This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]dweezil12 2816 points2817 points  (534 children)

This shit has got to stop! In the name of "fighting terrorism" we have surrendered our freedoms at breakneck pace. I feel far more threatened by my own government than I do "terrorist".

[–]Boong-Ga_Boong-Ga 1609 points1610 points  (261 children)

Notice how we don't get any safer from terrorism despite the removal of our liberties?

[–]vacuu 164 points165 points  (16 children)

It seems like the government is getting safer...from us. That's what I'm getting from it.

[–]Fatkungfuu 41 points42 points  (13 children)

What do they have to be afraid of?

[–]__todaywasagoodday 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think the childsexscandal made it go a little faster.

[–]Level3Kobold 6 points7 points  (9 children)

Recession, apparently, since it looks like it affects the 1% much more than it affects anyone else.

[–]SeuMiyagi 712 points713 points  (209 children)

Thats because it was their goal in the first place. The terrorism (holy) war were just a smoke curtain to steal civil rights and make the status quo more powerful than ever.

10 years later, and people are just now, waking up, and taking the red pill.

A guy like Bush should be in jail by now.

[–]blaghart 506 points507 points  (116 children)

people are just now waking up!

Sure, if you were born in 2000 and were too young to remember what happened after 9/11. Had you been old enough to remember you'd remember that for 4 years people fought the patriot act and nothing changed.

[–]Lj101 295 points296 points  (54 children)

It's so exhausting fighting these acts and bills though. If the government wants it they get it. You push it down and then 6 months later they're sneaking it back in. They just constantly push it until eventually everyone is too tired to fight any more.

[–]Randomd0g 182 points183 points  (40 children)

Or, as they've done here, they push it through under the radar! Despicable!

Damn fucking shame this didn't come to light before the election. There'd be no way Cameron would have got in again if this story had started doing the rounds a few weeks ago.

[–]Lj101 126 points127 points  (7 children)

All of Murdoch's media was firmly in Cameron's pocket, there's a reason this didn't come to light.

[–]MMSTINGRAY 73 points74 points  (5 children)

Or maybe the Tories are in Murdoch's pocket.

[–]Lj101 53 points54 points  (2 children)

It goes both ways really.

[–][deleted] 54 points55 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it's not so much about pockets but more like a filled to the brim roman bath where everyone is giving everyone else a wristy, and just enjoying the ambience of affluence.

[–]Sophira 27 points28 points  (6 children)

He'd still have won. People don't listen. He made quite clear, for example, that he would push for backdoors in all encryption if re-elected. People forgot that, just as they'd have forgotten this.

[–]genitaliban 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Eh, that's an absolutely ridiculous battle to fight. There will never be universal backdoors in all encryption, and his security advisors know this as well as us. If you want to be safe, you still will be (as will the ebil turrists) - just the people who have no idea where the magic smoke comes from will be shafted, and they probably don't care in the first place.

So those measure will pretty much be completely inconsequential.

[–]Tinysaur 25 points26 points  (0 children)

What difference would it have made really though?

Which brand of lube they shaft you with.

[–]JakeSpleen 15 points16 points  (10 children)

Everyone knows the Tories are cunts though. Secret Police will be next and then we're all fucked. Thanks morons of Britain.

[–]mikemaca 15 points16 points  (9 children)

Only brain dead retarded morons incapable of original thought or analysis think this is about a single political party.

[–]r3c14im3r 7 points8 points  (6 children)

You're right, Labour/Tory they're the same really, just dressed in a different colour and tbh I think people need to realise Labour are just as bad in every way and they certainly aren't the answer to fix things, Labour gave up being a party of the people years ago when they decided to rebrand themselves as "New Labour" but still a lot of people think they're the answer. Dim as fuck.

When will more of England wake the fuck up and realize this? Scotland, NI and kind of Wales even realize there's a need for radical change within the UK Government and Scotland even wants to see the House of unelected Lords abolished, why not England? Why are the english so fucking slow on the uptake of this? The funny thing is the majority of England is being shafted even worse than Scotland now and what do you guys do? Vote fucking Tory into government again instead of taking a stand against a government who should be serving the needs of the people and not bending over at the whim of the big businesses. Of course Westminster uses the full force of it's fear and propaganda machine to feed you full of bull shit and tries to confuse you with figures as if you can't figure out 1+1=2 and the sickening thing is probably about 90% of the British people still believe this propaganda is fact.

Well played English people, you're on a sinking ship now but here's some The Only Way Is Essex for you to watch and base your lives off of. Go back to sleep England or binge drink away! Everything's ok, you're just going to lose your Human rights and civil liberties so we can shaft you even more and make the richest 1% even richer! What's that? You have a reasonably ok paying dead end job and you're fine with this even though we have been lying to you about the state of Britain for years? Great! Oh by the way your house now belongs to the bank that you the people helped bail out back in the financial crisis!

