Brace yourself, UK puter users

[Guest UnabashedUser]

https://is.gd/VuYUoy

Sweeping UK spy bill dubbed 'snoopers' charter' becomes law

After months of wrangling, Parliament has passed a contentious new snooping law that gives authorities - from police and spies to food regulators, fire officials and tax inspectors - powers to look at the internet browsing records of everyone in the country.

The law requires telecoms companies to keep records of all users' web activity for a year, creating databases of personal information that the firms worry could be vulnerable to leaks and hackers.

Civil liberties groups say the law establishes mass surveillance of British citizens, following innocent internet users from the office to the living room and the bedroom.

Tim Berners-Lee, the computer scientist credited with inventing World Wide Web, tweeted news of the law's passage with the words: "Dark, dark days."

The Investigatory Powers Bill - dubbed the "snoopers' charter" by critics - was passed by Parliament this month after more than a year of debate and amendments. It will become law when it receives the formality of royal assent next week. But big questions remain about how it will work, and the government acknowledges it could be 12 months before internet firms have to start storing the records.

"It won't happen in a big bang next week," Home Office official Chris Mills told a meeting of internet service providers on Thursday. "It will be a phased program of the introduction of the measures over a year or so."

The government says the new law "ensures powers are fit for the digital age," replacing a patchwork of often outdated rules and giving law-enforcement agencies the tools to fight terrorism and serious crime.

In a move taken by few other nations, it requires telecommunications companies to store for a year the web histories known as internet connection records - a list of websites each person has visited and the apps and messaging services they used, though not the individual pages they looked at or the messages they sent.

The government has called that information the modern equivalent of an itemized phone bill. But critics say it's more like a personal diary.

Julian Huppert, a former Liberal Democrat lawmaker who opposed the bill, said it "creates a very intrusive database."

"People may have been to the Depression Alliance website, or a marriage guidance website, or an abortion provider's website, or all sorts of things which are very personal and private," he said.

Officials won't need a warrant to access the data, and the list of bodies that can see it includes not just the police and intelligence services, but government departments, revenue and customs officials and even the Food Standards Agency.

"My worry is partly about their access," Huppert said. "But it's much more deeply about the prospects for either hacking or people selling information on."

James Blessing, chairman of the Internet Services Providers Association, said the industry has "significant questions" on how the law will work - including "how to keep the vast new data sets secure."

He warned that if the law is not implemented in a "proportionate, considered way, there is a real danger the U.K. could lose its status as a world-leading digital economy."

Some aspects of the new law remain clouded by secrecy. Not all internet companies will have to comply - only those that are asked to by the government. The government won't say who is on that list, and the firms involved are forbidden from telling their customers.

Service providers are also concerned by the law's provision that firms can be asked to remove encryption to let spies access communications. Internet companies say that could weaken the security of online shopping, banking and a host of other activities that rely on encryption.

The new law also makes official - and legal - British spies' ability to hack into devices and harvest vast amounts of bulk online data, much of it from outside the U.K. In doing so, it both acknowledges and sets limits on the secretive mass-snooping schemes exposed by former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

The government says the law incorporates protections against intrusion, including an investigatory powers commissioner to oversee the system, and judges to scrutinize government-approved warrants to hack into electronic devices or look at the content of communications.

David Anderson, a lawyer who serves as Britain's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said the new law "creates powerful new safeguards" and "achieves world-leading standards of transparency by putting on a detailed statutory basis all the powers which police and intelligence agencies already use."

Privacy groups battled to stop the new legislation, and now say they will challenge it in court. But public opposition has been muted, in part because the bill's passage through Parliament has been overshadowed by Britain's vote to leave the European Union and the upheaval that has followed.

Renate Samson, chief executive of the group Big Brother Watch, said it would take time for the full implications of the law to become clear to the public.

"We now live in a digital world. We are digital citizens," Samson said. "We have no choice about whether or not we engage online.

"This bill has fundamentally changed how we are able to privately and securely communicate with one another, communicate with business, communicate with government and live an online life. And that's a real, profound concern."

