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!

Online Activities To Be Recorded By UK ISPs

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the like-y'-do dept.

Privacy 312

SmartAboutThings writes "The United Kingdom online monitoring law just got published, showcasing some disturbing facts. The paper is 123 pages long and is actually a draft of the Communications Data Bill. You might not be so happy to find out that from now, every single thing you do online will be recorded and stored by the good old Internet Service providers (ISP). What do we mean by online activity? Well, everything."

cancel ×

312 comments

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

Be good. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40327989)

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

Re:Be good. (5, Insightful)

sobachatina (635055) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328267)

I hate it when people say this. At the risk of feeding a troll...

You might be doing nothing wrong and still have plenty to hide from some people. I don't consider going on vacation wrong but I don't broadcast to the internet that my house will be vacant.

What if you don't support the controlling political party? You might value some anonymity.

Sure if the government, and all the individuals within it that have access to that data, are always perfectly honorable you might never have a problem. Does this seem like a likely situation for you to stake your life or wellbeing on?

Giving that much power to the government is just begging one power hungry corrupt individual to abuse it to gain more power.

Re:Be good. (4, Funny)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328377)

Are you by chance insinuating that the government isn't made up of perfect beings? That's preposterous! No government in history has ever done anything that could be deemed as wrong by anyone!

Re:Be good. (3, Funny)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328913)

Are you by chance insinuating that the government isn't made up of perfect beings? That's preposterous! No government in history has ever done anything that could be deemed as wrong by anyone!

More than preposterous, it's treasonous. And the archives show he once visited a site often frequented by subversives. I think we have a terrorist sleeper agent on our hands.

Re:Be good. (2)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329021)

Also, I've posted in this thread so you're all on the watch list.

Remember, the plan is to blow up the Olympics and behead the Queen during the opening ceremonies

Re:Be good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328681)

I would have no problem reporting a corrupt cop to the police without anonymity. Nothing to fear there.

Re:Be good. (1)

TheGinger (2575099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328443)

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

Nothing to hide, nothing to show

Re:Be good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328697)

Nothing to hide, no reason to look

Re:Be good. (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328527)

... and if a person did have something they wanted to not make public, or "hide" as you put it, what fucking business is it of yours, or more specifically, the governments?

Every hear of a guy named Matthew Shepard? [wikipedia.org] He didn't hide the fact he was homosexual, and was kidnapped, robbed, chained to a fence, and brutally beaten to death for it.

"Something to hide" != something illegal or wrong, jackass.

Re:Be good. (4, Interesting)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328945)

I don't know, vote the wrong party in and homosexuality might be illegal again. And then the logs of anyone who visited certain websites in the past 5 years will become very useful....

Re:Be good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328809)

For someone to post this on /., it's probably a troll. Never the less...

Everyone has everything to hide. History offers many examples of the alternative.

Re:Be good. (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328883)

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

Then why haven't you turned yourself in?
You've broken hundreds of laws today alone, and if you count all the countries of the world, you have broken thousands of laws today alone.

I don't see you making an example of what you preach...

Re:Be good. (5, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329001)

All criminals wear clothing. Clothes can be used to hide weapons or drugs, mask your identity, and blend into crowds.

Therefore, we should make it unlawful to wear clothing. It will make it easier for the police to do their jobs. After all, if you've done nothing wrong -- and you've been to the gym and haven't been at the crisps again -- you've got nothing to hide, do you?

Offshore VPN (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328011)

95% will continue oblivious to the dangers of mass surveillance. Those concerned about freedom and privacy have solutions...for now.

We can so we do (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328015)

New tech has made it easier than ever before to spy on people in much larger numbers than ever before, and to a much greater degree than ever before.

Bet your bottom dollar that every government in the world wants to do as much of this as they can manage.

Re:We can so we do (3, Interesting)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328965)

Indeed.

It's an interesting yet terrifying time. The limitations of law enforcement are becoming less technical and more social. Technology is creating the potential for massively effective law enforcement, at a cost of massive loss of personal freedom. As a society we have to figure out where we want to draw that line. How much safety do we want to trade for how much privacy.

The terrifying part is that society isn't really deciding so much as certain interested parties pushing in one direction and people en mass shrugging and going about their day.

The only answer (4, Informative)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328017)

www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en

Re:The only answer (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328123)

"The category of Filter Avoidance has been blocked by your System Administrator."
Question: How does Tor work? I installed it one time & it just sat there with no hosts to talk to. After a couple days I uninstalled it, since it seemed pointless.