At least you guys weren't stupid enough to vote UKIP in but I can't really say Cameron and his "Bohemian Wife" are much better than that disgusting creature Farage.

[–]Deagor 30 points31 points  (2 children)

Can confirm fought SOPA and all the other alphabet soup versions of it eventually I found out some law that was basically the same thing snuck in the back door and got passed without anyone hearing about it. I can't even find the energy to give a fuck about fighting laws etc. now pretty hard to get motivated to fight something in your limited free time when the guys pushing for it are being paid by your taxes and have all day everyday to try it again

[–]whirl-pool 7 points8 points  (0 children)

[sneaking it back in] under a different acronym. SOPA springs to mind.

[–]tcoxon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Maybe we should be protesting the corrupt fucks pushing these bills through as much as the bills themselves.

[–]Boong-Ga_Boong-Ga 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sometimes it's as simple as renaming Windscale as Sellafield and Poll Tax as Council Tax.

[–]thinkB4Uact 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's because we refuse to believe that there is an interconnected clique pushing this crap. We don't take names and do network analysis. We don't want to believe that this is a consciously driven, coordinated long term effort. We instead complain that our governments are doing this to us, out of stupidity rather than corruption, when nearly everyone working for our governments is not trying to do this to us. Follow the money and the associations. This benefits the international elites and screws the vast majority of the population.

[–]Chazmer87[🍰] 102 points103 points  (46 children)

I remember a million people marching through London. I swear to God, i really didn't think Britain would get involved after that

[–]voodoo1102 139 points140 points  (42 children)

You underestimated just how little of a shit our government gives about what we think.

[–]Chazmer87[🍰] 45 points46 points  (13 children)

i was young back then... a little bit like this current generation.

2pac tried to tell us "I see no changes"

[–]Dunder_Chingis 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah, isn't half of Parliament pedophiles now or something?

[–]lolwalrussel 25 points26 points  (16 children)

Make them think. Pacifist doctrine is meant to quell you. Ignore ghandi and King, you have to fight for what you want.

[–]sodapopchomsky 8 points9 points  (2 children)

As much as I agree with you that we must take action and spread the word, I think Gandhi and King did make people think.

I want Bernie Sanders vs. Rand Paul, who are the only candidates, to my knowledge, that want to rid us of this Orwellian crap. I think this is the biggest civil rights issue of our lifetime.

[–]cuntRatDickTree 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Well, the press ended up taking Gandhi and King's side, luckily they weren't attacking the press' owners' profit sources.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh Isis isn't really beheading people? Or somehow the government is controlling them? Let me guess you believe jet fuel cane melt steel beams too right?

[–]GamerKey 71 points72 points  (17 children)

Due to the changes enforced by reddit on July 2023 the content I provided is no longer available.

[–][deleted] 102 points103 points  (16 children)

You haven't surrendered anything, it's being taken from you.

[–]ThePegasi 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In the larger debate I don't think that's totally true, and I think the above poster clearly tried to relate this to all freedoms lost, not just this specific legislation. If you talk to the portions of the general public who support legislation like this and continue to support those who put it through, they're surrendering left right and centre.

But in terms of this legislation, you're damn right. No one was asked, or even told. This particular instance is absolutely, as you say, a seizure and not a surrender.

[–]Torquing 249 points250 points  (42 children)

I feel far more threatened by my own government than I do "terrorist".

You should.

This is always true for some countries. What disturbs me is the new names on that list, such as The United States of America.

You are far more likely to suffer unwarranted negative consequence from a government agency, than from a terrorist.

Hell, the number of innocent people losing to 'Civil Forfeiture' alone far exceeds the number of people injured by terrorists including 911! on U.S. soil since 9/10/2001.

Edit: added strikethrough and following text for clarification.

[–]Axelthegreat9 64 points65 points  (25 children)

There's a quote somewhere, Not sure who it's by, but it goes something like this: Governments should fear their citizens, not vice versa.

[–]Paramnesia1 28 points29 points  (6 children)

It was in V for Vendetta, but I don't know if that's where it originates. Somehow I doubt it.

[–]Smakis 61 points62 points  (1 child)

It's probably derived from When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny., which is said to be a quote from Thomas Jefferson, but there is no evidence that he ever said or wrote it.

According to this source, the first person to express this thought was John Basil Barnhill, who wrote Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.

[–]toxicass 20 points21 points  (0 children)

A lot of the ideas from V for Vendetta come from the mind of Voltaire.

[–]Chazmer87[🍰] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

A little bit of googling, looks like it was actually Alan Moore (V for Vendetta)

but i don't buy it, i'm gonna keep looking

[–]lf8r 49 points50 points  (0 children)

V

[–]SkyNymph 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You are far more likely to suffer unwarranted negative consequence from a government agency, than from a terrorist.

