bit-tech.net

DRIP snooping bill passes with massive majority vote

DRIP snooping bill passes with massive majority vote

This image of the House of Commons, shared by Paul Bernal on Twitter, shows how few MPs turned up to debate the DRIP bill before it passed a vote under an 'emergency' timetable.

The divisive Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (DRIP) has been passed by a landslide majority vote in the House of Commons, despite only a handful of MPs turning up for the debate.

Rushed through as an 'emergency' bill by a cross-party special interest group, DRIP is designed to address a European Court of Justice ruling made back in April that makes the government mandated data retention carried out by UK ISPs illegal. Under DRIP, modifications are made such that the retention - still ongoing despite the ECJ ruling - is made legal once more.

Its critics, however, claim it offers the government far broader powers, and has been pushed through during a cabinet reshuffle and under the claim of emergency requirements in order to stifle legitimate debate. Tom Watson MP described the bill, which was arranged in closed meetings by a cross-party interest group, as a 'stitch-up, stating last week that 'regardless of where you stand on the decision of the European Court of Justice, can you honestly say that you want a key decision about how your personal data is stored to be made by a stitch up behind closed doors and clouded in secrecy? None of your MPs have even read this legislation, let alone been able to scrutinise it.'

A debate on the bill took place in the House of Commons last night, but only a tiny fraction of the 500-plus members attended. Even so, its critics were able to tease some additional information out regarding the bill, including the fact that MPs and Lords will be given special exemptions that prevent their communications from being monitored under DRIP - exemptions that will not be granted to the proletariat.

Despite campaigns against it, the DRIP bill passed following claims by the Home Secretary Theresa May that 'if we delay we face the appalling prospect police operations will go dark, that trails will go cold, that terrorist plots will go undetected; if that happens, innocent lives may be lost.' 436 MPs voted for the accelerated 'emergency' timescale that would see the bill passed in a single day, while 49 voted for a lengthier debate; when the bill was read, it was passed with a government margin of 416 votes - meaning DRIP will now enter law as an official act.

28 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Teelzebub 16th July 2014, 10:48 Quote
See democracy works sure glad they are exempt wouldn't want a record of them embezzling money in expenses now would we.
GaryP 16th July 2014, 10:59 Quote
You are FREE to do what we tell you.

Bill Hicks was right.
flame696 16th July 2014, 11:28 Quote
It's the end of the wold as we know it.......

This is the "Free" world we live in!

Oh damn I forgot they might be checking this thread, I'm finished!!
Tim S 16th July 2014, 11:46 Quote
"We're all in this together"

Yeah, OK.
GravitySmacked 16th July 2014, 12:24 Quote
Watching Jim Killock's Twitter feed yesterday was both eye opening and depressing at the same time:

https://twitter.com/jimkillock

Anyway I've signed up to ORG; it seems like they need all the help they can get.
Corky42 16th July 2014, 12:37 Quote
Just wanted to add: When the politicians said this doesn't change any existing laws, introduce new laws, or any new powers, they are lying.

It does introduce changes and new powers.
Tim S 16th July 2014, 14:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Just wanted to add: When the politicians said this doesn't change any existing laws, introduce new laws, or any new powers, they are lying.

It does introduce changes and new powers.

Yep.
Teelzebub 16th July 2014, 15:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Just wanted to add: When the politicians said this doesn't change any existing laws, introduce new laws, or any new powers, they are lying.

It does introduce changes and new powers.

What ! politicians lying to the people? when did this happen they used to be so honest
RedFlames 16th July 2014, 15:31 Quote
When all the main parties agree on something it's pretty much guaranteed to be a bad idea/thing...
Nexxo 16th July 2014, 16:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teelzebub
What ! politicians lying to the people? when did this happen they used to be so honest

Aw man, now I don't know who to believe anymore! :'(

:p
mi1ez 16th July 2014, 22:13 Quote
Wish I could turn up to as few important meetings MPs do.
Teelzebub 16th July 2014, 22:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mi1ez
Wish I could turn up to as few important meetings MPs do.

You can you just won't get paid unlike them
Teelzebub 17th July 2014, 01:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFlames
When all the main parties agree on something it's pretty much guaranteed to be a bad idea/thing...

