On How UK's Political Elite Shoved Through A Data Retention Bill

from the dangerous dept

Politicians are supposed to represent the will of the public. It rarely works that way in practice, but the strongest demonstration of that may be what's happening in the UK with this new data retention bill. We wrote about it earlier, but MP Tom Watson has more details on how this is an "erosion of political trust," in which leaders of multiple parties in Parliament worked together to do a deal that clearly goes against the will of the public, and then sought to shove it through with no debate at all.

As Watson notes, there's no reason to nitpick about what's in the draft bill, because it's basically guaranteed to become law at this point:

The bill was published in draft form a few hours ago. It's pointless attempting to scrutinise it because, thanks to the secret deal, we know it will be law by the end of next week.

However, he notes that the bill clearly expands surveillance of the public, in direct contrast to what the EU Court of Justice ruling, which "prompted" this new law, said:

The judgment said the previous legislation was not "necessary and proportionate". The draft bill does use these words, but it's barely a nod to the court's requirements. The judgment said clearly that the mass retention of the data of every citizen was not proportionate. This legislation ignores this, allowing its retention for 12 months.

The bill says that new regulations may be passed to restrict the use of retention notices, but these are not set out. And these new restrictions won't be passed by all parliamentarians but as statutory instruments through small committees of a select few MPs.

The really damning point is that this is just a bunch of political elites agreeing to spy on the public... because they can:

While the Lib Dems can spin as much as they like that this isn't the draft communications data bill, this is clearly a light version of it which ignores the ruling of a court on fundamental rights and extends surveillance powers overseas. The party spent the day crowing about the concessions granted to civil liberties groups such as Don't Spy on Us, but the concessions aren't even in the bill. We have to trust this government to deliver these concessions. Is this a game we should be willing to play?

Yet the details are irrelevant. A secret deal between elites has removed the possibility of parliamentary scrutiny and engagement with civic society. The bill, warts and all, will be law next week. Theresa May has in the past stood strongly for the idea of policing by consent. What a shame she doesn't think the same principles apply to our security services.

The party leaders will get their way next week, but the price will be further erosion of the authority of our political institutions. Today parliament feels a little further away from our citizens.

Larry Lessig has long pointed out that when governments act this way, the public trusts them less and less, and their actual mandate to govern is made much less powerful. Of course, when they can snoop on all of your communications, what do they care?

Filed Under: data retention, politics, tom watson, uk

UK Leaders Look To Sneak Through Broad Data Retention Bill With No Debate

from the because-they-can dept

Remember last year when the UK loudly rejected an attempt by the government to create a "Snooper's Charter" that would give the government much more power to sniff through everyone's private data? This was the law David Cameron insisted was needed based on crime dramas he watches on TV (how do these people get elected?).

You may also recall that, earlier this year, the European Court of Justice found that the EU's Data Retention Directive was invalid as a breach of "the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data." Just a few weeks ago, we noted that the UK government had told telcos to ignore that ruling and to carry on retaining people's data. It appears that telcos told the UK government to pound sand, and David Cameron and his friends are now using that as an opportunity to rush through a version of the Snooper's Charter, requiring internet companies to retain data.

Member of Parliament Tom Watson raised the alarm about this yesterday, detailing how the government was trying to rush through a broad bill in near secrecy:

If you look on Parliament’s web site tonight, you will not see the name, nor the text of the Bill to be considered.

None of your elected backbench MPs have been told what Bill is to be debated on Monday. It’s Wednesday evening. Tomorrow, MPs are on a ‘one line whip’ ie they can return to their constituencies this evening.

Imagine how outrageous it would be, if tomorrow, the government were to announce emergency legislation to an empty chamber. Imagine if that emergency legislation was to be introduced on Monday or Tuesday, with the intention of it slipping through the Commons and the Lords in a single day. Imagine if that Bill was the deeply controversial Data Retention Bill.

It’s a Bill that will override the views of judges who have seen how the mass collection of your data breaches the human rights of you and your family.

And that's what's happened so far. Early this morning, the draft of the bill was released, entitled the "Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill," or DRIP. Think of it as drip, drip, dripping away your privacy and civil liberties. As people reading through the bill have noted, it's quite clear that it goes much further than just dealing with the "fallout" from the European Court of Justice ruling. In particular it has this rather open ended clause that appears to give the government the power to effectively change the rules at will:

The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the retention of relevant communications data.

The government is trying to calm people down about this by first setting up a "Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board" (PCLOB) modeled after the PCLOB in the US, and will also include a "transparency" report. But the bigger claim they have is that this is just a "temporary" thing with a sunset provision:

The laws will expire in 2016, requiring fresh legislation after the election. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act will be reviewed between now and 2016 to make recommendations for how it could be reformed and updated. Lib Dems insist the new legislation does not represent an extension of existing surveillance powers or the introduction of the snooper's charter.

Except, if you've paid any attention at all, you know damn well that these sunset clauses almost never work. It's much, much more difficult to get rid of a bad law once it's in place. And when it comes to things like surveillance, every time the renewal period comes up, politicians go on a FUD rampage about how many people will die if the government can't keep searching through all your data.