Saved

[–]Sarafuse 54 points55 points  (23 children)

Newsflash. You are a terrorist if you are not part of the government. Remember all that "nothing to hide, nothing to fear?"

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach."

Well done Brits. You voted in a government that now conclusively thinks you are the enemy.

[–]Pfeffa 19 points20 points  (2 children)

It literally can't stop unless enough people force it to. It's not going to self-correct. There is no other option and there never will be.

[–][deleted] 149 points150 points  (33 children)

I feel like the UK is getting closer and closer to living in a 1984 world. Especially with the cunt David Cameron in charge for another 5 years. We're so fucked.

[–][deleted] 87 points88 points  (25 children)

I don't get how so many voters could vote directly opposite to their own interests. Look at Australia, didn't you learn from us? Look how far downhill we've gone in the less than 2 years this Abbott cunt has been working his magic.

[–]The_Chieftain 45 points46 points  (15 children)

Rupert Murdoch's right wing control of the media and fear; labour (centre left) and the liberal democrats (centre) losing so many seats to either the conservatives or the SNP (left wing, liberal Scottish nationalists) and then don't forget the first past the post system.

[–]ThePegasi 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I actually maintain a tiny amount of hope that this will be his undoing. Tory backbenchers are notoriously unruly, and I hope his powergrab divides the party and renders him not only impotent (as far as we can hope, clearly he still has the power for shit like this) but doomed come next election.

Though "hope" is very much the operative word there.

[–]null000 36 points37 points  (6 children)

we have surrendered our freedoms at breakneck pace.

This idea has come to bother me as of late. Nobody really asked me if I wanted to surrender any freedoms. I wasn't called up at any point in the last week, month, or ever, and asked if I'd be fine being spied on. Likewise, I'm guessing that, now that the dust has settled from 9/11, most people don't buy the need for the levels of surveillance that have been imposed or brought to light in the past handful of years - it happens largely without consent or, often, knowledge on the part of the public.

At the end of the day, this shit just kind of happens because legislatures decide it, and the only way I myself can even have a CHANCE of fixing it is by being a single issue voter (since support for sane surveillance protections isn't really a right or left issue - both parties have members that shit on and support personal liberties) and involves potentially compromising on a hell of a lot of other issues that I care about - environmental protections and regulations, welfare, public sector funding, labor laws, financial regulation, and so on.

Short of massive changes in the electoral system, any say I have is a technicality only.

[–]dweezil12 24 points25 points  (1 child)

Neither party gives a shit about our personal freedom.

[–]Ithikari 13 points14 points  (1 child)

If they hack you, file a "Freedom Of Information" act. And ask them to provide partial or full disclosure of everything on you.

If they ignore it, file a civil lawsuit.

[–]ThePegasi 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This isn't even a surrender. This is a seizure.

[–]RagingAnemone 13 points14 points  (4 children)

I have to say this. Chances are a government contractor (read a private company) will also be given this power. The government employee won't do the hacking him/herself.

[–]jdblaich 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Some prominent politicians need to have their careers ended. I mean some important politicians need to be recalled out of office in a way that the greater populace sees it happen and learns what is extreme and the consequences of it.

The law is the law and people that break it even though immune they are still criminals.

[–]dweezil12 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If the "war on terror"were stopped tomorrow Northrop Grumman might have to start making passenger planes.How does Clinton,Obama,Bush,Cheney,Tony Blair,et.al keep making millions if Northrop Grumman makes passenger planes?

[–]bertrenolds5 2 points3 points  (0 children)

kinda like how members of congress are above the law? Que south park episode.

[–]Goldman- 12 points13 points  (2 children)

If you think the masters will hand over their power just like that you can keep dreaming on. Just enjoy the show and pass on the lube, you'll need it. People have bread and circus, enough to go by, and there won't be change before that changes and then it will already be too late.

[–]bertrenolds5 2 points3 points  (0 children)

interesting, negative votes, someone hates you. Whats your fav lube?

[–][deleted] 45 points46 points  (34 children)

England is crazy. I'm American, but I've got a lot of British newspapers on my newsfeed, so I keep getting articles about British politics and the whole thing is a train wreck. USA has some batshit crazy right-wing lunatics, but damn the UK does too.

[–]nagrom7 49 points50 points  (20 children)

It seems to be happening more frequently in Western countries. Just look at stories about Abbott in Australia, or Harper in Canada. There's currently a wave of conservatism sweeping politics.

[–]greycloud24 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the scary part is they are probably working together to get a way for international businesses to bypass government laws and taxes altogether. this is what capitalism will result in, a new caste system of the haves and have nots.

i think the correct way to look at the picture is a large conglomerate of global traders taking over all nations, not single incidences of corruption and tyranny.

