you shit because she cannot think of any justifiable reason that you should have been in that town for 4 hours.
I get that this is an incredibly useful tool for a Police/Security investigation.
But it should ONLY be the and ONLY if you have been flagged up as a terrorist/criminal.
I would like clear instructions that this is not available to my local council, or anyone else.
Also, Who is responsible for this Data, can a private detective access this, (as per DVLA, for a fee).
Phone hacking etc.
To be honest, who the Foxtrot knows!

SOI 1984 was meant to be a warning, not a ******* blueprint! :pissedoff:
We are getting so close.
Cheers
Gadge
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top