She Will Melt - given time
Last updated Mon 7 Jul 2014
Child abuse investigators [sic] 'need more access to data'
"Home Secretary Theresa May says Ceop can do their jobs better with more access to private data.
Britain's child sex abuse investigation body [sic] needs more access to phone and internet records so it can better investigate crimes, Theresa May has said.
The Home Secretary spoke ahead of reports the Government is due to pass emergency laws requiring phone companies to store text, call, and web use data.
Her comments came after it emerged the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop) made fewer arrests last year than the previous year." [and that is seen as 'a bad thing']
Published: 15:55, 7 July 2014 | Updated: 15:55, 7 July 2014
CEOP 'NEEDS PHONE/WEB DATA ACCESS'
"Sadly one of the issues that had been raised of course is the extent to which it is able to continue to have access to matters like communications data.
"As that degrades [sic] of course [?] it makes it harder for Ceop to investigate certain crimes."
10 July 2014 Last updated at 09:20 GMT
Emergency phone and internet data retention law set to be passed
"LIVE: David Cameron and Nick Clegg give a news conference on emergency surveillance legislation.
An emergency law to ensure police and security services can continue to access people's phone and internet records is expected to be approved at a special cabinet meeting later.
David Cameron says the Data Retention and Investigation Powers Bill is needed to fight "criminals and terrorists"."
CEOP, playing its usual spook role, as freedom-remover and NWO-enabler.
Posted by The Liberal Democrats on 30 September, 2014 @ 7:04 PM
"Communications Data Bill - Julian Huppert's letter to Theresa May
Following a speech by the Home Secretary Theresa May referencing the Communications Data Bill, Liberal Democrat spokesman on Home Affairs, Justice and Equalities Julian Huppert has sent the letter below to Theresa May.
We disagree on the Communications Data Bill.
The Liberal Democrat position is clear: we do not think that the proposal to store a record of every citizen's internet browsing for 12 months is compatible with our basic civil liberties. We also do not think it is right to force UK companies to keep track of everything people do on Google, Facebook or other websites. You appear determined to push ahead with the scheme at all costs, regardless of widespread public concern. I'm more than happy to continue to have that debate as we approach the general election.
But there are limits. I was utterly dismayed by the suggestion in your conference speech today that my party has put children's lives at risk.
That is an extraordinary claim, and one which must be backed with compelling evidence. Instead, you cited figures from the National Crime Agency which were entirely misleading. You said:
"Over a six-month period, the National Crime Agency estimates that it had to drop at least twenty cases as a result of missing communications data. Thirteen of these were threat-to-life cases, in which a child was judged to be at risk of imminent harm [...] The solution to this crisis of national security was the Communications Data Bill. But two years ago, it was torpedoed by the Liberal Democrats."
The National Crime Agency cases you cite were, I understand, unable to proceed because it was not possible to connect the IP address used for the communication to a particular device. 'IP matching' is a genuine problem, and as you know, Liberal Democrats have supported and continue to support action to solve it. Following our vetoing of the Communications Data Bill, we supported including proposals to resolve this problem in the Queen's Speech.
Since then, nothing has happened. No such proposals have been brought forward by your department.
Responsibility for the lack of data in the cases you cite, and the risk thereby caused to individuals, including children, therefore lies exclusively at your door. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Liberal Democrats.
I realise that your conference speeches are not subject to the same levels of accuracy as statements in the House of Commons, but nonetheless I would expect you to issue a public correction and an apology at the earliest opportunity.