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!

Sir Tim Berners-Lee Accuses UK Government of "Draconian Internet Snooping"

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the keep-your-eyes-on-your-own-screen dept.

Privacy 192

An anonymous reader writes "According to British daily The Telegraph, Sir Tim Berners-Lee has warned that plans to monitor individuals' use of the internet would result in Britain losing its reputation as an upholder of web freedom. The plans, by Home Secretary Theresa May, would force British ISPs and other service providers to keep records of every phone call, email and website visit in Britain. Sir Tim has told the Times: 'In Britain, like in the US, there has been a series of Bills that would give government very strong powers to, for example, collect data. I am worried about that.' Sir Tim has also warned that the UK may wind up slipping down the list of countries with the most Internet freedom, if the proposed data-snooping laws pass parliament. The draft bill extends the type of data that internet service providers must store for at least 12 months. Providers would also be required to keep details of a much wider set of data, including use of social network sites, webmail and voice calls over the internet." Jimmy Wales doesn't seem to be a very big fan of the UK snooping either.

cancel ×

192 comments

Who cares when Google is around? (2)

For Freedoms (2724795) | about 2 years ago | (#41257585)

Google already collects all this data and much more. They have analytics and various scripts like jquery embedded on around 99.9% sites. Facebook handles the rest. With Google closely working with NSA and other agencies, who cares? They already have the data right there. Google is officially the internets big brother, already!

Re:Who cares when Google is around? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41257635)

They have analytics and various scripts like jquery embedded on around 99.9% sites.

Not for me they don't son. None of this noscript pussying around either, broken sites are broken -- turn javascript off!

Re:Who cares when Google is around? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41257799)

Uhm....
First of all - Google collects data about my VOIP calls? I don't think so.
Google is mostly only present on the web, not the rest of the internet.
Even then, you have to be logged into a Google account.
Even then, they don't collect data they don't care about.
Even then, Google is one of the few countries that won't just hand whatever data over to the government that they ask for with no questions.

Even Google wouldn't want to retain every detail of everything a user does - ISPs certainly don't. I can only think of one place that would really love this idea - hard drive makers. Think about it - when everything you do is logged in detail, and that data has to be retained long-term, then the ISPs and government will have to store it somewhere. It's going to be Hard Disk, at least until it gets cut to tape.

Re:Who cares when Google is around? (2)

fa2k (881632) | about 2 years ago | (#41258419)

Uhm....
First of all - Google collects data about my VOIP calls? I don't think so.

on Google Volce (not technically VoIP) and Google chat sure. They also sync your contacts for android, not sure about the call history

Google is mostly only present on the web, not the rest of the internet.

I'll give you that one. They have DNS and email, but it's all optional. For email, they aren't saving anything more than any other webmail provider. For DNS, you have no idea what they save.

Even then, you have to be logged into a Google account.

For them to save data? No. Just no.

Even then, they don't collect data they don't care about.

When they care about *logging wireless packets* from their Streetview cars, we can conclude that they care about almost all data

Even then, Google is one of the few countries that won't just hand whatever data over to the government that they ask for with no questions.

You can have this one too. But we don't know if they have deals with CIA et al.

Even Google wouldn't want to retain every detail of everything a user does - ISPs certainly don't.

ISPs aren't in the advertisement or world domination business. If Google thinks that a piece of data may help them target ads better in 5 years, they store it.. Disk space is chap (they have petabytes of satellite images and streetview images coming in all the time, for example).

I'm surprised that you didn't use the argument that people could just avoid Google, Chrome, etc., but they can't avoid the government. You probably know, then, that between AdSense, Google Analytics, Google plus buttons, Custom search, they know about most sites you visit.

Re:Who cares when Google is around? (4, Informative)

FireFury03 (653718) | about 2 years ago | (#41258621)

First of all - Google collects data about my VOIP calls? I don't think so.

on Google Volce (not technically VoIP) and Google chat sure.

Well, duhh, yes - the service provider you're buying a service from knows you're buying that service. If you don't want google to know about it, use a different service provider (but then that service provider knows...). This is no different from how its always been, whether on the internet or not - the telco knows when you made a phone call through their network, the baker knows when you bought a loaf of bread from him.

They also sync your contacts for android

Only if you tell them to... You can happilly use an Android device without asking Google to sync your contacts if you want to.

not sure about the call history

Google only gets your call history if you ask them to back up all your data. Again, you don't have to use this functionality (personally, I back up my phone nightly using rsync over my wifi network, so I don't bother using Google's backup stuff).

I'll give you that one. They have DNS and email, but it's all optional.

So, just like all the stuff you said above - they provide some services, its up to you whether you use those services and if you do they are going to know something about you in the same way as anyone else providing those services would.

