<i>"Over a six-month period the National Crime Agency alone estimates that it has had to drop at least 20 cases as a result of missing communications data," she said in a speech on Tuesday. "Thirteen of these were threat-to-life cases in which a child was assessed to be at risk of imminent harm.</i><p>This is utter nonsense. If evidence is absent, you cannot just assume that it would have helped your case.
<p><pre><code> "The home secretary says internet phone systems Skype and Facetime, as well as
social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, have become "safe
havens" for organised criminals and terrorists"
</code></pre>
and ..<p><pre><code> "It would also have extended laws to cover new online forms of communication, such as
Skype, and there were suggestions it could also give intelligence services real-time
access to the data."
</code></pre>
In a world where recent controversy has caused a greater proportion of traffic to make use of increasingly strong encryption, it's hard not interpret this as a plaintive demand
to subvert free enterprise, law and technology -- so that all the old fun toys work once again.<p>What they really want is to render privacy and encryption moot by making it a legal requirement that any service that facilitates communication, in any form, be required to backdoor or log everything and provide it on a whim.<p>And how're they going to sell it? The age old "think of the children" refrain. Class.
"The home secretary says internet phone systems Skype and Facetime, as well as social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, have become "safe havens" for organised criminals and terrorists."<p>How exactly do you coordinate a terrorist attack over <i>Twitter</i>?
If this sort of thing bothers you, please support the Open Rights Group: <a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.openrightsgroup.org/</a>
We begin therefore where they are determined not to end, with the question whether any form of democratic self-government, anywhere, is consistent with the kind of massive, pervasive, surveillance into which the Unites States government has led not only us but the world.<p>This should not actually be a complicated inquiry.<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/27/-sp-privacy-under-attack-nsa-files-revealed-new-threats-democracy" rel="nofollow">http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/27/-sp-privac...</a><p>Surveillance is not an end toward totalitarianism, it is totalitarianism itself.<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/europe-24385999" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/europe-24385999</a>
Wow somebody get this lunatic lady out of power.<p>First of all 20 cases over 6 months is not bad however they neglected to say what the total amount of cases processed over these 6 months was. Was it 100 or 100000?<p>What is the reason they could not get the data did they not have enough evidence to get a warrant all cases are not created equal.<p>"She dismissed as "nonsense" claims that the UK's secret listening post GCHQ is exploiting a technical loophole in legislation that allows it spy on YouTube and social media messages that are routed through foreign servers"<p>Now that is just living in your own little bubble it's pretty obvious by now that this is true.<p>I don't want delusional people making laws for me.<p>Anybody supporting this will not be getting my vote that's for sure.
I absolutely agree that in cases where it can be proven, or it is reasonably suspected, that there is criminal or terrorist activity afoot that the various law enforcement agencies should be able to get access to online communications.<p>Luckily, this is the case already and additional laws won't strengthen this - they will simply remove the need for the burden of proof or suspicion.<p>It all still boils down to a "trust us, we're on your side" refrain, yet at the same time there is no acknowledgement of the already exposed over-reach that is going on - and in fact, there is an explicit denial/rubbishing of one specific claim.<p>They can't have our trust and lie to us at the same time - what they're effectively saying isn't, "trust us, we're on your side", it's "you can't trust us, but don't sweat it we're not coming for you yet".
Currently I am outraged by this proposal. But the sad thing is I won't do anything about it. I'll watch the World Cup tonight, I'll worry about traction for my startup and then I'll make plans for the weekend. This apathy is present throughout UK society. None of my friends give a damn to challenge the proposal. The politicians seem like they don't give a damn either.
A full transcript of the speech can be found here: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretarys-defence-and-security-lecture" rel="nofollow">https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretarys-defen...</a>