Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

UK To Track All Browsing, Email, and Phone Calls

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the that-about-covers-it dept.

Communications 286

Sara Chan writes "The UK government plans to introduce legislation that will allow the police to track every phone call, email, text message and website visit made by the public. The information will include who is contacting whom, when and where and which websites are visited, but not the content of the conversations or messages. Every communications provider will be required to store the information for at least a year."

cancel ×

286 comments

They already track you with cameras (3, Funny)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966294)

...at every intersection in London. I guess the ACLU was unsuccessful in setting up a branch office.

Re:They already track you with cameras (2, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966376)

Umm, you realize that there's the word "American" in the ACLU's name, right? I can imagine British groups like this one [liberty-hu...hts.org.uk] are not at all happy with either of these situations.

Re:They already track you with cameras (0)

trentblase (717954) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966644)

I hate to have to explain the joke, but since I don't have any mod points available... that's why he said branch office.

but (2)

fireylord (1074571) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966700)

what he was trying to get at is that the ACLU are completely totally irrelevant in the UK, and that the ACLU hasn't got a monopoly on trying to improve peoples' liberty

Re:but (3, Funny)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966720)

Shit, son, you deserve a double whoosh for that one.

WHOOOOOOSH!

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

Re:They already track you with cameras (5, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966414)

I guess the ACLU was unsuccessful in setting up a branch office.

The same thing is going to happen in the US, ACLU or not. The bills are already written. They are just waiting for another 9/11 to they can ram them through.

Re:They already track you with cameras (2, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966812)

Why bother with a law when they can just do it illegally and have politicians of both major parties defending them?

so true (3, Insightful)

dlt074 (548126) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966860)

how right you are. in spite of the troll mod i'm going to get and the karma hit... the more they do stuff like this, the more guns and ammo i buy. bottom line, eventually it comes down to boots on the ground and who's willing to kill or more importantly die for what they believe in. a lot of people will kill for this kind of totalitarian crap. however, most won't want to die for it. i have faith that eventually America will see the light and embrace individual liberty and personal responsibility again and limit this 1984 nonsense to the europeans where it belongs.

Re:They already track you with cameras (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966890)

They are just working on another 9/11 to they can ram them through.

FTFY

Re:They already track you with cameras (2, Insightful)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966984)

I'm surprised that the US doesn't already have data retention laws. It still doesn't change a lot. Phone companies and ISPs already keep logs and police routinely subpoena them. This proposal isn't as dire as the summary title makes it seem; logs of who you talk to (which IP you connect to) are already kept for a long time. A more useful law would be one that places a maximum time on the retention period, not a minimum.

Re:They already track you with cameras (1)

bobstreo (1320787) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967116)

The only option is long term investments in companies that sell data storage, Netapp/EMC/Hitachi

Big brother loves you (4, Funny)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966520)

And we've always been at war with eastasia.

If I have my own server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966300)

Does that make me public?

Senationalist headline (5, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966310)

How about: *Proposal* in UK To Track All Browsing, Email, and Phone Calls?

Re:Senationalist headline (1)

CowFu (1897214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966382)

That's still pretty scary to me, and I live no where near the UK...

Re:Senationalist headline (5, Insightful)

fuyu-no-neko (839858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966434)

How about: *Proposal* in UK To Track All Browsing, Email, and Phone Calls?

I guess it depends how cynical you are about the law-making process. Whilst I'm yet to make my mind up on the current government, I can definitely see why some people make the jump to thinking that this is as good as done. It's not as if the previous government particularly cared about our rights after all.

Re:Senationalist headline (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966692)

How about: *Proposal* in UK To Track All Browsing, Email, and Phone Calls?

Let me put it another way: When's the last time you saw a *Proposal* to stop tracking browsing, email, and phone calls, because free countries ought not to place their citizens, insofar as there is no reasonable suspicion that they're committing any crimes whatsoever, under surveillance? (Or even a simple nationalistic argument: "...on the grounds that nations governed under the opposing principles turned into the states against whom we had to fight during WW2 and the Cold War.")

Re:Senationalist headline (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966780)

How about: *Proposal* in UK To Track All Browsing, Email, and Phone Calls?

Not even a proposal. It's speculation that there might be a proposal. If you read the actual quote from the defence review from the article, it more or less says: 'we need to upgrade lawful intercept capabilities to help fight terrorism'.

Now OK, there may be some civil liberties issues with what the government eventually comes up with. But there is a difference between being worried and making shit up, and this article has crossed that line.