For email, they aren't saving anything more than any other webmail provider.

Google _do_ analyse your email content to target advertising at you, which is more than many other webmail providers (although I imagine the likes of yahoo and hotmail do the same these days).

Even then, they don't collect data they don't care about.

When they care about *logging wireless packets* from their Streetview cars, we can conclude that they care about almost all data

I would say that Google's attitude seems to be "lets collect as much data as we can, we might find a neat way of analysing it in the future". There are, of course, good and bad things about that. Afterall, people use Google's services precisely because they work really well, and a lot of that is down to Google figuring out how to analyse your data in new and useful ways (useful to *you* as well as them).

That said, I don't really see the big deal with the whole wireless logging thing. They caught some packets that were broadcast in the clear into a public space for anyone with a receiver to see. If people didn't want their network traffic to be seen by others they had ample opportunity to encrypt it *using the standard functionality of their router*. And even so, the streetview car is moving at speed, it won't capture more than a few packets so they're going to be hard pushed to get anything particularly scary from the data. The whole thing strikes me like someone standing in their front window naked and then complaining that someone who drove past caught a glimpse of them - if you don't like it you should've drawn the curtains.

Re:Who cares when Google is around? (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#41258475)

Google is one of the few countries

I knew Google was big, but I didn't think they were that big :)

Re:Who cares when Google is around? (1)

theRunicBard (2662581) | about 2 years ago | (#41258567)

Oh, they're GETTING that big :) . And I for one welcome our Linux-using, geeky overlords! There was actually a book/paper about how Google is becoming more like a country with each year.

Re:Who cares when Google is around? (2)

Canazza (1428553) | about 2 years ago | (#41258067)

hold on, I thought jQuery was run by a not-for-profit foundation, not Google?

Re:Who cares when Google is around? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258411)

Google runs a CDN (Content distribution network) that hosts JQuery and it has become one of the main ways to include JQuery in your website. There are many advantages to this (since many websites all load Jquery from the same url, one cached version makes all those sites load quicker, etc), but the disadvantage is that since the file gets pulled directly from Google's webservers, they get to roughly monitor website traffic. The catch-22 is that most JQuery powered sites would be using Google Analytics (or similar software) anyway so it's a non issue.

Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41257627)

Right to privacy? Nope. Freedom of Speech? Nope.

Although I think all the conspiracy theorists are crazy, the new world order is the eventual coalescence of the violation of inalienable rights and it's frequency of occurence across all nations.

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (4, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 2 years ago | (#41257655)

Right to privacy? Nope. Freedom of Speech? Nope.

Although I think all the conspiracy theorists are crazy, the new world order is the eventual coalescence of the violation of inalienable rights and it's frequency of occurence across all nations.

Anymore the difference between the tinfoil hat brigade and the rest of society is, mainstream society believes that 1984 is coming. The tinfoil hat brigade believes it's already here.

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41257675)

Actually, I do.

In 1 month, there will be two new developments on the topic of defending your rights. Not activism, just quite simply remaining with the facts and the laws.

However, when it comes to defending your rights, you may want to consider not starting with giving them away.

Every time you use Google and Facebook, you are supporting organisations that have grown up in the wake of the 9/11 enthusiasm to render any barrier void against abuse of your information. Every time you use Viber, iMessage, WhatsApp, any Cloud construct, any email alias that resides in the US (such as pobox.com) and in general anything that labels itself as "free", you are in principle allowing a US organisation access to your information. And right now, the US seems to be the most unsafe place on earth for your information to be. Hell, even the EU has come up with terrorist laws that allow intercept without much supervision and it is exactly that lack of transparency that should give you cause for alarm. After all, if they work as elected officials, what do THEY have to hide?

With rights come obligations, and invading your privacy is not a right, it is a privilege granted in limited circumstances. Be jealous of your data and who uses it, because once it's out there you'll have a hard time getting it back..

By the same token, do not steal data that doesn't belong to you. Those you steal it from have rights too. Only when you meet all the criteria for whistle blowing (and they demand specificity) you have a route by which a crime can be commuted. Otherwise it remains a crime - no excuses.

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (2)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41257703)

Nope. Freedom of Speech? Nope.

This has been noted in your file ...

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 2 years ago | (#41257757)

Your noting has been noted.

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41257789)

Your noting has been noted.

And your noting my noting has been noted

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258049)

Sorry - software police here...

We noticed that you are noting something using the internet..

We must inform you you are in violation of several software patents and infringing on notice copyrights..

We will be nice today and only ask the small sum of $1,000,000,000.00, payable within 3 hours..