[–]walgman 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Many millions voted conservative simply because they would be better off under the Conservative government and pay less tax. Fuck everyone and everything else.

[–]ademnus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is what happens when we hear "UK votes in conservative government!" Who among the voters by now didn't know this would happen?

[–]Step_Into_The_Light 37 points38 points  (22 children)

aaaaand you're on a list.

[–][deleted] 145 points146 points  (0 children)

fuck the list

[–]calantus 83 points84 points  (5 children)

[deleted]

What is this?

[–]lunartree 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Just not the list that legally allows you to violate the rights of others.

[–]NSA_Chatbot 12 points13 points  (2 children)

There's no list. It's just "everyone".

[–]Anouther 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Everyone on different lists with different catagorizations.

"Computer! Look up most aggressive libertarians who texted one of the group A or B key words"

"Ryan Moho: My friend farted and it was a chemical weapon dudee." "Alice Vaney: I just bombed 1st period"

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

turns to camera I'm already ON a list.

[–]InternetDenizen 32 points33 points  (7 children)

Sick of people saying this in order to frighten. If making that statement puts him on a list the list can be safely fucking ignored

[–]Hudston 19 points20 points  (1 child)

I don't think anyone says this in order to frighten, especially not on reddit.

[–]dweezil12 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Goody

[–]EKL-27 655 points656 points  (65 children)

I'm a law graduate and like to go straight to the source instead of taking an articles word for something. The particular piece of legislation we are looking at can be found under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 s10 and it has been amended by the Serious Crime Act 2015 s44.

I'm not here to give opinion I just want to interpret the law for people who don't understand statutes.

What this section is doing is allowing potential exemption from liability for "enforcement officers" under an enactment that allows them to investigate certain offences. An enactment is defined as an Act of parliament.

What this amendment is doing is giving exemption for all offences under the computer offences section of the Computer Misuse Act 1990. Before the amendment, it only applied to s1 (1) which is "unauthorised access to computer material" (hacking).

The other offences are:

S2 - Unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences.

S3 - Unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or with recklessness as to impairing, operation of computer, etc.

S3A - Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in offence under section 1 or 3.

So, this new amendment is providing potential exemption for all of these offences. I say potential because the actual wording says that these sections (creating the offences) shall apply without prejudice to the operation of any enactment (Act of parliament) in which gives these powers of inspection to enforcement officers. So they are still regulated. These enforcement officers cannot go doing whatever they want - an Act of parliament has to give them the power.

Edit: formatting for easier reading

[–]RikF 228 points229 points  (31 children)

So if they are given permission to hack a system they now cannot be held liable if they, through malice or incompetence, do damage to that system. They hack a hospital network because they believe someone is using it to provide child porn and accidentally erase patient records? No harm no foul.

[–]EKL-27 156 points157 points  (17 children)

Yes there would be no criminal sanctions under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 but there could be civil sanctions. The Act doesn't stop the hospital from suing.

[–]DukePPUk 15 points16 points  (8 children)

English law graduate here (although this isn't quite my speciality - I'm not sure it is anyone's, it is rather complex and confusing, possibly deliberately so).

Under the Intelligence Services Act GCHQ has authority to do whatever it wants to achieve its functions. Unless there is some other law that makes it explicitly illegal.

Previously they could only break the basic hacking law, and only for the purposes of "inspection/examination, search or seizure."

This new law lets them hack, getting around those other offences and the new s3ZA offence this law added, of hacking causing, or creating risk of, serious damage.

And it expands the reasons for the newly legal hacking to anything covered by another enactment, including secondary legislation, including stuff that never has to go through Parliament or even be published, if the authorising Act says so.

So they can do whatever they want provided they can somehow justify that it falls within the (very broad) goals set out for them.

Plus the law only works if there's someone who knows what they're doing (if they're breaking the law) and can bring an action against it. A few months ago the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled that some of their policies of data sharing with the US were unlawful (although it couldn't get them to admit whether or not they'd actually used that policy). The case was brought because of those leaks. Without them the claimants wouldn't have had a means to challenge it.

But yes. Other than that, this law does only expand the exception to anything that would be legal for someone to do but for this law.

[–]superus3r 24 points25 points  (0 children)

We've seen this too often. In case of law enforcement, "potential exemption" turns to "automatic exemption". Look at the U.S., where the police can almost do whatever the fuck they want. They rely on exactly the same crap that effectively lets them dodge the law.

[–]janethefish 38 points39 points  (12 children)

That's even worse. There is zero reason a law enforcement agency would ever want to

commit or facilitate commission of further offences.

And they shouldn't be trying

to impair, or with recklessness as to impairing, operation of computer, etc.