I can see how they would agree to being exempt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Aw man, now I don't know who to believe anymore! :'(

:p

You can believe me I'm the devil as honest as hell is hot :D
Corky42 17th July 2014, 15:44 Quote
Drip bill could put data at greater risk, warns (ISC)²

I have to admit it never occurred to me that storing personal details on everyone may actually open us all up to hackers, seems obvious when you think about it.

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240224731/Drip-bill-could-put-data-at-greater-risk-warns-ISC2
Quote:
“Questions about data protection such as the applicability of local or UK data protection law, the type of security controls required to protect data, supplier/customer relationships and the ability to gain legal redress should a breach occur are all unanswered,” said Davis.

He also noted that the new bill extends the provisions within the equally controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) for foreign firms to build interception capabilities into their infrastructure.

“Such capabilities are attractive targets for hackers and cyber criminals, and access can often be gained through the compromise of user accounts or knowledge of manufacturers’ default passwords,” said Davis.

“We have seen that even the biggest internet and phone companies are vulnerable to online attacks. In June 2014 hackers stole details about the date, time, duration of customer calls from telecoms giant AT&T, while Orange recently suffered a massive phishing attack when cyber criminals used promotional ads to steal the email addresses, phone numbers and birth dates of 1.3 million users.”

Are our personal details going to be stored with all this meta data ? My guess is our E-mail address will be part of it, but what about our RL address, banking details, DOB.

Who is responsible if there is a security breach ? Is the government going to say it's the communications providers responsibility, what legal redress is there if something bad does happen ?
Impatience 17th July 2014, 16:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Drip bill could put data at greater risk, warns (ISC)²

I have to admit it never occurred to me that storing personal details on everyone may actually open us all up to hackers, seems obvious when you think about it.

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240224731/Drip-bill-could-put-data-at-greater-risk-warns-ISC2


Are our personal details going to be stored with all this meta data ? My guess is our E-mail address will be part of it, but what about our RL address, banking details, DOB.

Who is responsible if there is a security breach ? Is the government going to say it's the communications providers responsibility, what legal redress is there if something bad does happen ?

... Ship. I completely forgot about that side of things when I read about this!
Anfield 17th July 2014, 16:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Who is responsible if there is a security breach ? Is the government going to say it's the communications providers responsibility, what legal redress is there if something bad does happen ?

The data has already been spread far beyond communications providers and law enforcement anyway, apparently under the old law even Councils could get the data without justifying their need for it...

Just have a read through the following quote where some Politician tries to claim the new law is better than the old one and what he accidentally admits to:
Quote:
We will radically cut the number of public bodies who have the right to approach phone and internet companies for your data. Councils, for example, will now need to justify their requests first to a central body and then a magistrate, and will not be able to approach phone and internet companies directly.

http://johnleechmp.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/data-retention-drip-bill/
Corky42 17th July 2014, 17:39 Quote
We really are doom ain't we, even the politicians actually believe this bill contains no new powers

The link Anfield provided to a blog post by John Leech MP just goes to show how uninformed they are, he says "This Bill is about retaining existing powers by clarifying the definition, not creating new ones and it is for these reasons I voted for the Bill."

Then what would he class extending the bill to included companies outside the UK, and that it now also extends the definition of “telecommunications service” to include things like web mail, and who knows what else.

He even goes on to say that it's compliant with ECHR, even though the UN commissioner criticised it, saying it will not address key privacy concerns raised by the European court of justice.

What gets me is they say it needs to be rushed through parliament because of the summer recess, IDK about you but if there's an emergency in my job we are expected to work overtime to deal with it, if this is such an emergency why aren't politicians ?
forum_user 17th July 2014, 19:20 Quote
Back in the good ol' days if people with money wanted our data they would just approach a person with access to it and the headlines the next day would read:

"Government laptop lost on tube, contains everything!!"

Did we really need our noses push in it, then slapped round the face, then kicked in the balls with this bill?

(Note: haven't read article, but did read headline and comments after!)
Teelzebub 18th July 2014, 10:33 Quote
I'll leave this here

Open Rights Group

We’re not done yet.