Otherwise we have no other alternative than to take your freedom with all force necessary, and put you behind bars awaiting your trial.

Of course this is all done to protect us from TERRORIST, CHILD ABUSERS and PIRATES that are disguised as civilians (so every civilian is suspect and has to be monitored) and are out to wreck our society.

Thank you for your attention...

 

Will you take a banker's note? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258339)

:-)

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (3, Funny)

Coisiche (2000870) | about 2 years ago | (#41258361)

We will be nice today and only ask the small sum of $1,000,000,000.00, payable within 3 hours..

In Bitcoins, right?

To prevent the "TERRORIST, CHILD ABUSERS and PIRATES" from using them.

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41257759)

I have to admit I snorked my coke when I saw that the UK government was supposed to be an "upholder of web freedom".

The UK government is one of the most openly snoopy governments in the developed world. If that's what they do in public, what do they do in private?

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258001)

If that's what they do in public, what do they do in private?

We don't know! OMG! Quick pass a law so we can snoop on their snooping!

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#41258013)

If that's what they do in public, what do they do in private?

They have sex once a month, with their legitimate wives, in the missionary position. They don't have anything to hide, why should they care about privacy?

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258023)

Excuse me, we're British!

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/22589

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (2)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#41258385)

I'm happy to see so many politicians being judged by what they do in bed, instead of what they do in the office. It's nice to see the Brits are focused on what really, really matters.

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (1)

englishstudent (1638477) | about 2 years ago | (#41258473)

Maybe some of them DO do it in the office?

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258503)

what's wrong with the missionary position? People always knock it - but I think it's great.

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258243)

I have to admit I snorked my coke

Yeah, I thought that is what you said. Your Columbian and American suppliers thank you from the bottom of their protected bank accounts. ;)

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (1)

Coisiche (2000870) | about 2 years ago | (#41258397)

If that's what they do in public, what do they do in private?

Well you could join MI5 or get a position at GCHQ to find out. But then you wouldn't be able to tell us.

And obviously you would run the risk of killing yourself but somehow zipping your corpse into a holdall [bbc.co.uk] in the bath.

Snooping? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258485)

Come on. Snooping? We are talking about the organization holding the special right to initiate physical force against you as a business model.

Snooping is what your nosy neighbor does. When "snooping" is conducted by government, it is called oppression. Don't give them the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#41258089)

I think all the conspiracy theorists are crazy

You're delusional.

Everyone is doing it (2)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about 2 years ago | (#41257669)

Data collection/mining/snooping/browser profiling is so commonplace that pointing the finger in one direction seems almost wrong.
Your data is already being sold to advertisers by your phone company, by any form you filled in your details, by any "free!" email account etc. So many different companies and bodies are collecting data and personally identifiable information that we're becoming apathetic to it.

We need strong legislation and standards to make sure data collection is kept to a necessary minimum without infringing any further on privacy.

Some think an alternative to missing legislation is obfuscation of data. This requires a bit of an effort to give deliberate misleading details, temporary emails, use proxy IPs. This is not feasible for the vast majority.

We, the people, must strongly voice our discontent about such matters. Let's remind government officials that although the MAFIAA buys them lunch, it has a price.

Re:Everyone is doing it (3, Insightful)

rich_hudds (1360617) | about 2 years ago | (#41257741)

Actually, as anyone working in IT in the UK can attest, we have very strict rules on what you can do with people's data.

I've spent a whole day at 3 different jobs attending a Data Protection Awareness course.

Companies are also realising that the data they collect isn't quite as valuable as they once thought. That's why the big supermarkets that lead the way on this data mining with their loyalty cards are actually reducing the rewards they offer.

New technology brings new challenges, but to pretend we are slipping towards a 1984 state just betrays your ignorance of history which actually shows that the majority of movement is going towards increased rights.

Magna Carta only applied to the aristocracy at the time remember, and as recently as 1918 women couldn't vote here.

Re:Everyone is doing it (3, Informative)

Dr Max (1696200) | about 2 years ago | (#41257797)

I have only had rights taken off me over the last 10 years. If you can name a new one i've been given them i'm all ears.

Re:Everyone is doing it (1)

rich_hudds (1360617) | about 2 years ago | (#41257871)

Well off the top of my head, Insurance Companies can no longer discriminate against you based on your sex.

Re:Everyone is doing it (1)

Dr Max (1696200) | about 2 years ago | (#41258371)

Is that really a right, or just a small discount?

Re:Everyone is doing it (1)

genik76 (1193359) | about 2 years ago | (#41258467)

Or the Insurance Companies may not give me the discounts I would deserve to have being a member of a gender causing less accidents.

