Talk:Draft Communications Data Bill

Merge Communications Capabilities Development Programme

Although it's not a very high quality article, there is some information and sources that would probably help this article.

Considering that the CCDP's implementation will be the CDB, I think it's worth merging the two articles (or at least redirecting the CCDP to this) -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 08:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to make such a merge at least for now. If we merged these two, the 2008 bill would also be appropriate to merge, and perhaps some of the other policy positions ... it's such a big ball of wax we ought to figure out how to partition it first. But one of the simplest distinctions we can keep to is that a particular bill is its own thing, and we can tell pretty easily what's relevant to that and what isn't. (I think) One of the sites I cited (forget which) was making a distinction in its pages between "pre-May" and "post-May" action on this. Wnt (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the CCDP will live on, whatever happens to the Comms Data Bill, so should be kept separate. Jim Killock (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thinking a bit more, I think there is a case to merge the Intercept Modernisation Programme and CCDP pages. Jim Killock (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

All sounds reasonable, I'll remove the merge templates -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 17:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Role of BAE Systems Detica

From my first searches it looks like there is an ongoing association between the "black boxes" and Detica. I haven't presently demonstrated the relevance of Detica's (Streamshield Networks) role as a funding member of the Internet Watch Foundation [1] and as a partner of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, [2] though it sounds like a related application. If anyone can deliver more detail on the black boxes - a picture of one, or what the rules are for ISP employees who so much as think about touching one, etc., please do! Wnt (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Restructure and brain dump

I'm sorry I haven't provided (any) references but I've added the bits I think are missing. refs should be easy enough to find. Jim Killock (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Links

useful links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachtripfan (talk • contribs) 13:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of Quotes By Anne Jellema

I don't wish to edit this page directly, as I work at the World Wide Web Foundation. But I wanted to point out that the quotes from Anne Jellema, Web Foundation CEO on this page used on this page are not related to the draft Communications Data Bill, but rather refer to the draft Investigatory Powers Bill. Perhaps they should be moved to the draft Investigatory Powers Bill page, or the attribution made clear.

Allthingslegal (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Done: I moved the quote to the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill article. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is very one-sided. It seems like it was all written by and for people who are against this bill, dedicated to refuting it. There is no representation of any other point of view. This is not the sort of standard one would expect to see in an encyclopaedia. The article on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill (although not finished) is an example of a much more neutral article. 92.20.169.62 (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The short answer to that is... There is no evidence to support its use. At least, none that's been made publicly available. There are thinly veiled threats, claims of necessity, allusions to the lives that would be saved and the terorists foiled, etc... But if you're actually looking for something factual to base an informed decision on, there's nothing at all. 86.188.91.251 (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That may be the case - I don't have a view one way or the other - but it doesn't address the issue that was highlighted above, i.e. that the other point of view does not receive due weight in the article and the wording in places needs to be more encyclopaedic and impartial in style. Whizz40 (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Draft Communications Data Bill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611153343/http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2010/Strategic-Defence-and-Security-Review/ to http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2010/Strategic-Defence-and-Security-Review/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)