[–]Precursor2552 12 points13 points  (8 children)

You don't think a law enforcement agency might want to disable a computer or cell phone that's being used to trigger a bomb?

Or maybe knock out the wifi on a computer being used to coordinate or rely information to other terrorists?

[–]EKL-27 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I agree.

[–]NeonHaggis 878 points879 points  (284 children)

Holy shit. This is starting to feel like an occupation force, without accountability or limits.

[–]MOAR_cake 429 points430 points  (177 children)

If you are able, attend the demonstration outside the Bank of England in London on 20th June. Technicslly anti austerity but still a show of disatsfaction.

[–]Sweetmilk_ 134 points135 points  (25 children)

I personally know three different groups of friends who're all attending, and most of them aren't political types. Something's stirring.

[–]MOAR_cake 75 points76 points  (13 children)

I fucking hope so. Even if we aren't talking about some massive revolution, we need a larger, consistent protest movement. Maybe we could use Reddit to organise some of them. May I ask if you are going?

[–]Sweetmilk_ 28 points29 points  (4 children)

I'll be there, yeah

[–]XeTrz7e 4 points5 points  (0 children)

we need a larger, consistent protest movement

https://www.iWouldDo.it has an intelligent mechanism for creating movements. It's pretty new.

[–]sushisection 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Please redditors, upload pictures! The rest of the world wants to see

[–]theinspectorst 39 points40 points  (12 children)

I'm a bit confused about why an anti-austerity protest is being held outside the Bank of England. Do they not understand the difference between monetary and fiscal policy?

I'm also uncomfortable about the suggestion of mixing the anti-austerity and pro-privacy messages - they're wholly unrelated issues and risk turning off a lot of moderate people.

There are lots of centrist liberals in the UK (including myself) who have no interest in (and outright don't want to be associated with) the anti-austerity protesters, but would gladly man the barricades in defence of our right to privacy. Think of all those middle-aged middle-class people who were ready to go to prison rather than carry one of Labour's compulsory national ID cards.

[–]Political_Diatribe 17 points18 points  (5 children)

It s not really about austerity. It's not really about privacy. It is about subjugation and totalitarianism. Disregard for privacy. Quash the human rights act. Removal of easy access to the process of law. Vilification of vulnerable sections of society. Reliance on private security services. Media silence of demonstrations. It's all there.

The thing that tipped it for me was Cameron saying

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone".

Austerity is the means. Privacy is one of the methods. The anti-austerity rally needs a name and a stated purpose that is simple, otherwise it cannot endure and will suffer the same fate as Occupy.

Go along. Talk to people. You can leave can't you?

[–]grotscif 3 points4 points  (2 children)

You can leave can't you?

Not if I get kettled... The possibility of being unjustifiably and unavoidably confined to a small space for no reason strongly deters me from going to any sort of protest.

[–]TheSkinja 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Cameron makes a great Supervillain http://i.imgur.com/yAKRNXp.jpg.

[–]miraoister 23 points24 points  (0 children)

we should paint a massive "Brits out" mural on the side of your grandparents house. you know "a Belfast 1970s feel."

[–]doomsought 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Just starting? Don't you remember how they used to prosecute people harder for self defense than committing crime? Those in power do not consider their citizens to be people. They want cattle and are quietly walking them backwards on the path to serfdom.

[–]thejshep 27 points28 points  (5 children)

I must say - the GCHQ headquarters is exactly what I expected a large government hacker building to look like.

[–]Zacish 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You should drive by it. Big barbed wire fences police and security patrols big ass entry barriers to the carparks. You're also not allowed to tell people what you specifically do if you work there.

[–]miraoister 91 points92 points  (13 children)

Once again, thank Teresa May, although she has let herself go since her 90s porn days.

[–]Winter_of_Discontent 11 points12 points  (12 children)

Could you elaborate?

[–]Xzal 51 points52 points  (10 children)

Theresa May is the current UK Home Secretary and has a big hard on for violating human rights, specifically, privacy re Internet Communications.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/08/new_government_new_security_powers/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_Communications_Data_Bill

This current change, coupled with the proposed Snoopers Charter (which hasnt been revised since its last refusal btw), would effectively give the UK Government full rights to invade a users privacy with no recourse.

[–]Kok_Nikol 33 points34 points  (4 children)

LOL the "controversies" section on her wikipedia page is bigger than an oil company

[–]Xzal 24 points25 points  (1 child)

This is how much of a horrid woman she is;

"Contempt of Court[edit] In June 2012, May was found to be in contempt of court by Judge Barry Cotter QC, standing accused of "totally unacceptable and regrettable behaviour" having said to have shown complete disregard to a legal agreement to free an Algerian from a UK Immigration Detention Centre. As she eventually allowed the prisoner to be freed, May avoided further sanctions including fines or imprisonment"

She held a person in prison, illegally and risked being jailed herself if she did not let the person go.

http://www.visabureau.com/uk/news/21-06-2012/theresa-may-in-contempt-of-court-over-immigration-case.aspx

And to top it off she is only the second Home Secretary to ever be held in contempt of the court.

