Britain approve the most extreme surveillance law in the world

[Saho]

The UK has just passed a massive expansion in surveillance powers, which critics have called "terrifying" and "dangerous".

The new law, dubbed the "snoopers' charter", was introduced by then-home secretary Theresa May in 2012, and took two attempts to get passed into law following breakdowns in the previous coalition government.

Four years and a general election later -- May is now prime minister -- the bill was finalized and passed on Wednesday by both parliamentary houses.

But civil liberties groups have long criticized the bill, with some arguing that the law will let the UK government "document everything we do online".

It's no wonder, because it basically does.

The law will force internet providers to record every internet customer's top-level web history in real-time for up to a year, which can be accessed by numerous government departments; force companies to decrypt data on demand -- though the government has never been that clear on exactly how it forces foreign firms to do that that; and even disclose any new security features in products before they launch.

Not only that, the law also gives the intelligence agencies the power to hack into computers and devices of citizens (known as equipment interference), although some protected professions -- such as journalists and medical staff -- are layered with marginally better protections.

In other words, it's the "most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy," according to Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group.

The bill was opposed by representatives of the United Nations, all major UK and many leading global privacy and rights groups, and a host of Silicon Valley tech companies alike. Even the parliamentary committee tasked with scrutinizing the bill called some of its provisions "vague".

And that doesn't even account for the three-quarters of people who think privacy, which this law almost entirely erodes, is a human right.

There are some safeguards, however, such as a "double lock" system so that the secretary of state and an independent judicial commissioner must agree on a decision to carry out search warrants (though one member of the House of Lords disputedthat claim).

A new investigatory powers commissioner will also oversee the use of the powers.

Despite the uproar, the government's opposition failed to scrutinize any significant amendments and abstained from the final vote. Killock said recently that the opposition Labour party spent its time "simply failing to hold the government to account".

But the government has downplayed much of the controversy surrounding the bill. The government has consistently argued that the bill isn't drastically new, but instead reworks the old and outdated Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). This was brought into law in 2000, to "legitimize" new powers that were conducted or ruled on in secret, like collecting data in bulk and hacking into networks, which was revealed during the Edward Snowden affair.

Much of those activities were only possible thanks to litigation by one advocacy group, Privacy International, which helped push these secret practices into the public domain while forcing the government to scramble to explain why these practices were legal.

The law will be ratified by royal assent in the coming weeks.

 

[Banglar Bir]

(ANTIMEDIA) — The House of Lords, the upper house of the U.K.’s parliament, just passed the Investigatory Powers Bill, legislation that provides immense spying powers to the British government. The government’s new surveillance privileges are virtually unrivaled across the globe.

The bill, which critics have deemed the “Snooper’s Charter,” will force internet companies to keep records on their users for up to a year. These records will be accessed by numerous government departments, and the law also allows the government to force companies to hack into products they have sold so consumers can be monitored. Under the newly passed legislation, the government can also ask these companies to make their devices less secure so communications can be intercepted. They can also mandate that companies encrypt their devices on demand.

As noted by the Independent:

“In all, the new bill includes a range of changes to the law that will affect normal people, and gives Britain perhaps the most extreme spying powers in the developed world.” (emphasis added)

Supposedly Apple and Twitter have fought against this, though it’s difficult to take their sentiments seriously.

Even in the face of mounting criticism from these major technology and internet companies — and from senior parliamentary committees and representatives from the United Nations — the legislation was barely challenged in parliament.


Like a bad dream that only gets worse, the only amendment to the bill so far has been from MPs (members of parliament), and its purpose was to ensure that MPs could not be spied on under the new legislation.

Considering the bill was designed to target companies such as Whatsapp, which is owned by Facebook and has over one billion users, the law is tantamount to widespread bulk surveillance. Such a widespread invasion of privacy is a gross violation of basic human rights.

Sign up for the free Anti-Media newsletter the establishment doesn't want you to receive
“I have nothing to hide therefore I have nothing to fear” is a common rationalization to downplay these impositions, but it is also the most poorly crafted and cowardly justification for surveillance in the ongoing debate. Whistleblower Edward Snowden debunked this mentality when he lamented that the origins of this approach stem from Nazism. Snowden famously stated:

“Because privacy isn’t about something to hide. Privacy is about something to protect. That’s who you are. Privacy is baked into our language, our core concepts of government and self in every way. It’s why we call it ‘private property.’ Without privacy you don’t have anything for yourself.

“Arguing that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like arguing that you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”

The people who threaten to take our human rights — or even advocate doing so — are never victims of such oppression and can usually escape these limitations quite easily. As stated by Glenn Greenwald in his TEDtalk, “Why Privacy Matters”:

“This same division can be seen with the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, who in an infamous interview in 2010 pronounced that privacy is no longer a ‘social norm.’ Last year, Mark Zuckerberg and his new wife purchased not only their own house but also all four adjacent houses in Palo Alto for a total of 30 million dollars in order to ensure that they enjoyed a zone of privacy that prevented other people from monitoring what they do in their personal lives.”

The House of Lord’s passage of the text now means it awaits the Royal Assent, the approval and signature of the Queen before it becomes law in the United Kingdom.

This article (UK Passes Bill Providing Most Extreme Spying Powers in the Developed World) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi andtheAntiMedia.org.