Re:The only answer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328453)

Wow, Mr. anti-Apple troll doesn't even know how Tor works. How does it feel to have all of your street-cred fly out the window?

Re:The only answer (0)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328617)

"Question: How does Tor work?"

I guess you really want to know: How do I use it?
Just use the link above and install it. It has a built-in Firefox with everything configured already.
You just use it to surf like you always do.

Re:The only answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328355)

That is not the only answer...

Re:The only answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328371)

Not really the only answer.
I plan on using VPN server in a country that doesn't (openly) record everything I do.

All the government and ISP should be able to see is an encrypted stream to my VPN server.

It works much faster than TOR.

Re:The only answer (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328947)

No, that's the short-term answer. The long-term answer is not just voting for the Pirate Party UK [pirateparty.org.uk] but making sure that everyone you know that's opposed to this also goes out and votes PPUK. Too many nerds don't want to actually physically go somewhere and be bothered with papers, etc. But the only way to put a stop to this is at the root, not circumvention.

Bush sucks. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328029)

And Dick Cheney too.

Europe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328033)

...I am disappoint.

Summary is misleading. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328037)

This is apparently a Bill that has not actually been passed yet.

Re:Summary is misleading. (5, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328257)

no, but it will.

It may take several attempts, but it eventually will.

The reason is simple: the powers that be *want* this. Much like SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, and whatever the current generation mutant strain is, keeps getting brandished about like a giant black rubber donkey dildo. The public says no, but the powers that be want to fuck us. They keep whipping out dildo after dildo, refusing to take the hint that we *DON'T WANT ANY* dildos, not just that specific one.

When they finally manage to snooker us into taking it (all the way I might add, without any lube), then they tell all their friends about it, and from then on, that type of dildoing becomes standard practice, for everyone, everywhere.

What we need is to propose counter legislation FORBIDDING proposals of this type. Simply defeating every proposed terror dick they whip out of their rape kit won't work.

Re:Summary is misleading. (5, Funny)

Kittenman (971447) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328595)

It's usually standard practice to use a car analogy on Slashdot, but I find your new item quite refreshing. And a point well made.

Re:Summary is misleading. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328631)

The reason is simple: the powers that be *want* this.

Even that isn't true. The Lib Dems are pretty strongly opposed to this, as are some high profile Tories, David Davis being probably the most obvious figurehead.

This is the usual power grab by police/security services/whoever, backed by the usual FUD about terrorism and organised crime. It's probably also something of a "We can still be friends, right?" from the Home Office to the police, whom the government in general and the current Home Secretary in particular have annoyed a lot in recent weeks.

Something might get through, but I very much doubt it will look anything like this by the time it's been done over by civil libertarians, ISPs who would have to foot the bill, and people who actually have a clue about technology. We as a nation might be far less protective of our privacy than I personally would like, but we're not completely clueless. Look at the way ID cards were beaten down, despite a huge push from government. More recently, look at the way the way the government at EU level has turned against ACTA, despite the national governments of almost every member state already ratifying it and publicly claiming they support it.

Even in the US, where the popular claim is that the government don't care about anything much any more, look how fast the politicians got educated about SOPA and PIPA and in many cases completely flipped their position after the entire Internet decided to teach them that these things matter. A lot of the time, the problem is that the legislators are naive and just listen to the loudest voices; never attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by incompetence, as the old saying goes.

You're right that certain organisations will keep trying. Maybe that's how it's supposed to be. It's not exactly the spies' job to look out for people's privacy, after all. We just have to make sure that the other side of the debate is heard as well, and that anything that reaches the statute books is a sensible balance between the competing interests.

Re:Summary is misleading. (4, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329025)

What makes you think that the powers that be are the representatives/senators/MPs/whatevers?

Multinational interests have powers that flow fluidly accross multiple political jurisdictions. They are the ones that want the dildo in your hole.

They won't stop until they are either told sraight up that they can't, or until they succeed in getting one rammed in there.

Despite what they might say, multinational corporations are not people. They are not human. They don't tire of devising ever more terrifying dicks to aim at you. They never get tired of trying, because they know that as long as they keep at it, they will eventually succeed.

If you think accepting a tiny dildo as a compromise is a sensible solution to the problem, I have only one thing to say:

Enjoy.

Re:Summary is misleading. (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328799)

What we need is to propose counter legislation FORBIDDING proposals of this type.

Meaningless.