Re:Everyone is doing it (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#41258489)

Well off the top of my head, Insurance Companies can no longer discriminate against you based on your sex.

Which is stupid, if you really think about it. Insurance should be based on one thing and one thing alone - the likelihood of you making a claim. Before that EU directive, that's essentially what was in place.

Re:Everyone is doing it (2)

rich_hudds (1360617) | about 2 years ago | (#41258611)

It's not stupid at all. Would you be happy for insurers to take into account race and sexuality? What if they found that men with big dicks were more dangerous? You want your dick measured so you can get a discount?

It's just the same argument about shops having 'No Blacks' signs in the window, only at a slightly less obviously 'wrong' end of the spectrum.

An insurance company can only go on personal driving history or generalities. This is just a new rule to stop them lumping all members of one group together and discriminating against them.

Re:Everyone is doing it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258031)

I've switched to anonymous due to this information...

For me it has been:

1) I can now get my birth certificate corrected to the right gender.
2) My partner is now properly recognised as my partner and gets pension rights et al.
3) I can't be discriminated against in the work place.
4) I can give blood

and so on...

Re:Everyone is doing it (1)

Dr Max (1696200) | about 2 years ago | (#41258359)

I should clarify I'm an Australian, and our laws are still terribly lacking in that regard (and many others). Sorry to butt in on this uk story, you guys might be a shining light of freedom (we most defiantly are not).

Re:Everyone is doing it (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#41258497)

you guys might be a shining light of freedom

More like a dim bulb in a basement.

Re:Everyone is doing it (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41257829)

to pretend we are slipping towards a 1984 state just betrays your ignorance of literature. We're in Brave New World.

Fix'd.

+1 Insightful (1)

TuringTest (533084) | about 2 years ago | (#41257967)

Where are mod points when you need them?

What? (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about 2 years ago | (#41258091)

Benign world controllers dealing with dissent by setting up island colonies where highly intelligent people can go and build their own societies, while running a strict hierarchical society which manages to keep almost all its citizens healthy and happy? I wish! My feeling at the end of reading BNW for the first time was "Helmholtz Watson, lucky bugger. How do we make this happen?".

*MY* data isn't, except by Govt (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41257919)

There may be lots of companies TRYING to gather data, but that doesn't mean they get anymore than newbies give them. My ISP cycles IP numbers to prevent IP address tracking, and of course I turn off cookies and flash local storage. I don't use Facebook or any other service that datamines private info, and I ask friends and family to never post about me if they insists on using FB.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I'm monitored to prevent me saying things about the military here in ..., you know what, lets not go there.

That's the effect of monitoring, it makes you less free to speak out about the police or military state you live in. UK is definitely a police state, this policy is driven by the police, and Theresa May, well she's just the current scared politicians being driven by the need to keep the police happy.

The last one, Jacqui Smith even started out with a central big database of all the transactions to be searched by the secret police at will. Then it morphed into a distributed database, still a database, held by the ISPs, that could be remotely queried. She thought that simply moving the database somehow stopped it being a database.

I wonder if the secret police will want VoIP recorded next, they're already reputed to be using voice recognition over mobile phones to perform mass surveillance the population. You know what, I was going to look up the link, but I didn't fancy typing [gchq voice surveillance] into Google lest it flags me as suspicious.

Lots of rozzers, all thinking they're making Britain better, when actually they are the biggest threat to freedom the UK faces now.

Re:Everyone is doing it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258627)

and do it before it's too big to fail.

Which reputation? (4, Insightful)

leromarinvit (1462031) | about 2 years ago | (#41257677)

Which "reputation as an upholder of web freedom" would that be? The one based on them censoring Wikipedia for showing an album cover? Or the one where you have to hand over encryption keys or be thrown in jail?

Re:Which reputation? (3, Insightful)

azalin (67640) | about 2 years ago | (#41257695)

I think they refer to their defense of privacy by having the highest number of surveillance cameras per citizen of any western nation.

Re:Which reputation? (1)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#41257719)

Fundamental difference:
Surveillance cameras are put on public streets
Networks were built and are managed by private corporations.
So you have two options:
Trust your government has your best interest at heart
Trust a business you are giving money to has your best interest at heart as it sells your info to your government
...I think we are screwed!

Re:Which reputation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41257869)

There's a third option: encrypt everything. Speaking of which, Slashdot should offer HTTPS.

Re:Which reputation? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258179)

Interesting. How do I encrypt a visit to the pharmacist, grocery store, or any other shop for that matter? Should I start wearing a balaclava? I believe that would cause more problems than it solves. How do I purchase stuff without being profiled? Maybe I should scratch all the markings of my currency bills to make sure they can't be tracked, and avoid using bank cards altogether, while stuffing said bills under my mattress? How do I encrypt my phone signal and how do I then make or receive calls from other people when the network does not support it?

