Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

More on the Snooper's Charter

A few days ago I wrote about plans by the UK government to force ISPs to archive all activity undertaken by their users.

What I didn't realise at the time was just how bad this proposal really was.

Why is it bad?

Well the data thus collected, effectively a list of all the IP addresses and domain names your webserver has accessed (including ones that even you didn't know about), becomes available to 48 different UK government organisations -- without a warrant!

Now I can understand if this data was to be kept "just in case" and made available to relevant government organisations only under protection of a court-issued warrant but to effectively make it freely available to so many agencies without the need for them to justify or explain their snooping is an outrage.

The list of agencies with such entitlement is contained in this article and some of the entries will shock you.

I can understand that the likes of the Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ and National Crime Agency might have reasonable cause to access the data if they honestly believe it may contain important evidence in a specific case -- but what about the Food Standards Agency or the Health and Safety Executive?

Seriously?

And what about The Department of Transport or the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland?

Something is very wrong with this setup and needs to be addressed before the charter becomes law.

That's exactly what a growing number of Brits think and a petition asking the government to repeal the bill has already gained 118,00 signatures.

Now I'm sure that all those politicians supporting the bill will be busy telling outraged citizens that "only those with something to hide have anything to fear" from this new legislation -- but we all know just how much those weasel-words mean.

Whilst this database may be considered to be in the public interest, I wonder just how much thought has gone into the potential risks it may pose to the public. For instance, just how secure will this data really be?

We've seen that state-sponsored hackers and even highly motivated individuals often have little trouble circumventing the firewalls and other protections often placed around far more "secret" data than this when it is held by government agencies. How do Brits know that their browsing history is really safe from such evil?

Could ransomware soon be replaced by blackmailware -- if the evil little sods get their hands on the browsing history of a few wealthy or even middle-class Brits?

"Pay 5 Bitcoin to this address within 3 days or we will publish your name and browsing history" might be the next big earner. After all, you can protect your data with backups but unless you're using a VPN, you can't hide your browsing activities.

Perhaps it's time to make the state well aware of its responsibilities and place a huge penalty on those who would effectively place people's privacy at such high risk.

If a government honestly believes that it can collect such data and keep it secure, then let it do so under threat of dismissal should it fail.

That's right... part of the deal struck with citizens should be a penalty for the government of the day, should it fail to honour its promises to those people.

So here's my challenge to *any* government that would usurp the public's right to privacy and promise to protect that privacy and provide security in return:

Such an assurance should be made under threat of dismissal, should the government fail to deliver. That is to say that in the event of a security breach, parliament should be dissolved and a new election called. What's more, the laws which had eroded or removed the public's right to privacy (such as the snooper's charter) would be immediately repealed.

There is no point in censuring a government by way of fines -- since they are ultimately paid by those who have suffered the actual loss -- the taxpayer. No, any censure must affect the decision makers who have chosen to take the dangerous step of denying the people what should be an inalienable right and the only effective way to do that is to remove them from their positions of power without delay.

Is this harsh?

You bet it's harsh -- but then again, so is allowing ens of thousands of civil servants to browse the internet activities of every resident of the UK, without the need for the oversight of a court.

Your thoughts?

Is it time we held governments more accountable for the way they feel that it's okay to strike out our rights in the name of safety and security?

Would the kind of penalty I've suggested be an effective way to make them stop and think twice about acting like dictators rather than servants?

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say in the Aardvark Forums.

PERMALINK to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font