I wonder how that's even supposed to work. Like what is 'my' full browsing history? I don't pay an ISP, but I use my sister's internet every day. So if they want to search my history, do they go checking for an ISP that has a record of me? Or any time I've entered my name into a form?
i imagine it would be a mixture of IP and device based. your phone would have data that wasn't tied to your home ISP for example.
Yup. Abstained. Lib Dems opposed. I'm liking Timmy and his lot; they can't achieve much at the moment but they'll need support to be able to do so in future, and certainly for now they have my axe.
Wasn't the sole extent of the concessions Labour got the removal of one word that didn't change anything anyway? I seem to recall reading something about that but I'm jiggered if I can remember where.
That wouldn't surprise me. I looked for information on Labours opposition to the bill and found an article talking about it on Arstechnica which had this gem:
And Labour was in celebratory mood with Burnham claiming that "major concessions" had been secured by his party, including what he described as "a historic commitment that trade union activities cannot be considered sufficient reason for investigatory powers to be used." He added that a privacy clause had been "placed at the heart of the bill."
I don't consider that significant concessions but clearly Labour did at the time. Hence the flippant comment about patting themselves on the back for doing a good job. I kept looking for evidence of their opposition in the commons but couldn't find anything substantive. As that article points out opposition to this from Labour would be out of character.
I have serious issue with this people can't use it against Trade Unionists solely on the basis they're Trade Unionists line. There's so much wrong with it and I don't get why he wouldn't realise that.
Yup. Abstained. Lib Dems opposed. I'm liking Timmy and his lot; they can't achieve much at the moment but they'll need support to be able to do so in future, and certainly for now they have my axe.
Wasn't the sole extent of the concessions Labour got the removal of one word that didn't change anything anyway? I seem to recall reading something about that but I'm jiggered if I can remember where.
That wouldn't surprise me. I looked for information on Labours opposition to the bill and found an article talking about it on Arstechnica which had this gem:
And Labour was in celebratory mood with Burnham claiming that "major concessions" had been secured by his party, including what he described as "a historic commitment that trade union activities cannot be considered sufficient reason for investigatory powers to be used." He added that a privacy clause had been "placed at the heart of the bill."
I don't consider that significant concessions but clearly Labour did at the time. Hence the flippant comment about patting themselves on the back for doing a good job. I kept looking for evidence of their opposition in the commons but couldn't find anything substantive. As that article points out opposition to this from Labour would be out of character.
I have serious issue with this people can't use it against Trade Unionists solely on the basis they're Trade Unionists line. There's so much wrong with it and I don't get why he wouldn't realise that.
i don't think its that you can't investigate any member of a Trade Union, but rather you can't use their membership as grounds to investigate. which considering the history of the Labour party would be a pretty great concession to get. of course it'll do absolutely fuck all in this case though, since agencies will be able to concoct any of a hundred different reasons to investigate someone should they so wish.
but really it's probably an interesting look into the mentality of the current Labour party. they're more scared of another communist which hunt than they are concerned with the actual needs and wants of their constituents and the nation at large.
i don't think its that you can't investigate any member of a Trade Union, but rather you can't use their membership as grounds to investigate. which considering the history of the Labour party would be a pretty great concession to get. of course it'll do absolutely fuck all in this case though, since agencies will be able to concoct any of a hundred different reasons to investigate someone should they so wish.
but really it's probably an interesting look into the mentality of the current Labour party. they're more scared of another communist which hunt than they are concerned with the actual needs and wants of their constituents and the nation at large.
It wasn't my intention to suggest they can't investigate Trade Union members. Rather it was what you said. That being a member isn't cause for an investigation. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
I'm seeing things that are making me slightly less terrified of the Snooper's Charter. Like, a police officer needs to be of Inspector or higher rank to request the ISP logs. Something like that. That's less terrible than it could have been.
I'm seeing things that are making me slightly less terrified of the Snooper's Charter. Like, a police officer needs to be of Inspector or higher rank to request the ISP logs. Something like that. That's less terrible than it could have been.
I'm seeing things that are making me slightly less terrified of the Snooper's Charter. Like, a police officer needs to be of Inspector or higher rank to request the ISP logs. Something like that. That's less terrible than it could have been.
I think I'm at the bargaining stage of grief.
