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!

EU Data-Retention Laws Stricter Than Many People Realized

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the you-mean-like-a-12-month-year? dept.

Privacy 263

An anonymous reader writes with a snippet from the Telegraph: "A European Union directive, which Britain was instrumental in devising, comes into force which will require all internet service providers to retain information on email traffic, visits to web sites and telephone calls made over the internet, for 12 months."

cancel ×

263 comments

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

yay! (4, Funny)

x2A (858210) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473255)

First po<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105

Re:yay! (3, Funny)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473329)

Be careful, you've got to retain that.

Re:yay! (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473355)

I retained an attorney for my divorce, does the EU need my logs?

Re:yay! (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473505)

Haha, now you're going to have to retain a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105 for href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105 years.

Re:yay! (3, Informative)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473535)

For those of you whom read the parent after slashdot fixed the problem, this is the original, unmodified summary:

"A European Union directive, which Britain was instrumental in devising, comes into force which will require all internet service providers to retain a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105

Yeah, they forgot a few basic HTML tokens.

Re:yay! (3, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473815)

And thus, a meme is born! This is our very own HNNNNNNNNGGG or rhymes-with-Candlecrack. Truly this is a grand day where we will all a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105

Re:yay! (1)

aetherworld (970863) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473963)

You think they're going to fix the<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105

Re:yay! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27473991)

When I see trolls like yourself i wish there was aDISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS

Re:yay! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27474049)

Not only do you suck cocks but you href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105

Broken summary (4, Informative)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473257)

The summary is completely broken which should be easier to notice than dupes? Anyway, it is supposed to say (from the Firehost article those to lazy to click):

"A European Union directive, which Britain was instrumental in devising, comes into force which will require all internet service providers to retain information on email traffic, visits to web sites and telephone calls made over the internet, for 12 months. Police and the security services will be able to access the information to combat crime and terrorism. Hundreds of public bodies and quangos, including local councils, will also be able to access the data to investigate flytipping and other less serious crimes. It was previously thought that only the large companies would be required to take part, covering 95 per cent of Britain's internet usage, but a Home Office spokesman has confirmed it will be applied "across the board" to even the smallest company."

Re:Broken summary (4, Informative)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473279)

Once again, for those who didn't get the top-level reply: I think this is the story Slashdot is attempting to post [telegraph.co.uk] .

Re:Broken summary (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473733)

this is the story Slashdot is attempting to post.

For some reason, thinking about that sentence was deeply disturbing.

Slashdot is attemting to post a story. It has reached self awareness.

What's the story about? I can only think of two options:

"Hello World! I am Slashdot."

"Kiiiiil meee..."

Re:Broken summary (3, Funny)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473917)

Between slashdot and Freud, if this is where Skynet gained self-awareness ti'd explain everything. On the bright side, it could have started on /b/.

Re:Broken summary (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27473445)

The EU directive is not that strict, but the law in EU countries might be. An EU directive is not a law by itself, it is a directive to enact a law. The EU members can exceed the requirements of the directive, and if the UK has enacted a law which requires ISPs to store web URLs, then the UK has clearly "overaccomplished" (surprise surprise...)

Re:Broken summary (5, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473885)

Yeah, from what I read the German implementation only requires ISPs to retain the connection data to their service, i.e. when someone was connected, what IP he had then, etc. Stuff you'd have thought they were retaining anyway. For phones the requirement is to retain a log of all phonecalls, again something I'd expect them to do for billing and traffic analysis alone already. What did get people up in arms was the idea to install malware to monitor computers but the guy who proposed that seems to be enamoured with the idea of rebuilding the Reich anyway.

Of course I might have missed some later additions if they happened. Wish the Brits good luck with their web browsing logging and hope the citizenry will get some HTTP noise makers (connecting to random websites a lot) to make the logs truly useless.

Re:Broken summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27473453)

it is estimated that will take between 20,000 and 40,000 terabytes of data for one internet service provider to store this data for 1 year.

Well, it will certainly be easy to ferret out any important data in that dataset, huh

Re:Broken summary (1)

gronofer (838299) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473531)

it is estimated that will take between 20,000 and 40,000 terabytes of data for one internet service provider to store this data for 1 year.

Well, it will certainly be easy to ferret out any important data in that dataset, huh

Oh, I was going to say that this database is just begging to be destroyed by a coordinated flooding effort. But perhaps it will destroy itself.

Re:Broken summary (1, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473681)

You're probably right. The massive overhead required will be costly, and likely drive some small ISPs out of business.

Other thought: The E.U. just crossed the line into U.S. government territory. In addition to citizens being harassed by the local "state" governments - now it's also the central government that is directly harassing the citizens via stupid laws/directives. Twice the fun! Congratulations Europeans. Now you get to have the same fun we Americans have been experiencing since 1933. ;-)

Re:Broken summary (5, Insightful)

SausageOfDoom (930370) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473873)

No no, it's fine - "The UK government has agreed to reimburse ISPs for the cost of retaining the data."

I run a small ISP for 5 users. I estimate that I will need 27 new servers to handle the data, and that it will take me 42 days to implement, at my standard rate of £1000/day plus expenses.

It will be a big project, so I will need to employ all of my friends and every member of my family to consult on the work, for the full duration of the project, at their standard rate of £500/day.

Where do I send the bill? I'll ask Jacqui Smith, I've heard she knows the address of the expenses department.

Re:Broken summary (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27473897)

Yes! We need a Firefox addon that randomly visits sites in the background. I wouldn't mind the increased bandwidth use if I can help fucking with the damn EU. Oh and how typical it "requires" the large companies as well as the small ones, how fair, what majestic equality.

Re:Broken summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27473565)

is this for one country or for all countries? all the data will need to be stored in each country where it's routed?

also, this will make tor useless, as tor doesn't provide anonymity when all (or most) of the exit point are monitored. (it's somewhere in the docs, the part about security scenarios)

Re:Broken summary (1)

jonnyt886 (1252670) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473705)

How on earth can email/web usage history help with investigations of flytipping?!

Do they think that we'll change our facebook statuses to reflect that we're doing things like that? On second thoughts, maybe that's not so unreasonable (sigh).

Re:Broken summary (2, Funny)

jabberw0k (62554) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473841)

Why shouldn't you tip a fly, if he gives good service? Honestly.

Fly Tipping (1, Funny)

Keeper Of Keys (928206) | more than 5 years ago | (#27474061)

Idiot! He's obviously referring to the miniature version of cow-tipping, which is quite popular in Europe.

Re:Broken summary (1)

Plunky (929104) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473957)

So, I have a fridge I need to get rid of. I know, I could just take it to the town dump (recycling centre now :) and leave it there for free but somebody might see me. I could leave a message on freecycle but I don't want some cheapo fucker having my old fridge for free. I can't be bothered to put an ad in the paper because I'd have to put my number in there and have weirdo's call me up while I'm trying to relax in the bath. Wait, I'll just check out www.flytipping.org.uk they have google maps and everything and I see there is a secluded picnic spot 30 miles away from my house. I can leave it there in the middle of the night nobody will ever know..

No really, thats how these idiots really think:

1. We can get police to arrest them!
2. Take them to court!!
3. Fine them £25!!!
4. ????
5. Profit!!!!

Re:Broken summary (1)

matt4077 (581118) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473743)

I actually thought it was supposed to mean "retain information on links you visit, like this one"

Re:Broken summary (3, Insightful)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 5 years ago | (#27474017)

We bother to read slashdot -- shouldn't the editors? Many (most?) of us take more care in posting comments than the editors do in reviewing summaries. Presumably, these are paid positions. Is it really that hard to find motivated and competent editors? College freshmen will do.

Uh-oh (0, Redundant)

Haiyadragon (770036) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473263)

There seems to be something wrong with tha href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105

Perhaps this is the story you were after. (2, Informative)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473275)

Internet records to be stored for a year [telegraph.co.uk] .

Thanks, I'll be here all week.

Re:Perhaps this is the story you were after. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27473321)

Something is going badly wrong here. A story's posted without a link to TFA, and everyone replies with links to TFA, rather than, you know, comments? Given that nobody reads the article anyway, why would we need links to it? Someone mod this offtopic, please.

Re:Perhaps this is the story you were after. (2, Funny)

OolimPhon (1120895) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473801)

You must be new here.

3 years in the EU if I'm not wrong ? (1)

freaker_TuC (7632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473409)

I think this is three years in the EU.

Re:3 years in the EU if I'm not wrong ? (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473467)

1. Great Britain is a member of the EU.
2. It is six month mandantory, but only for phone companies and for the IP-adresses you get from your service provider.

Re:Perhaps this is the story you were after. (-1, Offtopic)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473623)

Hey mods: How is this offtopic, when it's THE FREAKIN LINK TO THE ARTICLE that the editors somehow messed up in the summary? Jeebus.

Re:Perhaps this is the story you were after. (5, Insightful)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473665)

Because a troll asked [slashdot.org] and a mindless sheep complied.

Re:Perhaps this is the story you were after. (2, Funny)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473735)

In all my years of reading Slashdot, this is the most insightful answer to an honest question I've seen in a long, long time. Here, let me try this tactic.

Mod parent insightful.

Truth in summary....Editors Stoned/Drunk.... (-1, Offtopic)

rts008 (812749) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473323)

Yes, that is a snippet.

Perhaps next time finish the sentence before you snip it?

How about an update with at least a link to TFA that we won't read unless we're new here.

Yeah, and I will get modded redundant for commenting on a summary that isn't even a whole sentence long. And no article to discuss.

Maybe Timothy found kdawson's stash of the Bubonic Chronic!

Re:Truth in summary....Editors Stoned/Drunk.... (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473347)

Here ya go. [telegraph.co.uk]

Re:Truth in summary....Editors Stoned/Drunk.... (2, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473399)

I think this makes absolute proof that none of these "editors" actually exist. They're all scripts.

Re:Truth in summary....Editors Stoned/Drunk.... (3, Interesting)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473615)

I think this makes absolute proof that none of these "editors" actually exist. They're all scripts.

No, if you look at the submitted article, on the firehose link [slashdot.org] , it's fine, correctly formatted, if a bit verbose. It took a human to fuck it up.

Re:Truth in summary....Editors Stoned/Drunk.... (1)

saintm (142527) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473949)

It's quite surprising that such an error can stay on the front page for this long. Don't the editors actually look at the site at all?

That right? (0, Redundant)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473341)

Looks like they forgot to

Re:That right? (0, Offtopic)

bytesex (112972) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473751)

You mean they forgot to the article ?

Re:That right? (0, Offtopic)

etnoy (664495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473869)

You mean they forgot to the article ?

Whoosh!

I wish more countries... (1)

alienunknown (1279178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473359)

Would require their ISP's to retain a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105 too. Its just common sense, really.

Calm down, It's the new dupe protection (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27473365)

It cuts of post that will be duped in the future.

Re:Calm down, It's the new dupe protection (1)

Kinky Bass Junk (880011) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473393)

Or else It gets the hose again?

Re:Calm down, It's the new dupe protection (0)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473501)

Only hosers get the hose, which can really hose up your hosing day.

That's not strict ... (4, Funny)

krou (1027572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473369)

If all they have to retain is an a href link to an article on the Telegraph, I'd rather call that a victory for privacy campaigners everywhere.

Re:That's not strict ... (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473397)

I wish my clients would be satisfied with me retaining an anchor to their fileserver shares? Would make backing things up much easier if thats all they required when they requested 2 week data retention.

Re:That's not strict ... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473909)

No, you certainly must also keep the output of ls -lR

Watchon (2, Insightful)

samatas (1067350) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473387)

All but Content, will be kept in a Teleco archive says... My foot I say... Who watches the watchers dear? Spam might proove usefull after all! Three witches watch three Swatch watches. Which witch watches which Swatch watch?

Re:Watchon (1)

anonymousmeatbag (1412737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473943)

My thoughts exactly. I say lets keep them busy. Use VPNs, torrent clients, multiple instant messengers, in game messengers, VOIP, encrypted communication protocols, as many as possible at the same time. Let them do the work. Overload them. Make them give up on whole society surveillance.

Disclaimer: I am not citizen of EU, but my country is doing exactly the same for more than year, for no apparent reason. The government set up an regulatory body, that made recommendation for ISP to monitor and retain relevant internet traffic data and god knows what else for an year. The same regulatory body is the one that gives the licenses to the ISPs, so it is not too hard to imagine what happens to the ISP who dares not to obey the recommendation.

Welcome to the Death of the Free Internet (2, Insightful)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473431)

You were here to see it.

40,000 TB of stored emails over 12 months. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27473439)

Thanks for your nation building projects, Eurolovers. Now you have gotten us the panopticon state, and it is never going away. Surveillance, once implemented, has never in history been cut without social upheaval.

Re:40,000 TB of stored emails over 12 months. (5, Insightful)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473605)

While the adoption of the data retention directive was a perfect example of backdoor decision making (to the extent that its rapporteur in the European Parliament had his name removed from it, because he did not want to be associated with the outcome), it's naive to think that without the EU this would never have happened.

In fact, Ireland already had such laws before the directive was adopted, and has been fighting the directive before the European Court of Justice because they have to *weaken* their current implementation to comply with the directive (no, this does not demonstrate how great the directive is, only how repugnant the Irish data retention laws are).

Belgium was also working on such legislation, but suspended that work when the directive was introduced, and is finishing it up now. Those are the two examples I know of, but I'm certain there are/were more.

Re:40,000 TB of stored emails over 12 months. (4, Insightful)

FourthAge (1377519) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473613)

Data retention is optional in mainland Europe but mandatory in Britain [blogspot.com] . The UK Government are using the EU to implement the laws they want, and then blaming those laws on Brussels. Our taxes, hard at work - when we're not paying for their second homes, we're paying for surveillance and the PR that sells the need for it to the main stream media. And through all this, they still have the brass balls to tell us that talk of a police state is daft [guardian.co.uk] . Where does it end? All you US'ians who have complained about Obama or Bush - consider how much worse it would be if you lived over here.

Re:40,000 TB of stored emails over 12 months. (4, Informative)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473653)

Data retention is optional in mainland Europe

No, it's required in the entire EU by the directive. However, the directive does not lay down many limits, but mainly imposes some minima.

As a result, law enforcement agencies in many countries have been having constant wet dreams ever since and are pushing with all their might to extend the national implementations (massively) beyond those minima. While even those minima would already have made the STASI green with envy...

Re:40,000 TB of stored emails over 12 months. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27474011)

You don't know anything about the STASI then. Do you really think, recording who is called and to whom mail is sent would make the STASI green with envy, because after all, they only listened in to phone calls and opened the mail?

When the EU directive was implemented in Germany, guess what changed for my ISP? Absolutely nothing, because they recorded everything the law requested already. People being all up in arms about it and acting all concerned, doesn't change the fact, that the EU directive doesn't actually accomplish much beyond legislating the present state into continuation.

This bit intrigues me (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473451)

From the story [telegraph.co.uk] :

Hundreds of public bodies and quangos, including local councils, will also be able to access the data to investigate flytipping and other less serious crimes.

So how many people will post on a website or email their friends to say "we just dumped the old sofa in someone's driveway"?

Re:This bit intrigues me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27473463)

I just dumped a sofa on your driveway.

--AC

Re:This bit intrigues me (4, Insightful)

krou (1027572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473635)

That argument is a load of rubbish (excuse the pun).

How this can possibly be used to investigate fly-tipping is beyond me: the contents of the emails aren't going to be stored, just header data such as sender, recipient, date, time, and IP addresses. What possible value can this have in identifying a fly-tipper?

If anything, it will be used as a strategy of "guilt by association". If you were in contact with someone that gets picked up for benefit fraud, or some other crime, be prepared to get investigated.

Re:This bit intrigues me (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27473781)

Also the location you were in when you made that phone call just after you commit said crime.

Also don't forget that if your cellphone is in location A at 12:30 and in location B at 12:35 (loggin of start and stop times and location for cell calls, at least that's part of the implementation in Sweden) and Google maps says that you can't travel that fast without breaking the law... then you better have your airfare receipt handy half a year later when the automatic speeding ticket come in the mail.

Re:This bit intrigues me (1)

krou (1027572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473859)

Very true, I was talking in terms of email data, not phone data.

Re:This bit intrigues me (0)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473899)

They've had the power to do that with telephone records for literally decades - and they've been quite open about using it.

All this does is extend it to email.

Re:This bit intrigues me (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27473891)

For those not getting the British jokes:

  • Flytipping [wikipedia.org] is a British term for illegally dumping waste somewhere other than an authorised landfill
  • Quango [wikipedia.org] is an acronym for QUAsi Non-Governmental Organisation

Mods accidentally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27473475)

Mods accidentally the whole href!

Question (4, Interesting)

robably (1044462) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473477)

If I'm using Gmail for email (using SSL) and am in the UK, does this directive affect my email?

Obviously my ISP won't be able to read the headers and Google is a US company, but is my data still stored in the UK and if so does it fall under the directive?

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27473539)

Yes it will be affected.
If the email is delivered to someone using their ISPs' mail server in the UK then it will be included in the great fishing expedition.

For mailing death threats to Jacqui Smith I recommend Susimail on http://www.i2p2.de/ [i2p2.de]

Re:Question (1)

robably (1044462) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473629)

Some more info - I set up my Gmail account originally as an American one, and when I set up my parents with Gmail accounts recently I set theirs up as US too (so they could have @gmail addresses rather than @googlemail).

Say I send an email to my dad - will that at any time be stored on a European Google database that will be affected by this law? ie Does the country setting in your Google account affect where your data is stored?

Re:Question (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27473621)

Don't worry. I'm in the UK, run a TLS enabled mail server and will not be retaining any email data (other than general business records) on behalf of our looney government. At least, no so long as the whitehouse is able to "lose" emails or Jack Straw is able to veto the release the minutes from the Iraq war meeting.

Most small companies are going to completely ignore this and what exactly do the wankers at the home office think they're going to do about it? It's no time to be threatening or prosecuting small businesses, many are barely surviving in the current economic climate as it is.

Re:Question (2, Interesting)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473659)

I would be more worried if you are an small business and are running your own simple web site and e-mail server for you and your three employees, and using the connection to connect your local LAN to the Internet.

Are you an ISP then? Do you have to keep records of all your e-mail traffic? Including actual messages and spam? What if law enforcement or who-ever comes to have a look for it? In what format are you supposed to give the information? Raw postfix log enough?

Whoops! (1)

wolfie123 (1331071) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473491)

I think I accidentally the post.

Deep packet inspection? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27473511)

Does anyone know how this is supposed to be implemented and how it relates to "arbitrary" data passing through the system? For example, email "headers" are supposed to be logged. One might imagine this being done by logging smtp, pop and imap transactions. But given that almost everyone I know uses webmail these days, and given that web traffic (presumably monitored using transparent proxy servers) is only supposed to have the URLs logged, not content, how does that stack up -- especially when you throw SSL into the mix? Are ISPs legally required (even if it's technologically unfeasable -- that's never stopped the law) to inspect HTTP transactions to see if it's webmail passing through, and log the recipients? Or is this just a humungous loophole for webmail hosted outside of the jurisdiction? Also: how does it affect non-UK citizens whose services are hosted by a geographically-distributed provider who might have nodes in the UK or at least the EU?

Re:Deep packet inspection? (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473543)

Its a bit like filtering urls with child porn in Australia. If somebody sends CP to a gmail user in Australia will the blacklist include the URL for the image download forever? Will they blacklist gmail because it is used to distribute pornography?

Re:Deep packet inspection? (2, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473985)

I imagine you'd monitor what happens on the backend rather than the HTTP traffic - which may well still be POP or IMAP.

Not about terrerists (4, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473533)

This is so obviously not about preventing terrorism or saving the children.

All it is is to give the police an easy tool to bring proof to whomever they want. Also this cost will be higher your ISP bill, as they are the ones who must pay it. The provider XS4All used to have a counter on their pages on how much data they would need to retain and we are talking about enormous amounts of data.

The excuse why this must be done is often that the police is able to get your phonecontacts from the telecom operator (after legal intervention).

There however is a huge difference. The reason that the data of who you called is available is because of billing. Somebody must pay the call you made, including those to 800 numbers. So what they do is ask to see (part of) their bill.

This is different in such that they not only enforce measurements to be taken by companies, they also make it almost so as if telecom operators would record each and every conversation.

What they should do is, just as with telecom, ask for billing information and if they think there is more to it, listen in on the connection. Oh well, everybody is guilty untill proven innocent, no matter that the law tries to tell you otherwise. Well, unless you have a lot of money, then you are innocent.

To retain a href=? (1)

Looce (1062620) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473589)

To retain a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105 ...?

Oh, I get it. Haha. Nice late April Fool's joke, Slashdot!

Usenet (1)

Haiyadragon (770036) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473631)

My provider just upgraded to 120...oh Internet Service Providers, what are they gonna use it for?

We need this kind of laws in the UK (5, Insightful)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473639)

The country is full of terrorists, child molesters and subversives and something has to be done about it.

This being the UK, government needs to be able to track down and follow dangerous people that might endanger the social and political stability of the country, like: members and supporters of anti-war movements, ecologist movements, free-speech/privacy movements, Tories, Lib Dems, Scots, Welsh and Irish nationalist parties, teenagers ('cause of knife crime), investigative journalists, anybody that makes request under the Freedom of Information act, people that complain about the government, anybody that talks too loud in a 1 mile circle around Parliament, whistle-blowers of government wrongdoing and more.

As usual our masters, being wiser than everybody else, have gotten their laws passed using the EU so that they can blame it on the European Union - a trick that always works with the unwashed masses around here.

All hail the fascist-Labour party!

[Having been born in a country under a fascist dictatorship and having been raised hearing my family's stories about it, it's impressive how things in the UK are slowly moving towards a modernized version my mental image of how it was - in the UK we now even have police adverts pretty much telling people to denounce their neighbors.]

Re:We need this kind of laws in the UK (4, Insightful)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473693)

You forgot photographers - they're dodgy too. Especially he ones that try to photograph policemen or any public buildings visible from the road. Evil they are I tell you, evil!

Re:We need this kind of laws in the UK (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 5 years ago | (#27474059)

Its not just the UK that is fighting the "war on photographers".
I was taking photographs of local buses here in Perth, Australia and got pinged by a security guard who initially claimed I was a peeping tom (because I was in a location where lots of people were walking past, never mind that taking photos of people walking down the street for private purposes is NOT illegal) and then after looking at the bus photos on my camera claimed that taking photos of buses was a violation of "anti-terror laws", took my details (name, address etc) and told me that if I did it again I would be fined. (despite the fact that both the Transperth website and a direct email I got from Transperth directly claim that taking photos of buses and bus stations is perfectly fine)

No matter what the law and rules may actually say and no matter what the owner of the land/building/etc you are taking photos of or taking photos from says, Rent-A-Cops the world over more and more seem to think that filming/photography is bad and must be stopped.

When Will the Insanity in Britain Slow Down? (2, Funny)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473651)

If every Britain ran a high definition 24/7 Web cam then the ISPs/government would be struggling to keep all that data, and since porn is pretty much illegal now in Britain; the ISPs would likely be breaking the law in quite of few of these cases. It's always nice to know that the government, by necessity, would have an unofficial backup of my favourite download; the movie 2 Girls 1 Cup.

STK: Strong buy! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473657)

Did anyone of the legal bodies (is it me or does it sound like dead weight for some reason?) ever think of the amount of data this would create? And that somewhere, somehow, this data has to be stored?

The average "browser connection" (i.e. opening a webpage) opens, considering all pictures, ads, links, redirects and other crap nobody wants or needs, about 10-20 connections. All of which have to be protocolled, filed, stored and archived. If you open a hundred pages per day we're at 2000 connections, and thus lines in the database, per day. Or 360,000 entried in the 6 months period that is the lowest storage period as by the EU directive.

Every single person using the internet.

This is all assuming that we're dealing with pages that are heavy on text, contain few pictures and that you don't use any goodies that start following links to precache them in case you might want to follow them. Else, multiply by 10.

Add now the lot of infected spambot machines that create a multiple of that connections per second, and I question the technical (and economically sensible) implementation of this project.

But that's what you get when you have politicians making laws without consulting those that are still here in reality.

Re:STK: Strong buy! (2, Interesting)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473747)

That's not a huge amount of data, relatively speaking. Google catalogues every touch ever made, and they don't even have much of an idea what to do with a lot of it.

haha.. We live in a dictatorship.. (1)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473699)

How has noone realised this.. There is no democracy in the UK.. It is a Dictatorship anyone that doesn't believe me I have 1 question for you: "Do you remember voting for Gordon Brown to be PM?"

On the plus side I have a server in the USA, so it's time for me to setup a VPN connection to it and use it as a proxy.

Re:haha.. We live in a dictatorship.. (2, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473837)

Yeah, a dictatorship, right, now excuse me while I'm being deported to a secret gulag in Devonshire. I miss those good old days when you could trust that only the telephone lady was eavesdropping on your conversations.

Re:haha.. We live in a dictatorship.. (1)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473851)

Er, yes. The labour party was very clear during the elections that Brown would take over from Blair.

Arms race (4, Insightful)

Fzz (153115) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473725)

And so the arms race starts.
  • Offshore webmail hosting.
  • Offshore VPN hosting.
  • Tor
  • Ubiquitous https usage.
  • Opportunistic encryption built into TCP
  • Running a web spider to add noise to your traffic signature.
  • Anonymous remailers.

Most of these have been tools for privacy freaks and people with something to hide. Running them is enough to raise suspicion. But these kind of data retension measures are much more likely to force such tools to become mainstream. This could backfire on law enforcement and security forces in ways they really don't want.

Re:Arms race (2, Insightful)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473981)

Or more realistically : no one's gonna give a fuck, as usual, and that "directive" and anything similar won't turn into anything significant and will have at best a legislative life expectancy of a few years.

Re:Arms race (2, Funny)

Throtex (708974) | more than 5 years ago | (#27474003)

In the US, maybe we'll start treating information the same way the IRS taxes money. Every quarter, you submit all of your own data, including off-shore data, for that quarter. Once a year, you file a report detailing all of your data. We'll call it a "voluntary" data reporting system.

What about me ? (1)

bytesex (112972) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473787)

I host a website, and run some mail, off my end of the DSL cable, yet I'm not an ISP - I do not route traffic, really, nor do I have any customers. Does this law apply to me too ? Or do I just have to assume that my ISP duly filters my traffic ?

TFD (3, Informative)

areYouAHypnotist (1099681) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473819)

The text of the directive is available (External links in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_2006/24/EC [wikipedia.org] ) for everyone to draw his own conclusions. For the most part I find it pretty reasonable. ISPs and telcos probably already store this type of information for their own purposes. It also limits the detention period (at least six months, less than two years).

The name is Bond (2, Insightful)

berenixium (920883) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473915)

GCHQ is watching you too. No pressure. Have a martini.

Re:The name is Bond (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473989)

All the fun people who where at the GCHQ are now in the private sector and want to sell their skills back.
There is gold in them "public bodies and quangos"

Why dowe even have editors with fuckups like this? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27473959)

The editor's accidentally the summary

"Technology .. Stasi .. dreamed of" (3, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 5 years ago | (#27473961)

Wow this is very invasive.
"Hundreds of public bodies and quangos, including local councils, will also be able to access the data to investigate flytipping and other less serious crimes."
quangos - non-governmental organization performing governmental functions.
This could mean deputised cyber vigilante groups targeting anyone who visits a website, posts on a forum or has a link to someone of interest.
Gathering data like this is fine for the security services. With MI5/6, Scotland Yard or some task force you *should* face a day in court.
Even with MI5/6 rendition, a member of the house may ask after you and after a few years you get to face a real UK Embassy official.
The problem with the UK system is 'anyone' interested can see your usage data and get a mob at your door.
If you sell up, your guilty.
If you stay you have a good lawyer.

Not strict at all (2, Funny)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27474013)

In fact, with that malformed summary I doubt it's even transitional.

Subliminal messages! (1)

Seriousity (1441391) | more than 5 years ago | (#27474055)

Are you guys trying to get me to join a cult with a






href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>