latest plans to monitor internet use in the UK

Roger Hird rl.hird at
Fri Jun 15 18:15:15 BST 2012

In article
<CAEWR3kvGgGcT=Wun0bvsdQijAhSO=5n-o9Bt-Pbd35ewUZP6eQ at>,
   Francis Davey <fjmd1a at> wrote:
> Quite. Not having to think about legislation and have it
> subject to parliamentary scrutiny is much nicer from a
> government perspective.

> Here technology is part of the excuse. "We may want all sorts
> of things we can't predict" is a common reason for not actually
> nailing down the policy in the act. It also allows some real
> deniability. Often lots of the plans really aren't there.

> I too dislike it as a form of law-making.

This will be the second time today I've asked a question on this
list - both of them only marginally relevant to its purpose, but
here we go: 

While working as a civil servant I more than once came into
contact with secondary legislation originally put in place under
first world war ("DoRA") and related WWII emergency legislation
which had somehow manged to remain in power later - the export
control legislation which was used to support NATO policy had its
origins there.  

Reading about DoRA and second world war regulatory powers, it
seems to me that during their currency they gave the government,
acting by Order in Council, pretty complete powers which could
easily, if required, have encompassed the sorts of things the
present proposed legislation covers, without even the control of
a negative resolution from parliament.

I'm not mentioning this in support of what is proposed but to
comment that such things could have been envisaged in the past
but only at a time of world war.


Roger Hird
rl.hird at

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list