Filed Under: data retention, david cameron, drip, eu court of justice, tom watson, uk

UK Politician Speaks Out Against The Travesty Of Trying To Deport Richard O'Dwyer To Feed Hollywood's Anger

from the this-would-be-a-mistake dept

Given the renewed attention in the Richard O'Dwyer case, it's good to see UK MP Tom Watson speak out eloquently against the extradition. Watson hits on a bunch of good points, starting with the fact that O'Dwyer was "hung out to dry" by UK politicians who don't seem to even care about the details here. He notes that the response is clearly disproportionate and then gets to the heart of the matter:

"Somewhere behind this case lie the powerful vested interests of the content industry. If they succeed in exercising their lobbying might by forcing the extradition of an able student to face trial in America, it will further undermine public confidence in an important treaty designed to combat terrorism.

"But let's also be honest about what is going on at the heart of this case: a generation for whom the net is not a 'new' technology are being hung out by an older generation of lawmakers who do not understand the new reality of the connected digital planet.

"Mr O'Dwyer's situation can be sorted out with common sense at the top of the UK government and US administration. But how many more bright youngsters will have their lives turned upside down because we haven't reached a new copyright settlement that understands the internet is here to stay?"

Of course, it won't just undermine confidence in the extradition treaty, but also in copyright law. After all, O'Dwyer linked to content all over the web, rather than hosting it himself -- and a nearly identical site was already found legal in the UK (which certainly suggests a lack of "willful" infringement, which is necessary for a criminal copyright infringement charge in the US). Either way, it's good to see more high profile people -- especially those in government, realize that the attempt to extradite O'Dwyer is a travesty.

Filed Under: extradition, richard o'dwyer, tom watson, uk, willful infringement

UK Politician Proposes Motion Against Kicking People Off The Internet

from the some-sanity dept

While a bunch of politicians in the UK had been under the influence of entertainment industry lobbyists in believing that kicking accused (not convicted) file sharers off the internet would somehow magically bring back a working business model, at least there are some who recognize what a futile and backwards effort this would be. MP Tom Watson has put forth an "Early Day Motion" against such proposals:

That this House notes with concern the Government's proposals on file sharing which would allow rights holders to request internet service providers to disconnect for a period of time, or throttle, the internet connection of people who may be accused of copyright infringement via peer to peer networks; believes that disconnecting alleged offenders will be futile given that it is relatively easy for determined file-sharers to mask their identity or their activity to avoid detection; acknowledges that illicit file-sharing only costs rights-holders money when people download infringing content in preference to buying it; further notes that identifying offenders using the Internet Protocol address of a specific machine may punish those who share a web connection; and calls on the Government to ensure that any citizen accused of illicit file-sharing is given the right to legal redress in a court of law before sanctions are imposed.

I'd even take issue with the claim that it costs rights holders money when people download instead of buy -- as there's ample evidence that such things can lead to additional purchases down the road. But, still, this is a good start, and great to see some politicians not falling for the industry's claims.

Filed Under: peter mandelson, three strikes, tom watson, uk

Fascinating To See How Journalists React To Clay Shirky's Thoughts On Journalism

from the microcosm dept

There's still a ton of buzz going on around Clay Shirky's wonderful discussion on business models and changing markets that we discussed earlier in the week. If you haven't read Shirky's post yet, do yourself a favor and read it. It applies to so many industries beyond just journalism. Unfortunately, as we saw in our own comments here, there are still some folks who are having difficulty understanding the key points to Shirky's argument: that business models evolve, but during the upheaval, it's rarely clear how that evolution will shake out.

A few people have sent in journalist Tom Watson's response to Shirky, and it's somewhat surprising. It's as if we read two different things -- even though the links are to the same Shirky writeup. I read Shirky's analysis as a huge burst of optimism. It's a "hey, things are crazy now, but check out what's coming next." Watson read it as an obituary for journalism, apparently assuming that Shirky's tone was to say that journalism is over. He reads Shirky's explanation of why bad newspaper business models failed (they all tried to recreate the old inefficient market) to mean that nothing will succeed. It's as if he skipped over most of Shirky's analysis.

Then, there's venerable TV newsman Charlie Gibson, who apparently was asked about Shirky's analysis (without it being clear if he'd read it) and responded that Shirky is "full of crap." He then proceeded to go back and try to re-inflate every discarded and failed idea in newspaper business models, falsely claiming the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is "gone" (it lives on online) and blaming "young people" for reading the news for free online as well as Google for bringing about the downfall of newspapers.

When asked what to do, he fell back on the idea of charging for news -- but never answered any of the important questions such a plan needs to address. Instead, he just seemed to think that the only way to pay for news is if the consumers each pay for it.

Remember, this is Charlie Gibson. The anchor of ABC World News Tonight. On ABC. Which is free. To consumers. It's supported by advertising. But, according to Charlie Gibson... that's impossible. I guess it's his viewers' fault for watching him for free or something... You want to know why people are turning to alternative sources? Perhaps it's because they're smart enough to realize that when Charlie Gibson -- whose face and voice beams into millions of peoples' homes for free every night -- says that people who get their news for free are destroying an industry, perhaps there are better sources from which to get their news.

Filed Under: business models, charlie gibson, clay shirky, creative destruction, newspapers, tom watson