Our Big Brother is the biggest!

[Gob]

The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon.

Internet firms will be required to give intelligence agency GCHQ access to communications on demand, in real time.

The Home Office says the move is key to tackling crime and terrorism, but civil liberties groups have criticised it.

Tory MP David Davis called it "an unnecessary extension of the ability of the state to snoop on ordinary people".

Attempts by the last Labour government to take similar steps failed after huge opposition, including from the Tories.

A new law - which may be announced in the forthcoming Queen's Speech in May - would not allow GCHQ to access the content of emails, calls or messages without a warrant.

But it would enable intelligence officers to identify who an individual or group is in contact with, how often and for how long. They would also be able to see which websites someone had visited.

In a statement, the Home Office said action was needed to "maintain the continued availability of communications data as technology changes".

"It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public," a spokesman said.

"As set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review we will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows to ensure that the use of communications data is compatible with the government's approach to civil liberties."

But Conservative MP and former shadow home secretary David Davis said it would make it easier for the government "to eavesdrop on vast numbers of people".

"What this is talking about doing is not focusing on terrorists or criminals, it's absolutely everybody's emails, phone calls, web access..." he told the BBC.

"All that's got to be recorded for two years and the government will be able to get at it with no by your leave from anybody."

He said that until now anyone wishing to monitor communications had been required to gain permission from a magistrate.

"You shouldn't go beyond that in a decent civilised society, but that's what's being proposed."

Nick Pickles, director of the Big Brother Watch campaign group, called the move "an unprecedented step that will see Britain adopt the same kind of surveillance seen in China and Iran".

"This is an absolute attack on privacy online and it is far from clear this will actually improve public safety, while adding significant costs to internet businesses," he said.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, added: "This is more ambitious than anything that has been done before. It is a pretty drastic step in a democracy."

The Internet Service Providers Association said any change in the law must be "proportionate, respect freedom of expression and the privacy of users".

The Sunday Times quoted an industry official who warned it would be "expensive, intrusive [and] a nightmare to run legally".

Even if the move is announced in the Queen's Speech, any new law would still have to make it through Parliament, potentially in the face of opposition in both the Commons and the Lords.

The previous Labour government attempted to introduce a central, government-run database of everyone's phone calls and emails, but eventually dropped the bid after widespread anger.

The then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith did pursue efforts similar to those being revisited now, but the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats continued to voice their concerns.

The shadow home secretary at the time, Chris Grayling, said the government had "built a culture of surveillance which goes far beyond counter terrorism and serious crime".

Chris Huhne, then the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said any legislation requiring communications providers to keep records of contact would need "strong safeguards on access", and "a careful balance" would have to be struck "between investigative powers and the right to privacy".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745

[rubato]

Its a while back but I recall hearing that due to peculiarites of the British phone system there was a time when they (or the police) could use any phone as a listening device? They could connect to the phone and the microphone in the handpiece would pick up sounds and transmit them ??

Was that true?

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

While self-proclaimed "civil libertarians" howl at such measures, my attitude has pretty much always, been, Check me out. I ain't doing nothing wrong.

Do the police have the time to bother innocent people? Is there a history of innocent people having their lives messed with?

Do the measures result in more Bad Guys being apprehended...less crime being committed?

Does the citizenry have a reasonable expectation of privacy in what they email, post, or tweet?

For people who are not up to no good, this is a non-issue.

[Gob]

'...so, happy birthday, Megan. Grandad sends his love and says to any government snoopers listening: "Fuck off and get a proper job you nosey wankers!"

[Grim Reaper]

Do the police have the time to bother innocent people? Is there a history of innocent people having their lives messed with?

Yes, they do, actually. And yes, there is a very long history of innocent people ending up with their lives ruined because the authorities didn't do their jobs properly.

[rubato]

I don't think Britons actually mind this kind of thing. Rebecca Brooks admitted publicly under oath to bribing the police for information in 2003 and there was -ZERO- reaction from the public. Which encouraged the phone-hacking et al.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1AJjnl2y8U


yrs,
rubato