SoylentNews

present_arms writes:

El Reg reports that the coalition government in the UK wants to push through a new surveillance law that forces ISPs to keep data for 12 months.

It's the latest in a series of attempts from the Theresa May-led Home Office to legislate on communications data, known colloquially as the snooper's charter.

The latest bid to revive May's unloved plan comes after a recent decision from judges in the European Union's highest court ruled that the Data Retention Directive was "invalid".

We really are doing our American cousins proud.

wantkitteh writes:

A one week emergency process to pass laws to fill the legal gap left behind by the striking down of the EU Data Retention Directive has resulted in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill being passed in the House of Commons. The bill received support from all three major parties and was passed with a huge majority, despite criticism for the process and content of the bill:

"The government won a large majority of 387 on its proposed Commons timetable for the legislation, as MPs agreed by 436 votes to 49 to complete consideration of the bill in one day. MPs subsequently approved the general principles of the bill at second reading by 498 votes to 31, a government majority of 467. It later passed its third and final reading by a comparable margin of 416 votes."

During the very short lead time between the announcement of the bill and it's reading in the House of Commons, senior labour leadership expressed support for the content of the bill but reservations about the speed of the process. The Conservative MP David Davis made a speech in the House of Commons in which he also criticised the process, describing it as "entirely improper", likening it to "democratic banditry resonant of a rogue state", and accusing infighting between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat factions of the ruling coalition of causing the three month.

The legislation also drew fire from many civil liberties groups and commentators. The Open Rights Group post a scathing analysis of the bill criticising the emergency nature of the bill and asserting that the bill will significantly extend data retention scope and enforcement jurisdiction, to the contrary of previous assurances by Home Secretary Theresa May that the bill would closely replicate the powers of the withdrawn EU Data Retention Directive. Isabella Sankey, the Policy Director for Liberty commented on the group's blog that this was a closed-doors agreement between the party leaders designed to evade democratic oversight and pass legislation equivalent to the previously abandoned Draft Communications Data Bill, otherwise known as the "Snooper's Charter".

The bill has now moved on the House of Lords, where it must also be approved before it becomes law.

UPDATE 17-07-14: The bill has now cleared the House of Lords and is becoming law. The criticism to the timetable for passing it has resulted in the insertion into the bill by the opposition of a six-monthly requirement for the Interception of Communications Commissioner to report on usage of the powers granted and to ensure that "same as the EU DRD" does genuinely mean that. It also means the EU Court of Justice's assertion that the EU DRD "[entailed] a wide-ranging and particularly serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data, without that interference being limited to what is strictly necessary" now applies to this new law as well.

lhsi writes:

The Open Rights Group is planning to challenge the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers (DRIP) bill in court as it ignores a European Court ruling that "blanket data retention is unlawful and violates the right to privacy".

The ORG believes that it can stop the bill coming into force, on the basis that it countermands a European court ruling that blanket data retention is unlawful and violates the right to privacy, breaching human rights.

Jim Killock, director of the ORG, said: "The government has ignored a court judgment, ridden roughshod over our parliamentary processes and denied the public the debate they deserve. But people do care about their privacy and they do care about government stitch-ups.

"Blanket data retention is unlawful and we will fight against this legislation. Our message to Theresa May is: see you in court," he said.

The ORG believes that DRIP breaches the European convention on human rights, the European charter of fundamental rights and the UK's human rights Act.

n1 writes:

The Guardian reports:

Theresa May has reportedly moved to quash an attempt by her cabinet colleague Sajid Javid to improve mobile phone coverage by warning that the plans could aid terrorists, according a leaked letter.

[...] May argues in the leaked internal Whitehall letter that Javid’s plans to end “not-spots”, by allowing customers to roam between rival networks, could aid criminals and terrorists. The Times reported that May’s objections centre around concerns that roaming would make it more difficult for the agencies to track suspects.

In the letter, extracts of which have been published in the Times, May says that national roaming “could have a detrimental impact on law enforcement, security and intelligence agency access to communications data and lawful intercept”.

takyon writes:

A top secret report to the British prime minister has recommended that a new international treaty be negotiated to force the cooperation of the big US internet companies in sharing customers' personal data, the Guardian has learned.

Privacy campaigners said the decision to classify the report, written by the former diplomat Sir Nigel Sheinwald, as top secret was designed to bury it and said its key recommendation for an international treaty could provide a legal, front-door alternative to the government's renewed "snooper's charter" surveillance proposals.

It is believed the former British ambassador to Washington concluded that such a treaty could overcome US laws that prevent web giants based there, including Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft and Yahoo, from sharing their customers' private data with British police and security services. It would also mean not having to revive the powers – which require British phone companies to share data from the US giants passing over their networks – from the 2012 communications data bill that would enforce their compliance.

Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group said: "The Sheinwald report should be published. Any attempt to hide it can only be interpreted as an attempt to close down debate about whether the snooper's charter is really needed. A new international treaty is the right approach to cross-border requests for data by law enforcement agencies. This approach undermines Theresa May's claim that there is a need for a new snooper's charter when there is a simple, transparent and workable solution."