---

[Scot_Lover 1,876]

This is another one the gov'ment tried to do here. They wanted mobile phone data too. When it was mentioned that you needed a data centre the size of Google or Facebook, and a billion dollars, the gov'ment backed away slowly.

Telco's also made noise that everyone would have $50 added to their monthly bills, and given the high price of data and phone calls, it died a quiet death. It still maybe in the background, I have no idea, nothing has been mentioned since the public outrage, but our gov'ment is like yours, they could just as easily back door something in.

 

George Orwell would be howling with laughter over this.

[norfie654321 69]

For all of those who're interested, the main .GOV petition got over 100,000 signatures and the government responded officially. Here is their response:

"Government responded

The Investigatory Powers Act dramatically increases transparency around the use of investigatory powers. It protects both privacy and security and underwent unprecedented scrutiny before becoming law.

The Government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement, security and intelligence services have the powers they need to keep people safe.

The Investigatory Powers Act transforms the law relating to the use and oversight of Investigatory powers. It strengthens safeguards and introduces world-leading oversight arrangements.

The Act does three key things. First, it brings together powers already available to law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications and data about communications. It makes these powers – and the safeguards that apply to them – clear and understandable.

Second, it radically overhauls the way these powers are authorised and overseen. It introduces a ‘double-lock’ for the most intrusive powers, including interception and all of the bulk capabilities, so warrants require the approval of a Judicial Commissioner. And it creates a powerful new Investigatory Powers Commissioner to oversee how these powers are used.

Third, it ensures powers are fit for the digital age. The Act makes a single new provision for the retention of internet connection records in order for law enforcement to identify the communications service to which a device has connected. This will restore capabilities that have been lost as a result of changes in the way people communicate.

Public scrutiny

The Bill was subject to unprecedented scrutiny prior to and during its passage. 
The Bill responded to three independent reports: by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; by the Royal United Services Institute’s Independent Surveillance Review Panel; and by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. All three of those authoritative independent reports agreed a new law was needed. 

The Government responded to the recommendations of those reports in the form of a draft Bill, published in November 2015. That draft Bill was submitted for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The Intelligence and Security Committee and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee conducted parallel scrutiny. Between them, those Committees received over 1,500 pages of written submissions and heard oral evidence from the Government, industry, civil liberties groups and many others. The recommendations made by those Committees informed changes to the Bill and the publication of further supporting material.

A revised Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 1 March, and completed its passage on 16 November, meeting the timetable for legislation set by Parliament during the passage of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. Over 1,700 amendments to the Bill were tabled and debated during this time.

The Government has adopted an open and consultative approach throughout the passage of this legislation, tabling or accepting a significant number of amendments in both Houses of Parliament in order to improve transparency and strengthen privacy protections. These included enhanced protections for trade unions and journalistic and legally privileged material, and the introduction of a threshold to ensure internet connection records cannot be used to investigate minor crimes.

Privacy and Oversight

The Government has placed privacy at the heart of the Investigatory Powers Act. The Act makes clear the extent to which investigatory powers may be used and the strict safeguards that apply in order to maintain privacy.

A new overarching ‘privacy clause’ was added to make absolutely clear that the protection of privacy is at the heart of this legislation. This privacy clause ensures that in each and every case a public authority must consider whether less intrusive means could be used, and must have regard to human rights and the particular sensitivity of certain information. The powers can only be exercised when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and the Act includes tough sanctions – including the creation of new criminal offences – for those misusing the powers. 
The safeguards in this Act reflect the UK’s international reputation for protecting human rights. The unprecedented transparency and the new safeguards – including the ‘double lock’ for the most sensitive powers – set an international benchmark for how the law can protect both privacy and security. 

Home Office"

Heres the official link if anyone wants to see it for themselves https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199?reveal_response=yes

[WetDaveWales 9]

Can the use of proxy servers help us to get around this?  I can see witch-hunts already, they will go after soft targets and leave the more sinister elements alone.