Why should the UK pensions watchdog be able to spy on your internet activities? Same reason as the Environment Agency and many more
- Reference: 1587627190
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/04/23/uk_snoopers_charter_sequel/
- Source link:
And now the UK's [5]Investigatory Powers Act of 2016 – better known as the Snooper’s Charter – is set to expand to allow government agencies you may never have heard of to trawl through your web histories, emails, or mobile phone records.
In a [6]memorandum [PDF] first [7]spotted by The Guardian, the British government is asking that five more public authorities be added to the list of bodies that can access data scooped up under the nation's mass-surveillance laws: the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Environment Agency, the Insolvency Service, the UK National Authority for Counter Eavesdropping (UKNACE), and the Pensions Regulator.
The memo explains why each should be given the extraordinary powers, in general and specifically. In general, the five agencies “are increasingly unable to rely on local police forces to investigate crimes on their behalf,” and so should be given direct access to the data pipe itself.
Five Whys
The Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) is a special armed police force that does security at the UK’s nuclear sites and when nuclear materials are being moved. It should be given access even though “the current threat to nuclear sites in the UK is assessed as low” because “it can also be difficult to accurately assess risk without the full information needed.”
The Environment Agency investigates “over 40,000 suspected offences each year,” the memo stated. Which is why it should also be able to ask ISPs to hand over people’s most sensitive communications information, in order “to tackle serious and organised waste crime.”
The Insolvency Service investigates breaches of company director disqualification orders. Some of those it investigates get put in jail so it is essential that the service be allowed “to attribute subscribers to telephone numbers and analyse itemised billings” as well as be able to see what IP addresses are accessing specific email accounts.
UKNACE, a little known agency that we have [8]taken a look at in the past, is home of the real-life Qs, and one of its jobs is to detect attempts to eavesdrop on UK government offices. It needs access to the nation's communications data “in order to identify and locate an attacker or an illegal transmitting device”, the memo claimed.
And lastly, the Pensions Regulator, which checks that companies have added their employees to their pension schemes, need to be able to delve into anyone’s emails so it can “secure compliance and punish wrongdoing.”
Taken together, the requests reflect exactly what critics of the Investigatory Powers Act feared would happen: that a once-shocking power that was granted on the back of terrorism fears is being slowly extended to even the most obscure government agency for no reason other that it will make bureaucrats' lives easier.
None of the agencies would be required to apply for warrants to access people’s internet connection data, and they would be added to another 50-plus agencies that already have access, including the Food Standards Agency, Gambling Commission, and NHS Business Services Authority.
Safeguards
One of the biggest concerns remains that there are insufficient safeguards in place to prevent the system being abused; concerns that only grow as the number of people that have access to the country's electronic communications grows.
It is also still not known precisely how all these agencies access the data that is accumulated, or what restrictions are in place beyond a broad-brush “double lock” authorization process that requires a former judge (a judicial commissioner, or JCs) to approve a minister’s approval.
A report published earlier this month by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office (IPCO), which was setup to oversee the spying law, covering 2018, gave the entire process a [9]clean bill of health while revealing a self-contained process brimming with self-congratulation.
“We have been increasingly impressed by the advantage of IPCO’s dual role: first, undertaking the review of warrants and, second, having retrospective oversight of the use of investigatory powers,” the report noted. “JCs regularly ask the inspectors to focus on particular issues during the latter’s’ oversight visits and the inspectors similarly share information relevant to the warrantry process with the JCs. In other words, these two functions – warrantry and ex post facto (retrospective) inspection – serve significantly to enhance each other and the confidence in the overall system.”
The report noted that 2018 was a “year of transition” but only in a separate section explained that was as a result of the fact that the law had to be changed because it had been found to be illegal since it did not limit the public authorities’ access to retained communications data solely for fighting serious crime.
It was the second time the law was [10]found to be illegal in part. And last year the entire law was [11]challenged as being incompatible with human-rights laws.
Everything is peachy
Despite the “transition” resulting in what the report acknowledged is inaccurate data (“the statistics at the end of the report do not provide as full a picture as they will in future years”), it was encouraged by the fact that “it is clear that there were only a few refusals by the JCs of the applications they considered.”
