UK's New 'Digital Economy' Law Somehow Now Gives Police The Power To Remotely Kill Phone Service
from the sidestepping-debate-with-last-minute-additions dept
The UK's long-gestating Digital Economy Act has finally gone into force. The law is mainly interested in porn and pirates -- two issues most of the UK public is far less interested in having subjected to intrusive regulation.
But just keeping an eye on who is or isn't availing themselves of porn/torrents isn't the only intrusive aspect of the Act. As Joseph Cox of Motherboard points out, an amendment to the law grants some pretty scary new powers to UK law enforcement, allowing them to kill citizens' means of communication.
[L]aw enforcement agencies can remotely disable or restrict a mobile phone if it is suspected of being used for drug dealing or related to it, and in some cases regardless of whether a crime has actually been committed, according to legal commentators.
Law enforcement isn't being given a kill switch. But it's being given the next best thing. With a court order, police can approach service providers and have them restrict or cut off service. The only thing law enforcement will have to provide is a vague theory the targeted phones may be involved in criminal activity.
Orders can apply if the user is "facilitating the commission by the user or another person of a drug dealing offense," or "conduct of the user that is likely to facilitate the commission by the user or another person of a drug dealing offence (whether or not an offence is committed)."
Nice touch there, with the "whether or not an offence is committed." A person may not know someone they communicate with is involved in criminal activity, but they're at risk of having their phone service interrupted (possibly indefinitely) nonetheless.
The only way this part of the Act [PDF] could be considered "narrowed" or "tailored" is its limitation to alleged drug-related crimes. That narrowness is immediately removed once you realize how things like buying gardening supplies or driving around with too many air fresheners is considered evidence of drug trafficking.
So, UK police will be doing even more "pre-crime" work, robbing people of their ability to converse with others or keep up with the world around them using nothing more than a target being in the same social circle as criminal suspects currently under investigation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: crimes, digital economy, kill switch, mobile phones, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh come on...
Between loopholes and obtuse legal ease we have been seeing this for years. Governments are laughing at us and here we sit complaining about this party that, and that party this.
Meanwhile everyone is losing rights and liberty, and none of their favor political parties they "sycophant" for are stopping any of it!
It does make for great distraction, political party playing their "sheep like" followers against each other. Party always comes before Nation. Because if it didn't, then they would never form up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And how do they know one's "conduct" during phone calls is "likely to facilitate maybe another person's something something drugs something perhaps maybe"?
"Love, fetch me a bottle of paracetamol on your way home, will you?" <dead air>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confused
I'd like to see that call
"my phones service is out"
"No it is working fine"
"No it is out"
"No it's not"....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Confused
Most phone providers have a person's Email. Just simply send the customer an anonymous Email telling them what happened, but using an offshore no-logging VPN servive, to keep the cops from knowing who did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Translation
I wonder, given that once such an explosive is made, all it takes for the perpetrator to detonate it is a phone call...why doesn't the military destroy all the cell-phone towers and shut down the mobile networks so that nobody can make a call to set off a bomb?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Translation
Maybe it's because we like having nice things. Or at least we used to... Lately, I wonder why governments around the world don't just declare an end to the democracy experiment and go to full-on Authoritarian rule. It's not like many people will actually do anything about it, the few that do will get picked up by the same tech that they love so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ya so
steal and use them..gee do i have to think for all you criminals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ya so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, people using the phones for terrorism, sex trafficking, extortion or plain old insider trading are free from interruption? Nice to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weren't the huge fines enough?
UK already has provisions of up to 10 years in jail for piracy, now the cops get to dick with your utilities as well?
It's been over 20 years, can't they take a hint? Punishing end users (downloaders) will not affect piracy significantly.
Heck it didn't work with drugs and alcohol, which have much worse effects on the user.
If anything this sort of stuff will make piracy even more prevalent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have you not noticed that those who push that line are the ones that use copyright to gain control over an artists work, and keep most of the value to themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool - now all those people attempting to record police brutality will be charged with drug offenses - brilliant!
Also, doesn't that legislation make watching streamed infringed content a felony with possible incarceration for ten years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]