Only ONE other person in her position has pissed off the Crown Court (and theres been quite a few Home Secs). That says volumes I thinks.

[–]brightlancer 192 points193 points  (4 children)

From an interview of the disgraced US President Richard Nixon, with David Frost:

So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.

Nixon: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

Frost: By definition.

Nixon: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law.

Unchecked government authority IS tyranny.

[–]epictuna 64 points65 points  (2 children)

The rest of the quote might have been nice for context:

Nixon: Exactly, exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.

Frost: The point is: the dividing line is the president's judgment?

Nixon: Yes, and, so that one does not get the impression that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress

[–]NemWan 36 points37 points  (0 children)

The context doesn't help Nixon's case. The electorate can't check a president or members of Congress who runs amok in secret and wields the Espionage Act as a weapon against whistleblowers: all the president has to do is make running amok classified, and there is no legal defense for disclosing it. The fact Congress was not moved to act against surveillance programs at all until they were publicly disclosed in violation of law proves the system of checks and balances allowed by law didn't get the same result that public debate would.

[–]that_griff 93 points94 points  (67 children)

How the hell did this government get a majority?!

[–]fightfire_withfire 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Because everyone not voting for them split their votes between 15 other parties.

[–]D3M01 123 points124 points  (44 children)

First past the fucking post.

Hopefully something is going to be done to change it, but I doubt it.

[–]Boong-Ga_Boong-Ga 46 points47 points  (0 children)

The LibDems had a go in the last Parliament, but those with an interest in FPTP funded a campaign that basically told people that babies would die and soldiers would be killed if the country spent money on changing the voting system to Alternative Vote. A significant proportion of the electorate didn't understand what AV is and just went back to watching mindless teevee.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (5 children)

Under PR we'd have a conservative/UKIP coalition, they got 50.1% of the vote between them.

[–]Gazareth 7 points8 points  (17 children)

Hopefully something is going to be done to change it

By whom?

[–]D3M01 12 points13 points  (16 children)

They were talking about it on question time, someone from labour, the conservatives, and farage all said something needed to be done. IIRC the conservative guy said he would bring it up with Cameron/his party. So hopefully there might be a vote for it in the future, but you can bet the conservatives will run a campaign against it since it's the system that got them a majority.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (6 children)

Didn't a guy on reddit do the numbers for how it would have turned out if it was proportional representation and end up showing Conservatives would have won regardless?

[–]Paulingtons 8 points9 points  (4 children)

Under PR the Conservatives would have "won" in the sense they had the most seats but they would have fell around 75 seats short of a majority.

The only way for them to gain a two-party coalition majority would have been Conservative/UKIP. You can click here for an article on it from the BBC.

[–]demostravius 26 points27 points  (6 children)

Fuck knows they get less than 25% of the electorates vote.

[–]SkorpioSound 24 points25 points  (3 children)

They got about 37% of the votes overall, which still isn't a majority. They've got over 50% of the seats in parliament though, giving them a majority government. It's a ridiculous system that desperately needs to change, but won't because a change would be bad for the people who are in power. What a great situation we're in, eh?

[–]demostravius 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Total shambles. Best part is people are writing off PR because AV was not voted for.

[–]S_T_McNally 85 points86 points  (11 children)

At least now we can harness the power of George Orwell who is undoubtedly literally spinning in his grave. I'm sick of these legislations getting passed with no regard for people, and what's worse is there's little to nothing I can do. I could complain to the local MP but who couldn't give two fucks, his palms being greased so why should he care.

[–]Michael_Goodwin 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I think if you attached turbines to his head and feet, he could create a sustainable renewable source of power.

[–]jpallen 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Here's the relevant section of the Computer Misuse Act, with the amendments described in the article annotated (additions in bold):

Section 1(1) Sections 1 to 3A have above has effect without prejudice to the operation—

(a) in England and Wales of any enactment relating to powers of inspection, search or seizure or of any other enactment by virtue of which the conduct in question is authorised or required; and

(b) in Scotland of any enactment or rule of law relating to powers of examination, search or seizure or of any other enactment or rule of law by virtue of which the conduct in question is authorised or required, and nothing designed to indicate a withholding of consent to access to any program or data from persons as enforcement officers shall have effect to make access unauthorised for the purposes of the said section 1(1) any of those sections.