While these examples are quite extreme and borderline paranoid... do you see my point? As an individual, there is absolutely nothing you are able to do to really isolate yourself from the surveillance, monitoring and profiling madness while still functioning normally in society. This bothers people.

Re:Which reputation? (2)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 2 years ago | (#41257753)

Oh, that old chestnut. I think you'll find that US cities have just as many CCTV cameras - possibly more - as UK cities.

The number that's often trotted out only works if there's a CCTV camera for every 50m (yes, fifty metres, about ten car lengths) of road right down to dirt farm tracks - which is clearly not the case.

Re:Which reputation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258403)

No, the chestnut works because it is based on counting all the private cctv cameras on office buildings. For instance the previous building I worked in had 4 cameras covering the outside entrances. No connectivity to any external network, no access to big brother etc. but they are counted in the "OMG YOU ARE ALL UNDER SURVEILLANCE" mentality. Then there are the traffic flow cameras on motorways etc. which are used to alert motorists and emergency services to issues on the roads "OMG!!!"

Re:Which reputation? (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#41258505)

The one based on them censoring Wikipedia for showing an album cover?

IIRC, that filter is maintained by a private company.

The UK government loves to outsource - when it inevitably goes wrong, they can just say 'wasn't us!'

Run a Tor relay. (5, Interesting)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 2 years ago | (#41257723)

Even if you're not happy running an exit node, you can help speed up the Tor network by running a relay. All traffic through a relay is encrypted and kept within the Tor network, so you remain unidentifiable. It also helps obscure when you yourself are using Tor.

Re:Run a Tor relay. (3, Interesting)

coofercat (719737) | about 2 years ago | (#41258509)

So here's a serious question...

Assuming this tracking law gets in (which it seems it will eventually, as this isn't the first try for such a thing), then would it actually be a good time for everyone (inside the UK and International) to rent a virtual server some place (in the UK) and run an honest-to-goodness Tor exit node?

For us Brits, there's a risk of prosecution (although it's unclear to what extent). I'm sure "it's a Tor node, it's entirely public, and I personally didn't actually download all that stuff" might be enough defence to avoid life-changing legal action. IANAL, and I really have no clue what I'm talking about here.

However, for International folks, the worst than can really happen is that they shut down your VPS. You can then just go rent another one and be up and running in minutes.

Assuming this vaguely makes sense (particularly for non-UK residents), then we could conceivably have a "flood" of Tor-originated traffic to all manner of questionable web content flowing through our Royal pipework and into the ISP data logs, and into the Great Decentralised Central Government Database of Everything. I'm probably barking up the wrong dog here, but it seems interesting none the less.

What some people don't realise (-1, Troll)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41257755)

What some people don't realise is that there are a large number of Muslims. A quarter of these sympathise with terrorists, and six percent [telegraph.co.uk] saying that bombing the underground in London is completely justified. With 2,869,000 Muzzies that's 172,000 odd who think its fine to commit terrorist acts, and 717,000 odd who would sympathise with them when they do. Obviously wherever possible subservience should be targeted at the Muslims, but we all need to expect some increased level.

In particular white converts should be subject to extra scrutiny, as they seem to be more likely to be involved in extremism. I think it was Robert Spencer who said that maybe hearing Imams calling for murder daily from a young age has an "inoculation's effect" on born Mulsims, many of whom disobey the Qur'an and Hadith by living peacefully with non-Muslims and treating them as equal.

Re:What some people don't realise (2)

kraut (2788) | about 2 years ago | (#41257783)

There are also a large number of Irish people, a significant fraction of which used to sympathise with the the IRA..... .and we managed to resolve that issue without panopticon surveillance and giving up our human rights.

Re:What some people don't realise (0)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41257857)

There are also a large number of Irish people, a significant fraction of which used to sympathise with the the IRA..... .and we managed to resolve that issue without panopticon surveillance and giving up our human rights.

That's a good point. However the difference is that ultimately their aims were to unite Ireland. Now I know that it is a complex issue, with most people in Northern Ireland not wanting to be reunited - but ultimately the worst that could happen is that Northern Ireland could be lost to the UK. However the stated aim of Islam, as many clerics pronounce, is complete world-wide subjugation of non-Muslims, with imposition of Sharia Law. Under Sharia you won;t be able to testify in court against a Muslim - as in Pakistan if the Muzzies kidnap and rape your daughter her testimony or yours will not count against a straight "I didn't do it" from the lying Muzzie. Also you will be subject to punitive tax, not allowed to express your views open, and if you have any "disagreements" with Muzzies they will just accuse you of blasphemy and you will be killed (obviously not allowed to contradict his claim). This is what happens weekly in Pakistan, Iran, and many other Muzzie states. There is much more to lose from the Muzzie threat than the IRA.