Lel.
What do you think that actually means in practice?
I'm actually wondering if the surveillance is sufficiently trivial that opera's turbo mode (all content is served from a Swedish proxy server) defeats it.
I mean, the onus and cost is on the ISPs who aren't exactly going to be motivated to deal with edge cases.
Meh. Knowing what we know of the government and their competence level and their level of willingness to spend money do we really think they're going to be keeping close tabs on the porn browsing habits of 60 million people?
And if they are well meh again. My taste in porn doesn't extend into the illegal if they wanna pay some civil service johnny to have a good chuckle about it i could give a fuck. I guess just because of the nature of my current job I've become very accustomed to the fact that nearly every aspect of my life I might in my ignorance have considered private, i.e. my bank account, browsing habits and purchase history, is actually available to a great many people.
Meh. Knowing what we know of the government and their competence level and their level of willingness to spend money do we really think they're going to be keeping close tabs on the porn browsing habits of 60 million people?
And if they are well meh again. My taste in porn doesn't extent into the illegal if they wanna pay some civil service johnny to have a good chuckle about it i could give a fuck. I guess just because of the nature of my current job I've become very accustomed to the fact that nearly every aspect of my life I might in my ignorance have considered private, i.e. my bank account, browsing habits and purchase history, is actually available to a great many people.
I suppose I am just post-shame.
Not to worry, they're already on it. By the time the tories done skirts more than 6 inches above the knee will be considered illegal pornography.
Meh. Knowing what we know of the government and their competence level and their level of willingness to spend money do we really think they're going to be keeping close tabs on the porn browsing habits of 60 million people?
And if they are well meh again. My taste in porn doesn't extent into the illegal if they wanna pay some civil service johnny to have a good chuckle about it i could give a fuck. I guess just because of the nature of my current job I've become very accustomed to the fact that nearly every aspect of my life I might in my ignorance have considered private, i.e. my bank account, browsing habits and purchase history, is actually available to a great many people.
I suppose I am just post-shame.
Not to worry, they're already on it. By the time the tories done skirts more than 6 inches above the ankle will be considered illegal pornography.
It's not the porn that's at the heart of the issue, it's censorship, and the means through which the UK government can censor online media. This law allowed a first world democracy to put a complicated and thorough machinery of censorship in place that previously has only been seen in countries like China or North Korea. Sure, it's being used to censor porn that a bunch of old farts find weird and disturbing today, but what is it going to be used for tomorrow? The precedent has been set. Not only can the UK Government declare something illegal, but they can now more or less simultaneously block every internet user in the country from accessing any information about it.
If you think that isn't a problem allow me to remind you that one of the biggest and most quoted sources of fake news stories is the Twitter account of the President-elect of the United States.
It isn't really censorship yet, since there's no enforcement regime.
As matters stand if the content is hosted offshore by an offshore entity then all that can be done is send a letter of noncompliance. Ironically it introduces a regulatory risk for hosting companies operating in the UK, since they are vulnerable to enforcement action. A risk they can remove by moving their operations out of the country.
Actually blacklisting non-compliant sites would be a massive and extremely costly endeavour, which nobody seems willing to take on.
The closest thing that currently exists is the IWF blacklist, which is voluntarily blocked by some UK ISPs, since it's a list of known child porn hosts. Nobody is keen to see that extended to porn in general because the onoky reason that arrangement works is that the list and the associated volume of traffic is small enough not to be onerous to the ISPs. If it was expanded to encompass half the internet then either the ISPs stop implementing it, or if forced to have to dramatically hike costs or obtain huge amounts of government funding for which there is no budget.
It isn't really censorship yet, since there's no enforcement regime.
As matters stand if the content is hosted offshore by an offshore entity then all that can be done is send a letter of noncompliance. Ironically it introduces a regulatory risk for hosting companies operating in the UK, since they are vulnerable to enforcement action. A risk they can remove by moving their operations out of the country.
Actually blacklisting non-compliant sites would be a massive and extremely costly endeavour, which nobody seems willing to take on.
The closest thing that currently exists is the IWF blacklist, which is voluntarily blocked by some UK ISPs, since it's a list of known child porn hosts. Nobody is keen to see that extended to porn in general because the onoky reason that arrangement works is that the list and the associated volume of traffic is small enough not to be onerous to the ISPs. If it was expanded to encompass half the internet then either the ISPs stop implementing it, or if forced to have to dramatically hike costs or obtain huge amounts of government funding for which there is no budget.