The IPCO then immediately defended both the JCs and the government: “It is critical that this should not be interpreted as a failure by the JCs to provide rigorous scrutiny of the applications. Nothing could be further from the truth. These applications only come to IPCO after there has been detailed, multi-layered consideration within the organisation requesting the authorisation and, when applicable, the Warrant Granting Department.”
There is no indication in the new memo that seeks to expand the Investigatory Powers Act's surveillance powers to five new agencies whether the resources of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner (IPC), which currently employs “approximately 50 people," will also be expanded.
That, and whether the new agencies’ investigatory work can be considered "serious crimes" and sufficient to grant them access to millions of people’s personal data, will have to be decided by MPs and peers as it progresses through the Parliamentary process. ®
Sponsored: [12]Legacy Modernization: Finding Your Way With Low-Code
[1] https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/799371508808302596
[2] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/30/ukgov_mass_data_slurping_ruled_illegal_again/
[3] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/30/investigatory_powers_act_illegal_under_eu_law/
[4] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/15/uk_spying_bill_not_fit_for_purpose/
[5] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/contents
[6] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2020/9780111195499/pdfs/ukdsiod_9780111195499_en.pdf
[7] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/ministers-plan-to-give-more-uk-public-bodies-power-to-hack-phones
[8] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/05/geeks_guide_hanslope_park/
[9] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/03/06/ipco_annual_report_2018_mi5_naughty/
[10] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/30/ukgov_mass_data_slurping_ruled_illegal_again/
[11] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/29/investigatory_powers_act_compatible_human_rights_high_court/
[12] https://go.theregister.co.uk/tl/1936/-8553/legacy-modernization-finding-your-way-with-low-code?td=wptl1936
Re: Sunset clauses and jury oversight are needed.
Fat chance of anything remotely as clear and democratic as that happening.
You only have to look at the narrow minded approach of cops and authorities to the current lockdown to guess at how these agencies will abuse access to everyones data.
If the police currently are unable to provide the necessary service to these agencies, the police forces should be expanded sufficiently to cope, I'm not in favour of larger and larger police forces but at least they would come under one set of regulations.
There does still need to be improved oversight and review as to necessity for the act in general, preferably via judicial review.
Re: Sunset clauses and jury oversight are needed.
I don't disagree with the sentiment of your post at all. But I think this is debatable : "I suspect if the public knew more about this there would be more concern". My view is that the wider public don't give a crap because Facebook, cat videos, Alexa, Instacrap and Netflix whilst at the same time being probably more preoccupied with worries about just keeping their heads above water financially.
Unfortunately I think we're still only at the thin end of the wedge. And yes, whilst I may come off sounding a little "conspiracy theorist" or "prepper mentality" : I do think there is an insidious element of social engineering going on in the background as an enabler.
Re: Sunset clauses and jury oversight are needed.
“ My view is that the wider public don't give a crap because Facebook, cat videos, Alexa, Instacrap and Netflix whilst at the same time being probably more preoccupied with worries about just keeping their heads above water financially.”
It’s the public’s choice to post on Facebook, instagram etc. It’s not their choice to be spied on by a pension regulator.
DNS security will put a dent in the agencies ability to snoop on internet connectivity. Other measures like vpns and proxies will too.
Re: Sunset clauses and jury oversight are needed.
Until they unveil a law that makes you automatically guilty if you're found to encrypt your traffic...like the law that can send you to jail for not disclosing your passwords / encryption keys.
Plausible deniability will be with synonymous with 'instant jail time' soon enough.
VPNs
Assuming that smart TLAs are not operating VPN endpoints as honeypots. Why struggle to sieve TB of data if you can highlight a few GB of data that people were concerned enough about to use a VPN
Re: a little "conspiracy theorist"
well, I'm in the same club. I don't believe there's a conspiracy. But I do believe, based on observation, that politicians are opportunists, and very sensitive to every opportunity that comes up (never mind the long-term disaster that follows). They WILL grab the current opportunity to introduce some - previously "unpopular" - policies. I mean, we're in REAL EMERGENCY, my fellow citizens! We're ALL fighting (and clapping) against this invisible, ruthless threat, we're all in it together, etc. But I don't blame politicians, I blame people who don't even bother to question even the most blatant, stupid statements and declarations made by politicians.
