Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday May 18 2015, @04:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the get-out-your-tinfoil-hat dept.

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."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Monday May 18 2015, @06:39PM

    by wisnoskij (5149) <reversethis-{moc ... ksonsiwnohtanoj}> on Monday May 18 2015, @06:39PM (#184698)

    Sounds more like common sense to me. The police have to break the law in pretty much every action they take, to do their job. When the police at allowed to seize your devices and data to access it, they must need the legal ability to actually accomplish this.
    There are already many laws in place that restrict the abilities of the police, if they are now allowed to access that data it will already be a far worse crime to do so than a little hacking charge.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:18PM (#184740)

    The Police should never have to break the law. It is their job to enforce the law. If law enforcement is allowed to break the law then then all hope is lost.

    • (Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Monday May 18 2015, @10:42PM

      by wisnoskij (5149) <reversethis-{moc ... ksonsiwnohtanoj}> on Monday May 18 2015, @10:42PM (#184860)

      And how do you expect them to enforce the law? Ask people nicely to please refrain from breaking the law?

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by tathra on Tuesday May 19 2015, @12:29AM

        by tathra (3367) on Tuesday May 19 2015, @12:29AM (#184893)

        why are you assuming that police have to break the law to enforce it? there are certain actions that the police take which would be a crime when performed by people without the state's authority - arresting a person without the state's authority, for example, is called "kidnapping" and "criminal confinement". there are very few exceptions like this though, and they're written into the laws, legally granting those with the state's authority exemption from specific laws at specific times, and only when acting with the authority of the state (which, in turn, gets its authority from the people). it does not make them completely exempt from the law at all times. the law is the law because it applies to everyone equally.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @10:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @10:02PM (#186224)

        Absolutely.

        Speeding or theft/ burglary:
        Why is there any need for a high-speed chase, endangering other lives and property when you can actually watch the perpetrator on either street cams or copter cams. Send him a ticket in the mail and be done. if it was completely reckless or escaping from a robbery or other heinous crime. Why not wait until they are parked, out of a moving weapon and actually think they got away with it.

        Drugs:
        Why not just confiscate the drugs they have on them, no need for tickets, citations or incarceration. request warrant for monitoring phone and text. Wait for the next buy and show up and arrest the dealers (until its legal everywhere).

        There are very, very few legitimate reasons for a law enforcement officer to break the law. "LAW ENFORCEMENT" officer are not supposed to be above the law, maybe that's where you prospective may be incorrect.

        They should in fact portray the very essence of always doing the right thing, which cannot be the illegal thing.

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 18 2015, @08:26PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 18 2015, @08:26PM (#184775) Journal

    The police have to break the law in pretty much every action they take, to do their job.

    Mmmm... seems that's not a new thing in the (former) empire. Trouble is, trying to escape and emigrate nowadays in America (or getting yourself deported to Australia) would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday May 19 2015, @12:15AM

    by tathra (3367) on Tuesday May 19 2015, @12:15AM (#184886)

    fuck no, the police do not have to break the law to do their jobs. in the US, police can have what's called "qualified immunity" [wikipedia.org] which protects "government officials ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known"; it basically grants some leniency to officers doing their jobs, in case they accidentally or unknowingly breaking the law or violate constitutional rights, but it does not protect officers' incompetence or intentional violations; something that is well-known or would obviously be a violation of the law or constitution is not covered by this.

  • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday May 19 2015, @10:13AM

    by wantkitteh (3362) on Tuesday May 19 2015, @10:13AM (#184999) Homepage Journal

    Who said anything about the police using this? Well, okay, there are a few law enforcement agents sitting behind screens doing useful work in defence of the public, but they're probably looking at each other funny right now asking "When did we ask for this? Don't recall needing this..." while the military intelligence analysts who really want some retroactive cover for their exposed asses breath a sigh of relief that someone sneaked this through for them.

    Bottom line: we've just authorised GCHQ et al (and by extension various foreign powers around the world) to hack anyone they feel like hacking with total immunity.

    *encrypts laptop*