Data retention question
zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk
Sun Jul 20 04:04:14 BST 2014
On 19/07/14 20:30, Mary Hawking wrote:
> Is that (conspiracy theory) the reason they were not given any opportunity
> for scrutiny?
Please, that is not a conspiracy theory; just an informed opinion on the
actual content of the Bill, contrasted with its supposed content and the
measures in the rejected Comms Bill.
As to a theory of conspiracy, I think the main initial reason MPs were
given no opportunity for scrutiny was semi-legitimate, in that data
retention law was in crisis; so no conspiracy there.
Then someone added on the objectionable bits about Investigatory Powers;
and probably conspired, both before and after, to hide what it actually
I say semi-legitimate because I suspect several "conspiracies"
contributed to the delay in responding to the ECtJ judgement and thus
the crisis - including, would we leave the EU? If we did, then they
wouldn't have to do anything to comply with the judgement.
There was also probably a bit of disbelief - someone in the UK Home
Office mostly wrote and pressed through the EU Directive, and after the
judgement (which had been widely anticipated elsewhere) they probably
went "Oh no, the ECtJ couldn't reject my directive," ... and then
behaved as if the ECtJ hadn't.
As to a real conspiracy theory? Hmmm. Anyone fancy Charles Farr (no Sir
Humphrey, more of a Francis Urquhart) for a role?
-- Peter Fairbrother
> Mary Hawking
> 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
More information about the ukcrypto