Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Did the Queen Just Resurrect the Snooper's Charter?

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the by-the-way-monarchy-has-some-downsides dept.

Government 214

DavidGilbert99 writes "This time last year the Queen officially introduced the Communications Data Bill (known as the Snooper's Charter to those opposing it). Last month it was effectively killed when the UK deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said it went too far and he wouldn't support it. Today the Queen was back and while there was no official mention of the Communications Data Bill, there was mention of 'crime in cyberspace' and a very strong hint that more legislation to monitor people's online activity is on the way."

cancel ×

214 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Royalty? Just say no. (1, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673175)

In my opinion, having royalty weakens an entire country.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (4, Insightful)

deusmetallum (1607059) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673195)

I would disagree. It's nice to think that royaly has some for of power in the country, but in reality they do not (at least, not in the UK). The Queen's speech will have been written for her by Parliament, so in instances like this, her opinions are not really her own.

Many Brits will agree (though not all), that having a monarchy does a great deal of good for our nation and the commenwelth, strengthening reltationships, and providing a massive tourist industry.

Worth every penny in my books.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673231)

Agreed. The alternative, US style at least, a politically motivated president that we treat with honour and respect? No thanks. Lets keep our politicians where they stand, a PM that we can hate and bad mouth in the commons and a powerless head of state to do the ceremonial guff who we can treat with honour and respect.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (2, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673559)

I'll take the president. If he/she turns out to be a dick we can fire them. We would no longer be the Queen's subjects, we would be citizens of our own country. No-one is required to respect the president, beyond the military which has to respect all senior officers.

I'd shake the Queen's hand but wouldn't bow to her. I wouldn't touch Prince Philip. Royalists are all short sighted - the current Queen might be bland an inoffensive but there is no guarantee future ones will be.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673611)

Royalists are all short sighted - the current Queen might be bland an inoffensive but there is no guarantee future ones will be.

If you'd bothered to read the post you're replying to (or if you had any general knowledge at all) you'd know that it wouldn't make any difference; the monarch is ceremonial and has no real power.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673691)

Power is irrelevant. Imagine of Prince Philip was king. How embarrassing. Would you want to be his subject.

As it is Liz seems unable to produce a smile. Her frowning face isn't exactly the best way to promote our country and its heritage.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (1)

slim (1652) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673713)

I've seen someone say, with a straight face, "I'm a staunch royalist, but if Prince Charles ever becomes king, I'll become a republican".

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (2)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674141)

Why should we honor and respect the head of state? Especially when the state is not worthy of honor and respect? Make the president earn his respect.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673243)

The Queen's speech will have been written for her by Parliament, so in instances like this, her opinions are not really her own.

Just like lobbyists write much of the legislation for our US Congress?

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673261)

The major difference being that the UK lobbyists are elected, while their sockpuppet is not. In the US it is the other way around, meaning the public only have the illusion of having control over the direction of policy through the polls.

Dishonesty is not healthy. (1, Flamebait)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673253)

You said, "The Queen's speech will have been written for her by Parliament, so in instances like this, her opinions are not really her own."

Notice that you are suggesting that dishonesty is acceptable.

I lived in the U.K. for 5 months with an English woman. We were interviewing each other for marriage. It was my impression that allowing constant dishonesty helped English women manipulate English men. If the English culture is arranged such that the Queen can lie and be accepted, other women can lie and their lies will be accepted.

Re:Dishonesty is not healthy. (3, Insightful)

deusmetallum (1607059) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673289)

I think you might be taking this argument to extremes. The gender of our monarch doesn't matter here. Be they male, female, or a pot of icecream, what is put in front of the monarch by parliament is what shall be read out.

The queen is actually very forthcoming with her own opinions, especially when talking to lawmakers both here and abroad. We should consider this only ceremony, and not try to delve any deeper into it.

Re:Dishonesty is not healthy. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673551)

Ah, but strawberry flavored monarchs are better than chocolate flavored monarchs.

Re:Dishonesty is not healthy. (2)

Kavafy (1322911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673293)

This is the most tenuous causal link I have ever come across.

Re:Dishonesty is not healthy. (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673439)

Notice that you are suggesting that dishonesty is acceptable.