New laws automagically supersede older laws. So as soon as they pass the next generation of privacy-invading law, it'll supersede the "you can't invade people's privacy" law...

In the USA, we'd have to have Constitutional Amendment to make these things go away forever.

And that's not going to happen, since it requires a supermajority in both the House and Senate, plus the approval by 38 States.

Re:Summary is misleading. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328855)

And even then you just need the courts to decide the amendment itself is unconstitutional, which has already happened on a state level, so there's no reason to believe it couldn't happen on the Federal level, too.

Time to invest in EMC... (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328097)

With the requirement to store every single thing users do, it might be a good time to invest in EMC because it is going to require an enterprise (VNX level) SAN to record all what is going on, as well as the licenses for features like deduplication (since a bunch of troll posts are usually alike, the SAN can store one copy, and pointers to the others.)

As a user in the UK, I'd be looking to find the best always-on VPN service, one in the country (since some services are country-locked), and one situated somewhere less repressive but close by, network-wise, perhaps Sweden or Norway.

I'm sure that is going to be coming to the US really soon (if it isn't already present), so guess it is time to find a Canadian VPN provider.

Re:Time to invest in EMC... (1)

sithlord2 (261932) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328175)

Meh... they'll probably use ZFS :-)

Re:Time to invest in EMC... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328235)

You think Canada is any safer? Read on bill C-30. While it was shot down a while ago, it's coming back. It used to be called the lawful access act, until it was renamed "The Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act". I'm not sure if they will keep the same name for the new iteration.

Re:Time to invest in EMC... (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328391)

A dildo by any other name is still used to fuck you.

Re:Time to invest in EMC... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328903)

perhaps Sweden or Norway

Is Sweden all that safe anymore? After the issues with The Pirate Bay and Julian Assange, and crazy shit like this [thelocal.se] , Sweden doesn't seem that appealing anymore.

Re:Time to invest in EMC... (1)

Terrasque (796014) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329049)

Sweden have been doing this shit for years already, and here in Norway the politicians are working their asses off to log everything, too. Only, not one of those politicians have any clue about computers, so they still have no idea what should be logged (and thus it's still not active, even tho it should be active from April this year).

And, as an extra bonus, they leave the bill to the ISP's. Because, you know, anything else would be expensive.

The really sad part is, one of the reasons the police wants longer storage (at the moment there is a law that no data can be stored for more than 6 months, including data required to calculate bills and so forth) is that THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MANPOWER to check the data that is collected now within the 6 months period... So the obvious solution is to gather MUCH MORE data to go through, and thus require even more work being spent on it... Logical, right? Welcome to Circus Norway.

This is why the good lord.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328103)

made temporary cloud server instances.

Data growth and filtering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328107)

Having not read the paper, or article..... If they're backing up everything, meaning, every BIT that traverses more than 1 hop, does the UK have enough storage for that continuously expanding data pool?

If they don't, then they have to be doing filtering. If they're filtering, what data, and who is deciding what is being filtered? And of course, UK citizens will be footing the bill, either by State tax, or ISP tax.

Even as a foriegner, this is entirely sickening from afar!

Re:Data growth and filtering? (2)

mattr (78516) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328205)

They could be analyzing in real time, which would vastly shrink the storage needed.

That said this legislation should greatly push the general public toward encryption of all usage, hand in hand with periodic disclosure of government abuse over time. Since not just the bad guys are being surveilled. Of course it is the same as what happens in other European / North American countries one could presume, they are just putting it into law that the public can see..

Re:Data growth and filtering? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328785)

hints for you:

hardware based triggers. and support for 'user written apps' in core routers.

add it up, mate. its there today. no need to store it all; just pick out the 'interesting' bits. the value is in writing clever triggers that can run at hardware speeds.

(just saying; or rather, guessing. no, I have no specific info. don't shoot the messenger.)

Wonder what the ECHR will say about this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328129)

A right to privacy is enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights. Exceptions are permitted only as "neccessary". Shall be interesting to see what happens if osmebody challenges this proposal, forcing the ECHR to consider what is "neccessary" in this context.

Steal Time on your Nemesis' Computer (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328131)

Protecting yourself against malicious use of your computers will become mandatory...or else you can get framed.

