THEGAYUK

Tag: Snoopers Charter

  • There are now 48 organisations that have full access to your ENTIRE online browsing history

    It almost passed without notice, but the Investigatory Powers Bill, also known as the Snooper’s charter, was passed by the House Of Lords last week and now 48 organisations will have access to your entire browsing history, even if you’ve deleted it.

    © belchonock Depositphotos

    • 48 Departments will be able to view your entire internet history if the bill passes Royal Assent to become law.

    • Deleting your history doesn’t mean your history has been deleted.

    • Internet providers (ISP) have to keep your records for one year.

    A staggering 48 Governmental departments will now have access to your online browsing data according to a list published by a blogger who wanted to know who exactly would have access to our Internet history.

    Thanks to blogger Chris Yui we are able to bring you a list of 48 departments that will be able to snoop on your every online move now that the Investigatory Powers Bill, AKA the Snooper’s Charter has passed through the House Of Lords. The bill has been described as “the most extreme surveillance law in our history”, according to advocacy group, Don’t Spy On Us.

    Snoopers will be able to see your entire history regardless of whether you’ve cleared your internet history or not as ISP will now legally have to keep records for one year and will have to hand over those records regardless of permission granted.

    The charter has been criticised by technology companies, academics and civil liberties groups, however, the Government has said that it believes the charter is necessary to combat terrorism and organised crime.

    The Governmental departments that will have access are set on in Schedule 4 of the act and include GCHQ, the Metropolitan police force and even the tax man.

    Worryingly departments which seem to have no connection to terror detection such as the Food Standards Agency and the Department of Health will have unfettered access according to Mr Yui’s list.

    • Metropolitan police force
    • City of London police force
    • Police forces maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996
    • Police Service of Scotland
    • Police Service of Northern Ireland
    • British Transport Police
    • Ministry of Defence Police
    • Royal Navy Police
    • Royal Military Police
    • Royal Air Force Police
    • Security Service
    • Secret Intelligence Service
    • GCHQ
    • Ministry of Defence
    • Department of Health
    • Home Office
    • Ministry of Justice
    • National Crime Agency
    • HM Revenue & Customs
    • Department for Transport
    • Department for Work and Pensions
    • NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England that provide ambulance services
    • Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service
    • Competition and Markets Authority
    • Criminal Cases Review Commission
    • Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
    • Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland
    • Department of Justice in Northern Ireland
    • Financial Conduct Authority
    • Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
    • Food Standards Agency
    • Food Standards Scotland
    • Gambling Commission
    • Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
    • Health and Safety Executive
    • Independent Police Complaints Commissioner
    • Information Commissioner
    • NHS Business Services Authority
    • Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust
    • Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
    • Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation
    • Office of Communications
    • Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
    • Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
    • Scottish Ambulance Service Board
    • Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
    • Serious Fraud Office
    • Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust

    Mr Yiu noted at the end of his list,

    “I always wondered what it would feel like to be suffocated by the sort of state intrusion that citizens are subjected to in places like China, Russia and Iran. I guess we’re all about to find out.”

    In July Lord Paddick gave a stark warning that the bill could have dire consequences for the LGBT community. He said,

    “Homophobia has been encountered in the police service, as has unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. ‘If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’ is not the same as ‘If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

    “Even if the police were to be trusted completely, massive pools — oceans — of data in the custody of private companies such as TalkTalk, one of the internet service providers that will be asked to store such data, would be sitting ducks for hackers, criminals, blackmailers and hostile foreign powers.

  • Lord Paddick warns that Snoopers’ Charter could harm LGBT community

    Lord Paddick has warned that the Investigatory Powers Bill (Snoopers’ Charter) could have dire consequences for the LGBT community.

    Credit LD Flickr / CC

     

    The Liberal Democrat peer, Brian Paddick has warned against the Government backed Snooper’s Charter, which will allow police to seize the online data and communications from anyone suspected of a crime without a court ordered warrant.

    The proposed law would require internet service providers (ISP) to keep records of every website that everyone in the UK visits for 12 months. It would require ISPs to hand over those records to police without a warrant, if they suspect a crime has taken place.

    Speaking in the House of Lords, Lord Paddick said,

    “Homophobia has been encountered in the police service, as has unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. ‘If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’ is not the same as ‘If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

    “Even if the police were to be trusted completely, massive pools — oceans — of data in the custody of private companies such as TalkTalk, one of the internet service providers that will be asked to store such data, would be sitting ducks for hackers, criminals, blackmailers and hostile foreign powers.

     

    © belchonock Depositphotos

     

    He went on to outline that the proposal would cost an additional £1bn in set up costs. He also suggested that security services such as M15, M16 and GCHQ, for which this law would most likely aid, did not need the Snoopers’ Charter to do their job in protecting the UK, because the data that they collect can be gained by other means.

    “The RUSI panel set up by Nick Clegg when he was Deputy Prime Minister set out 10 tests for the intrusion of privacy. It is those 10 tests on which our opposition to parts of the Bill is based.

    “One of the tests is that there must be transparency: how the law applies to the citizen must be evident. How many people in the UK know that 12 months of their web history—albeit the website that they are looking at rather than any further pages on that website—will be kept in case the police want to see it, as a result of this Bill’s provisions?

    “The intrusion must be necessary in that there are no other practical means of achieving the objective. The security services MI5, MI6 and GCHQ say that they do not need internet connection records because they can get the information they need by other means.

    “The intrusion must be proportionate to the advantages gained, not just in cost and resources but also through a judgment that the degree of intrusion is matched by the seriousness of the harm prevented. Internet service providers reckon that this will cost more than £1 billion in set-up costs alone.

    “The measure may not provide the police with the website someone has visited because it is so easy to conceal it. It will not give the police any information about whether, or with whom, someone was communicating without making further inquiry of other companies such as Facebook, because almost all online communication is encrypted.

    “If a serious crime is involved—the Minister listed a range of serious crimes that the Bill is intended to cover, including child sexual exploitation and terrorism—the security services, which do not need internet connection records, are duty bound to assist the police with their inquiries. We therefore need some convincing that internet connection records are both necessary and proportionate.”

    ALSO READ: Why is the Conservative government so interested in the porn we watch?