You misunderstand. The speech is given by Her Royal Highness as Head of State. The speech for the Head of State is written by the Government formed by the Prime Minister. It isn't an expression of personal opinion, but of state policy set by the Government.

I'm curious - do you have a similar view about the lies of Bill Clinton? Did he empower all American men to lie as well? Or are we all responsible before God and our conscience for our own actions?

Re:Dishonesty is not healthy. (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673657)

He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. The speech is all "The government will do X and Y", not "I think (shurely "one thinks" - Ed) Z". Where's the deception?

Re:Dishonesty is not healthy. (3, Informative)

Ottibus (753944) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673693)

You said, "The Queen's speech will have been written for her by Parliament, so in instances like this, her opinions are not really her own."

Notice that you are suggesting that dishonesty is acceptable.

There is no dishonesty. The speech is written by the leadership of the governing party (not Parliament) and is phrased to make it clear that they are the ones actually speaking. So she will say "My government will..." rather than "I will..."

The only falsehood, if there is any, is the pretence that she has any significant control over "her" government.

Re:Dishonesty is not healthy. (1)

jareth-0205 (525594) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673817)

You said, "The Queen's speech will have been written for her by Parliament, so in instances like this, her opinions are not really her own."

Notice that you are suggesting that dishonesty is acceptable.

Are you deliberately being stupid? It's a constitutional convention, that the head of state states what parliament intends to do. It's historic, and nobody (except you) believes that she actually came up with the policies.

I lived in the U.K. for 5 months with an English woman. We were interviewing each other for marriage. It was my impression that allowing constant dishonesty helped English women manipulate English men. If the English culture is arranged such that the Queen can lie and be accepted, other women can lie and their lies will be accepted.

*Ohh*... I see. You're judging 30 million women and a culture based on your one experience. Good job!

Re:Dishonesty is not healthy. (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673895)

I'm not sure about dishonesty, but do you want to know something that's really, most definitely not healthy?

Having to interview for marriage, and having a homepage with an about section that obsesses about a small Brazilian girl.

Re:Dishonesty is not healthy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43674001)

I am really creeped out by that page. I mean completely and utterly creeped out.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673343)

Actually she didn't give an opinion. The speech says what is going to happen, and the bills that the government are going to bring forwards.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (1)

maroberts (15852) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673533)

The Speech sets out what the Government wants to happen, whether it will happen is dependent on the votes/ legislative review in Parliament.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674063)

And given that it's a coalition government, and the one party that gives the government has already said "no" to the Bill, it's not likely that this bill be enacted.

I'd be surprised if they don't try to enact something vaguely related to Cybersecurity, with at least some of the objectionable features of the first bill, just to save face. But if they enact the exact legislation Clegg already killed he'll lose face, so that is truly dead.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (2)

maroberts (15852) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674201)

The Cybersecurity issue is highly vexing. The Conservatives in Opposition were the "good guys" against attempted extension of those powers by the (then) Labour Government. Now they've been corrupted since they came to power and have succumbed to the Dark Side.....

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (2, Interesting)

Pax681 (1002592) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673357)

I would disagree. It's nice to think that royaly has some for of power in the country, but in reality they do not (at least, not in the UK). The Queen's speech will have been written for her by Parliament, so in instances like this, her opinions are not really her own. Many Brits will agree (though not all), that having a monarchy does a great deal of good for our nation and the commenwelth, strengthening reltationships, and providing a massive tourist industry. Worth every penny in my books.

you having a laugh?? this is the 21st century! why the hell should an accident of birth dictate your station in life or the influence you have over affairs of state???
As it happens the queen and prince Charles DO have a fair bit of say and have actually VERY much influenced things and can VETO bills and acts of parliament and have done so on various occasions
check these :-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills [guardian.co.uk]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262613/Queen-Prince-Charles-given-39-chances-veto-legislation-dont-want-law.html [dailymail.co.uk]
and to be quite frank FUCK THAT.
they also cost the tax payer a fortune but the main point being... why the fuck should some unelected bunch have the right to veto democratically proposed and approved acts and bills just because of an accident of birth.???
value for money my aching ass , it's an affront to democracy and this idiocy has no place in the 21st century... not at all

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673587)

I do like the comment "'In modern times, the Prince of Wales has never refused to consent to any bill affecting Duchy of Cornwall interests, unless advised to do so by ministers. Every instance of the prince's consent having been sought and given to legislation is a matter of public record."

