# UK government quietly passed legislation that exempts GCHQ, police, and other intelligence officers



## MannDude (May 17, 2015)

From here: http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/05/uk-government-quietly-rewrites-hacking-laws-to-grant-gchq-immunity/

I'd ask you for your thoughts but I have a feeling there won't be many who will speak up in _favor_ of this and that it's (probably) safe to assume we're all on the same page in thinking this is ridiculous.



> While major or controversial legislative changes usually go through normal parliamentary process (i.e. democratic debate) before being passed into law, in this case an amendment to the Computer Misuse Act was snuck in under the radar as secondary legislation. According to Privacy International, "It appears no regulators, commissioners responsible for overseeing the intelligence agencies, the Information Commissioner's Office, industry, NGOs or the public were notified or consulted about the proposed legislative changes... There was no public debate."


----------



## joepie91 (May 17, 2015)

One word: sigh.


----------



## drmike (May 17, 2015)

Maybe they can pass some legislation special treatment to allow one to hack another's brain with an ice pick while they are at it.

What's a little murder in name of security?

Not my government - but they all seem to be doing this BS.


----------



## Flapadar (May 18, 2015)

I'm honestly curious when they start making other crimes legal for them and not for us.

A bit of government breaking and entering, maybe a bit of murder on the side (they'll probably do Scottish nationalists first. I'd better hide). In all seriousness though, this Tory government is pathetic. It's almost as if they've taken Orwell's 1984 as a "how to government" guide.


----------



## kcaj (May 18, 2015)

So what has changed? They've been engaging in hacking techniques for a while now. Seems they are just covering their asses now.


----------



## Flapadar (May 18, 2015)

kcaj said:


> So what has changed? They've been engaging in hacking techniques for a while now. Seems they are just covering their asses now.


Previously they couldn't use evidence obtained through unlawful surveillance or hacking in court. Now - I'm not so sure there's barriers preventing that...


----------



## joepie91 (May 18, 2015)

Flapadar said:


> this Tory government


If it's anything like the government in NL, it has nothing to do with the parties in charge, and everything with the inherent greed for power that a representative democracy brings with it. How long has the "Tory government" been in power for?


----------



## Flapadar (May 18, 2015)

joepie91 said:


> If it's anything like the government in NL, it has nothing to do with the parties in charge, and everything with the inherent greed for power that a representative democracy brings with it. How long has the "Tory government" been in power for?


The Tories have been in power for ~4-5 years (though - their coalition partners the liberal democrats were stopping extreme invasions to civil liberties). They've now got another 5 years after the recent election - but without the lib dems holding them back. 

Within the first week, they've announced they're going to legitimise mass surveillance (because "think of the terrorists") and scrap the human rights act.


----------



## joepie91 (May 18, 2015)

Flapadar said:


> The Tories have been in power for ~4-5 years (though - their coalition partners the liberal democrats were stopping extreme invasions to civil liberties). They've now got another 5 years after the recent election - but without the lib dems holding them back.
> 
> Within the first week, they've announced they're going to legitimise mass surveillance (because "think of the terrorists") and scrap the human rights act.


Right. But GCHQ's antics have been ongoing for much, _much_ longer than that, ie. before the Tory government. The legalization of what they're doing therefore seems more of a response to the leaks, than a particular Tory-specific idea to me. I don't think blaming "the Tories" is really accurate here.


----------



## HN-Matt (May 21, 2015)

At least the timing is amusing, if nothing else.
 



> In the first ruling of its kind, the judge, Mr Justice Mann, awarded £260,250 to Frost and £188,250 to Gascoigne to compensate for their “horror, distaste and distress” at having their most intimate voicemails intercepted daily by journalists at the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and the People.
> 
> He added: “People whose private voicemail messages were hacked so often and for so long and had very significant parts of their private lives exposed, and then reported on, are entitled to significant compensation.”


via

 




Flapadar said:


> I'm honestly curious when they start making other crimes legal for them and not for us.


Do unto others...


----------



## Licensecart (May 22, 2015)

Nothing  new they are doing what the USA and NZ are doing to make sure they are protected. The benefits, less terrorists because they will be caught faster, the bad news is that they can spy on anyone like Kim Dotcom.


----------



## joepie91 (May 22, 2015)

Licensecart said:


> The benefits, less terrorists because they will be caught faster


I have yet to see a _single_ scientifically valid source that supports this notion.

It's easy to make that claim based on "common sense" (when only thinking about it _very _superficially), but unless it is clearly and scientifically proven, it should be assumed to be false.


----------



## mitgib (May 23, 2015)

Licensecart said:


> Nothing  new they are doing what the USA and NZ are doing to make sure they are protected. The benefits, less terrorists because they will be caught faster, the bad news is that they can spy on anyone like Kim Dotcom.


You watch too much FOX news, have a reliable source for any benefit against terrorism?  The GAO has said they see no benefit, and EFF and the ACLU can't rail against this massive overreach enough.


----------



## DomainBop (May 23, 2015)

Licensecart said:


> Nothing  new they are doing what the USA and NZ are doing to make sure they are protected. The benefits, less terrorists because they will be caught faster, the bad news is that they can spy on anyone like Kim Dotcom.


You're right that the mass surveillance is to keep the US and its allies "protected", but you're wrong about "terrorists" being the primary thing that the mass surveillance is trying to protect the US and its allies from.

Maintaining economic power (i.e. western dominance of the world economy) in the face of shifting world economic dynamics (i.e., the predicted rise of the BRICS countries and shift of economic power from the West to Asia by 2040/2050), not fighting the terrorist boogeyman of the day is the primary purpose of the surveillance. Documents released by Snowden also show that the NSA spends more of its time engaged in economic spying on other governments and foreign corporations than it does trying to catch "terrorists".

Domestically, in countries like the US and UK where economic inequality is near historic levels, the mass surveillance of ordinary citizens is also an effort by those who hold economic power to maintain their power (and avoid the rebalancing that historically has occured when inequality reaches an extreme). The government probably devotes more energy to spying on political dissenters (and anyone who objects to the current economic situation) than it does spying on potential terrorists.


----------

