DRIP snooping law

Impetus

The European Court of Justice decided several months ago that the (largely British inspired) EU data retention directive was illegal under EU law. The British government is now rushing through parliament a new “emergency” law (which will involve calling MPs back from vacation) in an attempt to put two fingers to the EU data privacy legislation in general, and the court decision in particular. This action has been criticised by the British Law Society, Tim Berners-Lee, etc

Why does any human rights respecting, democratic country need provisions like this?

http://gigaom.com/2014/07/11/lawyers-and-web-experts-attack-uks-fast-tracking-of-surveillance-legislation/

Are they in fear of the poor ex citizens of the Changos Islands, who were expelled by Britain from their own country, so that GB could lease their islands to the US for a military base (and their "io" internet domain) be "monetised"?

http://gigaom.com/2014/07/11/uk-government-denies-receiving-io-domain-profits/

It would be helpful for all if we could get to the root cause of these fears about terrorism etc.

LoLth

quick question:

if the data retention rules have been dropped, does this not mean that its harder for police to link web traffic to a source (a shorter timeframe if any timeframe at all)?

does this not mean its harder to actually detect and track crimes on the internet? Forget terrorism, there are plenty of other, crimes that take place online that have real world victims and consequences and that cannot be stopped by better encryption and laws protecting privacy.

ok, maybe the DRIP legislation is a kneejerk reaction but instead of people getting upset over the possibility of web traffic being intercepted by authorities (something which has long been the case for snail mail) , maybe people should be getting angry about the misuse of oversight of electronic communications. I mean, we all get video taped all the time when driving or shopping or walking down the street or walking outside the front door if your neighbour has cctv, but we are happy that the footage will only ever be seen if a crime is detected.

I'm confused why anyone thinks the internet should be any different?

Also, I'm concerned that in the scramble for privacy and complete security we risk creating a medium that can be abused with no possibility of detection. For example, to go back to the idea of snail mail, what crimes would be possible if police could not open a letter or parcel sent through the post? What if they couldn't even look at anything other than the sender and recipient and even then, if they were both post boxes? What if the same applied to shipping containers? People use terrorism as the yard stick by which to measure necessity, were there ever any parcel bombs sent through the post that were detected and stopped? Envelopes of anthrax? human trafficking using avenues normally associated with cargo? So what if we introduced a law that anything could be sent anywhere by anyone and it was impossible for any law enforcement organisation to investigate it in any way , even if they have a solid reason to suspect it of being illegal.

as I said, to me, its not the surveillance that is the issue, its the secrecy of the surveillance and the misuse of the data gathered. I think reacting against the former and ignoring the latter is just making life worse for everyone in the long run by removing the protection our legal system , and the legal systems of other network connected countries, provides.

on a side note: I have to smile at the irony of an Irish Security forum commenting on British surveillance and saying that terrorism is a stupid thing to be looking for sure, who'd ever be trying to blow up anyone in England? its not like anyone has ever tried it before......

oscarBravo

For me (as someone who runs an ISP) the key distinction is between data retention and lawful interception. There's a difference between law enforcement eavesdropping in real time on a communication, and requiring an ISP to retain swathes of information about (mostly) entirely innocent communications on the off-chance that a trawl through it will be needed later.

To borrow your postal analogy: I don't have a problem with the idea of the police intercepting mail with a warrant. I do have a problem with the post office keeping a log of who is sending letters to whom.

Rucking_Fetard

Ed Snowden says it 'defies belief' that bill must be rushed through after government ignored issue for a year.

Excerpt from New Interview.