So, read between the lines, all bills that have had consent are available

All bills that consent has not been given, aren't. And consent has been denied on the advice of ministers.

So, the Royalty is being used to kill "private members bills" at the behest of ministers.

Prince Charles has also used his influence to "kill" building projects - Our King (in waiting) doesn't like it, he talks to their King whose people are financing the build, and the build gets stopped. He's also on record as being against the laws of succession changing as well, so that the "first born" inherits, if male or female. That's right, things like state titles go to the first born male of a family, and even travel "up" (cousins/uncles) the way to a male heir rather than to a female heir. If a father wants to leave his estate/title to a son, fine, it's a will. It shouldn't be law that it *must* be that way.

I would rather live a country where my son has a chances to become the Head of State on merit as much as anyone else, and it not being decided by who his mother is.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673797)

That's right, things like state titles go to the first born male of a family, and even travel "up" (cousins/uncles) the way to a male heir rather than to a female heir.

If that's true how did Lizzy ever become queen? And why do Fergie's bints rank before Viscount Severn?

I would rather live a country where my son has a chances to become the Head of State on merit

If there's any truth to genetics that's unlikely.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674125)

You do realize that the Queen cannot actually veto Legislation? If Parliament wants to fire her they can do that. They have, in fact, done exactly that to monarchs who they suspected were going to become Catholic.

What she can do is not that different from what you can do: promise to raise a big stink if laws she doesn't like are passed. Since she is significantly more popular then most politicians this gives her a lot of influence. But if her approval rating was the same as yours she wouldn't have any influence.

In short if your son has less influence then the Queen it will be because he sucks, and everyone hates him; just like you.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (3, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673359)

I would disagree. It's nice to think that royaly has some for of power in the country, but in reality they do not (at least, not in the UK).

Wouldn't it be fairer to say that the royalty, and in particular the monarch, does have meaningful formal power, but that practically it could only be used in extremis? Anything else would probably result in a constitutional crisis.

I'm thinking, for example, of the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Governor-General Sir John Kerr in Australia in 1975.

1975 Australian constitutional crisis [wikipedia.org]

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673403)

I'd fucking shit myself if the Queen had Extremis...

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673661)

This *is* the power the queen has, her Governor-General is simply exercising the power of the Queen ... in this case he overstepped his remit (by how much is debatable)

The Queen/Monarch of the UK has the same power and has exercised it (to a small degree on advice) when we have had a Hung parliament ...

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (2, Interesting)

WizardFusion (989563) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673375)

I disagree. They should be removed and disbanded. A complete waste of taxpayers money and resources. Get rid of them.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673539)

>providing a massive tourist industry.

Yeah, because countries without monarchies don't have tourism.

I can't remember the last time I went to the Eiffel Tower and thought "It's not a bad view, but the lack of a monarch spoils it for me somehow..."

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674131)

The thousands of "subjects" who call for the dissolvement of the royals as they are a drain on the economy will disagree.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673213)

We need to stop treating our president like he's the "king" of the U.S.A., and treat him/her more like the civil servant that they really are and were supposed to be originally.

Re:Royalty? Just say no. (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674291)

I'm quite certain that Barack Obama is quite clear that he is President and not King at the moment. I'm also reasonably certain that if asked he would be happy he is not a Prime Minister, subject to Prime Minister's Question Time [youtube.com] .

The Queen (4, Informative)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673193)

I don't think the queen had much to do with it so I'm not sure why she's getting a mention. This would fall under "official duties that have to be carried out or I lose my allowance". The royalty just do as they are told by the politicians.

Re:The Queen (3, Informative)

ACDChook (665413) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673237)

I don't think the queen would mind so much if she lost her "allowance"... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw [youtube.com]

Re:The Queen (0)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673255)

basic premise of that movie is bullshit (that the family "owns" the land).

though in regards of snoopers charter, she's just a scapegoat. however, I doubt she would oppose spying, after all she doesn't have any privacy..

Re:The Queen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673371)

They DO own the land, the monarchy rents a large portion of the UK for what is essentially a pitence, if the monarchy ever decided to reclaim their lands the amount of tax the UK gathers would be hugely reduced.

