Hundreds Of UK Lawyers Says IPB 'Not Fit For Purpose'

Hundreds of UK lawyers have signed an open letter addressed to the UK government that declares the Investigatory Powers Bill as "not fit for purpose".

The 200 lawyers who signed the cases have a fraction of high-profile QCs involved in cases where evidence of the new powers' inefficiency has been present.

According to the letter "a law that gives public authorities generalised access to electronic communication compromises the essence of the fundamental right to privacy and may be illegal."

According to the letter, it fails to include verification of "reasonable suspicion" for an instance of data interception and does not need a demonstration or evidence of criminal involvement or a threat to national security for the use of powers.

Meanwhile, the Conservative government has pushed the IP Bill as having passed their expectations. They said it has an 'adequate balance between privacy and security."

The Labour party said it will abstain from the second reading. The party also threatened to vote against the bill if significant changes are not made. The Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party are heavily opposed to the bill.

Tech companies have warned that the IP bill could compromise existing communication technologies because of the use of a backdoor. The new bill also threatened tech companies of arrest or suspension if they will not comply with a hack-on-demand.

Street Preachers, Bible Quotes and The UK Law

It’s not that hard to make something viral if something trivial was given the biggest amount of attention by authorities and experts.

Recently, a street preacher was fined for quoting the bible verse while preaching. Preacher Michael Overd’s quotes have been considered as “threatening” according to a Judge from the Bristol Crown Court.

Fifty-year old Michael Overd quoted verses from the bible that claimed homosexuality as an “abomination.” According to the Bristol Crown Judge, it had helped him make the decision.

Overd was fined about £270 along with compensation and costs that total to £1500 at the very least for homophobic harassment and “racially aggravated” harassment.

It’s great to protest against religion being part of a constitution’s core morals. But to imprison someone for using their freedom of speech and taking a word-for-word of the bible is quite arrogant, or more racist, in my opinion.

Overd said that the words from Leviticus 20, a book from the bible, had never passed his lips. He didn’t use other parts of the bible and the judge has redacted the bible, he said.

Why Wouldn’t the UK Government Listen to 99% of People Opposed to Fracking?

 The UK has its own anti-fracking movement and this is done for good measure; UK property owners don’t want anything to do with companies digging underneath their legally-purchased and rightfully-owned land. According to Naomi Klein, the opposition against fracking is based on the fact that “the UK government is colluding with energy companies to force the right to frack underneath people’s homes.”

Energy analysts and economists say that the upcoming shale oil and gas industry will bring down the prices of energy and guarantee the UK’s flawless economic growth along with the rest of the world. 

However, not many are willing to pay the price of, let’s say, your house or two of your properties?

Even surveys show that many people oppose fracking underneath their homes and rightfully so.

Farmers are the ones who will be dealt the biggest blow because of fracking. If an area is labelled as a fracking site, their home mortgages could be jeopardised simply because the equity could not pay for the value of the mortgage because the land, as collateral, has its property value blown to bonkers.

So much for democracy, but maybe the UK government needs to fill in more pockets, fuelling the drive for immediate implementation of shale gas and oil fracking to fulfil the needs of the 1%.

With All the Bureacracy, You Won’t Even Think the UK Could Do Anything Against ISIS

How do you measure what makes sense and what does not? Political enemies in the western world, including whistle blowers, have been exiled from their countries pending their legal cases. But that seems to be the easier case because it is an isolated and politically-justified causes. As for returning terrorists from abroad, banning them from the land is difficult.

The dilemma the UK and the US faces today is hundreds of Islamic State (IS) fighters in combat against the Iraqi government came from western soil and international law does not allow them to declare these individuals stateless without trial. Why it seems easier for political enemies to be exiled is because they are isolated cases that are easier to televise; showing the details of a single case is easier rather than televising three or more different ones.

Television and media helps expose the stories, which would serve as evidence in the local courts to have a person exiled or punished for their crimes. In the case of the IS, these anonymous soldiers each have a story. The UK government’s only choice, which is to try each suspected terrorist who are incoming or outgoing from UK airports, is a long shot to actually eradicating the threat.

Meanwhile, the common folk will whine about lengthy security checks, possible passport confiscations and discrimination among certain individuals travelling to Iraq and Syria. People don’t want hassles, but then again, with all this bureaucracy, meaning considering the freedom of everyone, I don’t even think neither the UK nor the US could do anything to stop the terrorist threat.

Revenge Porn: Why Peers Don’t Like It

Some people met the news about the revenge porn law’s disapproval by the peers of the British parliament. I met it with a slow disappointment, but eventually, I realised what was in store for the United Kingdom if the revenge porn law was approved. 

Let’s define terms first. Revenge porn is when a former partner uploads to a public network media explicit in nature that both of them have produced. However, in publishing law, all parties who had partaken in producing a medium must have the approval of both parties in question. This means that the victim is also part-owner of the produced media and has a veto on the publishing of such.

This is the law that British peers are trying to use instead of having the revenge porn law. The revenge porn law incriminates anybody who had uploaded explicit media that could tarnish the reputation of another party, namely the victim. This gives the victim the right to litigate the suspect or uploader because of damages to privacy.

However, it is similar to Google’s defiance against the EU data laws that allow people to erase their online histories because it damages the private lives of such persons. If we have the revenge porn law, journalists will have limited rights to publish material especially with exposes and documentaries. It commits damages to personal privacy.

So, until the definition of revenge porn, cyber bullying and other new terms the internet has come up with is put into the constitution, we will never have a good chance of having good governance in the internet. This may work for the worse, or for the better.

Corporations Benefit From Laws, Not You

Let’s examine the reality of a situation and use an example to justify the meaning of many things in society. Your brother just graduated from college and had landed a job as a highly-paid architect. He receives praises and word from your parents. However, you are in college and are in need of an apartment to live closer to your school. Your brother also needs the same. Your parents will prioritize your brother because he becomes the new breadwinner of the family. You? You just have to bear with what options are left for you and you completely understand that your brother pays for your tuition and is the priority.

In an economy, corporations make the bills run and circulate all over the UK. This is not just the UK, but in any country whatsoever. If you think of it, laws are built around corporations so that they can promote proper competitiveness to raise an economy. Consumer rights are prioritized because if consumers lose confidence in the corporation’s products, we end up with a lower economy.

Sometimes, government policies will clash with ideals. The UK tapping into the Muslim finance market signifies a goal to increase the economic output of the country, and some money into the pockets of politician friends. The recent UK Rail Union Vs. Privatized RailFranchises case marks the trend that ‘friends’ and ‘breadwinners’ of the government prioritize the profitable returns, never the individual’s concerns.

This is not a bad thing, but this is a reality that most people, especially the common person, will have to deal with.