United Kingdom

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts) Thu Jul 10, 2014, 04:16 AM Jul 2014

Emergency phone and internet data storage law to be brought in

Emergency legislation will be brought in next week to force phone and internet companies to log records of customer calls, texts and internet use.

Ministers say it is necessary so police and security services can access the data they need after a legal ruling which declared existing powers invalid.

The proposed law has the backing of Labour and the coalition parties.

A special cabinet is being held to agree the planned laws, which will only last until 2016.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28237108

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Emergency phone and internet data storage law to be brought in (Original Post) dipsydoodle Jul 2014 OP

Sounds a bit 1984-ish. LeftishBrit Jul 2014 #1

"a bit"? truebrit71 Jul 2014 #2

have to resort to old methods Jeneral2885 Jul 2014 #3

a respectful question about UK steve2470 Jul 2014 #4

In situations like this, the nearest analogue is often the European Convention on Human Rights muriel_volestrangler Jul 2014 #5

thanks for your patience and explaining this ! nt steve2470 Jul 2014 #6

Yvette Cooper tables amendments to controversial surveillance legislation muriel_volestrangler Jul 2014 #7

LeftishBrit

(41,208 posts)

1. Sounds a bit 1984-ish.

Reply to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Thu Jul 10, 2014, 07:25 AM

Jul 2014

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)

2. "a bit"?

Reply to LeftishBrit (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 10, 2014, 08:54 AM

Jul 2014

I'd say they're taking their cues directly from the pages of that sadly prophetic novel....

Jeneral2885

(1,354 posts)

3. have to resort to old methods

Reply to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Thu Jul 10, 2014, 05:34 PM

Jul 2014

smoke signals, hand gestures, pigeons etc...

As I said regarding the mobile phones of planes stuff, soon airline passengers will have to travel naked and drink liquid food.

steve2470

(37,457 posts)

4. a respectful question about UK

Reply to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Thu Jul 10, 2014, 05:39 PM

Jul 2014

As most of you know, I'm no troll. I'm an Anglophile.

Ok, my question: In the US, we have the Fourth Amendment. What is the analogue in the UK ? Is there a part of the overall UK Constitution (which my understanding is all the basic laws and Magna Carta, etc) which speaks to this situation ?

Again, the question is sincere and respectful. Thanks.

Steve

muriel_volestrangler

(101,347 posts)

5. In situations like this, the nearest analogue is often the European Convention on Human Rights

Reply to steve2470 (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 10, 2014, 06:06 PM

Jul 2014

which the signatory countries have signed up to make their laws follow. National judges, and the European Court of Human Rights (not the same court as the European Court of Justice, which is part of the EU - the ECHR covers many more countries - even Russia), which is the ultimate court of appeal for cases involving the convention, can declare countries' laws to be in breach of the convention. This doesn't immediately invalidate the law, but the country is then meant to redraft the law (or appeal to a higher court if it wants to).

In this case we have Article 8 of the Convention:

Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the
exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the
law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection
of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

which is, fairly typically, less specific than the US constitution, and with more exceptions - "in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country" might be interpreted widely by judges, or narrowly - you just can't tell.

I can't think of anything that is specific to English (or Scottish) law about fundamental rights about searches - occasionally, there are fundamental rights like Habeas Corpus, but not often.

steve2470

(37,457 posts)

6. thanks for your patience and explaining this ! nt

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 10, 2014, 06:09 PM

Jul 2014

muriel_volestrangler

(101,347 posts)

7. Yvette Cooper tables amendments to controversial surveillance legislation

Reply to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Tue Jul 15, 2014, 05:36 AM

Jul 2014

Government hopes of pushing through an emergency surveillance bill without disagreement between parties hit a setback on Monday when Labour tabled amendments requiring six-monthly reviews of the laws and a legal commitment to hold an independent overarching review of surveillance legislation by the end of 2016.

The two amendments tabled by the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, do not strike at the central powers contained in the planned emergency laws, but reflect anger at the way in which the potentially sweeping changes are being railroaded through parliament even though their interpretation remains in dispute between experts.

Cooper said: "The government should not have left this legislation until the last minute before the summer and they should have engaged much earlier in a serious public debate about what powers should be available to the police and security services and what safeguards are needed for privacy – as President Obama has done in the US since the Snowden leaks last year. By ducking the debate and leaving things to the last they are undermining trust."

Campaigners have rejected assurances given by the home secretary, Theresa May, and Nick Clegg that the emergency laws merely restore the powers that the security services had before a European court of justice (ECJ) ruling in April struck down an EU directive.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/14/yvette-cooper-tables-amendments-surveillance-legislation

I don't understand how May and Clegg can say that with a straight face - "don't worry, we're just restoring the law that was rejected as being too intrusive". That seems like a simple admission that this should be stopped. It certainly shouldn't be railroaded through without discussion.

Reply to this discussion