Re: Sunset clauses and jury oversight are needed.
@Aristotles_slow_and_dimwitted_horse
Quote: "....the wider public don't give a crap...."
*
True. But there's a flip side....the so called "bad guys" DO give a crap. They use burner phones, VPNs, internet cafes, hijacked WiFi, private ciphers.....and who knows what other tools to avoid the STASI.
*
If you wonder about just how efficient the STASI are TODAY at identifying "bad guys", just recall that almost all the recent terrorist outrages were perpetrated by individuals "already known to the authorities". So much for the power of snooping!!! And the STASI will be LESS efficient under the newly proposed avalanche of new snooping.
*
So....the public in general are indifferent to STASI snooping and the loss of privacy. At the same time the so called "bad guys" are no doubt looking forward with anticipation to more opportunities to hack all this new STASI information.....while at the same time the STASI have even lower capabilities than today. Unintended consequences!!!!
Re: Sunset clauses and jury oversight are needed.
Inform people when, what, by whom, and for what reason their personal private data has been accessed.
When the investigation has finished, or if it's ongoing then after a fixed time unless an extension is granted by a judge, give the person intruded upon full details of the intrusion.
Yes, yes, you can have your exclusion for "National Security" aka Political Embarrassment. But for the vast majority of those agencies there is no justification whatever for not informing people other than that it will embarrass the snoopers.
Re: Sunset clauses and jury oversight are needed.
What is wrong with a warrant?
the five agencies “are increasingly unable to rely on local police forces to investigate crimes on their behalf,”
So fix the actual problem, don't give them powers they shouldn't need.
By this logic... since U can’t rely on the local police to investigate a crime, what do I do?
Go round their house with a Molotov?
"Go round their house with a Molotov?"
Your mention of a cocktail has just flagged you up with Customs and Excise to check that the correct duty has been paid for the alcohol*
*Yes it's stupid but this is the type of 2+2=5 outcomes that transpire when surveillance is granted to ladder climbing jobsworths looking for infractions to go after to help boos their career.
Yup: the line "for no reason other that it will make bureaucrats' lives easier" isn't directly true, in that it should be "for no reason other that it will cost to fund sufficient policing"
We will eventually end up with many independant investigation branches each with their own little fiefdom and limited human investigation budget, the police will be just be collecting people to question on behalf of these agencies.
To save costs managers will start using 'Not our remit, ignore it' and shortly after we'll have a situation like 911 when all the agencies had all the pieces but not enough of the picture to do anything useful except go after the low hanging fruit > Joe Public.
This would have been a 1984 comedy sketch a decade or 3 ago.
+++ Environment agency notice
+++ Citizen, you were monitored purchasing a chocolate bar from $somewhere$ on $datetimelastweek$ +++ We have no record of you disposing of the wrapper at any approved waste facility (smart bin with camera tied to phone geolocation info & street cams) +++ Please provide evidence of continued ownership or disposal within 14 days to avoid an automatic £50 fine.
Dont forget , the government has cut police numbers over the past 10 yrs, and bought in new laws for the police to enforce.
So it kind of fits a pattern if I was a tinfoil wearing conspircy loon.....
Rights are like sand
Slipping through out finders, one grain at a time.
Extraordinary surveillance powers set to be injected into govt orgs
In other news:
"Coronavirus: Social restrictions 'to remain for rest of year'
...
"...for at least [AT LEAST] the rest of the year,(...)"
"This disease is not going to be eradicated, it is not going to disappear, (...)"
"So we have to accept that we are working with a disease that we are going to be with globally... for the foreseeable future."
And now, children, replace "disease" with "surveillance". Those with fond memories, can use word "terrorism", or "war on terror" instead. Ah, those were the days of evil wrongdoers! Every terrorist, every virus, every surveillance measure is terrible, terrible tragedy, etc etc. And yet, I can see a great, great social and business opportunity here, myfriends... There's never been better time to bury some news and to introduce some regulations!
