UK's Investigatory Powers Bill to become law despite tech world opposition

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

The UK’s updated Investigatory Powers Bill, expanding state surveillance and potentially forcing tech firms to clear security updates with the government, is seen by many as a major erosion of privacy and internet security. Commenters note that royal assent is largely ceremonial and that both major parties, as well as much of the media, offer little resistance to growing surveillance powers, while special safeguards for MPs highlight a double standard. In response, some advocate broader use of VPNs, Tor and even emigration or boycotts, and draw parallels to similar anti-encryption efforts in the US, EU and other Five Eyes countries.

Role of Monarchy and Political Process

  • Several comments stress the King’s role is ceremonial; royal assent is effectively automatic and hasn’t been refused since 1708.
  • Blaming the monarch is seen as misplaced; responsibility lies with government and Parliament.
  • Some bring up historical oaths and royal influence, but others downplay any current real power.

Public Apathy, Activism, and Online Discourse

  • Many argue most people don’t care about surveillance and won’t protest or lobby.
  • Others counter that opposition must start somewhere, and online forums can help catalyze organized action, even if only occasionally.

Legal Context: UK, EU, and ECHR

  • Prior UK surveillance laws (RIPA 2000, IPA 2016) passed while the UK was in the EU.
  • EU courts and UK courts (applying EU law) have ruled parts of UK mass data collection incompatible with EU law.
  • The UK remains under the European Court of Human Rights, which has also criticized its surveillance, though governments often respond by rebranding or soft-ignoring rulings.
  • Some note UK politicians have discussed leaving the ECHR, which would remove an external check.

Effectiveness vs. Power Grab

  • Many see the bill as a power grab rather than effective security; past attackers were already “known to authorities.”
  • Concerns that more data plus institutional incompetence will harm innocents (e.g., referencing the Horizon scandal) without improving safety.

Privileges for Politicians (“Triple Lock”)

  • Strong backlash against the special “triple-lock” protection for surveillance of parliamentarians.
  • Seen as “one law for them, another for us” and evidence the law’s real risks are understood by its authors.

Tech Responses and Practical Privacy

  • Discussion of Tor and VPNs as countermeasures, with skepticism about Tor’s anonymity against capable nation-states and worries that VPN use itself may look suspicious.
  • Some route all home traffic through privacy-focused VPNs; others choose to “blend in” on the open internet.
  • A few say they won’t found tech companies in the UK or will reconsider employment rather than comply with surveillance obligations.

Media Coverage and Public Awareness

  • Several note minimal or low‑profile coverage by mainstream UK media, especially the BBC, despite some articles existing.
  • TV licensing and BBC funding are debated as an example of opaque, quasi-tax structures and state-media entanglement.

Broader Themes: Civil Liberties, Economics, Dystopia

  • Comments portray a global trend against end‑to‑end encryption and toward expansive surveillance across parties and countries.
  • Some frame surveillance as a tool to maintain existing economic hierarchies and distract the public via fear and culture wars.
  • Multiple references compare the current trajectory to cyberpunk or classic dystopian fiction, with the twist of “all the surveillance, none of the cool tech.”