|
twoot posted:I'd love to see Apple just go nuclear and threaten to stop selling the iPhone in the UK. Kassad posted:A socialist MP in France proposed a similar bill, with a 1 million euro fine for refusing to comply. Not to be outdone, a right-wing MP proposed an amendment setting the fine at 2 million euros and adding a one-year ban on the phone model in question (A ban on iPhones, essentially). The right-wingers are also saying that refusing to assist investigations by decrypting phones is tantamount to being an accomplice in acts of terrorism. France banning the iPhone and Apple leaving the UK would probably be a bigger blow to the government than any amount of dead bodies ever were and I'm not entirely sure how to feel about that. Hilarious, depressing and terrifying at the same time. Pretty much a microcosm of this country actually.
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/uk-investigatory-powers/ Apparently the final draft of the Investigatory Powers Bill is done. "Data includes any information that is not data. Data includes data which is not electronic data and any information (whether or not electronic). Home Office. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Corvo posted:Does anyone know if the Netherlands have run into any problems from the legalization of marijuana and sex work? I was always under the impression that the whole thing had worked out really well for them and done nothing but good? I believe they'd had problems with human traffickers at best not being deterred and at worst very much enjoying it but that's all I can think of at the moment.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Are they storing the address IP of visited websites, the URLs or both? They're storing "http://forums.somethingawful.com" accessible without a warrant whenever Bob down the hall or hundreds of other departments feel like it and "http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3766359" for when Judge May finally discovers the UKMT.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
TinTower posted:SNP are apparently going to abstain on the snoopers charter too. Christ this is a loving poo poo show. Labour and the SNP have taken the great stand of admitting the bill is a rushed piece of poo poo but they will abstain anyway because ??? we need these powers P.S. please add lots of protections for MPs so we don't get spied on. Going to copy + paste some stuff from the Telegraph's live blog here as well: "The source, close to shadow home secretary Andy Burnham, told The Telegraph: "We're abstaining because we don't want to play politics and vote against or give the Government a blank cheque and vote for it."" There are at least three levels of stupid in this statement alone. I can't even begin to comprehend it. "She points out that the internet connection records do not provide details of web pages visited, so people should not feel concerned about police snooping on what they read on the internet. " This is interesting as well. They either completely changed the bill or she is lying through her teeth. We know they didn't change the bill in any meaningful way whatsoever, so do we need to consider the possibility that Teresa May has absolutely no idea what she is talking about or how the law she so desperately wants actually works?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:First reading though, isn't it? Second.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:So, given their misgivings about the bill, what exactly is the justification for abstaining on the vote instead of voting against? Shadow home secretary Andy Burnham vowed not to "drag down" the bill, adding: "Britain needs a new law in this area. Outright opposition which some are proposing tonight, risks sinking this Bill and leaving the interim laws in place. "To go along with that would be to abdicate our responsibility to the police, security services and most importantly the public." But he said the bill is "not yet worthy of our support" because there are "significant weaknesses" and called for better protections for lawyers, journalists and trade unionists, as well as a tighter definition of which crimes would allow data to be mined. His decision allowed the measures, which compel internet service providers to keep data for 12 months, to pass onto the next stage before becoming British law.  e: Also Phillip Hammond claims the bill is not rushed and that the UN, Internet Service Providers Association, Open Rights Group, National Union of Journalists, 200+ senior lawyers, Amnesty International, Labour, the SNP, the Lib Dems, Apple, the Investigatory Powers Joint Committee, the Science & Technology Committee, the Intelligence and Security Committee etc. etc. are all just talking nonsense, which is very reassuring. Kaislioc fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Bozza posted:In good news that got missed: the Shaw Report was published today and recommended that Network Rail is not to be privatised. Can the government just ignore like they do everything else?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Why dont you goosestep on out of here, Nazi. To be fair if Nazis are good for one thing it's provoking change in the UK housing market.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:So Osborne's basically out of the leadership race and he's (James) Murdoch's golden boy, I don't know if the actual Tory membership likes Boris enough and after that you've got Gove and May who are basically beneath consideration. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
hit button posted:I hadn't really thought about it before, but May's been Home Secretary for nearly 6 years now. I was honestly expecting her to be constant stream of terrible draconian policies when she was appointed in 2010, but nothing she's done has particularly stuck with me as being outrageously awful (I'm sure the thread will probably be able to remind me of things I've forgotten though). If you asked me to rank worst home secretaries that I can remember, she'd come far down the list (e.g at least below Howard, Smith and Blunkett). It feels weird to admit it now but the Lib Dems actually did, to an extent, hold her back. It is only now with the powers of a majority that she has been able to go full fuckwit with legislation. Sending a lesbian on a death flight to Uganda and having people sending in home made amateur porn to desperately try and prove they're actually gay lest they face the same fate is bad but she was unable to demand GCHQ have remit over the universe lest terrorists be able to conceal themselves in deep space. Even now the Lib Dems are the only party that actually voted against the second reading of the Investigatory Powers Bill as opposed to the more common "it's a heap of poo poo buuuuuuut". Kaislioc fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Mar 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
TomViolence posted:Well, nuking Europe is the kind of maniacal bluster he can't really follow through with, but making life worse for women is something well within his reach even just in his current role as a right-wing demagogue with the ear of every moron in America. If he can't have that gold course, no one can. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 10:34
|
|