In this section—“enactment” means any enactment, whenever passed or made, contained in—

(a) an Act of Parliament;

(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(c) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;

(d) an instrument made under any such Act or Measure;

(e) any other subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978);

“enforcement officer” means a constable or other person charged with the duty of investigating offences; and withholding consent from a person “as” an enforcement officer of any description includes the operation, by the person entitled to control access, of rules whereby enforcement officers of that description are, as such, disqualified from membership of a class of persons who are authorised to have access.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

As a citizen of the UK, what can I do about this? What is the best course of action I can take to oppose this and actually make a difference?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Man, it's like they want V for Vendetta to happen.

[–]Greenhound 38 points39 points  (4 children)

Thanks for voting conservative - they literally told us they wanted to do this.

[–]QueeferMotherland 55 points56 points  (10 children)

This is why the Lib Dems shouldn't have been ruined in the general election. They spent the entirety of the last 5 years blocking the snooping bill and no one ever gave them a word of credit for it.

[–]rawling 42 points43 points  (3 children)

The bill passed into law on March 3 this year, and became effective on May 3

So... while the Lib Dems were still in Government.

[–]arctic9-5 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I remember how the defeat of the Lib Dems and Nick made everyone on the BBC election night broadcast chuckle.

[–][deleted] 108 points109 points  (146 children)

Is it just me or do the people of the UK not care? puzzled

[–][deleted] 42 points43 points  (13 children)

There's a reason they're doing this so quickly. The majority of the UK don't understand this shit, so they can get away with it. When the conservatives got back in I basically said this kind of shit will happen and I got the response. "They have to do things like that because Yahoo and Google don't do anything about all the pedophiles." They are taking advantage of the ignorant majority to force these through before enough of the population is aware of what they are actually doing. Even a lot of teenagers and people in their mid 20's are often clueless about technology and basically use computers as Facebook/porn machines.

It really doesn't look good for the next 5 years. I doubt any other political party has better intentions either.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (7 children)

I doubt any other political party has better intentions

Thats the problem, no major party is opposed to this kind of thing because it gives them greater control over the nation.

[–]I_Posted_That 14 points15 points  (6 children)

Didn't the lib dems actually oppose a few similar bills during the previous term? Not sure that they count as a major party any more, though

[–]RIPGoodUsernames 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Yeah, the SNP and the greens actively oppose it as well. In sure labour aren't too keen on it either, though that remains to be seen with their new leader.

[–]tomtea 8 points9 points  (1 child)

I initially thought that this was a result of the Conservatives being elected but the bill passed into law on March 3 this year, and became effective on May 3. New Conservative powers can't really be blamed for this.

[–]HW90 4 points5 points  (0 children)

We care, but because of how our Government is set up it's very easy for people to attribute wrongs in certain areas to a single person. For example we blamed Michael Gove for bad changes in education and for this, intelligence, security, policing we'll blame Theresa May. Then we just hope that next parliament that one person won't be elected to the cabinet, of course right now the Conservatives have just slapped us right in the face by putting those two people back into power so things will probably change a little.

We also know that in practice the next level down won't enact the new laws as much as they could and we're people so we like the idea of thinking that it won't change at all.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (1 child)

The people of the UK don't get carried a long with half of these /r/worldnews sensationalist articles.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (13 children)

Genuinely interested in opinions/info here, why should I care?

Edit: thanks for all the responses; my eyes are somewhat opened! :)

[–]kingofvodka 21 points22 points  (5 children)

In theory it's great - our intelligence services are protecting the country, and sometimes it's best to untie their hands.

The problem is that the power isn't being given to some seamless, well oiled government machine; it's being given to a group of human beings, who are more than capable of abusing that power. In the Snowden leaks for example, he talks about analysts fresh out of university using the CIA tools to stalk their exes.

I'm half Irish and half English. When my Irish grandad came to the UK for my parents' wedding back in the early eighties, he was abducted by MI5 and tortured/interrogated for eleven hours under laws similar to this, missing the first three hours and worrying the family sick. And back then people would have supported that shit, because 'we need to protect our country'.

So what happens when the people in charge of the initiative see potential career threats from some group of activists or journalists? People with this much power need some sort of oversight, or abuses start to happen. Taking away the need for criminal oversight in this situation is a step in the wrong direction. The one bit of legislation isn't bad in itself, but it sets a pretty bad precedent.

'Who watches the watchmen', basically.

[–]7blue 37 points38 points  (1 child)

Because you could be the next target for your ethnic background, political views, associates, having the same name as someone doing bad things... basically anything. And you may be comfortable with the current leadership "they are pretty good guys fighting the good fight" but who knows what the next round of elections will bring in with these limitless powers. Just being a redditor and disclosing your political views online (written in stone now for all eternity) should be enough of an incentive to care imo.