Re:The Queen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673475)

Except, in most cases it is the monarchy *not* the monarch, and this is not a personal possession.

Re:The Queen (3, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673467)

I doubt she would oppose spying

There is absoloutely no evidence either way for such a claim. The Queen has remained remarkable apolitical, so basically you're making stuff up.

Re:The Queen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673507)

basic premise of that movie is bullshit (that the family "owns" the land).

Those deals are quite common in europe and while the state could just take the land and say "fuck you" to the royals that would set a bad precedent for every other landowner in the country or just end up on the loosing side of a curt case and make the politicians look stupid (no democratic government can just grab things it does not own without a legal justification for doing so - after all they are not monarchs with absolute power and only part of a system with a delicate balance of power and freedom).

Re:The Queen (1)

garyok (218493) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673541)

Only the Crown can assert absolute ownership of the land in England (and the seabed of territorial waters). "Landowners" in England only own estates (the estate in fee simple and the estate in land) and have tenure on the land [wikipedia.org] .

Of course, it'd really kick off if Liz Windsor sent her army round to clear the peasants off her nice patch of dirt (she is Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces after all). Something tells me she can't be bothered with the hassle.

Re:The Queen (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673737)

If she did that, she wouldn't stay Queen for very long. In fact, there probably wouldn't be a monarchy for very long. Commander-in-chief or not, I doubt the UK armed forces would follow those orders.There's a long tradition in the UK of a gap--sometimes a large gap--between the powers you *officially* have, and the powers you *actually* have. The Queen understands this very well.

Re:The Queen (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674169)

All the Commonwealth realms are like this.

If you read the Canadian Constitution the Queen (it actually says "she," because at the time Victoria was Queen) is hiring ministers, firing ministers, and basically the only check on her power is that a) nobody can mess with the provinces (but she also hires and fires their governments), and b) she has to have one guy a "Chair of her Majesty's Privy Council," who does a lot of the actual scut work.

Turns out the Chair of the Privy Council is the Prime Minister, and if he got half of Parliament to sign a decree replacing the Queen with Swiss Cheese the Courts would go along with it.

Re:The Queen (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673531)

The royalty just do as they are told by the politicians.

Which politicians told Prince Harry to stage a randy-rompy game of strip billiards in Las Vegas? Those are the type of politicians that I would like to elect!

"The Economist" regularly frowns on the monarchy concept, because it undermines the principle that positions of state should be based on merit. Although, they are not really rabid about it.

An interesting thought on royalty can be found in Beaumarchais' play "The Marriage of Figaro". Figaro points at the Count and says:

"Because you are a great nobleman, you think you are a great genius. You have taken trouble with nothing, except to be born."

Re:The Queen (2)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674217)

Question:
Can you name a single country whose last three leaders have actually been selected based on merit?

Hollande, Bush, etc. were selected by a process; but in 20-20 hindsight it's pretty clear there wasn't much merit involved. Or, to be more precise, the things you have to be good at to earn a Presidency (winning elections) have virtually nothing to do with the things you do as President.

Re:The Queen (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673697)

Her allowance is paid out of the income from the Windsor's family Land ... the Government would be loath to lose the 94% of this they currently keep ...

We don't have a dismissable monarchy, it would require great constitutional change to get rid of the Royal's, and even then they would still be the monarch of 15 other countries and head of the Commonwealth ...

Re:The Queen (1)

MrMickS (568778) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673845)

Her allowance is paid out of the income from the Windsor's family Land ... the Government would be loath to lose the 94% of this they currently keep ...

We don't have a dismissable monarchy, it would require great constitutional change to get rid of the Royal's, and even then they would still be the monarch of 15 other countries and head of the Commonwealth ...

Just how did they come by this land? Was it the land that belong to the monarch that they inherited when George I was offered the crown and the House of Hanover took over from the Stuarts as monarch? In that case it's not really their land, but rather the land of the monarch, whoever that may be. Its wrong to think of it as the Windsor's family land in that sense, rather the income from that land is used to fund them and their endeavours. If the monarchy were to be removed I would see those lands as largely reverting to the state.

Re:The Queen (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674273)

How'd every family farm in the entire world come by it's land: inheritance.