Re: Extraordinary surveillance powers set to be injected into govt orgs
Except with the current economic model, no government in the West is going to maintain indefinite lockdown because of lack of revenue and no infrastructure to maintain industry without an economy.
Using the pandemic as an excuse for more control is one thing but short of staging a coup and putting Boris in a uniform, the lockdown won't continue any longer than it has to.
Expect the use of pandemics as the reason for needing more facial recognition, full time location tracking or other surveillance du jour but they still need revenue (for the time being).
Big Brother Watch
This level of surveillance is becoming increasingly intrusive. I really wonder where we are going with this. I Suggest more of us become supporters of Big Brother Watch - for around £25 P.A.
https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk
Re: Big Brother Watch
I would but they'll see that I signed up.
In case anybody wondered this is what was meant by "taking back control". Any voter who thought it was they themselves getting that control had been seriously bamboozled. It was only ever about government getting out from under the supervision of the ECJ. The ECHR will be next.
Do you really think the remaining EU members aren't also doing this?
Possibly true, though their systems would in theory need proper oversight and compatability with ECHR and so on.
And the ECJ which is what Boris has now escaped.
The remaining members of the EU are the ones that brought in the charter of human rights that the UK refused to sign up to. The remaining members of the EU are the ones that brought in the European Court of Justice that among other things allows any EU citizen the right to challenge any EU government on anything. A court that the UK has a poor history with and has been trying to get out from under for years. The remaining members of the EU are the ones that brought in GDPR that guarantees the data privacy rights of all EU citizens, rights which the snoopers charter completely ignores. I lived in the UK for many years and loved it there, but it is not the same country any more. People used to fight for their rights.
In other news
Sales and use of VPN's has rocketed.
Note:
Not everyone is a super crim or ever doing anything wrong (that deserves jail time) in their lives but just don't want all and sundry prying into every detail of their lives.
HMG, Google, ZuckFart and the rest can go [redacted] [redacted] as far as I'm concerned.
Bring on the mandatory wearing of masks. What price Facial recog then eh?
Re: In other news
Bring on the mandatory wearing of masks. What price Facial recog then eh?
They will just insist that our face masks have our social security number on them.
Re: In other news
Anyone know Boris' NI number? Or perhaps a random selection of MP's NI's would be better. Too easy to detect if everyone uses the same number.
Re: In other news
And in other news: all new facemasks require visible barcodes. What do you have to hide, citizen?
Meh, enough of this creeping idiocy... as soon as the lockdown's lifted, I'm emigrating.
Re: In other news
"as soon as the lockdown's lifted, I'm emigrating."
Out of curiosity: where to?
Re: In other news
Russia deserves consideration - if you can master the language, which is mandatory for immigrants.
About 30 years ago the great SF writer James Hiogan wrote a novel set in a near future in which the USA and Russia had swapped roles. The USA had become a bureaucratic totalitarian nightmare, while Russia had emerged from the Soviet era into a period of liberty.
Sometimes SF writers are so accurate that it almost seems they are clairvoyant.
Re: In other news
Apologies for the typo: it should be "James Hogan".
10 years from now it'll be rubber stamping by the JCs as the bodies applying will know what to put on the forms and the JCs view this as routine box ticking work rather than probing further and asking difficult questions.
No malice or conspiracy needed, just human nature.
"No malice or conspiracy needed, just human nature."
One and the same.
Great, more personal data leakage from UkGov agencies.
That's another 5 UKGov agencies where personal data can leak to unscrupulous actors, we'll see more targetted spam, phishing and data being sold on the darknet.
The whole RIPA act is a massive breach of human rights, it's RIPE for being abused by anyone with access to it, meanwhile the IPC only has 50 people to check up on those who already have access, this is yet another UKGov scheme that is poorly thought out, poorly legislated, poorly implemented and massively understaffed to be checked effectively - all this ontop of breaking the human rights act.