Re:What some people don't realise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41257887)

Well thats somewhat true, but there was some weakening of the rule of law in reaction to the IRA: they removed your right to remain silent when questioned by the police. (You can still remain silent but they can hold it against you as if it were some kind of admission of guilt to refuse to speak to the police. It is in fact universally recommended by legal qualified people to NOT speak to the police without legal advice. So this is a ridiculous change to the law.)

And sad that it may have been on the odd occasion for the british police to be unable to prosecute some suspected IRA member, the fact that they lacked the evidence and the suspected IRA member refused to discuss anything is just TOUGH LUCK and the normal implication of rule of law. You have to evidence to convict people! There is a presumption of innocence.

And for the record I am against violence whether conducted by IRA, Loyalist paramilitary groups, British Police and military in Ireland. It is generally understood of any violent conflict that violence breeds violence, and sometimes police, military and government get aggressive or below the belt and in engage in complicity with one or the other side of a terrorist dispute. eg claims of british government complicity with loyalist terrorist acts in Ireland.

Re:What some people don't realise (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41258527)

You can still remain silent but they can hold it against you as if it were some kind of admission of guilt to refuse to speak to the police.

(possibly paraphrasing) "You have the right to remain silent, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention now something which you later rely on in court."

So staying silent itself shouldn't be held against you - suddenly remembering an alibi six months down the line might, though.

Re:What some people don't realise (1)

ByronHope (2669333) | about 2 years ago | (#41257791)

Timothy McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik, both terrorists and both Christians, so by your "logic" we should watch Christians as well.

Re:What some people don't realise (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41257811)

Timothy McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik, both terrorists and both Christians, so by your "logic" we should watch Christians as well.

.... and what percentage of Christians though that their actions were fully justified? If you can show that a reasonable number do then obviously the Christians should be monitored too, but I doubt if this is the case.

Re:What some people don't realise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258007)

Didn't Breivik's defense bring people into court to specifically state that they sympathized with his beliefs and actions in order to prove he was not insane? Hell, I bet if you were honest, you would say that you sympathize with his actions (without condoning them). I bet you've used much of the same language as he used in his horrible little manifesto. Right?

Singling out a particular segment of society for hatred and persecution, labelled only by their religion, is precisely what happened in Germany in the 1930's. Godwin be damned -- you are a hateful, bigoted, disgusting thug.

Re:What some people don't realise (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41258085)

Hell, I bet if you were honest, you would say that you sympathize with his actions (without condoning them).

Don't be ridiculous, for one thing I cannot comprehend why he attacked a labour party camp, apparently all non-Muslims. Secondly even if he had attacked Muslims, this would be descending to their level. As I said, many Muslims disobey the Qur'an and Hadith by living peacefully with non-Muslims and treating them as equal. The security services should be ruthless in dealing with those supporting terror, people certainly shouldn't attack a mass group for the actions and belief of 6% of them.

Re:What some people don't realise (1)

Psychotria (953670) | about 2 years ago | (#41258381)

Hell, I bet if you were honest, you would say that you sympathize with his actions (without condoning them).

Don't be ridiculous, for one thing I cannot comprehend why he attacked a labour party camp, apparently all non-Muslims. Secondly even if he had attacked Muslims, this would be descending to their level. As I said, many Muslims disobey the Qur'an and Hadith by living peacefully with non-Muslims and treating them as equal. The security services should be ruthless in dealing with those supporting terror, people certainly shouldn't attack a mass group for the actions and belief of 6% of them.

Emphasis mine. And, you shouldn't attack a group of people for any percentage of them doing something you object to. Apart from being racist you're willingly giving up YOUR rights because of a false belief that because x% of people involved with religion/belief y that censorship and snooping is fine. You are wrong.

Re:What some people don't realise (1)

FrangoAssado (561740) | about 2 years ago | (#41258429)

As I said, many Muslims disobey the Qur'an and Hadith by living peacefully with non-Muslims and treating them as equal.

How big of you to point out that not all Muslims are evil, and that the ones who reject their own religion can live in the civilized world.

The thing is, everyone picks and chooses from their sacred books. The Christians, for example, don't exactly follow these rules:

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. - Exodus 35:2

For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him. - Leviticus 20:9

(I could cite more, these are just the shortest ones).

Re:What some people don't realise (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 2 years ago | (#41258369)

Singling out a particular segment of society for hatred and persecution, labelled only by their religion, is precisely what happened in Germany in the 1930's. Godwin be damned -- you are a hateful, bigoted, disgusting thug.