It's unusual that the UK has kept political power formally tied to heredity, and that they haven't reformed land laws to make it clear the Queen owns nothing of the Crown Estate, but in principle the only difference between HM inheriting most of the UK and a Texas rancher inheriting a bunch of grazing rights from his father is scale.

Re:The Queen (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674251)

Here's the thing:
In countries with written Constitutions something that only requires 50% of Parliament plus one guy is not a "great Constitutional Change."

Replacing the Queen would really shock the British people, but in legal terms Parliament has had that power for so many centuries you can argue about how many centuries it has had that power. The British people would be extremely shocked if Parliament actually acted on it's power to fire the Queen, and in that sense it would be a great change; but since the legal procedure to fire the Queen is well-known it would not technically be a Constitutional change.

It would be analogous to Clinton's Impeachment. Yes it was unprecedented, the voters were somewhat pissed off, and it had not happened in anyone's memory, but since it was well within the House's Constitutional powers to impeach a President it was not a Constitutional change.

For those outside of the UK (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673199)

The Queens speech is not written by the Queen.

It's a summary of the Governments plans for the next legislative period, written by the government.

She just reads it out.

Re:For those outside of the UK (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673307)

A lot of folk within the UK could do with reminding of this too. Some of the things that are in her speeches are so obviously government spin that they may as well have the Chief Whip out in front of the camera moving her jaw with his hand and speaking the words out of the corner of his mouth.

Re:For those outside of the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673569)

I would honestly love to see that.

Re:For those outside of the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673901)

A lot of folk within the UK could do with reminding of this too.

Not least of which is the so-called editor, whom I recently learned is a fellow Briton. Just when I thought the national shame couldn't get any worse...

Re:For those outside of the UK (0)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673335)

She could decide not to read it out.

Re:For those outside of the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673605)

I'm sure she could. But the Queen doesn't tend to get involved in politics, if she were to do that it would have to be for something a lot more serious than she just doesn't like the proposed legislation.

Re:For those outside of the UK (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673819)

I'm not British, but doesn't getting involved in politics is the job of a monarch? She gets quite a fat paycheck, she should do some work to earn it.

Re:For those outside of the UK (1)

oneandoneis2 (777721) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673843)

Not really, there wouldn't be much point in voting if the monarch just went ahead and over-ruled the elected politicans.

Re:For those outside of the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673967)

She does meet the Prime Minister weekly and offers advice, but the bulk of her job is non-political: awarding prizes, opening bridges, informal diplomacy, etc. She works hard even before you take into account that she more than two decades past normal retirement age.

Re:For those outside of the UK (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673995)

I'm not British, but doesn't getting involved in politics is the job of a monarch?

In Britain, *NOT* getting involved in politics is the job of the monarch. She is a symbolic and ceremonial head of state. Haven't you ever heard, "In Britain, the Queen reigns but does not rule"?

Re:For those outside of the UK (1)

gsslay (807818) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673865)

And what would that achieve?

If she didn't read it out, it would not stop the Government setting out to do it. It would just ensure that next year one of the things on the list would be; put a stop to "Queen opens parliament" tradition.

Re:For those outside of the UK (1)

MrMickS (568778) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673907)

She could decide not to read it out.

Not without provoking a constitutional crisis that would probably lead to her being removed as head of state.

Re:For those outside of the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673347)

Your title suggests everyone in the UK already knows that. I can assure you that 95% do not.

Re:For those outside of the UK (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673383)

That she keeps a straight face while doing so doesn't bode well for the bloodline.

Re:For those outside of the UK (1)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673989)

That straight face is part of the bloodline. cf. Hapsburg lip.

Re:For those outside of the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673523)

And here I was hoping they resurrected Freddie Mercury.

What a let down.

Re:For those outside of the UK (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673609)

Yeah, Let's Put Upper Cases Every Where.. :-)

Queen's speech interpreted as meaning bill is dead (5, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673207)

The Queen's speech outlined the various bills that Parliment intends to bring in, and the "snooper's charter" [bbc.co.uk] wasn't one of them; the absence of any given bill from the speech is widely (and uncontroversially) taken to mean that the bill is dead [bbc.co.uk] . The government's comments that it intends to find other ways to address computer crime would seem to back this interpretation.

And there was some good stuff, too (2)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673733)

There were a few other positive signals in this year's Queen's Speech for those of us involved with technology as well.