It does make that enforcement regime legal though, and in the tiny hands of someone like the transatlantic carrot-shaded demagogue it doesn't need to be expanded to encompass half the Internet, only wielded against whoever you want to make life difficult for at that particular moment.
It isn't really censorship yet, since there's no enforcement regime.
As matters stand if the content is hosted offshore by an offshore entity then all that can be done is send a letter of noncompliance. Ironically it introduces a regulatory risk for hosting companies operating in the UK, since they are vulnerable to enforcement action. A risk they can remove by moving their operations out of the country.
Actually blacklisting non-compliant sites would be a massive and extremely costly endeavour, which nobody seems willing to take on.
The closest thing that currently exists is the IWF blacklist, which is voluntarily blocked by some UK ISPs, since it's a list of known child porn hosts. Nobody is keen to see that extended to porn in general because the onoky reason that arrangement works is that the list and the associated volume of traffic is small enough not to be onerous to the ISPs. If it was expanded to encompass half the internet then either the ISPs stop implementing it, or if forced to have to dramatically hike costs or obtain huge amounts of government funding for which there is no budget.
It does make that enforcement regime legal though, and in the tiny hands of someone like the transatlantic carrot-shaded demagogue it doesn't need to be expanded to encompass half the Internet, only wielded against whoever you want to make life difficult for at that particular moment.
Just as well this is British law and not US law then?
Something like this would never fly in the US, it would fall at the first hurdle on 1st amendment grounds.
It isn't really censorship yet, since there's no enforcement regime.
As matters stand if the content is hosted offshore by an offshore entity then all that can be done is send a letter of noncompliance. Ironically it introduces a regulatory risk for hosting companies operating in the UK, since they are vulnerable to enforcement action. A risk they can remove by moving their operations out of the country.
Actually blacklisting non-compliant sites would be a massive and extremely costly endeavour, which nobody seems willing to take on.
The closest thing that currently exists is the IWF blacklist, which is voluntarily blocked by some UK ISPs, since it's a list of known child porn hosts. Nobody is keen to see that extended to porn in general because the onoky reason that arrangement works is that the list and the associated volume of traffic is small enough not to be onerous to the ISPs. If it was expanded to encompass half the internet then either the ISPs stop implementing it, or if forced to have to dramatically hike costs or obtain huge amounts of government funding for which there is no budget.
It does make that enforcement regime legal though, and in the tiny hands of someone like the transatlantic carrot-shaded demagogue it doesn't need to be expanded to encompass half the Internet, only wielded against whoever you want to make life difficult for at that particular moment.
Just as well this is British law and not US law then?
Something like this would never fly in the US, it would fall at the first hurdle on 1st amendment grounds.
Just as well. Assuming nobody worse than May et al gets into power.
And the US doesn't need this sort of law. Trump's administration is tackling net neutrality instead, which amounts to pretty much the same thing in the end.
It isn't really censorship yet, since there's no enforcement regime.
As matters stand if the content is hosted offshore by an offshore entity then all that can be done is send a letter of noncompliance. Ironically it introduces a regulatory risk for hosting companies operating in the UK, since they are vulnerable to enforcement action. A risk they can remove by moving their operations out of the country.
Actually blacklisting non-compliant sites would be a massive and extremely costly endeavour, which nobody seems willing to take on.
The closest thing that currently exists is the IWF blacklist, which is voluntarily blocked by some UK ISPs, since it's a list of known child porn hosts. Nobody is keen to see that extended to porn in general because the onoky reason that arrangement works is that the list and the associated volume of traffic is small enough not to be onerous to the ISPs. If it was expanded to encompass half the internet then either the ISPs stop implementing it, or if forced to have to dramatically hike costs or obtain huge amounts of government funding for which there is no budget.
It does make that enforcement regime legal though, and in the tiny hands of someone like the transatlantic carrot-shaded demagogue it doesn't need to be expanded to encompass half the Internet, only wielded against whoever you want to make life difficult for at that particular moment.
Just as well this is British law and not US law then?
Something like this would never fly in the US, it would fall at the first hurdle on 1st amendment grounds.