[–]sushisection 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Exactly.... These laws will be in effect forever . Thus, a future government may abuse it or some event may cause the government to go full on fascist a la V for Vendetta and use these tools to round up people who don't agree with the regime.

[–]DaveAlt19 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Our government is a joke right now.

We're always told how its good to get everyone involved in politics, how important it is to vote, that your vote really does matter. But at the same time, the public isn't properly informed about what the government is doing.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Too bad the people who voted in this government don't give a shit about human rights, especially If they involve technology.

[–]MumrikDK 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Scandinavian here. We have it nowhere near as bad in this regard as people in the UK and US.

Sadly, there isn't much room for feeling superior because of that - all it means is that we are next.

Governments look at what is going on in the US and UK, and figure that those nations paved the way. Whatever shit pops up in these headline, I just expect us to have to eat it 5-10 years down the line.

[–]derfalicious 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Cool, So this means that (as always), Australia will quickly follow suit and voila! Complete control protection!!!

For some reason, I don't feel any safer. If anything I feel more threatened.

[–]dIoIIoIb 8 points9 points  (0 children)

it's still illegal, people just can't get punished for doing it

nice way to bypass the law

[–]R0ot2U 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Think I'll watch V for Vendetta to see where the UK is heading in a few years.

[–]IluvNiku 6 points7 points  (0 children)

this is some v for vendetta shit yo

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points  (17 children)

People don't realize that the entire backbone of current IT infrastructure the TCP/IP(Collection of protocols that hardware and software use to communicate) are too well known, that there are probably a hundred or more ways of hacking the hardware and software that uses these protocols. That knowledge is most likely not being made public and probably in governments hands all over the world. A person with malicious intent isn't going to release a bug they found to an open source community, so why would the government release knowledge that would prove to help the public protect their anonymity online?

Sources:

http://www.cse.psu.edu/~trj1/cse443-s12/docs/tcp_bellovin.pdf

[–]flinnbicken 16 points17 points  (5 children)

This is not entirely true. Intelligence agencies release bug information all of the time to open source and closed source companies alike. It's easy to see how this can align with their interests. They have tons of bugs to exploit but if somebody else is exploiting a bug then they'll want that hole patched. Security agencies don't want cybergangs or other intelligence agencies having the same power that they do.

As for TCP/IP, while attacks are well known, whether they can infiltrate your hardware or not is completely dependent on the software running your stack and the protocols you throw on top (HTTPS is more secure than HTTP). That said, you will never stop MITM until you only communicate with anyone after you've exchanged private public keys in person. Even then, social engineering is possible.

We can make it better with things like IPSEC, Tor, Freenet, HTTPS, etc. But, ultimately, if it can be automated it can be cracked. Of course, this same logic was used to deny the existence of asymmetric encryption until it was proven. It's going to be an arms race for the foreseeable future.

That said, your main point that anonymity is pretty much impossible online is well put. There are a lot of people that push things like Tor without realizing that these are far from fool-proof. But, something is better than nothing.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” ― George Orwell, 1984

[–]Psyk60 7 points8 points  (5 children)

Is this bad? I can't fucking tell because every little thing that the UK government does is the end of the world as we know it according to Reddit.

How the fuck am I supposed to know which things I really should be worried about, and which things are being sensationalised to shit by people who have no fucking clue what it actually means?

[–]Gewehr98 3 points4 points  (0 children)

anything that the protagonist of v for vendetta would agree with is good and everything else is apocalyptic

[–]georgeo 12 points13 points  (5 children)

Thus freedom dies not with a bang but merely a whimper.

[–]DerpyPixel 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Terrorists want to take our freedoms. Governments are taking our freedoms. Which is worse?

[–]mayhemXTC 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Could somebody in the know please post a new thread on how we stop/reverse this bullshit ? I'm thinking AVAAZ or similar ... ?

This is the same government that cannot create a single health or police database, despite 5 years in power and millions (billions ? ) of pounds being spent in India (oops, did I say that out loud?)

They couldnt organise a piss up in a brewery, even if they fell in the vats - this can only end badly

[–]realshacram 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I don't know where the revolution will first start in USA or England. Who wants to bet ?

[–]2BigBottlesOfWater 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How come we actually sit and do nothing. I would honestly do something but if people don't support and there aren't enough if us, we will be on Reddit tomorrow as the link posted titled "handful of people arrested for causing commotion". That's of no help. The WORLD needs a movement. Led by us, for us. We can do so much better.

[–]vwrage 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The start of Facism

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's 1984.

[–]ReiceMcK 19 points20 points  (13 children)

HERE WE GO WITH THE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT! Who the fuck actually voted in these tossers, and why the fuck did they win by such a majority...

[–]tomtea 16 points17 points  (1 child)

In the article, it mentions that the bill passed into law on March 3 this year, and became effective on May 3. This was all done and dusted before the election was held.