Where is the problem? The moo-slimes can either join the 21st century and leave their ridiculous shit behind, or go back to goatfuck land. Nobody forces them to live in a superior culture they don't like. They can come back when they have evolved a little. Until then, bring on the gallows!

Re:What some people don't realise (1)

ByronHope (2669333) | about 2 years ago | (#41258045)

Only takes one...

Re:What some people don't realise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41257847)

Did you read what he wrote or did political correctness fry your brain? Both of your examples had nowhere near the level of sympathy he quotes, if any. Now, we may discuss whether his statistics are valid, but your answer completely misses the point.

Re:What some people don't realise (1)

blackest_k (761565) | about 2 years ago | (#41258443)

Breivik believes himself to be a patriot and his actions were in defence of his country.
It seems he hasn't managed to qualify as a madman either.

You see that is part of the problem. If we take the case of an earlier poster talking about the Muslim population in being a threat to England. Arguably that same poster might just see it as his patriotic duty to defend his country against the Muslim threat. Maybe he could become Englands Breivik. How do we know? Chances are someone liable to take action will listen to argument post argument and have the ego to believe that they should be the one to do something about it. The smart ones may not comment at all but just read, The really smart ones will ignore this topic completely.

So really if you believe watching everybody will give advance warning of an attack then that pretty much is what you are going to do. What is the alternative?

wow - Racist much? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41257815)

"Muzzies" - Seriously? At the very least, you need to cite reliable sources if you are going to post racist inflammatory comments.

Re:What some people don't realise (1, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 2 years ago | (#41257839)

The only significant terrorist attacks in the UK have been carried out by white Christians, generally Irish. Since these attacks were largely funded by US Republicans eager to help "the folks back home", maybe we should be watching Americans too, since they think it's okay to commit terrorist acts.

We've never had any bother from the Muslims here, at all.

Re:What some people don't realise (3, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41257909)

We've never had any bother from the Muslims here, at all.

Apart from the 77 bombings [wikipedia.org] , the Glasgow Airport attack [newsmax.com] , the Exetrer bomb attack [bbc.co.uk] , shoe bomber and dozens of failed attempts and arrests [wikipedia.org] .

Re:What some people don't realise (3, Funny)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 2 years ago | (#41257989)

The Glasgow airport "attack" wasn't terrorism, it was two drunk Asian kids crashing a car. It happens all the time in Renfrew, it's a rough area.

Re:What some people don't realise (2)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41258061)

The Glasgow airport "attack" wasn't terrorism, it was two drunk Asian kids crashing a car. It happens all the time in Renfrew, it's a rough area.

I suppose they all plant car bombs in London [dailymail.co.uk] before-hand, fill their cars with petrol and propane tanks, and that if they survive are Jailed for life for planned mass murder [bbc.co.uk] ?

Re:What some people don't realise (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41258539)

The Glasgow airport "attack" wasn't terrorism, it was two drunk Asian kids crashing a car loaded with propane canisters. It happens all the time in Renfrew, it's a rough area.

FTFY. Maybe you were trying to be funny, but, eh...

Re:What some people don't realise (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 2 years ago | (#41258589)

For it to be "terrorism", it would have to be in some way terrifying. It wasn't.

Re:What some people don't realise (4, Insightful)

Goth Biker Babe (311502) | about 2 years ago | (#41258307)

What *you* have to realise that apart from the 77 bombings which were reasonably effective they were all pretty pitiful. The IRA terrorists really knew how to do terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_bombing [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Park_and_Regent's_Park_bombings [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing [wikipedia.org]

But even those were nothing. You have to remember that our grandparents and parents lived through this. Nothing since has been comparable in anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz [wikipedia.org]

The whole point of terrorism is to instil terror. *NOT* to kill people. That's a side effect. While you react to them they're winning. So don't react. As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Re:What some people don't realise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258433)

And also don't steal other people's land and try to take over. The chances are they won't appreciate it.

Re:What some people don't realise (2)

slashmojo (818930) | about 2 years ago | (#41258169)

The only significant terrorist attacks in the UK have been carried out by white Christians .. We've never had any bother from the Muslims here, at all.

Talk about selective memory.. have you missed the last 10 years or so?

Does this not count as significant in your books?!
"The 7 July 2005 London bombings conducted by four separate Islamist extremist suicide bombers, killing 56 people and injuring 700."

Re:What some people don't realise (2)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 2 years ago | (#41258249)

Oh that? Hardly significant. Give me a shout when they get to multiple thousands, like the American-funded Irish terrorists.