Re:Steal Time on your Nemesis' Computer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328289)

The small child known as BoRegardless began noticing strange occurrences on June 14, 2012. For one thing, he could hear whispering coming from inside his undies. BoRegardless was terribly frightened by this strange occurrence. Next, he could hear slurping sounds coming from inside the back of his undies (right near his precious, precious bootysnap). Before he knew it, he was bootynude naked, and it was as if his soul had left his body and he was staring at his former vessel (his body). BoRegardless looked at his cheeks, and noticed that they were covered in white fog (he often visited spooky graveyards, so his cheeks were quite foggy). BoRegardless then noticed that lick marks began appearing on his butt cheeks, and each time his cheeks were licked, he heard an "alim tsk tsk" sound. Something was slurping BoRegardless' cheeks, and there was nothing he could do! He watched in horror as the invisible entity alternated between licking his left and right cheeks, getting ever closer to his most precious spot: his bootysnapcheekcrackhole! Eventually, when it reached his precious hole (there was indeed a hole), the slurping ceased, and no one truly knows what happened to BoRegardless after that. Many scholars believe that his ass was turned into a rumblehouse...

Re:Steal Time on your Nemesis' Computer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328499)

What the hell did I just read?

Encryption,storage? (2)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328151)

You might not be so happy to find out that from now, every single thing you do online will be recorded and stored by the good old Internet Service providers (ISP). What do we mean by online activity? Well, everything. From exchanging emails, browsing history, instant messaging to the most important use of social networks.

For stuff like emails, wont encryption be an issue?
And for other stuff, storing the MASSIVE amounts of data
I have no stats to back this up, but on a national level, wont the storage requirement touch Petabytes per day? (or atleast 100's of Terabytes per day?)

Re:Encryption,storage? (1)

Creepy (93888) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328659)

TFA says the government will foot the 1.8 billion pounds (about 2.8 billion dollars) cost. Not sure if that is just storage or storage and monitoring tools because I didn't read the 123 page paper.

Still, this sounds like a good time to put hard disk and tape drives into my investment portfolio and maybe pray for more Thailand floods (causing another shortage and thus prices going up).

Re:Encryption,storage? (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328731)

Currently they store the from and to addresses of all emails sent, as well as the subject line, date stamp and IP address of the machine connecting to the server (usually your router, but not always). Encryption makes no difference as you can't encrypt the headers since obviously the server needs to read them.

For web monitoring they record the domain name of every site requested by each connection. It isn't clear how it is implemented, but presumably it is some kind of DPI to intercept HTTP requests rather than simple DNS logging (although DNS is also logged). Additionally the requesting IP address and datestamp are recorded. Encryption doesn't help much because the DNS lookup won't be encrypted and the IP address of every web server connected too will still be logged.

Tor really is the only option if you value privacy. I use it a lot now because the feeling that some anonymous government agent could be watching over my shoulder the whole time is just too creepy.

Riots (4, Interesting)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328169)

Why aren't their riots in the streets over this? For years I have heard about Europe being very pro-privacy. I have even worked with their privacy standards from a professional standpoint.

What went wrong? Seriously, how on earth did this ever happen? Your cars and your online activities are all being monitored by your government with your blessing! The communists never had it that good, all they got were phone calls and letters. You gave your own government a blessing to invade your privacy at a level the East German's could have only dreamed of. Something is very, very wrong in UK today. What the hell happened?

Re:Riots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328343)

This has not even been debated by Parliament yet, so unless all hope is lost, it will not pass. It's one thing to propose a bill, it's another altogether to make it into law...

Re:Riots (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328357)

"For years I have heard about Europe being very pro-privacy."

Europe is not entirely united. There is a lot of national variation. The UK is particually susceptable to the old 'think of the children' - we've been in a pedophile-panic here for years that is even worse than in the US.

Re:Riots (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328519)

>>>pedophile-panic

In the U.S. nudist websites (including kids) are legal. How does the UK handle them? Have they been banned?

Re:Riots (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328673)

We try to pretend they don't exist, and nudists live in fear because they know that if anything looks even the remotest bit suggestive involving children then they'll have a lynch mob coming to visit. Just run an image search on 'nudist' - you'll notice that children are entirely absent, because no-one would be dumb enough to share that part of the photo album with the world.

Re:Riots (1)

Talonius (97106) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328747)

It's sad that I wanted to post a joke in reply to this post, but I'm afraid it would be logged, tracked, and used against me in a court of law.

Re:Riots (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329063)

Don't worry, we're putting all the trigger words in the thread.

Re:Riots (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328823)

Think of the children? These people should be thinking that they've just robbed their children of the right to privacy. They're most certainly not thinking of the children.

Re:Riots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328361)

Continental Europe is largely pro-privacy. The UK is another story entirely. They lead the charge as a surveillance state among first world nations. Sadly, I don't think we in the US are that far behind.

Re:Riots (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328399)

The EU is not one country.

There was huge opposition against a similar law in Germany and it was repealed. Disgust over the data retention law was an important motivation for the increased interest in the Pirate Party, which is now present in several state parliaments. Germany is currently being sued by the EU for not implementing the EU directive which calls for these laws. The conservatives keep pushing for data retention, and they'll get it eventually, but this is not an easy fight for them at all.

On the other hand, there is the UK, where CCTV surveillance is everywhere. Not the same country.

Re:Riots (4, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328583)

Yes what the hell happened? The Tory party when in opposition opposed the National ID Card scheme, on the basis of privacy concerns and cost. They and their supporters often quoting George Orwell. As soon as they were in power they cancelled the scheme.

Now the very same part are going to spy on what everyone does on the internet, and it's going cost 1.5 billion UKP. At a time when all public services are being cut back.

Even accepting the fact that they are huge hypocrites, this does not make sense.

So what manner of corruption is going on here?

Re:Riots (4, Informative)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328733)

Why aren't their riots in the streets over this? For years I have heard about Europe being very pro-privacy. I have even worked with their privacy standards from a professional standpoint.

Because this is a bill that hasn't been voted on, much less passed and will more than likely be knocked back by the House of Lords so many times it'll be re-drafted into something impotent. The summary isn't merely wrong, it's practically as bad as the Daily Mail in terms of hyperbole:

"You might not be so happy to find out that from now, every single thing you do online will be recorded and stored by the good old Internet Service providers (ISP)." (emphasis mine)

What went wrong? Seriously, how on earth did this ever happen? Your cars and your online activities are all being monitored by your government with your blessing!

By cars, I expect you mean the ANPR cameras that check for valid tax and insurance. These are always accompanied by signs letting you know they're there, just like speed cameras.

The communists never had it that good, all they got were phone calls and letters.

Indeed, I imagine that very few people in Soviet Bloc countries had access to the Internet or their own cars

You gave your own government a blessing to invade your privacy at a level the East German's could have only dreamed of.

Yeah... sure.

Something is very, very wrong in UK today. What the hell happened?

Nothing happened; the press still use sensationalism and the people are still subject to about the same level of surveillance as in most other First World countries. And before someone trots out the millions of CCTV cameras thing again, let me just say that it's been debunked so many times it doesn't even merit a citation.

Re:Riots (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328877)

By cars, I expect you mean the ANPR cameras that check for valid tax and insurance. These are always accompanied by signs letting you know they're there, just like speed cameras.

Even if you are right, and I don't know that you are: In what way does the existence of signs make it in any way OK? In case you've forgotten, in 2001, the state had lots of signs saying "Big Brother is watching you."

Re:Riots (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328911)

2001? What am I thinking of?! I mean 1984 of course!

Re:Riots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328745)

Google takes pictures of views visible from public roads and people piss themselves. Government wants to go full KGB on the people and there is no problem.

Re:Riots (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328773)

There is some hope. There was a bit on the radio today about a company offering free wifi in London, and when they interviewed a few potential users all of them asked what the company was getting out of it and what personal data they wanted. A couple mentioned spying on users too. It seems that a lot of young people are at least aware of privacy issues.

Deluge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328231)

Best way to defeat something like this would be to generate as much traffic as possible, max out your internet plan each and every month. If they can't store all the information then they can't mine that information.

Have a program that just clicks random links on your computer 24/7. Send emails that contain as much information that you can cram in there from wikipedia. Set-up chat bots to talk to each other. There has gotta be tons of way of generating useless crap information such as those and more.

Have fun!

Re:Deluge (4, Insightful)

turgid (580780) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328549)

Send emails that contain as much information that you can cram in there from wikipedia.

No, use high-entropy random numbers ... much harder to compress/deduplicate :-)

Make sure you invest in all the storage companies first.

Re:Deluge (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328889)

Random bits are best. Be sure to choose a good balance so they have to record LOTS of different URLs and e-mail addresses.

I can hear friends already (4, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328243)

"If you have nothing to hide, then why complain?" - That's what they said when I told them I refused to open my car for the police. They'll probably say the same when I say the police should not be recording our websurfing.

   

Re:I can hear friends already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328491)

Perhaps your "friends" aren't what they seem; have you recently moved to suburban Connecticut?

Re:I can hear friends already (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329059)

"If you have nothing to hide, then why complain?" - That's what they said when I told them I refused to open my car for the police. They'll probably say the same when I say the police should not be recording our websurfing.

For people who refuse to understand principles, sometimes making it personal will work.
Stick a keylogger on their computer and, after a week, tell them what you've done.
"If you have nothing to hide, then why complain?"

1984 (4, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328247)

*The* authoritative guide to oppress and subdue your population into submission and complacency.

Warning: Void for the wealthy and/or connected.

 

Simple solution, really... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328309)

I'm sure many people are thinking about Tor as a way to solve this issue, but I think there is a much simple way to solve it.

Think about this anecdote: kids are on a school trip (at least, that's how I remember it). Their professors don't want them to leave their rooms during the night, so they put small pieces of tape on the door of the kids' rooms. This way, they think it'll be easy to spot the rooms whose door has been opened, the next morning. One night, some clever kids get out of their room and, to cover up their tracks, instead of attempting to repair the tape on their own door, open everybody else's door.

Foor for thought...

Just use SSL to circumvent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328349)

Since the bill requires ISPs to collect the information, just use HTTPS. At best, they can determine what IP you have connected to.

And people always trash the USA for eroding civil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328415)

And people always trash the USA for eroding civil liberties.

Solution (2)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328417)

cat /dev/urandom >> file1.txt >> curl http://some.british.web.site/ [web.site]

Re:Solution (2)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328597)

does firefox still have that testing plugin from the mozilla beta days that would randomly start loading websites? Maybe just have that run 24x7.

Re:Solution (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328701)

That command does not seem to work very well. All I ended up with is a giant file called "curl" with a ton of garbage in it.

I think the real solution is the wide spread use of encryption.

Mixed feelings ... (3, Interesting)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328437)

I definitely don't like the idea of my online activities being monitored since I value my privacy very highly.

On the other hand, governments are in a bit of a bind. They are responsible for enforcing the law and creating an effective justice system. This is incredibly difficult for them to do given the scope of activities that can (and do) take place online. After all, you can't exactly place a police officer on a beat to keep the peace without having some sort of electronic monitoring. Likewise, you cannot collect evidence to prove innocence or guilt without maintaining some sort of record of electronic transactions.

I don't know where the solutions to these problems lay. That being said, I would suggest that those of us who oppose electronic surveilence start thinking about solutions to this problem. After all, governments need a way to do their job, and simply opposing legislation like this doesn't exactly help them do their job.

Re:Mixed feelings ... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328579)

Same way they do it now: Put a police officer on "the beat" and watching for illegal activity like stealking credit numbers, or adults trying to seduce children. OF COURSE the more-likely outcome is 100% recording of everything we do, followed by some Mussolini type leader using the info to "disappear" his online enemies. (Or less onerous, government forcing newssites to publish gov't propaganda & erasing anti-government posts/replies.)

Re:Mixed feelings ... (1)

rogueippacket (1977626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328663)

So long as the governments of the world continue to work in a bubble of their closest supporters, cranking out bills like this without actually consulting the people (or even panels of industry experts), we're going to shoot down every goddamn one and make their lives as miserable as possible until they understand we, the citizens who elected them, need to be a part of this process. Or put simply, they've never asked for our input on a solution. That's not how it works where I live, at least. Maybe one day that will change, but until then, we have no choice but to show them how asinine their ideas are. Usually by throwing their asses out to the curb and electing someone smarter.

Re:Mixed feelings ... (2)

bmacs27 (1314285) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328675)

You used to need a warrant to tap a phone line. What's wrong with that system?

Re:Mixed feelings ... (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329015)

There are two issues with warrants:

1) Unless a portion of the crime takes place in the physical world, it is very difficult to gather the evidence required to obtain a warrant. In those cases some form of electronic monitoring would be required in order to obtain that evidence. At the very least you need to know that computer A connected to computer B. Those records should be external to computer A and computer B since neither party is likely to maintain logs or, if they do maintain logs, they are possible to tamper with.

2) Many of the people who oppose electronic monitoring also oppose ISPs divulging which IP address is associated with which user. Sometimes that is for legitimate reasons, such as multiple users can share an IP address. The only way the police may be able to establish the identity of a user, in order to obtain a warrant, is to use some sort of monitoring in the first place.

There may be ways to get around these problems: e.g. establish that illegal activities are being conducted with computer A, get a warrant to monitor connections to computer A, then use that warrant to obtain a further warrant for computer B. Yet even there you run into a hitch. If computer A is in another nation you won't be able to monitor all of the connections to that computer in your own nation because you won't be able to monitor it at computer A's ISP.

Simply put, it is too easy to hide criminal activities online.

Re:Mixed feelings ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328677)

On the other hand, governments are in a bit of a bind. They are responsible for enforcing the law and creating an effective justice system. This is incredibly difficult for them to do given the scope of activities that can (and do) take place online.

Replace "online" with "indoors", "by phone", or "by mail." For years they've kept law & order pretty well, all the while getting specific warrants when it's deemed necessary to record a private conversation or monitor private correspondence. For me, this same expectation of privacy in my non-public affairs includes what I do online, until such time as I give them reason to suspect me of a specific crime. (Unless I'm doing it on a big screen in public.)

Re:Mixed feelings ... (1)

Talonius (97106) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328769)

I don't see how having access to everything done by everyone in a nation will help them. Information overload. If they're using it to fight crime, the crime has to occur first. And the potential privacy implications of such a database as well as the identity theft/blackmail potential is simply unreasonable as a counterweight to the gains.

Re:Mixed feelings ... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328953)

They are responsible for enforcing the law and creating an effective justice system.

Not when their solutions violate people's privacy or rights.

Re:Mixed feelings ... (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329003)

fter all, governments need a way to do their job, and simply opposing legislation like this doesn't exactly help them do their job.

Actually, it does. In the old days, when you wanted to know what someone was up to, you used something called an "eyeball" to watch them. Governments are lazy -- they want dragnets, they want all electronic data available for inspection for any reason, without a warrant. They want retroactive immunity for torturing and murdering civilians. But arguments that they can't do their job here are bullshit: I can put a video camera that watches your screen and keyboard and know what you're up to online, and those cost $15 at the computer store. If I want to know where you're driving off to, I don't need to install black boxes in every car... I just need to crawl under yours and attach a tracking device.

Law enforcement shouldn't be monitoring people's private communications or lives without a warrant, without cause, etc., child molesters, terrorists, and googly-eyed boogie men be damned. Just bending over and taking it like this hurts homeland security because it costs a lot of money for a minimal return on investment, it turns everyone into a spy for everyone else, and it winds up stifling the entire culture... if people are afraid to speak their mind, they're also afraid to innovate. If they're afraid to stand out in a crowd because of surveillance, then everyone becomes the same. The very essence of democracy is destroyed then -- there's no point in keeping who you voted for private if your internet searches are available to the government. They know who you voted for based on what you looked for online. There's no point in asking for warrants then, because they already have all the evidence sitting on a server somewhere... they can round up anyone at will because the laws are so complex, so dense, that nobody can avoid breaking at least one. And when you have such fine-grained knowledge on a person's daily life and activities, it means that you can arbitrarily point to someone and say "That one. Make them disappear," and find a legal justification for it.

Democracy cannot survive under such a system. It's simply not a democracy at that point in anything but name. If you people in Europe allow this to pass, whatever you are after this won't be a democracy... it'll be something else, something darker and not unlike what is happened to my country, the United States. We are a democracy in name only. Make this law, and you join us.

Re:Mixed feelings ... (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329023)

I don't know where the solutions to these problems lay.

I do. Warrants. If you need data, get yourself probable cause and present it to a judge. If you don't have probable cause, fuck off and die. If you have probable cause, you'll get your warrant, and you can record the data you had probable cause to believe would provide evidence for a crime.

How is this difficult in any way? I mean, let's apply your logic to other times when a warrant would be required:

They are responsible for enforcing the law and creating an effective justice system. This is incredibly difficult for them to do given the scope of activities that can (and do) take place in the home. After all, you can't exactly place a police officer on a beat to keep the peace without having some sort of domestic monitoring. Likewise, you cannot collect evidence to prove innocence or guilt without maintaining some sort of record of domestic activity.

Does it make more sense to you now just how wrongheaded your post was?

Idiots (2)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328619)

Goes to show what a bunch of idiot reactionaries the people running the show in Westminster are.

Are they going to show us any evidence that such a drastic and draconian law is required? Where is the evidence that this is needed?

It's all down to the idiotic, blind ideology that we've come to expect from the halfwits in power.

Somehow, I'm hoping that these people ARE actually smarter than they appear, and are simply putting this forward to distract the media from something more reactionary and ideologically-driven they're doing elsewhere.

And if you think this is bad, you should see the hysterical "OMG somebody think of the children" crap coming from the Tory back bench, e.g. Nadine Dorries.

Re:Idiots (1)

Talonius (97106) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328813)

See the "people are too stupid to run a democracy" study published a few months back.

Really, here in the US, there's no benefit to doing the right thing - or anything. You'll get lambasted from both sides no matter what choice you make. Objective political reporting is dead, if it ever existed. Satisfying the donors and behind the scenes manipulators is about the only approval you can expect.

And that's our (the voting public's) fault. We have become unwilling to compromise and negotiate and instead we prefer highly publicized stand offs over minute issues while our paid taxes slowly swirl down the drain.

How do they record your secure web activities? (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328645)

How do they record your secure web activities? Seems the only thing they can know from it is where your HTTPS requests are going to. And what about the VPN set up to friends in free countries like Norway and Sweden?

Re:How do they record your secure web activities? (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329031)

Nationwide MITM attack.

Could backfire (1)

JonathanCombe (642832) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328687)

I think Governments need to be very very careful about going down this route. Should this go ahead I expect any ciminals to encrypt all their network traffic via a VPN or proxy as well as measrues such as sending emails encryped via PGP. This is next to impossible to break so the government will lost the ability to see what users are doing on line anyway - all they can see is nothing other than an encyrpted connection to a VPN whose data they cannot snoop. If the VPN is located outside the UK then there will be no obligation to store sites that user has visited.

If I want to communicate with others privately I can set up a basic web server (perhaps via something like Raspberry Pi) running web forum software over an https connection with a self-generated certificate over a broadband connection and grant accounts only to those who I want to communicate via the site. All the government sees is encrypted data going to this address.

In addition IP address do NOT identify an individual. Many people can and do share a single internet IP address. Wi-FI can be cracked so an innocent users connection may be being abused without their knowledge. Then there are things like public WiFi. Or just by a mobile broadband USB stick with cash and then the connection cannot be traced back to an individual anyway. Sure the mobile operator would know the rough location it's being used via the base station it's on but not the individual property (especially with blocks of flats).

Re:Could backfire (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328837)

As more and more non-criminal people are forced to use more and more encryption, this will just make more and easier choices available, even for the criminals. But the government may also try to make all use of encryption illegal, too, thus turning everyone into a criminal.

Re:Could backfire (5, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329043)

I think Governments need to be very very careful about going down this route. Should this go ahead I expect any ciminals to encrypt all their network traffic via a VPN or proxy as well as measrues such as sending emails encryped via PGP.

That's easy. It's already a crime in the UK to refuse to hand over encryption keys. They don't even have to prove that you have the encryption keys, or that the allegedly encrypted data is actually encrypted.

Before long mere use of encryption, or even possession of random data that could be mistaken for encrypted data will be illegal in the UK.

Are we crazy or idiots? (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328867)

Communications are private. This is one of the bases of democracy. If you lose that, and you spy on the citizens, then you are already inside the dictatorship style of society. You CAN'T do that, not even to stop a nuclear explosion to destroy a city or something massive like that. Is one of the pilars of our society, and the other options are worse. Plus, we choose to live in democracy, is our choose, nobody should overrule that and force a dictatorship on everyone.

Catch 22 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40328927)

The RIAA is pushing people onto VPNs, and guess what demographic will not be able to be monitored even after this IMP law comes into effect, *hint* it won't be just the criminals and pedos.

Not content (1)

Geeky (90998) | more than 2 years ago | (#40328977)

From the first few pages of the document, they are talking about communication data but not content - i.e. source, destination, perhaps size. Stuff ISPs probably log but might not store. It is explicitly excluding content

It's still not great, but to take a telephone analogy it's like the itemised billing stats, not recording all the calls. Or a physical example - getting the post office to record the address written on the envelope, but not open it and read the contents.

From the actual document itself: "Nothing in these proposals will authorise the interception of the content of a communication. Nor will it require the collection of all internet data, which would be neither feasible, necessary nor proportionate."

It will still give ISPs an excuse to increase their prices, but I don't think it's quite time to break out the tin foil hats...

Use Logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40329071)

Haven't you ever dream of a opensource freeware just for a case like this?

It'd be as simple as ping each second to a random webpage (which count as "online activity").

Now, image that software installed in all computers... and the huge servers that the Big Fucking Spy would need to manage/store/check such info.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?