The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Queen unveils draft internet super-snoop bill - with clauses

Her Maj opens Parliamentary session with clear nod to CCDP

Agentless Backup is Not a Myth

The Queen has detailed the government's upcoming programme of law-making on a grey day darkened by the gloom of a double-dip recession and plans to massively increase surveillance of the internet in the UK.

Opening the new session of Parliament, Her Majesty confirmed on Wednesday that "draft clauses" would be introduced to allow MPs to scrutinise Home Secretary Theresa May's Communications Capabilities Development Programme (CCDP) - the controversial project to allow security services in Blighty to monitor the population online.

Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke hands the Queen her speech

The Queen told politicos and peers in the House of Lords:

My government intends to bring forward measures to maintain the ability of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies to access vital communications data under strict safeguards to protect the public, subject to scrutiny of draft clauses.

It's unclear if those "strict safeguards" mean that a warrant, for example, would be needed before spooks could access such data. The rough proposal appeared to only fuzzily indicate that such protection for British citizens would be provided, however.

A Home Office document about the proposed draft bill [PDF] stated that an updated framework to aid the "lawful, efficient and effective obtaining of communications data by authorised public authorities including law enforcement and intelligence agencies" would be established.

It added that safeguards such as imposing a 12-month limit on the length of time such private data could be retained by communication service providers would be proposed. The Information Commissioner Christopher Graham will be tasked with reviewing such data retention plans.

The draft communications data bill outlined the following "benefits":

  • "The ability of the police and intelligence agencies to continue to access communications data which is vital in supporting their work in protecting the public."
  • "An updated framework for the collection, retention and acquisition of communications data which enables a flexible response to technological change."

The proposed bill described communications data as being "information about a communication, not the communication itself".

May and her department have tried to bat aside criticism from civil liberties groups by saying that "no emails would be read in real-time".

But many have complained that the cabinet minister's reassurances are unfounded given that the net-snooping plan would involve GCHQ operatives monitoring everything an individual does online, if not snoop on the content of messages.

The time and duration of communications would be probed, as would telephone numbers or email addresses that have been contacted, and "sometimes the location of the originator of the communication".

But beyond that, very little technical detail was offered in the draft communications data bill this morning. The CCDP was originally expected to be included in the crime and courts or justice and security bills - the fact it is now standalone and in draft form will subject it to greater parliamentary scrutiny.

Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg may have behind the scenes forced a serious airing of May's proposals in Parliament, and MPs even within the Coalition are undoubtedly opposed to such a "snoopers' charter", but the fact remains that the Home Office - just like its previous New Labour incumbents - is determined to push its plans to hugely step up surveillance of the internet onto the nation's law books. ®

What you need to know about cloud backup

Anonymous Coward

Re: Question

Yes there is a difference.

You might speak to perhaps a few tens of people by phone, but these days much more communication is done via email so maybe it would be fair enough that email addresses are captured with warrants required for their contents. I could just about live with that, although I'd prefer not to.

But this bill wants logs of every website address too, the equivalent of following someone about to see where they go. Query strings give away even more information. All without any warrant apparently. I guess website addresses will become more obfuscated.

What opening post delivered by Royal Mail? Why not if it's all for our own good?

20
0

Note for GCHQ:-

Expect large uptick in highly encrypted email.

15
0

Alternative approach.

How about a little background process that , every 30 minutes or so, would google "ANARCHY BOMB TERRORIST BESTIALITY AL-QUEDA SEXTRAFFIC" and bounce off a random half-dozen of the websites produced?

A million or two PCs doing that 24/7 ought to fuck up the statistics a bit.

14
0

More from The Register

 breaking news
Number of cops abusing Police National Computer access on the rise
Only a telegram from the Queen can get you off it
 breaking news
NSA whistleblower to tech firms, Obama: 'Grow a pair!'
Ed Snowden: Email tracking grabs 'IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything'
Google flings another £1m at online child sex abuse vid CRACKDOWN
See, see, we're trying, ad giant tells Daily Mail UK.gov
 breaking news
NSA PRISM-gate: Relax, GCHQ spooks 'keep us safe', says Cameron
Whatever they are up to, it's all above board, we're told
PRISM snitch claims NSA hacked Chinese targets since 2009
Snowden suddenly looks safer in Hong Kong after revelations
SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix
Zombie lawsuit back and wants to suck the brains out of Linux
 breaking news
US chief spook: Look, we only want to spy on 6.66 BEELLLION of you
Americans assured they are not in the NSA's sights
NSA: We COULD track you by your phone ... if we WANTED to
Honestly, too much work, can't be bothered