Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
Like the US CALEA also requires judicial oversight of all wiretaps. With grand total of ZERO denied requests out of hundreds thousands.
Meanwhile, RIPA is being used to catch dog foulers: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584808/Council-sp...
Security quotes of the week
Posted Jul 20, 2012 13:28 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
The covert surveillance article you link to is four years old: when this came out, it caused enough of a scandal when it came out that councils were ordered to stop by the very Labour central government that introduced the powers in the fist place: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8003123.stm>. The council you linked to later lost legal cases over the same matter: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-10839104>, and stopped spying on account of its being a PR disaster: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-17926819>. A shame they quietly started again a year later.
Note that the powers the councils were using in these cases have nothing to do with the contentious encryption parts of RIPA discussed elsewhere in this thread: RIPA was a dog's-breakfast of an Act throwing together a whole bunch of stuff, some a good idea, some very much not. Some councils did very stupid things using anti-terrorism legislation and were told to stop (ostensibly because dog foulers are not terrorists, but actually because it's a PR disaster waiting to happen). The encryption parts of RIPA relate to the police -- the surveillance parts relate to local councils as well, and it's *those* busybody-stuffed excrescences on the state that have been abusing RIPA and invading privacy left right and centre.
Since slapping councils' wrists hasn't stopped them from spying, this got enacted: <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/part/2/chapter...> which beefs up the judicial oversight (though part of it is still odious, notably the part which says that legal representatives of the surveilled need not be informed of the surveillance. I note that this law doesn't say that surveillance requests can be rejected on grounds of unreasonableness, though I suspect that won't stop judges from doing so).
(Disclaimer: IANAL, obviously.)
Posted Jul 20, 2012 13:54 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
Posted Jul 24, 2012 7:08 UTC (Tue) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
The real world has no guarantees. There are no unbreakable rules you can build a perfectly secure legal system on. You have to draw a line somewhere and say everything under that line we have to trust works. And then keep checking it is working. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and all that.
If you think the politicians are doing a bad job, I'd suggest getting involved to try and fix it. A bit like open source in general really.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds