The "snoopers' charter" amendment to the Counter Terrorism and Security Bill

[zappaDPJ]

Net firms condemn revival of 'snoopers' charter'

UK net firms have criticised attempts to revive a "snoopers' charter" by adding it into draft legislation currently before the House of Lords.

Amendments to the Counter Terrorism and Security Bill would, if passed, make ISPs log more of what people do online.

It would also make the logged data more easily accessible to law enforcement and security services.

The 18-page addition was "ill-judged" and "regrettable" said the ISP Association (Ispa).

The Open Rights Group, which campaigns on issues of digital freedom, said the amendment was an "abuse of procedure".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30952592

This amendment (by stealth) to the Counter Terrorism Bill is due to be debated in the House of Lords on Monday.

[Technical Ben]

One thing I do find interesting is they wish to do this, but not make CCTVs compulsory in shops. They wish to do this, but not station a copper or two in the town square 24/7.

Both of those try the "outsource the costs" or "constant surveillance" options, but are not considered options. Why? Is there a law saying CCTV must be kept for 5 years?

I totally understand wanting to stop and find criminals, but it's strange how with one hand they try to enforce it on the internet, and with the other hand wave people past as too much hassle to deal with.

[gizmo71]

This amendment (by stealth) to the Counter Terrorism Bill is due to be debated in the House of Lords on Monday.

It's not particularly stealthy, it's all over the internet.

I totally understand wanting to stop and find criminals,

They could easily find a whole load of them in central London. Big building, next to the river, with a tall clock tower.

[Simon]

[zappaDPJ]

It's not particularly stealthy, it's all over the internet.

True enough

[mervl]

Trying to find that needle in the haystack always has a compelling appeal, doesn't it?