For example, the government has apparently noticed the number of DRM schemes crippling new games when they go wrong and the plague of low quality software that people are selling, particularly on-line, even though it's so bug-ridden/unstable as to be useless, and it sounds like the consumer rights legislation is about to get an overhaul to make it clear that vendors are on the hook for these kinds of abuses.

Also, while there is mention of new patents and harmonisation across Europe, there seems to be no mention of new patents for things like software and business methods. Sometimes what is missing from the Queen's Speech is more telling than what is stated explicitly, so this could also be a good sign.

Re:Queen's speech interpreted as meaning bill is d (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673739)

Unfortunately reports are that "other ways" includes methods to tie and individual to an IP address.

Personally I think that's even worse, it basically kills free speech online by forcing self-censorship upon people through threat of lawsuits and so forth even when they're in the right. The worrying thing is that Clegg seemed to support this to some extent in that he suggested previously to at least ensure each mobile phone is always assigned a unique IP address rather than have them assigned dynamically.

Luckily I can't see how it's even technically possible though beyond the mobile world, so I think such ideas will die a rather quick death when they recognise you can't really attach an IP address to a person. Even in the mobile world it's not like you can prove someone else used or didn't use the phone and that it wasn't hacked and some remote entity was proxying via it.

I'm in two minds about the issue, I voted Lib Dem last election and they've fulfilled a number of the primary reasons I voted for them including getting rid of the ID cards database, cutting DNA retention by the police, killing this sort of thing and so forth, compared to the Labour government, whom I still remember trying to push horrendous levels of tracking and monitoring they've done an excellent job IMHO. I just hope they wont back any stupid and absurd laws about tying IP addresses to individuals when it actually comes to the vote as that would undo all that. I'm hoping that Clegg's comments to date were simply based on his ignorance of the technical issues involved and to be fair, it may not be that Clegg even has a choice in the matter, given that it was the Lib Dem political party that voted at their conference to kill the snooper's charter basically forcing his hand on the issue.

Re:Queen's speech interpreted as meaning bill is d (1)

MrMickS (568778) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674007)

Luckily I can't see how it's even technically possible though beyond the mobile world, so I think such ideas will die a rather quick death when they recognise you can't really attach an IP address to a person. Even in the mobile world it's not like you can prove someone else used or didn't use the phone and that it wasn't hacked and some remote entity was proxying via it.

If the mobile carriers used IPv6 couldn't they give each device a unique, fixed, IP address within their network? The IP address could be tied to SIM card and IMEI of the device which would allow identification of a mobile device. This could be used to identify an owner in a legal sense. Whilst its not perfect its reasonable to assume that the law would work in a similar way to identifying car drivers from the car registration. The owner would be required to provide information as to who was using the device at the time, if it wasn't them. I'm not advocating this but its not a stretch to see how you could get to it legally.

As to a question of whether it should be done. That's a tricky one. Just think though, if you were liable for traffic coming from your computer would you take more care securing it, and making sure that it was free of viruses etc? If could have an impact on botnets and the like.

Re:Queen's speech interpreted as meaning bill is d (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43674115)

Tying people to IP address(s) is made a reality by IPv6

Maybe they're gonna use this as a trojan horse to pass this sort of legislation.

I think.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673223)

..someone needs to read up on how constitutional monarchy works.

Re:I think.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673425)

Is it easier to get modded Insightful if you just make vague allusions towards a point? Is the idea to show that one is an insightful person, via smoke and mirrors, or is the idea to actually write some of that insight in the comment? I'm new here, clearly.

Re:I think.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673789)

I've been here for over a decade and I still don't understand how jabs against another who one claims is ignorant in some fashion without explaining the gaff, in and of itself, is ever considered insightful. I guess smug asshats will have their way in life though. It certainly doesn't help to enlighten anyone on the other hand.

Just like fanboys need reassurance of their choices in life to make themselves sleep better at night, I think there must also be a measure of (pseudo)intellectuals who need other (pseudo)intellectuals to pad their egos. Meh.

Re:I think.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673913)

To completely ignore your point, where did this meh thing come from? Doesn't sound like the Queen's English to me.

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673279)

It's talking about mapping IP addresses to people, presumably by forcing ISPs to give them access to data they already have (IP address active at time ##:## for account name ####). How that's going to work with CGNAT is anyone's guess.