Just as well. Assuming nobody worse than May et al gets into power.
And the US doesn't need this sort of law. Trump's administration is tackling net neutrality instead, which amounts to pretty much the same thing in the end.
I am increasingly wondering why I am bothering to be part of the middle-class here in the Western world when I could just go to China and be part of the upper-class instead.
I mean, if the objective is to pursue policies like totalitarian regimes to make us more totalitarian-like, at some point we just eliminate the benefits of living in the West in the first place.
And just recently non-binding public referendums have been declared unconstitutional by the highest Bavarian court, after one of our local populists wanted to use them.
so countdown to the Lib Dems claiming that Labour no longer care about workers or their rights or else they'd also be trying to stop Brexit. hammer with this as an abandonment of the very people that the Labour party was founded to represent. the Lib Dems may very well be 'trying to recover some sort of electoral relevance' but climbing over the corpse of the Labour party could be the best way to go about it.
i really don't understand what is going on with Labour these days. the entire point in voting in Corbyn as leader was because the party needed to a sharp lurch to the left. and yet, it doesn't really seem to have played out that way. at least not where it really counts. say what you will about Ed Miliband, at least he tried to offer a genuine opposition to the Government.
Judging by the midsummer polls the Tories have already coopted the Brexit group. Labour throwing away the potential 16 million votes to chase after them feels like a losing battle.
Judging by the midsummer polls the Tories have already coopted the Brexit group. Labour throwing away the potential 16 million votes to chase after them feels like a losing battle.
I think they're just vastly over estimating the level of defection from Labour to UKIP. Undoubtedly they face a hard choice in losing anti-immigration working class votes but with Corbyn himself repeatedly coming out as pro-immigration it seems like they've made that leap anyway. There seems to be little to gain by taking the "Brexit at all costs" line unless Corbyns on some deluded attempt to woo the Tory shires.
it doesn't have to be a scheme to get votes. corbyn may well genuinely want britain to leave the eu, on the basis that the eu is capitalist and anti-democratic
it doesn't have to be a scheme to get votes. corbyn may well genuinely want britain to leave the eu, on the basis that the eu is capitalist and anti-democratic
Ironically the EU have done more to protect our rights and freedoms than our democratic governments ever have. More often than not the EU has protected us from the idiots we elect.
it doesn't have to be a scheme to get votes. corbyn may well genuinely want britain to leave the eu, on the basis that the eu is capitalist and anti-democratic
Yeah, I mean, he's never tried to hide that he's an idiotic unnuanced unreconstructed leftist.
Pushing some silly position because it sticks it to neoliberals and capitalists and who cares about the rest is the most likely explanation for anything he does.
Honest to god my faith in democracy is at an all time low. I would rather have an unelected group of Brussels bureaucrats who are willing to throw me the odd bone on human rights, privacy and wealth distribution pulling the strings than whatever delightful "strong leader" the electorate of the day want to be dominated by because the tabloids owned by Bond villains tell them it'll be "them" and not us that get fucked.
I honestly doubt the intelligence of the electorate to make decisions in their own interest and once you've reached that point, does it matter who is in charge?
Posts
i imagine it would be a mixture of IP and device based. your phone would have data that wasn't tied to your home ISP for example.
That wouldn't surprise me. I looked for information on Labours opposition to the bill and found an article talking about it on Arstechnica which had this gem:
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/labour-backs-principle-of-investigatory-powers-bill/
I don't consider that significant concessions but clearly Labour did at the time. Hence the flippant comment about patting themselves on the back for doing a good job. I kept looking for evidence of their opposition in the commons but couldn't find anything substantive. As that article points out opposition to this from Labour would be out of character.
I have serious issue with this people can't use it against Trade Unionists solely on the basis they're Trade Unionists line. There's so much wrong with it and I don't get why he wouldn't realise that.
i don't think its that you can't investigate any member of a Trade Union, but rather you can't use their membership as grounds to investigate. which considering the history of the Labour party would be a pretty great concession to get. of course it'll do absolutely fuck all in this case though, since agencies will be able to concoct any of a hundred different reasons to investigate someone should they so wish.
but really it's probably an interesting look into the mentality of the current Labour party. they're more scared of another communist which hunt than they are concerned with the actual needs and wants of their constituents and the nation at large.
It wasn't my intention to suggest they can't investigate Trade Union members. Rather it was what you said. That being a member isn't cause for an investigation. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
I think I'm at the bargaining stage of grief.
Steam | XBL
F that
Get a ddwrt router and use an offshore VPN
That's going to be my solution
Lel.
What do you think that actually means in practice?
I mean, the onus and cost is on the ISPs who aren't exactly going to be motivated to deal with edge cases.
And if they are well meh again. My taste in porn doesn't extend into the illegal if they wanna pay some civil service johnny to have a good chuckle about it i could give a fuck. I guess just because of the nature of my current job I've become very accustomed to the fact that nearly every aspect of my life I might in my ignorance have considered private, i.e. my bank account, browsing habits and purchase history, is actually available to a great many people.
I suppose I am just post-shame.
Not to worry, they're already on it. By the time the tories done skirts more than 6 inches above the knee will be considered illegal pornography.
FTFY
Steam | XBL
And thanks to Brexit we can't afford lube!
H... hurrah?
Steam | XBL
Luckily, we'll have innovative new jams which can be used as a replacement.
If you think that isn't a problem allow me to remind you that one of the biggest and most quoted sources of fake news stories is the Twitter account of the President-elect of the United States.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
As matters stand if the content is hosted offshore by an offshore entity then all that can be done is send a letter of noncompliance. Ironically it introduces a regulatory risk for hosting companies operating in the UK, since they are vulnerable to enforcement action. A risk they can remove by moving their operations out of the country.
Actually blacklisting non-compliant sites would be a massive and extremely costly endeavour, which nobody seems willing to take on.
The closest thing that currently exists is the IWF blacklist, which is voluntarily blocked by some UK ISPs, since it's a list of known child porn hosts. Nobody is keen to see that extended to porn in general because the onoky reason that arrangement works is that the list and the associated volume of traffic is small enough not to be onerous to the ISPs. If it was expanded to encompass half the internet then either the ISPs stop implementing it, or if forced to have to dramatically hike costs or obtain huge amounts of government funding for which there is no budget.
It does make that enforcement regime legal though, and in the tiny hands of someone like the transatlantic carrot-shaded demagogue it doesn't need to be expanded to encompass half the Internet, only wielded against whoever you want to make life difficult for at that particular moment.
Snowplow McPlowface
Just as well this is British law and not US law then?
Something like this would never fly in the US, it would fall at the first hurdle on 1st amendment grounds.
Just as well. Assuming nobody worse than May et al gets into power.
And the US doesn't need this sort of law. Trump's administration is tackling net neutrality instead, which amounts to pretty much the same thing in the end.
I am increasingly wondering why I am bothering to be part of the middle-class here in the Western world when I could just go to China and be part of the upper-class instead.
I mean, if the objective is to pursue policies like totalitarian regimes to make us more totalitarian-like, at some point we just eliminate the benefits of living in the West in the first place.
If only Corbyn would fight half as hard for ours
Steam | XBL
unwise
What a damn tool. The verdict? In any court they'd all have been done for perjury.
I mean it's so fucking transparent, too.
i really don't understand what is going on with Labour these days. the entire point in voting in Corbyn as leader was because the party needed to a sharp lurch to the left. and yet, it doesn't really seem to have played out that way. at least not where it really counts. say what you will about Ed Miliband, at least he tried to offer a genuine opposition to the Government.
I think they're just vastly over estimating the level of defection from Labour to UKIP. Undoubtedly they face a hard choice in losing anti-immigration working class votes but with Corbyn himself repeatedly coming out as pro-immigration it seems like they've made that leap anyway. There seems to be little to gain by taking the "Brexit at all costs" line unless Corbyns on some deluded attempt to woo the Tory shires.
Ironically the EU have done more to protect our rights and freedoms than our democratic governments ever have. More often than not the EU has protected us from the idiots we elect.
Yeah, I mean, he's never tried to hide that he's an idiotic unnuanced unreconstructed leftist.
Pushing some silly position because it sticks it to neoliberals and capitalists and who cares about the rest is the most likely explanation for anything he does.
I honestly doubt the intelligence of the electorate to make decisions in their own interest and once you've reached that point, does it matter who is in charge?