Data retention question
maryhawking at tigers.demon.co.uk
Sat Jul 19 20:30:29 BST 2014
Is that (conspiracy theory) the reason they were not given any opportunity
Retired from NHS on 31.3.13 because of the Health and Social Care Act 2012
"thinking - independent thinking - is to humans as swimming is to cats: we
can do it if we really have to." Mark Earles on Radio 4
blog http://maryhawking.wordpress.com/ And Fred!
From: Peter Fairbrother [mailto:zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk]
Sent: 18 July 2014 23:14
To: UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group
Subject: Re: Data retention question
On 18/07/14 17:18, Brian Morrison wrote:
> This time 450+ MPs appear to have not noticed that the new legislation
> makes the blanket data retention aspects even worse and hence the ECJ
> objection to its predecessor is quite unchanged.
I don't think that's the case - while it does nothing to make the
blanket collection regime better, it doesn't seem to me to make it any
What the MPs apparently did fail to notice was that the Bill was in two
unrelated parts: though the first clue was in the name, the Data
Retention and Investigatory Powers bill.
The Data Retention bit, sections 1 and 2, while wrong-headed and the
wrong way to do it, and not complying with the ECtJ decision, and mostly
caused by their previous inaction, was in fact a real possible emergency.
Paedophiles and terrorists will walk free if you vote this down - I
can't say I can actually disagree with that.
The Investigatory Powers part (sections 3-5), on the other hand, was no
More important, and I don't care how much Teresa May doublespeaks
otherwise, it also begins to implement the measures in the Comms bill
which was rejected a couple years ago.
They didn't see the latter, didn't care, or were complicit. But anyone
who believed it had nothing to do with the comms bill got screwed.
-- Peter Fairbrother
> Or did the whips
> blackmail them all by referring to their character notes?
More information about the ukcrypto