The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Home Sec: Let us have Snoop Charter or PEOPLE WILL DIE

Do what I want or bad things will happen to children

Customer Success Testimonial: Recovery is Everything

Home Secretary Theresa May today claimed in The Sun that her draft law to massively ramp up online surveillance of Brits will "save lives".

The Tory minister managed to squeeze in a bit of last-minute lobbying ahead of the publication of a report by peers and MPs scrutinising her controversial communications data bill.

In an interview published today in the Murdoch-owned tabloid, May repeated the same points she made in April.

The Home Sec said of her snoopers' charter, which will cost £1.8bn to implement:

The people who say they’re against this bill need to look victims of serious crime, terrorism and child sex offences in the eye and tell them why they’re not prepared to give the police the powers they need to protect the public.

Anybody who is against this bill is putting politics before people’s lives. We would certainly see criminals going free as a result of this.

There will be paedophiles who will not be identified and it will reduce our ability to deal with this serious organised crime.

Her comments came after it emerged Lib Dem MPs in the UK coalition government may reject May's plans to increase the monitoring of citizens' web activities if she failed to address concerns laid out by cross-party peers and MPs on the influential Home Affairs Select Committee.

Their report is expected to be published within the next two weeks.

On Saturday, The Sun reported that Lib Dem leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg wants to stall plans to legislate greater snooping on internet communications - which would include requiring ISPs to retain sensitive subscriber data for 12 months - until 2014 to allow for further scrutiny of May's proposals. ®

Cloud based data management

Wow

She really is full of shit

84
0

She may be right...

a snoopers charter may be able to prevent a death or two...

BUT

hundreds of thousands of people died to defend our freedom during World War II and that was considered a price worth paying. The attitude of May (and her friends in the Tory and Labour Parties) is that one death by a terrorist attack is too many, and it's worth undermining and abolishing every freedom we have if it can prevent a single death.

WRONG!

74
0

Creep

> serious crime, terrorism and child sex offences

All very laudable ... except we know from past experience of "anti-terrorism" laws that they get perverted, converted and subverted into general-purpose anti-anyone-we-don't-like laws. You can't pass a law to say "this will only be used against people we suspect of .... ", once a law is on the books, it becomes just another tool to be abused: like the chisel that gets used as a screwdriver - it wasn't designed for that, but that's what it gets used for if it's convenient.

So the scope of laws creep out from the well-intentioned uses they were first written for and become just another weight hanging around the neck of our freedoms. Great idea in theory - terrible implementation in practice.

44
1

More from The Register

 breaking news
 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
 breaking news
BBC lied to Parliament about doomed £100m IT monster, thunder MPs
Axed DMI ballooned and burst while watchdogs sang Kumbaya
PRISM snitch claims NSA hacked Chinese targets since 2009
Snowden suddenly looks safer in Hong Kong after revelations
 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
 breaking news
SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix
Zombie lawsuit back and wants to suck the brains out of Linux
Silicon Valley digiterati to brainstorm at 30,000 ft
Nothing spurs creative thinking like 11 hours in a flying tube
Confidence in US Congress sinks to lowest level ever recorded
So why the %$#@! do we keep re-electing the same politicians?