Re:Senationalist headline (3, Informative)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966820)

How about: *Proposal* in UK To Track All Browsing, Email, and Phone Calls?

Just like a little while ago 'Australia to ban pedestrians from using ipods', which was in actuality an organisation - which comprised of a single person - that voiced an extremist opinion.

Re:Senationalist headline (4, Informative)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966904)

Isn't this already the law? At least, so far as preserving records is concerned. The EU Directive 2006/24/EC [europa.eu] pretty much made it a requirement that states retain records of everything being done.

Member States shall adopt measures to ensure that the data specified in Article 5 of this Directive are retained in accordance with the provisions thereof, to the extent that those data are generated or processed by providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of a public communications network within their jurisdiction in the process of supplying the communications services concerned.

Article 5
Categories of data to be retained
(2) concerning Internet access, Internet e-mail and Internet telephony

Further, the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 [wikipedia.org] in the UK facilitated the state's power to do just that.

So I'm just wondering what the difference being proposed is? If the proposal headling is sensational then surely the responce to it is to given the existance of legislation already? Is it the real-time tracking thats at issue? The Telegraph article only included

We will introduce a programme to preserve the ability of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain communication data and to intercept communications within the appropriate legal framework.

Re:Senationalist headline (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967000)

So when someone in the UK government clearly states their intentions for evil, it's all "hold on guys, it's just a proposal!". But when Apple introduces a new revenue stream without a hint of malice, "It's really only a matter of time now. [slashdot.org] "

Right..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966320)

You assume that our parliament hasn't already had access to this information for years..

Ah. (1)

dotKuro (1762182) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966334)

Now I see why the Brits constantly write Orwellian-dystopia-type fiction. They have every reason to be scared of their government. And there I was thinking that Labour had been overly surveilling at times. That said, I'm fairly certain that I read that BT logged calls anyway, so this simply pushes it out of legal liminality.

Re:Ah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966876)

"constantly"? a bit of a stretch.

Encrypte Everything (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966338)

I guess it's finally time (if it wasn't a long time ago) to move to encrypting everything you do online. And moving to encrypted VOIP obviously, though I don't know if they can still track who you are calling in that case. Still a problem if you send something to someone and they don't encrypt it on their end, but better than nothing.

Re:Encrypte Everything (2, Informative)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966386)

Problem is that the Brits can hold someone they want indefinitely until they cough up an encryption key under the RIPA act. All they have to do is ask the person once a day for 20-30 days, and essentially that would be sentence to life in prison because each refusal is 2-5 years in the slammer.

Re:Encrypte Everything (3, Interesting)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966514)

Also I'm not sure of the specifics but if they really wanted to they could probably insist you give them the encryption key for a particular session... one which was generated and discarded by your browser long since.

then throw you in jail when you don't comply.

Re:Encrypte Everything (4, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966912)

Wouldn't stick. They can't reasonably claim that you might have known that key.

RIPA act? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966762)

RIPA act ??

It's a bit of a stretch to call what she [google.com] does acting.

Re:Encrypte Everything (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966872)

Yes, you could get 20-30 convictions, but those 2-5 year sentences would probably be concurrent. I'm not sure whether they can ask multiple times for the same volume either - anyone know?

Re:Encrypte Everything (5, Informative)

dotKuro (1762182) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966388)

Encryption of your files is worthless when you can be arrested for failing to give up passwords as per the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. (Which would be more accurately named the Irregulation of Investigatory Powers Act, as it pretty much declares open season on those under suspicion.)

Re:Encrypte Everything (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966854)

Not exactly worthless, at least you will know when they are snooping on your files because they'll hit you up for the key.

You want the key for my encrypted emails from a year ago? Sorry, I change keys every two weeks and don't record the expired ones, and since it's 256 bit encryption, there's no bloody way I'm going to remember that sucker a year later.

Re:Encrypte Everything (3, Informative)

Dare nMc (468959) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967132)

Sorry, I change keys every two weeks and don't record the expired ones, and since it's 256 bit encryption, there's no bloody way I'm going to remember that sucker a year later.

If your in the UK, have fun in the slammer, Part III of the Act, which requires persons to supply decrypted information [wikipedia.org]
Deni ability, and lack of intent may get you off in other countries, but not likely in this case. You had best start encrypting files with something like truecrypt where you can have 2 passwords on the same file giving up different data. Perhaps if you give them some unencrypted data they won't know to expect another password.

Re:Encrypte Everything (1)

peterindistantland (1487953) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966856)

If they can't prove some part of your hard disc is an encrypted file rather than random data, they have no grounds of sentencing you.