Parliament has a done a terrible thing. They’ve ignored a court judgment and shoved complex law through a legislative mincer in just three days.

But in doing so they won’t have had the final word. You’re already shown them the growing public opposition to mass surveillance. There was incredible action from supporters: 4458 of you wrote to your MPs with even more phoning up on the day of the vote. Together we helped 49 MPs rebel against the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill. It may have passed, but thanks to you they know that we do not agree.

Help us challenge DRIP: Join now

Whilst Parliament swallowed Theresa May’s tired arguments that “terrorist plots will go undetected” and “these are powers and capabilities that exist today", she failed to make a compelling argument that holding everyone’s data is necessary and proportionate. Frankly, the Government was evasive and duplicitous, and they were in a hurry to cover their tracks.

Tom Watson MP described the process as “democratic banditry, resonant of a rogue state. The people who put this shady deal together should be ashamed.”
And the European Court’s decision was very clear: blanket data retention is unlawful and violates the right to privacy.

The courts will have the final say on whether DRIP breaches human rights. And no matter what David Cameron believes, the UK has international obligations. The European Convention of Human Rights, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and our own Human Rights Act – all exist to defend are rights and are where we will be able to challenge DRIP.

And that’s what we will do.

The ECJ has stated once that blanket data retention is unlawful. This means we have strong grounds to challenge the new legislation on the same basis. That’s where we need you. We can initiate legal action with your help: please join ORG today.

https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join

We’re already meeting with top lawyers and taking Counsel’s advice to work out the best way to take the Government to court. But a major legal battle like this is going to be tough. The more resources we have, the more we’ll be able to do to stand up to DRIP.

I appreciate all our supporters do to stand up for human rights. Together we won against the Snoopers' Charter and against ACTA. Right now joining ORG is a way to ensure we can win again against DRIP.


https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join


Sincerely,

Jim Killock

References

Theresa May speaking to the home affairs select committee on data retention:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/15/academics-uk-data-law-surveillance-bill-rushed-parliament

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10969803/Emergency-data-laws-clear-Commons-despite-angry-exchanges.html

Tom Watson MP speaking in the House of Commons on the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140715/debtext/140715-0001.htm#14071546000485
Corky42 18th July 2014, 11:00 Quote
The House of Lords approved an amendment to bring forward the date of when the law will be repealed from 2016 to 2015.
Nexxo 18th July 2014, 13:04 Quote
Says something about the state of UK government when the House of Lords has to step in to protect democratic values...
Corky42 18th July 2014, 13:58 Quote
Indeed. Although i would say it's not just the UK government it's Parliament its self, all three main parties were involved in the backroom dealing that lead to this bill and the rushed approach that disregarded the democratic process.

The House of Lord is meant to prevent the House of Commons making such rash and ill thought out laws, it's just a shame that they didn't wholly reject this new law due to it being in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.
RedFlames 18th July 2014, 14:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The House of Lord is meant to prevent the House of Commons making such rash and ill thought out laws, it's just a shame that they didn't wholly reject this new law due to it being in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The commons have ways of side-stepping the Lords for certain things, so if the Lords knocked it back they'd probably just use one of those ways...
Corky42 18th July 2014, 15:25 Quote
I'm no expect but AFAIK the lords can delay a bill for up to two years, either way they could have made it very difficult for Parliament to rush it through.
Corky42 19th July 2014, 10:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The House of Lords approved an amendment to bring forward the date of when the law will be repealed from 2016 to 2015.

I got this wrong :o they didn't approve the amendment
Nexxo 19th July 2014, 12:19 Quote
Pity, but not surprising, alas.

Anyway, here's another interesting bit of info, just to depress us more. Or make us more paranoid. Either way, mental health goes south:

http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/how-british-spy-agency-can-manipulate-internet/
Corky42 19th July 2014, 12:39 Quote
That explains the results of the poll in the Windows 8 Marmite thread then ;) :D
Nexxo 19th July 2014, 12:47 Quote
Yeah, in reality 99% love Windows 8, and only 1% hate it. Haven't I been telling you all along? :p
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums