back to article Labour asks for more concessions on the UK's Snoopers' Charter

After winning a review of Blighty's Investigatory Powers Bill, the Shadow Home Secretary has repeated Labour's discomfort over the Snoopers' Charter. In an open letter to Home Secretary Theresa May, Andy Burnham stated he was “grateful for the changes that [the Home Secretary had] agreed to make on the two issues that you …

  1. shifty_powers

    Must remember to renew my VPN subscription...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      That may be unwise

      You may find yourself at LarkHill shortly.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      ... for life.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        for life.

        LarkHill is always for life. Albeit - a fairly short one as only the patient in room No V gets to wear the mask attached to this post.

    3. nVPN

      nVPN.net

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Labour's "discomfort" over the Snoopers' Charter

    That seems a bit rich, given that the whole snooper's charter has its roots back in Jack Straw's day as Home Secretary.

    When it comes to Westminster, there's nothing to choose between any of them, just a bunch of lazy, over-paid, vain, incompetent, self obsessed, illiberal fuckwits.

    1. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse

      Re: Labour's "discomfort" over the Snoopers' Charter

      I agree with you that the current state is due to Labours initiation of these bills. I am also no fan of either Andy Burnham, Labour, or the current Conservative government. But... in this case, would you rather that Andy Burnham was simply saying nothing? Or would you rather he continue to make noise to try to address the huge gaps in consistency and detail in this draft bill?

      I get your point that in your mind he is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. But stories like this one at least give me the slight flicker of hope that this won't come to be law without some serious challenge from political opposition and other industry and private interested parties.

    2. james 68
      Thumb Up

      Re: Labour's "discomfort" over the Snoopers' Charter

      "When it comes to Westminster, there's nothing to choose between any of them, just a bunch of lazy, over-paid, vain, incompetent, self obsessed, illiberal fuckwits."

      You forget crooked, ignorant and self-serving. But otherwise spot on.

    3. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: Labour's "discomfort" over the Snoopers' Charter

      If Corbyn isn't kicking up a fuss about this then he personally is fine with it and any opposition by Burnham is going to be half-hearted and just done to be seen to not wave it through.

      1. Richard Wharram

        Re: Labour's "discomfort" over the Snoopers' Charter

        It is quite easy to suspect this is just Labour going through the motions to look good to the electorate and to get a bit of a kicking into the Tories with their slim majority.

        Wasn't Burnham around when Jack Straw and Jacqui Smith were proposing pretty much the same thing? Not that it would be a surprise for him to change his opinions. He seems to get a new set of opinions and convictions based on each morning's newspaper headlines.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Labour's "discomfort" over the Snoopers' Charter

        "If Corbyn isn't kicking up a fuss about this then he personally is fine with it and " ... and should have it done to himself, with every single email, phone call, letter, bill, the lot all published

        same with the rest of them .... after all, if it's ok for the people, then it's just fine for the people's elected representatives .....

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Labour's "discomfort" over the Snoopers' Charter

        "If Corbyn isn't kicking up a fuss about this then he personally is fine with it"

        It's Burnham's remit. He's Shadow Home Sec & it's a Home Sec bill. That said, I wonder if there's a big clue half way through the article. The NUJ objects. Got to listen to their masters in the unions.

    4. swampdog

      Re: Labour's "discomfort" over the Snoopers' Charter

      There's only so much one can do...

      http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10354/chris_leslie/nottingham_east

      http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/41179#divisions

      ...My experience of this "right honorable gentleman" is he is a clueless twat when confronted by IT. So clueless in fact, that when he decided to ignore me over OpenRights issues, he simply stopped talking to me. His PR machine emails me every week.

      I made the mistake of answering a (political) medical query.

    5. annodomini2
      Black Helicopters

      Re: Labour's "discomfort" over the Snoopers' Charter

      Watch Yes minister, most of it still applies today.

      The bulk of the government is run by Whitehall and subsidiaries.

      These requirements will probably be coming from GCHQ etc, rather than whichever political party is involved.

  3. kryptonaut

    Referendum

    With something this far-reaching and contentious, and with such an impact on privacy and security (not to mention expense once the ISPs have passed on their costs to the public) - this bill should be put to a public referendum.

    1. Graham Marsden
      Flame

      Re: Referendum

      Which would have the Daily Mail et al demanding that it be used to monitor immigrants and dole scroungers and Muslims potential terrorists...

      1. Roland6 Silver badge

        Re: Referendum

        that it be used to monitor immigrants and dole scroungers

        No need to demand it be used, it will be used: The government has committed to providing these groups with internet access... :)

    2. Sir Sham Cad

      Re: Referendum

      No, hell no. As much as I abhor this Government there's such a thing as Voter Fatigue and with the Scottish IndyRef, General Election, Local/Mayoral elections and the EU Ref all within a short space of time and with this being such a low priority/visibility issue for the majority of the population who aren't as interested/invested in IT security and privacy issues as the like of us El Reg readers, turnout could well be fuck all enough to allow the bill to pass in whichever monstrous form Theresa May so chooses because terropaedogrants is planning attacks on house prices innit.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Referendum

        "As much as I abhor this Government there's such a thing as Voter Fatigue"

        I used to live in N Ireland where there were local parliamentary elections and a referendum which IIRC was timed to fall fairly close to at least some of the others. The motto there is "vote early, voter often". Being dead was no impediment to voting.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Referendum

      No, its not negotiable. You can't vote away someone else privacy right, but everyone is free to opt in and hand their surfing data over to the Theresa's lot.

      I notice a pattern where weak people will see a uniform and obey the person in it regardless of the dip shit idea they spout. I notice that seems to pervade the Home Secretaries office.

      I can't tell the difference between Jacqui Smith and Theresa May. They both speak with someone else's voice, same talking points, same 'terrorists pedo criminals' scare tactic. I guess they're following someone in a uniform covered in shiny badges and medals. And somehow the combination of cotton and metal confuses them.

      There's absolutely no reason we would remove checks and balances from a system simply because a man is in a uniform and weak thinkers confuse "uniform = good, no uniform = bad".

      So the people NOT in uniform are bad, and need the police to check them, yet the people in uniform are all good and don't need to have their choice checks by anyone. Yet the uniform is removable. When they're not wearing the uniform do they suddenly become bad and need to be checked?

      When a Chief Constable decides he wants to spy on his officers surfing history, how does Theresa handle the conflict. Both sides are in uniform! Which is the good guys?!

      So the choices she's made, the don't stand the basic tests and they have to go. I'm sure there will be many men in fancy dress on TV telling us this surveillance is the right thing, but its not. Simply imagine them naked, sans uniform, looking at your private porn surfing, because that's what people do, and take off the uniform and they're just people, flaws and all.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Was it just me or did the letter mostly say "Hey! Don't forget my special interest groups, but otherwise carry on."?

  5. alain williams Silver badge

    Sunset clause

    Claims that they have to rush it through because of the sunset clause are yet more lies - they could quite easily get it extended by a year or so; but that would give time for proper debate - which is not wanted.

  6. Sir Sham Cad

    In other news

    Bloody hell. HM Official Opposition in actually opposing things shock!

  7. Christoph

    For many years now every politician who becomes Home Secretary becomes an insane control freak, despite complaining about exactly the same things while in opposition.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sunset clause

    Was added because it was wisely thought a review of this is necessary. Dont worry these laws aren't permanent we were told.... Yet they rush to renew them. Ok forever temporary, politians are killers of meaning in language just because white can be reasonably termed as black to the ignorant idiots.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like