Re:Encrypte Everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966454)

I guess it's finally time (if it wasn't a long time ago) to move to encrypting everything you do online.

In the UK, they can put you in prison for not turning over decryption keys. See the RIP Act (or is it RIPA - I can't remember)

Re:Encrypte Everything (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966516)

Either. The A stands for Act.

1984? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966342)

I wonder, when the British read 1984 did they say "hey that Big Brother thing is a great idea"

Who has access? (4, Interesting)

yog (19073) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966364)

The issue isn't so much whether law enforcement can scrutinize your web access, but rather that the information could leak out. A distressing amount of private information seems to be kept on laptops that keep getting stolen out of cars.

Requiring ISP's to keep this data is also iffy. ISP's don't want to be in the business of spying on their subscribers. There's no profit in it, it only angers the customers, and potentially the ISP could be drawn into a legal tangle if it potentially knows that someone is doing illegal stuff like, say, downloading and emailing nuclear bomb schematics to someone in North Korea or Iran.

Anyway it sounds like the government is leaving enough wiggle room to discard the policy if it generates too much controversy.

Re:Who has access? (1)

trentblase (717954) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966688)

This is huge. If we can't trust the government not to leak classified data [computerworld.com] over P2P, what makes anyone think they will successfully keep our records private?

copying the dutch again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966366)

...where this has been the law for some time.

Re:copying the dutch again... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966722)

It's been the situation in the US de facto if not de jure for quite some time as well. Anyone who's under the impression that this is not happening in the US is a fool who's either not paying attention or very much in denial. The difference is that in the US if you use encryption you can plead the 5th and be protected under US v Hubbell [wikipedia.org] .

Attach a simple addition (5, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966378)

All politicians will have to register all their communication devices, email addresses, phone numbers, and then make the list of all communication (not the content) available to the public.

Who watches the watchers?

We have met the enemy, and it is us.

Re:Attach a simple addition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966774)

Who watches the watchers?

I do.

We have met the enemy, and it is us.

No, it is youse.

Re:Attach a simple addition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966862)

Unfortunately, politicians aren't the public, and goatse [theregister.co.uk] trolling is illegal in the UK. In fact, I find this news a grossly offensive message, aimed at me, the public, so whoever is responsible for this proposal can be jailed too.

Re:Attach a simple addition (4, Interesting)

JackDW (904211) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967134)

I used to blame the politicians, but these days I think they're almost as powerless as the rest of us.

The No2ID campaigner Guy Herbert is quoted in the article as saying:

We should not be surprised that the interests of bureaucratic empires outrank liberty.

And that's it. These plans represent job security for civil servants. They mean bigger budgets, bigger offices, higher salaries, more staff. More bureaucrats will be needed to operate the system, to answer requests for information from it, and implement whatever mechanism of "accountability" is considered sufficient to safeguard privacy.

The people who are pushing this will never face an election. They will never be sacked. This is why the plans persist from government to government. Ministers come and go, but the civil service is permanent, and always attempting to expand. The bureaucrats lost their battle for ID cards, but they're still winning their war.

So, I think if we want to impose surveillance on anyone, we should start with the public servants. And the more responsibility they have, the more closely they should be watched. The only problem is, in order to do this, we're going to need to hire a few more bureaucrats...

Didn't we decide we don't want this (4, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966384)

Hey, guys - we voted against the other lot for this reason. Ah well. Hopefully the libs will decide to stick to one of their election promises and vote against this. If they don't then there's quite frankly no point in having the coalition in the first place.

Re:Didn't we decide we don't want this (1)

dotKuro (1762182) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966412)

The Lib Dems, stick to their election promises? What's today's date again? 21/12/12 by any chance?

Re:Didn't we decide we don't want this (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966806)

"The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always one and the same. " --- Adolf Hitlet

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. It doesn't matter if you call yourself "liberal" or "conservative" - the game is over, and you have already been bought and sold. Enjoy your vote, for the consolation it gives you.

Re:Didn't we decide we don't want this (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967016)

I don't call myself either. British politics isn't really divided on those lines.

Thing is the Liberal Democrats shouldn't let this sort of thing pass. You don't join a third party in what's essentially a two party system for power. It's a fluke that they have any influence at all. It remains to be seen if they actually use this influence for any good.

elsewhere in news... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966396)

Elsewhere in news: massive increase in the user base of TOR and I2P predicted. :P

Oblig. (5, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966402)

Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

Seems like Fiction (5, Insightful)

VoiceInTheDesert (1613565) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966426)

This really reads like something out of fiction. I did not think I'd see the day of such a government, but here I am at 22 years old and already, a modern, 1st world country is to the point where it feels the need and justification to monitor every action of it's populace. The precedent here is staggering, terrifying and morally bankrupt. The possibility for abuse here is strong to the point of certainty. I pray this never makes it to a country I call home.

Re:Seems like Fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966804)

This has been going on for decades. More and more laws are pushed through eroding what we once felt were freedoms. Strangely, once the "terrist" security theatre has moved on, no one ever comes back to removed the overzealous knee-jerk reaction laws.

Welcome to adulthood!

Re:Seems like Fiction (2, Informative)

Shimbo (100005) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966952)

This really reads like something out of fiction.

That's because it is fiction.

Re:Seems like Fiction (1)

drx (123393) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967056)

"Vorratsdatenspeicherung" in Germany did essentially the same thing. Good that the constitutional court ruled this law illegal in March this year and all records had to be deleted. But the European Union presses Germany to re-implement another, very similiar law. So the activists have to work EU wide to stop the crap this time.

V is for Vendetta! (3, Funny)

arcite (661011) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966464)

Soon, I shall dawn my cape and mast to fight this tyranny! ... I just have to brush up on my knife throwing skills, police in the UK use guns now right? ...Bummer.

Re:V is for Vendetta! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966566)

Soon, I shall dawn my cape and mast to fight this tyranny! ... I just have to brush up on my knife throwing skills, police in the UK use guns now right? ...Bummer.

maybe you should brush up on your spelling skills?

Re:V is for Vendetta! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966656)

Perhaps he was intentionally encrypting his posting - you never know who is watching!

a nice template for the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966470)

I believe if this becomes law in the UK, it is only a matter of a short while before it will be pushed through in the USA as well. There are plenty of people here who would present it as, "for our own good, to keep us safe", and plenty of others who would buy that reasoning. And hey, the UK is already doing it! All the trendy countries have one, mom!

Anyway, for the Brits' sake as well as ours, I hope saner heads prevail 'cross the pond.

Another reason (1)

CodeInspired (896780) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966476)

not to live in the UK.

Nothing new (4, Informative)

bart416 (900487) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966478)

Most mobile phone operators already keep statistics on who you call when (they need it for billing information in case somebody doesn't agree with their bill) and emergency services are capable of pinning down the location of mobile phones in less than a minute. And ISPs are already required to keep quite some information as well by EU regulations. So I'm not really sure this will change anything. Except provide a legal framework to (ab)use this information.

Not so sensasonal headline (2, Informative)

NobodyExpects (843016) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966524)

The Government's Strategic Defence and Security Review, which revealed: "We will introduce a programme to preserve the ability of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain communication data and to intercept communications within the appropriate legal framework.

Yes, it is _just_ a proposal, do you want it to come about? So... time to ramp up development of https-everywhere [eff.org] , ensure that you use GNU Privacy guard [gnupg.org] for all EMail, bit locker on your drives, and dust off your NT box to run https-everywhere [pgpi.org] !

Re:Not so sensasonal headline (2, Informative)

NobodyExpects (843016) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966556)

Ah, yes.... cehc all of your links :-) The last one is, of course, PGP Fone [pgpi.org] , silly!

Re:Not so sensasonal headline (2, Interesting)

Chaonici (1913646) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966816)

> bit locker on your drives

BitLocker is closed-source and supplied by Microsoft. You can't trust it to not have some sort of back door. If you really need good drive encryption, go for TrueCrypt or Linux's ecryptfs tool. Or if not those, something else open-source at least.

The lesser of all evils (2, Insightful)

Nihn (1863500) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966536)

Well at lest they will be an absolute monarchy now. Citizens do not deserve privacy nor rights for they are the tools of the rich and powerful. No matter who is "elected" the corruption is with the system not who partakes in it. As long as certain groups of people who have a military force ready to open fire upon those they "rule" over this world is just gonna get more cramp, more violent, more unappealing, and if the past 30 years have taught me anything our future if gonna be WAY worse than anyone can possible imagine....remember when water came out of the tap clean pure and free? I do.... a bit apocalyptic maybe but 2 + 2 isn't that hard to figure out....

Re:The lesser of all evils (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966600)

remember when water came out of the tap clean pure and free?

Yes, when we had a well and a hand pump. If you don't have that or a stream on your property, then you're paying a utility bill of some sort.

at least they were forewarned (0, Offtopic)

gblfxt (931709) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966560)

at least they were forewarned, in the USA, they didn't even warn us, then we had the NSA.

Lessons learned from 2006 AOL data scandal: Bupkus (5, Insightful)

shoutingloudly (986897) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966564)

The implicit assumption here is that, as long as Big Brother doesn't see the content of the messages, there's nothing to worry about. Of course that's total bullocks. The AOL search data scandal of 2006 shows that one's search history alone can reveal far, far more about a person than an unwarranted government search should be able to see. Amp that up to a list of every site visit, plus everyone I email, call, or text, and this represents the government demanding the right to dig very deep into Brits' communication.

I hope Britons go ballistic in opposition to this proposal.

Re:Lessons learned from 2006 AOL data scandal: Bup (1)

thewils (463314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966698)

I hope Britons go ballistic in opposition to this proposal

Or at the very least demand that the same records be kept for police, politicians, judges etc...

Re:Lessons learned from 2006 AOL data scandal: Bup (1)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966956)

They might not go ballistic, but they should celebrate it with a Boston-style tea party!

And yet all I can think... (1)

deains (1726012) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966604)

...is that has to be one of the oldest Macbooks I've ever seen used in a stock photo.

Freenet to the rescue.... (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966624)

At least for internet/email it will make the information pretty useless.

Which should mean... (1)

sosaited (1925622) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966632)

... And finally, TOR under slashdot effect

How Quaint (5, Funny)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966648)

The UK government plans to introduce legislation that will allow the police to track every phone call, email, text message and website visit made by the public.

How quaint -- they use laws to grant government authority for such things. Over on this side of the pond the President just declares it to be so and tells the judicial they're not allowed to hear any petitions for redress of grievances. Much simpler that way.

Guess what time it is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966660)

I think it's time the UK had a bit of a revolution like the French are currently doing it.

Do it now before your grandchildren ask you why you didn't fight back and you're too old to do anything about it.

Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966670)

This tracking will be one way only. The average citizen seeing even a glimpse of a phone number that anyone in government dials will be put into a black prison... for their own good. Of course.

This shouldn't be a surprise (1)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966704)

Not being a citizen of the UK I don't know what sorts of rights to privacy are constitutionally or statutorily conferred to her people, but couldn't you folks have seen this coming with the cameras everywhere? If it's any consolation, we Yanks are right behind you. George Orwell is spinning in his grave right now.

I ask myself (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966728)

Weasel words: Why "made by the public"? Why not "made by everybody"? After all, if they're only tracking who the call is made to and not the content of the message, what does the government have to fear?

One law for the people, and a different law for the government.

Good, Every Site In The UK I Visit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966740)

I will post the following comment:

FUCK YOU BRITAIN.

My question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966746)

Why don't the British people simply exercise their 2nd Amendment rights?

Thank god I'm American (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966750)

How do these guys, and just about the world other than the US, stand living without the bill of rights? Sure, I know the US bill of rights gets violated, but come on: it's better than not even paying lip service to the rights.

Re:Thank god I'm American (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966940)

How do you stand living in the US, with armed police keeping you under constant surveillance and ready to shoot you if you do something they don't like the look of?

Re:Thank god I'm American (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33967110)

That's covered by the bill of rights: I fully arm myself with superior firepower. Do you think that the police in other areas, without such rights, *don't* keep you under constant surveillance, ready to shoot you if you do something they don't like the look of?

This must be a different UK (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966778)

From the one that I saw today on TV, where all the MPs and subjects were getting their bowels in an uproar over proposed cuts. Because, in the words of the PM, "we ain't got no money for nuthin'!"

Oh, a big boondoggle surveillance project? "Sure, mista, we got cash for that!"

How old is this idea? (3, Informative)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966782)

Been hearing about ideas for complete internet data retention for a good few years now. Here's how it usually goes:

1) An idiot cabinet politician comes up with a "simple good idea"
2) Lots of people speculate about how good an idea it is and how useful it's results would be
3) The media cotton on to the idea resulting in larges amounts of WTF??!!!111!!!1/?1
4) Someone finally tells the cabinet politician how expensive and dangerous the idea is
5) Cabinet politician blusters about how it's still a good idea for years without making any progress towards implementation
6) Cabinet gets reorg'd and the idea is quietly shelved as a higher priority "simple good idea" comes along

Yup, this kind of thing comes along fairly regularly and this old chestnut always gets shot down fairly quickly. Move along folks, this isn't just old news, it's not even news-worthy.

Anonymity by Volume (1)

Mephistophocles (930357) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966784)

I find it hard to believe that this information would really ever be useful - e-mail in particular. Even assuming the government were capable of accurately sorting out 90-something-percent of the total volume of e-mail as the spam that it is, that still leaves a volume of information that would be daunting, to say the least, to accurately sort and therefore take action on. Same with phone calls, except there one has voice-recognition to deal with (and the same volume, plus the far larger size of recorded voice calls). Does that make it right? Of course not - but the volume of information would allow a careful person to remain pretty anonymous.

Re:Anonymity by Volume (1)

AdamWill (604569) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966832)

The idea isn't to use it that way, exactly; the police / intelligence agencies usually use this data *after* they've identified a suspect. The idea is that once they identify someone doing something they don't like the looks of, they can go and pull that person's communications intercepts to figure out who else that person is in contact with. The idea isn't to use the data en masse.

Careful (2)

AdamWill (604569) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966808)

For Christ's sake, nobody tell them about IRC.

And it gets worse (2, Informative)

pommaq (527441) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966894)

This is actually an EU directive, to be implemented by every member state. Governments need to store at least 6 months of logs. Costs to be borne by individual ISP:s. So if any brits were looking to the mainland for escape from this idiocy, think again. By the way, the man responsible for the creation of this law is one Thomas Bodström, former Swedish Minister for Justice. He's moving to the USA. Please make sure he doesn't get to hold any public office...

My useless vote (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966900)

Red party started 2 wars and tried this shit -> unelectable!

Blue party cut everything and try this shit -> unelectable!

Yellows are in coalition with the tories -> unelectable!

The hippies won't ever get elected -> unelectable!

The racists are racists -> unelectable!

Is there anyone left to waste my vote on??

WARNING! WARNING! DAILY TELEGRAPH! (1, Troll)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966972)

This article is from the website of a dangerously insane far-right newspaper. This article started life along with the stories about how evil brown people are coming over and taking our jobs, and how reptile aliens transplanted the frozen brain of Pol Pot into Zombie Elvis so that gay Jewish cybercriminals could force schools to teach children to line dance. Or some such shit.

Take everything you read here with the same size pinch of salt that you use for the National Enquirer.

European law (2, Informative)

Frans Faase (648933) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966982)

I don't understand the fuss about this, because it simply means that they are going to implement the laws that the European Union already has made. This same kind of law already has been implemented or is in the process of being implemented in many European countries, including my own, The Netherlands. If I remember correctly, the European Union laws are in the process of being extended to include all URL's (including search terms) as well.Telephone companies are already performing a lot of tracking for many years. Many ISP's are complaining that this will be very expensive to implement and that it will raise costs for the end-users, while the effectiviness of these laws are probably going to be very small.

Overwhelm the storage capacity... (1)

farnsaw (252018) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967012)

Wouldn't it be relatively easy to diseminate a little program that ran in the background and just opened massive numbers of connections to random, or not so random, IP address constantly. If everyone did this, the volume of data collected would become such a burden to the ISPs that something would have to give. And then of course there are anonymizers outside your country of origin who are not bound by said laws.

just phone calls email and text? (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967024)

what about tracking every noob you gank in WoW or what asteroids you mine in Eve? Savvy miscreants would encode messages into team fortress 2 sprays and put them on walls to communicate with each other.

Already happening in America (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967048)

You just don't realize it's being done. ...

Do you feel safe yet?

Even if al-Qaeda left Iraq and Afghanistan five years ago and are actually in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia - two of which are supposedly our allies?

Well?

Or maybe you gave up too much liberty for false security ...

Dear United Kingdom: Track This ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33967064)

Hello! [www.abc.de...1101101101] .

Yours In Minsk,
K. Trout

inplace in demark (1)

pinkishpunk (1461107) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967066)

we have excatly that system here, with 1year backlog of what sites people have visited,whom you have emails, phoned, etc. But atleast our politicians are begining to question if this is needed, and have talked openly about removing it. that comes after a simular law in germany was found to be illigal accoding to their constitution, and they where forced to scrap it, afterwards there was alot of discustion about if it was even needed. A study showed data collected with was only used in 0.0005% procent of criminal cases in germany, they still have the option to log data, but now they need prof and can only activate per person and not for the whole population. Lets hope UK looks at germany and act accordingly.

I live in the UK (1)

Eggbloke (1698408) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967124)

and more and more I wish I did not. We are losing freedoms all the time and no one seems to care.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...