But the Cabinet Office defended its decision to keep the report secret [sic]. It said Shinewald "reports on progress to the prime minister but... is not undertaking a public review". The Guardian understands the report has been classified as top secret by the Cabinet Office because it goes into the detail of each company's operations. Shinewald was appointed by Cameron in September 2014 as his special envoy on intelligence and law enforcement data sharing.

takyon writes:

UK Home Secretary Theresa May is continuing a trend of ignoring science advisers when it comes to drug policy:

Home Secretary Theresa May and her statutory advisers on drug policy look to be heading for a showdown over government plans to deal with so-called "legal highs". Some members of The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) are understood to be furious that they were not consulted on proposed legislation for a blanket ban on psychoactive substances. The relationship between the ACMD and ministers in various governments has long been strained. There have been sackings and mass resignations in the last few years, amid claims that expert scientists were being bullied and ignored because their advice didn't coincide with government policy.

Questions are now being asked as to whether the ACMD is being edged out of the drugs debate - 44 years after a Conservative government set it up to ensure science rather than politics dictated policy. In the House of Lords yesterday, a number of peers demanded to know why ministers had not asked the ACMD's opinion before drawing up the controversial Psychoactive Substances Bill.

"It is actually a legal requirement set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 that the ACMD must be consulted before alterations to the Act or new legislation is brought in," Labour peer Lord Rea told the House. "Instead, a specially appointed expert panel was set up by the Home Office. I can only suggest that this was done because the opinion of the ACMD is often not exactly welcomed by the Home Office".

The principle which underpinned the drugs debate in the UK at that time [in 1971] was the longstanding and broadly accepted view that addicts were ill and required treatment rather than punishment. Known as the "British system", ministers felt a medical science-led approach was preferable to US-style prohibition. Roll the clock forward four decades and the government view seems to have turned around entirely in responding to the threat from so-called "legal highs". The bill to outlaw NPS prohibits everything "capable of producing a psychoactive effect" unless it is specifically exempted - and there are concerns that the proposals are being introduced without proper consultation with health experts.

A blanket ban on psychoactive legal highs with prison sentences of up to seven years was featured in the Conservative Party's election manifesto and the Queen's Speech.

The UK government will tomorrow publish draft legislation to regulate the use of encryption and require ISPs to log which websites their customers visit for a year. The government has previously expressed irritation at the idea of some communications being out of government reach. There is an (inevitably toothless) petition.

The silver lining is perhaps that the government still cannot comprehend that not all secure communications involve a communications provider. The government appears to be using the door in the face technique, making the bill as over the top as possible so they can appear to compromise later.

Original Submission

"exec" writes:

UK Home Secretary Theresa May was grilled on Wednesday during the last evidence session held by the Parliamentary committee scrutinizing fresh powers proposed for GCHQ.

Crucially, she was unable to explain to the panel exactly why Blighty's intelligence services need the ability to intercept and retain millions of innocent Britons' data in bulk, as well carry out bulk hacking operations, which would be strongly authorised if draft law – the Investigatory Powers Bill (IPB) – is passed.

While the joint committee was pleased that GCHQ's bulk surveillance and hacking operations are being brought completely within parliamentary reign for the first time, having previously been effected through royal prerogative, the panel noted that the agency's sweeping powers have not yet been justified in operational terms.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/13/theresa_may/

-- submitted from IRC

Original Submission

Phoenix666 writes:

The home secretary's plan to force internet service providers to store everyone's internet activity is vague and confusing, says a committee of MPs.

Police and security services will be able to see names of sites visited in the past year without a warrant, under the draft Investigatory Powers Bill.

The science and technology Committee says its requirements are confusing, and firms fear a rise in hacking.

The Home Office said it would study the report's findings.

When she announced the draft bill last year, Theresa May stressed that the authorities would not be able to see individual web pages visited, just basic data, such as domain names like bbc.co.uk or facebook.com.

The information would, of course, only be used for 'official purposes'.

Original Submission

takyon writes:

Michael Hayden has suggested that a British exit from the European Union could enhance UK's security:

A former CIA director has said the European Union "in some ways gets in the way" of security services, as the debate continues over whether the UK would be safer in or out of the EU. Retired general Michael Hayden told the BBC the union was "not a natural contributor to national security".

Home Secretary Theresa May has said there are "good reasons" on the security front to stay in the EU. An in-out referendum on UK membership of the EU takes place on 23 June. Security has been a key argument in the debate so far, with In campaigners saying being in the EU makes the UK safer, and Out campaigners arguing the opposite. It has intensified following Tuesday's terror attacks on Brussels, which claimed 31 lives. Former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove said EU-based security bodies were of "little consequence" and that leaving the EU could boost Britain's security. But the former head of GCHQ, Sir David Omand, has said the UK enjoys the best of both worlds by staying in - remaining part of an established information-sharing network while still retaining control of the border.

EU lawmakers are skeptical of a new data-sharing agreement with the U.S.:

European Union lawmakers and privacy officials expressed skepticism March 17 that the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield pact will prove a viable replacement for the invalidated U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework.