What's wrong with that? Anonymity means a lack of accountability, and there are enough people abusing the lack of accountability that it's a problem, so anonymity (in the sense of even the police can't track you down) has to go.

And you can bleat all you like about Tor - if that becomes a problem it has to go too. Any technical measure you like is useless when you have to go via an ISP who has to conform to local law. Ultimately they can make it so you can only send and receive unencrypted HTTP traffic. And every "clever" technical workaround (all this "routes around it" bullshit) takes us a step closer to that day. Eventually all your comms will be known to the police and all because you didn't want them knowing your fucking IP address. Pick your battles carefully.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43674237)

CGNAT? Well, it's still technically possible to log what goes on in an internal network, however the biggest benefit to this surveillance legislation to the geeks? the push for wide spread government mandated IPv6 adoption throughout the UK.

This would also allow the government to not just monitor your external WAN interface, but your entire network's devices too

No. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673315)

Next question.

Today the Queen was back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673323)

Dumb, Dumb, DUMB!!!

Sorry, I felt that part of the summary lacked gravitas.

Pic of Prince Charles in article (1, Funny)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673463)

If Prince Charles has one more medal or adornment pinned onto the front of his suit he's gonna' fall onto his face. What exactly has he done to merit such a display? At least Prince Harry has earned his own service medals by truly serving his country with honor.

I understand that polo's a dangerous game and all, perhaps that is how Charles got his decorations?

Re:Pic of Prince Charles in article (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673509)

They're commemorative medals, [bbc.co.uk] basically. They serve a similar function to the various adornments that the Queen wears. BTW that's the first Google result for "prince charles medals".

Re:Pic of Prince Charles in article (2)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673521)

He's got nothing on Prince Phillip [dailymail.co.uk] .

But to answer your question, he hasn't done anything for most of them other than being present at some event or being where he's at in the royal family. Explanation [bbc.co.uk] of many of the medals.

Re:Pic of Prince Charles in article (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673647)

Your links are interesting and informative, thanks. One of the 'comments' from your second link is from a U.K. serviceman who says he met and asked Charles if he could have one of his medals. Charles replied that he could have one of "the chocolate ones". We in the U.S. have our own version of kings and queens modeled after the U.K., fortunatley they get changed out every 4-8 years.

It seems Prince Charles does have a sense of humor about all the 'pomp and show'. And if that's how he serves his country, by playing up the role of royalty, he does it the best he can to make a good showing. Personally, I wouldn't want to have his 'duties', seems like it's a bit of a drag.

From your 2nd link...

"Unlike his brother Andrew, awarded the Falkland Islands medal, Prince Charles has not been decorated for active service in a war. Instead his honours are made up of awards for serving in a particular time or place, being a member of a high-ranking order or medals from other countries."

- - -

(from Wikipedia): Military training and career:

Following royal tradition, Charles served in the navy and air force. After requesting and receiving Royal Air Force training during his second year at Cambridge, on 8 March 1971 he flew himself to the Royal Air Force College Cranwell to train as a jet pilot. Following the passing-out parade that September, he embarked on a naval career, enrolling in a six-week course at the Royal Naval College Dartmouth and then serving on the guided missile destroyer HMS Norfolk (1971–1972) and the frigates HMS Minerva (1972–1973) and HMS Jupiter (1974). He also qualified as a helicopter pilot at RNAS Yeovilton in 1974, just prior to joining 845 Naval Air Squadron, operating from HMS Hermes. On 9 February 1976, he took command of the coastal minehunter HMS Bronington for his last ten months serving actively in the navy. He learned to fly on a Chipmunk basic pilot trainer, a BAC Jet Provost jet trainer, and a Beagle Basset multi-engine trainer; he then regularly flew the Hawker Siddeley Andover, Westland Wessex and BAe 146 aircraft of The Queen's Flight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles,_Prince_of_Wales [wikipedia.org]

Re:Pic of Prince Charles in article (1)

maroberts (15852) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673683)

Charles was a serving navy officer and as such tend to collect medals for military service. Whilst Charles never got in a war, he was in the navy and was captain of a minesweeper at one stage. IIRC the entire salary he was entitled to was used as the basis of his funding of the Princes Trust, now a fairly
It's worth pointing out that his brother Andrew, as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands was at risk in the line of fire; so whilst some concessions are made for their importance, those concessions do not extend to avoiding all risk of harm

Other insignia are various titles, long service awards etc. He's technically a four star general in each of the Armed Services, just as technically the Queen is Commander In Chief.

