While the Country is still in uproar over the recent US Elections and the ongoing Brexit deal the UK has passed a new bill which is shocking, to say the least.
This new bill has been named the ‘Snoopers Charter’ and was first brought to the table back in 2012 by Theresa May.
The bill was rejected twice prior to Theresa May’s elevation to Prime Minister but passed on Wednesday 16th 2016 by both parliamentary houses.
ZD Net reports:
The law will force internet providers to record every internet customer’s top-level web history in real-time for up to a year, which can be accessed by numerous government departments; force companies to decrypt data on demand — though the government has never been that clear on exactly how it forces foreign firms to do that that; and even disclose any new security features in products before they launch.
Not only that, the law also gives the intelligence agencies the power to hack into computers and devices of citizens (known as equipment interference), although some protected professions — such as journalists and medical staff — are layered with marginally better protections.
Here are some of the most worrying parts of the Bill courtesy snooperscharter.co.uk, we recommend you check the site out for more information about the bill and how to air your concerns:
- Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will be forced to create a record of the websites you visit and the apps you use and keep this data for a year. This information can be analysed without a warrant. The police only need to get internal sign off to look at this data. Government departments, like the Department of Work and Pensions, can look at this data too.
- Your communications can be hoovered up by the security services. Tapping undersea fibre-optic cables, GCHQ can record and keep all passing Internet traffic for several days, and metadata for six months.
- The police and intelligence agencies can hack into your phone or computer. You don’t have to be suspected of a crime for this to happen. Hacking should be a last resort. It carries massive security risks, which should always be taken into account.
- The security services can easily access any public or private database – whether it’s held by DVLA or Tesco. They have admitted that the vast majority of this data will be about people who are not suspected of any crimes. However, through a very broad warrant, they can analyse this information for six months at a time. We are calling for these powers to be limited.
The UK has long been one of the major players in citizen surveillance and judging by the passing of this bill is seems they want to remain so.
Edward Snowdon tweeted his opinion on the charter back in 2015 before it was passed:
By my read, #SnoopersCharter legitimizes mass surveillance. It is the most intrusive and least accountable surveillance regime in the West.
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) November 4, 2015
Their excuse for such an act of privacy invasion is primarily terrorism, but as many are already aware this is nonsense. Terrorism is not the big problem we are led to believe, more people die at the hands of mispractice within the healthcare service then they do by terrorists. In fact, more people die at the hands of the Police than they do terrorists, so the argument is moot.
Of course, there are ways around this new bill and we will be publishing several articles over the coming months showing you just how to evade the eyes of Theresa May and her Cronies.
If the government wants to do this fine but then let the people also be made aware of what government is up to by way of its underhand arrangements with the corporate world.
as i have always stated only those that have something to hide will disapprove of this ..iI for one would like to see more cctv and systems like this so no one can hide anymore…if its private keep it private or sent a letter ….
Seriously Brian? Your talking nonsense, privacy is a basic human right. Your also very naive if you believe that only those who have something to hide have something to fear by this. As Edward Snowdon quite rightly stated “Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say,”