At a hearing on Privacy Shield held by the European Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE), lawmakers said that there seemed to be inadequate safeguards against U.S. intelligence agency bulk collection of EU citizen's personal data transferred to the U.S. by companies. Lawmakers also said that an U.S. State Department ombudsman—to be created within the Privacy Shield pact to hear EU citizens complaints about U.S. government surveillance of their data—has insufficient legal standing and independence.

Original Submission

takyon writes:

UK Home Secretary Theresa May has argued that the UK should remain in the European Union, but should leave the European Convention on Human Rights:

Brexit would harm the UK's snooping apparatus, Home Secretary Theresa May argued in a speech today, suggesting we probably ought to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) instead. Speaking at the Institute of Mechanical Engineers this morning, the snooping-obsessed Home Secretary presented the many surveillance benefits that the European Union provides to Blighty's security efforts as one of the main reasons for remaining in the EU.

Blighty currently trades its citizens' data with other countries in return for accessing other nations' through subscriptions to the European Criminal Records Information System, as well as sharing them through the network of Financial Intelligence Units, the Prisoner Transfer Framework, the SIS II, Joint Investigation Teams, and to Prüm. May said these are "all agreements that enable law enforcement agencies to co-operate and share information with one another in the fight against cross-border crime and terrorism."

[...] The ECHR was principally drafted by a former British Home Secretary and Tory MP, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, who had been one of the prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trials. Under both the ECHR and the EU's laws, Britain's snooping powers have been found to be unlawful.

Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray notes:

Basic human rights are under greater attack in the UK than in any other member state. We have more communications surveillance, more video surveillance, more organised government informers under "Prevent" and more secret police per head of population than either Russia or Turkey.

[...] Tories are now prepared openly to argue that we should refuse to accept basic human rights protections which Russia and Turkey accept. To resile from the Convention would result in our being booted out of the Council of Europe and put in the same category as Belarus.

[...] The Council of Europe remains an extremely valuable body for controlling East-West tensions – now as important a role as ever – and keeping a dialogue going, on a footing of equality, on questions of security and rights all across Europe.

Original Submission

takyon writes:

Andrea Leadsom has withdrawn from the race to lead the Conservative Party, leaving Theresa May to become the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom sometime on Wednesday:

Andrea Leadsom announced Monday she is backing out of the contest, citing the strong support for her opponent May and saying it was in Britain's best interests for the next leader to be put in place quickly. Leadsom's announcement comes after uproar over comments she made suggesting she would be a better prime minister than May because she's a mother, while May is not.

[...] NPR's Frank Langfitt explained that Theresa May is the U.K.'s home secretary, "which means she deals with things like immigration, domestic security. She's 59 years old, seen also as steady, if unexciting kind of hand. But right now, given what's been going on in British politics, unexciting sounds very appealing to people — a little bit of certainty, not the circus that we had, certainly in the last few days."

Leadsom was a former banker, noteworthy for her passionate support for the U.K. leaving the EU, Frank explains. She's the latest in a series of Brexit supporters who have passed up or resigned prominent leadership posts. Johnson, who declined to run for prime minister, was a major Brexit campaigner. And Nigel Farage, the outspoken leader of the U.K. Independence Party, resigned from that role last week, saying "I've done my bit."

Also at the BBC. See our previous story, "Theresa May: UK's Next Prime Minister?" for links to stories about May.

Original Submission

UK Prime Minister Theresa May Will Resign, Pass the Brexit

takyon writes:

Theresa May has announced that she will resign as UK's Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party:

Mrs. May announced on Friday that she would be stepping down as leader of her Conservative Party and then as Britain's prime minister, after repeatedly failing to win Parliament's approval for a deal to withdraw the country from the European Union.

A successor to Theresa May will be chosen before Parliament's summer break, the Conservative Party chairman said. She will continue as prime minister until the leadership contest is finished.

[...] Standing in front of 10 Downing Street, Mrs. May said it was in the "best interests of the country for a new prime minister" to lead Britain through the Brexit process. She announced plans to step down as the leader of the Conservative Party on June 7, with the process to replace her beginning the following week.

Previously: Theresa May: UK's Next Prime Minister?

UK PM Theresa May announces resignation amid fury over Brexit handling

realDonaldTrump writes:

foxnews.com/world/uk-pm-theresa-may-announces-resignation-amid-fury-over-brexit-handling

May spoke outside 10 Downing Street after a meeting with Graham Brady, the head of the 1922 Committee of Conservative Party backbenchers. She said she will step down on June 7. Her resignation will trigger a party leadership contest, and whoever wins that contest will take over as prime minister.

[...] Her announcement could complicate the upcoming June 3 state visit by President Trump to London to mark the 75th anniversary of D-Day, where he will also meet with Queen Elizabeth II.

May will still be in office during that visit, meaning it will nix the chance for a new prime minister to forge ties with the American president at a time where such relations are vital. A U.S.-U.K. trade deal is a top priority for the U.K. as it looks to depart from the European Union and begin making its own trade agreements -- and Trump has said "the potential is unlimited" for such a deal.

Original Submission #1  Original Submission #2