Re: Great, more personal data leakage from UkGov agencies.
Nope it's been thought out, legislated, and implemented exactly as desired. Provide an "oversight" office so those challenged in the thinking department don't object, knowing full well it can never do anything to actually prevent these massive overreaches.
Re: Great, more personal data leakage from UkGov agencies.
"That's another 5 UKGov agencies _that are_ unscrupulous actors,"
There, fixed that for you.
UK National Authority for Counter Eavesdropping (UKNACE)
Someone has a sense of humour somewhere in Whitehall......
No one else may snoop. Whitehall only.
The state claims a monopoly on surveillance, as previously on violence
"Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence. Hence, 'politics' for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state".
- Max Weber, “Politics as a Vocation”
All your data are belong to us
It's quite simple, if you don't want them to know about it, don't put it online. So far they have not yet managed to develop a mind-probe. Pretty soon your local Neighbourhood Vigilante,... err Watch will also have access and that bossy busybody at #33 will know all about your browsing habits and be using them to blackmail you into conforming and becoming a "good neighbour". There have been so many cases of Police misusing their access to data that the government seems to think that giving everyone access is a good idea. Well, I'm sure that will bite them when the first case of a Ministers "private" data going public happens. Then there will be a mad scramble to limit access again.
Re: All your data are belong to us
"don't put it online"
So deal in cash only. You'll have to keep in under your mattress because you're not going to find an actual branch anywhere close by.
Re: All your data are belong to us
Until they abolish cash.
This is a textbook example on why to avoid "slippery slope" regulations at all cost
Once the UK agreed to create mass snooping capabilities for use against terrorists, these capabilites created demand in all other departments of government.
You _can_ better assess, direct and punish a population in a number of ways without any privacy laws in the way plus full suveillance. Most citizens of former Eastern Germany know that well from experience...
After all, only a citizen, that is observerd 24/7 is a) a secure citizen and b) a citizen _constantly_confirmed_ to be abiding the law.
While China was doing it openly to supress, in the UK it happened under the disguise (and maybe even intent) to fight terrorism. However, the result, as you will experience, is mostly identical.
Hopefully your example will at least spare some other countries the same fate as they have the opportunuty to learn by example.
I wish you good luck since reversing this situation and prying surveillance powers back from government agencies all over the place will be much more difficult than preventing it happening in the first place...
Suspicion builds Confidence
I am reminded of a film called Brazil .
And yet
We still keep voting for the same idiot political parties.
Re: And yet
Not me, I always go for the leader chosen by the lady of the lake wielding Excalibur
Moistened tarts are a way better system than this lot
Re: And yet
It's true that UK voters keep on voting for the same unacceptable political parties; but getting out of that trap is not so simple. Indeed, a lot of care and effort has gone into making sure we can't get out of it.
First of all - as in the USA and other countries - you can only vote for someone who is an official candidate. (Why?)
People get to be official candidates by ingratiating themselves with the relevant party, which is run by a bunch of hard-nosed, cynical, immoral psychopaths. That usually ensures that only such people (or those who show strong psychopath potential) are even allowed to stand for election.
There are other serious obstacles. First, it takes a lot of money to make the slightest impact on our "democratic" systems. Note that in the USA, even a billionaire like Ross Perot was brushed aside like a mosquito when he stood for President. His means and influence dwarf those that most of us could command - yet the main parties simply buried him.
Second, governing a modern nation is extremely complex and demanding. Even granted that 99% of the actual skilled and expert work is done by skilled experts (and the civil service), it takes a lot of know-how and networking skills even to work the levers at all. ("Yes, Minister!" gave a slightly biased but generally accurate view of how little control even ministers have over how the country is run).
Going foreward
"On the back of [terrorism] VIRUS fears"
Sunset clauses and jury oversight are needed.
Those agencies should have to reapply every year and each use should be retrospectively reviewed by a jury with published stats of what they are looking at and convictions based on that data.
The whole RIPA act should be subject to a sunset clause.
I suspect if the public knew more about this there would be more concern, especially with the likes of defra, pension agency and others demanding access for spurious reasons.