Lords | KitGuru https://www.kitguru.net KitGuru.net - Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:50:18 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/cropped-KITGURU-Light-Background-SQUARE2-32x32.png Lords | KitGuru https://www.kitguru.net 32 32 Snooper’s Charter dropped from counter-terrorism bill https://www.kitguru.net/channel/jon-martindale/snoopers-charter-dropped-from-counter-terrorism-bill/ https://www.kitguru.net/channel/jon-martindale/snoopers-charter-dropped-from-counter-terrorism-bill/#respond Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:50:18 +0000 http://www.kitguru.net/?p=232640 Just last week we learned that within a couple of days time, a group of lords would attempt to pass through the counter-terrorism bill with added measures from the much decried “Snooper's Charter,” which would have forced ISPs to retain details of their customers, for up to a year. These measures seem to have lacked support …

The post Snooper’s Charter dropped from counter-terrorism bill first appeared on KitGuru.]]>
Just last week we learned that within a couple of days time, a group of lords would attempt to pass through the counter-terrorism bill with added measures from the much decried “Snooper's Charter,” which would have forced ISPs to retain details of their customers, for up to a year. These measures seem to have lacked support however, as during debate they were shot down, leaving the privacy invading additions on the House of Lords' cutting room floor.

While the measures themselves were worrying in their own right, what caused most concern among privacy advocates was the way in which the additions to the counter-terrorism bill seemed to have been made. By bundling them with other legislative acts, it seemed like there was an attempt to sneak the measures past public scrutiny. Indeed, one of the lords behind the proposed changes, Lord Carlile, said previously that he believed that we should not wait for reviews of whether these changes were necessary to be completed.

houseoflords

We have taken the view that if the head of the security service and the current Metropolitan police commissioner argue that these powers are needed urgently to retain communications data due to changes in technology, then we needed to act now rather than wait for reports that we do not know when they will be completed,” he said.

Pirate Party campaign officer Andy Halsall commented on the news, stating how pleased he was that it hadn't passed.

“The Snoopers' Charter itself has been controversial,” he said. “It poses a significant threat to privacy and hands more powers to a government that still has questions to answer about its surveillance activities.  The Charter has already been broadly criticised within parliament and elsewhere. I think it's clear that these amendments should never have been offered.”

However, he and other privacy advocates believe this won't be the last time that politicians and/or lords attempt to pass these measures. David Cameron himself has promised tighter controls on digital communications if re-elected, including the banning of effective encryption techniques.

KitGuru Says: It's good to see that debate highlighted the problems with legislation like this. It really is amazing how many times someone has tried to have these measures passed into law.

Image source: Parliament.uk

The post Snooper’s Charter dropped from counter-terrorism bill first appeared on KitGuru.]]>
https://www.kitguru.net/channel/jon-martindale/snoopers-charter-dropped-from-counter-terrorism-bill/feed/ 0
Britain just tried to make being annoying illegal https://www.kitguru.net/channel/jon-martindale/britain-just-tried-to-make-being-annoying-illegal/ https://www.kitguru.net/channel/jon-martindale/britain-just-tried-to-make-being-annoying-illegal/#comments Thu, 09 Jan 2014 09:18:29 +0000 http://www.kitguru.net/?p=170946 A couple of days ago, the House of Lords did something wonderful: it defeated a bill that would have made it illegal to “annoy,” or cause “nuisance,” to someone else. If that definition sounds incredibly loose to you, that's because it is, but that doesn't mean the government didn't want to push through the Injunction to …

The post Britain just tried to make being annoying illegal first appeared on KitGuru.]]>
A couple of days ago, the House of Lords did something wonderful: it defeated a bill that would have made it illegal to “annoy,” or cause “nuisance,” to someone else. If that definition sounds incredibly loose to you, that's because it is, but that doesn't mean the government didn't want to push through the Injunction to Prevent Nuisance or Annoyance (IPNA) anyway. Fortunately it's been defeated in its current form, but it will be back.

IPNA was designed as an extension of current ASBO laws, which see adults and children handed out the orders if their behaviour is deemed harassing or distressing to members of a community. However with IPNA, just threatening to annoy someone would become illegal in the same way – essentially criminalising every child in the country at some point during their young lives.

mostannoying
Hey, want to hear the most annoying sound in the world?

The government did attempt to add a caveat, by describing what exactly it meant by annoyance, though it failed hilariously when Lord Faulks – the describer – said, “”a day-by-day harassment of individuals.” Harassment being far harsher than “annoyance,” this led to much condemnation by his peers and a further disintegration of the bill's integrity.

Ultimately the the upper chamber in the house of Lords voted 306-178 and defeated the bill. It is however expected to return, with the amendment that instead of annoyance, it would illegalise the harassment, alarm or distress to any person – which is still ridiculous and will no doubt draw the same statements from the Lords, one of which came to the fore during this debate: a quote from Lord Justice Sedley's 1997 high court case, when he declared: “Freedom to only speak inoffensively is not worth having.” Leader of Britain's Pirate Party UK, Loz Kaye released a statement on IPNA this morning, describing its defeat as “standing up for tolerance and free speech.”

“It's frankly annoying that it got this far,” he said. ” To contemplate criminalising children for potentially being irritating beggars belief.  IPNAs will not be a magic wand to solve the problems of communities under
pressure. That will take the real hard work to promote pro-social behaviour and investment.”

annoying
I find this annoying AND offensive. Can it be illegal now please?

He also highlighted how the Home Office attempted to suggest IPNA would not be used in ways that aren't obvious from its description, though of course, “That's from the Home Office that says unchecked mass surveillance is reasonable.”

KitGuru Says: I hope this bill is defeated time and again. We already live in a world where people being indirectly “offended” by something actually have some recourse and people are being imprisoned for Twitter jokes. Making it illegal to be annoying would criminalise everybody, since it's subjective. 

Why would you ever need it to be illegal for someone to annoy you? Getting on people's nerves is one of the joys of life. 

[Thanks Politics]

The post Britain just tried to make being annoying illegal first appeared on KitGuru.]]>
https://www.kitguru.net/channel/jon-martindale/britain-just-tried-to-make-being-annoying-illegal/feed/ 1