eyedata
© ComputerWeekly.com
2016 nærmer sig 1984

Storbritannien har lige vedtaget en massiv udvidelse af overvågningsrettighederne, som kritikere kalder "frygtindgydende" og "farlige" Den nye lov, døbt "aflytterloven", blev introduceret af den daværende indenrigsminister Theresa May i 2012, og krævede to forsøg, før den blev vedtaget som lov efter at den foregående koalitionsregerings sammenbrud. Fire år og et valg senere - May er nu premierminister - loven blev gjort færdig og vedtaget onsdag af begge de parlamentariske huse.

Men borgerretsgrupper har længe kritiseret loven, med nogle der argumenterer for, at loven vil tillade den britiske regering at "dokumentere alt, som vi foretager os online". Det er ikke noget under, for det gør den faktisk. Loven vil tvinge internetudbydere til at lagre alle internetbrugeres webhistorik i op til et år, som kan tilgås af utallige regeringsdepartementer; tvinge firmaer til at dekryptere deres data på ordre - selv om regeringen aldrig har været tydelig omkring, hvordan den vil tvinge udenlandske firmaer til at gøre dette, og endog afsløre alle nye sikkerhedstræk i deres produkter, før de markedsføres.

Ikke nok med det, loven giver også efterretningsvæsner ret til at hakke borgernes computere og apparater (kendt som udstyrsinterferens), selv om nogle professioner - - så som journalister og sundhedspersonale -- er marginalt bedre beskyttet. Med andre ord, er det "den mest ekstreme overvågningslov vedtaget i et demokrati," ifølge Jim Killock, dirketør af Open Rights Group.


Kommentar: Delvist oversat af Sott.net fra Britain's 1984: New surveillance law, 'most extreme ever passed in a democracy'


The bill was opposed by representatives of the United Nations, all major UK and many leading global privacy and rights groups, and a host of Silicon Valley tech companies alike. Even the parliamentary committee tasked with scrutinizing the bill called some of its provisions "vague". And that doesn't even account for the three-quarters of people who think privacy, which this law almost entirely erodes, is a human right.

There are some safeguards, however, such as a "double lock" system so that the secretary of state and an independent judicial commissioner must agree on a decision to carry out search warrants (though one member of the House of Lords disputed that claim). A new investigatory powers commissioner will also oversee the use of the powers.

Despite the uproar, the government's opposition failed to scrutinize any significant amendments and abstained from the final vote. Killock said recently that the opposition Labour party spent its time "simply failing to hold the government to account".

But the government has downplayed much of the controversy surrounding the bill. The government has consistently argued that the bill isn't drastically new, but instead reworks the old and outdated Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). This was brought into law in 2000, to "legitimize" new powers that were conducted or ruled on in secret, like collecting data in bulk and hacking into networks, which was revealed during the Edward Snowden affair.

Much of those activities were only possible thanks to litigation by one advocacy group, Privacy International, which helped push these secret practices into the public domain while forcing the government to scramble to explain why these practices were legal.

The law will be ratified by royal assent in the coming weeks.