SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ars Technica reports:
The UK government has quietly passed new legislation that exempts GCHQ, police, and other intelligence officers from prosecution for hacking into computers and mobile phones.
While major or controversial legislative changes usually go through normal parliamentary process (i.e. democratic debate) before being passed into law, in this case an amendment to the Computer Misuse Act was snuck in under the radar as secondary legislation. According to Privacy International, "It appears no regulators, commissioners responsible for overseeing the intelligence agencies, the Information Commissioner's Office, industry, NGOs or the public were notified or consulted about the proposed legislative changes... There was no public debate."
(Score: 2) by kadal on Monday May 18 2015, @06:00PM
How does it work in the UK? Can you sue to have it struck down as "unconstitutional"?
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Monday May 18 2015, @06:52PM
You cannot sue the UK Government easily - so I don't see this being a path to follow. Nor do I see any political party making a big stand over this - they might try to score some points but they would all support the law if they themselves were in power.
Even if there is a major outcry I seriously doubt that the law would be undone. Although I do not like it, the police and others do sometimes need this power in order to carry out their duties. What concerns me more, is when there is no control or accountability for using the powers that this law gives them.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 18 2015, @08:45PM
Entice the power without accountability to do something morally deplorable and get them caught in the act. Then serve them to the hyenas?
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Monday May 18 2015, @09:08PM
the police and others do sometimes need this power in order to carry out their duties
I'm not so sure they do. I'm trying to think up an instance where they might need the legal authority to unlawfully access a device. Yes, I realise that statement is tautological.
Let's try an example. The Bad Guy has been caught but he's bragging that he has planted a bomb somewhere. The police are pretty certain the location is on his computer. Should they "break in" to his computer to find the bomb's location? Without a doubt. However, there is clearly probable cause. There is no need to for an additional law.
Is anyone able to come up with a reasonable example where this new law is needed? I can only see it facilitates fishing expeditions, and whilst fishing expeditions may be eminently convenient they lead to too much abuse to be lawful.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 18 2015, @10:38PM
Is anyone able to come up with a reasonable example where this new law is needed?
No, because the minute you start sacrificing freedom for security, real or not, you've already lost.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday May 19 2015, @12:20AM
never. if they need to access a device, they get a warrant. if they don't already have probable cause for that warrant, then they're just going on fishing expeditions.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday May 19 2015, @11:33AM
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday May 19 2015, @03:46PM
if they have a warrant then they're not breaking the law, warrants authorize them to get the evidence specified in the warrant, whether it requires looking in their phone or getting records from the email provider. the subject of this article is different, it authorizes them to go on fishing expeditions to find the probable cause to get the warrant in the first place.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday May 19 2015, @05:44PM
Warrants do not authorise UK police or security personnel to 'hack' hack into computers, because the act of hacking is against the law. Now it is legal for the intelligence services and the police to conduct such operations, hence the statement in TFA:
I think that you are looking at this with a US viewpoint which is not applicable to how the UK operates. Warrants in the UK do not authorise the collection of evidence by any possible means, only by lawful means. Hacking is now lawful for those organisations identified in the new legislation.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday May 19 2015, @06:17PM
you're right, i am looking at it from a US viewpoint, but even in the US warrants don't authorize illegal behavior. with a warrant, there would be no need to do any hacking because the warrant grants them the legal authorization to access the device; hacking into something is illegal, the same way that breaking & entering (B&E) is illegal, with a warrant it wouldn't be B&E for the police to enter a house because they're legally authorized to enter, so similarly with a warrant to gain access to a computer/phone/email/etc, they wouldn't need to hack it at all, because the warrant legally grants them access to it or the data in question (which, in the US, must be specific, any warrants for "all" or "everything" of something are invalid).
US viewpoint or not, i fail to see how hacking could ever be legitimately needed by police forces. its just a way to get around the need for a warrant.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday May 19 2015, @08:42PM
There is a clear intelligence need to control the enemy's use of the the electro-magentic spectrum. The law as passed specifically mentions GCHQ and the intelligence services as needing the ability to access and control threat systems covertly. In the UK, the police conduct very little in the way of intercept and hacking operations. However, before the new law was past, all those agencies and organisations were committing an offence in the UK whenever they conducted covert hacking operations irrespective of whether they had been tasked to conduct such operations by the government of the day on behalf of its citizens. The new law has recognised the need to provide protection to those conducting their lawful duties from facing a court accused of committing an offence. Note that I said 'lawful duties' - any other application of such powers remains illegal.
Again, and as you have admitted, your view is very American. We do not suffer the same excesses of the police force (although I am not claiming that such things never happen) because our legal system is entirely different, as is the way our police operate. They have only minor roles (comparatively speaking) when conducting covert intercepts of network traffic. The task is usually done by GCHQ after receiving the appropriate legal authorisation to conduct such operations in support of the civil power.
The police usually rely upon ISPs to provide the data that they use for criminal prosecutions, which always require a warrant. They do not have the technical means to conduct significant intercept operations on their own nor can they decrypt data, tap into fibre communications or whatever else might be depicted in popular TV series. The 'fishing' attempts that you are describing are not a common occurrence in the UK because the structures and authorities of the various organisations would require a significant amount of criminal collusion by multiple organisations to conduct. To be honest, if you genuinely believe that that is actually the case in the UK currently, then you are rather more paranoid than is perhaps good for you. And, should you be correct, then the USA ought to be breaking all ties the the UK immediately.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by turgid on Monday May 18 2015, @07:45PM
We don't have a written constitution. All we can do (usually) is to hope that the House of Lords reject changes to the law on the grounds that it goes against traditionally-accepted notions of liberty and free speech.
We have a Supreme Court nowadays where laws can be challenged, but that's expensive and takes a long time since you typically have to start at a lower court and work upwards successively appealing to a higher authority as you get knocked back.
There is always the Human Rights Act which holds us accountable to the European Court of Human Rights, but the Tory Party and dismantling this as we speak [theguardian.com] which was one of their election pledges to steal votes from the lunatic fringe who would otherwise have voted for UKIP [theguardian.com].
Who gets to appoint people to the House of Lords? The government of the day (via the Queen), of course. And once you're in the House of Lords, you're in for life.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].