US Military is no different - they're equally prone to giving themselves awards for saluting smartly, getting a small scratch on a fencepost etc etc.

Re:Pic of Prince Charles in article (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673769)

"It's worth pointing out that his brother Andrew, as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands was at risk in the line of fire;"

Quite literally too. He was a Sea King pilot acting as a deterrent for Exocet missiles in trying to get them to start tracking him, rather than the ships. He wasn't the only pilot doing this at the time, but it's not the sort of job I'd fancy - literally putting myself between a missile and it's target and trying to get it to switch to me so I can attempt to evade it being much more maneuverable than the ship.

Re:Pic of Prince Charles in article (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673801)

BTW, I didn't mean to disrespect the good people of England in any way. In America we make fun of our ''celebrities/ royalty" on a regular basis. It's just that English royalty seems to 'go overboard' with their dress and ceremony. Crazy world...

Back on topic, how much longer until the internet is completely controlled and locked down? When you let any power have more control, it alway's gets worse and worse, until the people realize it's gone too far, and then, historically, things tend to get really ugly.

Re:Pic of Prince Charles in article (1)

maroberts (15852) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674145)

Hey I can't understand you got the impression I take any Slashdot comment seriously! :-P

Re:Pic of Prince Charles in article (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673745)

Charles Windsor was a serving officer in the Navy for 5 years (flew helicopters and jets) just like both his sons

The vast majority of his medals are honorary, just like the awards that most heads of state and their deputies receive ...

The universal queen of the world? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673549)

Which "the queen" are we talking about?
This is a US based site but they have no queen so that leaves roughly over a dozen choices.

Re:The universal queen of the world? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673667)

This is a US based site but they have no queen so that leaves roughly over a dozen choices.

  • Lindsay Lohan: Only royalty can commit so many crimes, and not go to prison.
  • Oprah: She kindly bought a million billion Microsoft Surfaces for her subjects.
  • Kim Kardashian: Holy Roman Empire sized butt-cheeks.
  • Rhianna: Takes royal beatings from Chris Brown.
  • Mama "Honey Boo Boo" June: Bone-head behavior fitting for a Royal.

Re:The universal queen of the world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673689)

Of that dozen you claim, I bet you only thought of one in particular. The one that still owns the USA (on paper). To add to you ridiculous comment, the summary clearly talks about the UK, that's what the "UK" is referring to. Try reading more than the headline next time, and you won't look like such a twat.

Re:The universal queen of the world? (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about a year and a half ago | (#43673759)

Dozen?

There are only two currently reining Queens ....

        Elizabeth II of the UK (and 12 other states)
        Margrethe II of Denmark

So most of the dozen or so Queens are the same person ....

Re:The universal queen of the world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673883)

It refers to the Queen of the 51st State.

The Queen of England is a tyrant. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673641)

The Queen has all the power in England and has taken away all their guns so they have no freedom. She is a tyrant in Australia, UK, Canada, Britain, New Zealand and England and those folks cower before her and they don't know what freedom is. If we let Obama take our guns and our pipe bombs we will be defenceless and the Queen on England will come here and we will have SOCIALIST OBAMACRE like in England. You go to a doctor but you can not pay so he sends you to a hospital and you can not pay them either because the Queen's law says so, so the death panel KILLS YOU!
 

In America we have the first amendment to make us free and we have the second amendment to stop socialists who use the first amendment. Without guns the Queen of England would come here and take away all our elected Washington lobbyists and we would not even have our fair and balanced TV news to get the real truth. Wake up American sheeple !!!!!

Whooeeee!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673767)

Someone mod this +infinity funny!

I do remember that Hunter S Thompson once wrote something to the effect that there were Americans who still feared the return of George III. Looks like one's broken cover...

A textbook example (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43673749)

"Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines [wikipedia.org]

No (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about a year and a half ago | (#43674107)

No

* The Queen's speech is nothing to do with the Queen

* the Bill known as "Snoopers charter" The communications data bill was not in the Queen's Speech

So No ...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?