Re:What some people don't realise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258511)

Wow. Your source of information is 8 years old. Way to quote a random survey that backs up your point.

Social networks (2)

Alioth (221270) | about 2 years ago | (#41257867)

Good luck with logging social network use. Facebook and Twitter at least seem to use https by default for me. Unless ISPs can force people to download trusted certificates for a proxy that decrypts, logs, then re-encrypts their facebook usage, they won't be seeing much.

Incidentally, I run my own mail server. I relay my mail through it using TLS, and it too uses opportunistic encryption when contacting other SMTP servers. My ISP sees nothing but encrypted data going past. Many public SMTP servers now are supporting opportunistic encryption and supports 256 bit encryption (in fact, if you want to pass a PCI-DSS ASV scan, then if your mail server supports encryption it must disable all weak ciphers).

(Disclaimer: I don't live in the UK, but I do live in a British crown territory - whether a similar law is passed here is not guaranteed, for example we don't have anything like the RIP Act)

Re:Social networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258229)

So instead of the UK being able to log and monitor your communications with friends, you prefer to leave that job to Facebook and Twitter, whose primary motive is the profits of shareholders, and which are based in the USA who can demand these logs at whim, and who have good relations with the UK.

Yeah that makes sense.

when TBL said that "this is for everyone"... (0)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41257877)

...surely he was intelligent enough to know from history that all total information awareness campaigns are ultimately used to oppress the people who are supposed to be empowered by information.

And when he allowed half a dozen big businesses to essentially take over and steer W3C in their image, surely he knew that any altruistic or academic value in W3C would be diminished.

Alas, the man is saying, "I've set something up for you. I've allowed you to take it over. But it concerns me." Well, it should concern you, TBL. But, next time you give a knife to a serial killer, don't expect him to use it to cook you a delicious meal.

Plans to monitor individuals' use of the internet? (2)

dgharmon (2564621) | about 2 years ago | (#41257883)

"According to British daily The Telegraph, Sir Tim Berners-Lee has warned that plans to monitor individuals' use of the internet would result in Britain losing its reputation as an upholder of web freedom."

I assumed there was someone monitoring my use of the Internet, which is why I've always been cautious, at least with my home usage ...

Re:Plans to monitor individuals' use of the intern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258183)

I kind of think if "they" want to fuck you over it doesn't matter how youbehave they'll find some way to screw you so it's not always worth the hassle of hiding everything you do, especially as hiding everything could look extremely suspicious even if you're hiding for the sake of hiding.

My captcha word seems somewhat appropriate: cohort

Solution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41257885)

In a dictatorship run by queens and kings or dictators and fascists, the only solution is serious blowback in the form of civil war by those who want their freedom against those who take it away. The day the home secretary has to pick up a rifle and shoots at the people who want their freedom, it will become quite clear just what to do about this snooping bullshit in all countries. Why wait anymore? It's not like they're going to install less cameras and less fios splitters. You either boycott your communications infrastructure (not likely) or you fight physically and take the fucker back!

Dedicated to the chicken shit trolls in this thread who keep calling real conspiracy tin foil hat

Sweden beat UK :D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41257889)

Sweden already does this, we finally beat uk in being a police state!

rethink the problem, not the symptom. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41257975)

We have to accept reality. Data retention is a fact. Laws are passed just for form. Google, Facebook, Skype, ISP's, etc, etc, etc are all in the business of collecting data on a much vaster scale than any law proposes.

It's not about stopping laws. It's about creating technology that makes it impossible to snoop.

Tor is a good start, and i recommend it, but Google and Facebook for example block you from opening accounts over TOR (because your IP constantly changes) if Javasript is not on. They want to know who you are.... Wether for themselves or because of higher powers, I do not know.

The movement to stop laws is futile. It will happen sooner or later. Our energy needs to go into rethinking how our technology should work. I no longer have a Facebook account, I do not Skype, use DuckDuckGo and closed my Gmail account. Until solutions come along, this is the only way. If everyone does the same it will be over very quickly. Money is the only pressure point that works. All it takes is enough people.

(And for those banking on HTTPS; this is no longer secure if your snooper has control of the infrastructure. )

Hello? This is the EU, not the UK (3, Insightful)

Onymous Hero (910664) | about 2 years ago | (#41257983)

The source of this junk law is the European Union. It just so happens that the UK has implemented this directive. Others will follow suit if they haven't already!

"On 15 March 2006 the European Union adopted the Data Retention Directive, on "the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC".[1][2] The Directive requires Member States to ensure that communications providers retain, for a period of between 6 months and 2 years, necessary data as specified in the Directive"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention#European_Union [wikipedia.org]

Re:Hello? This is the EU, not the UK (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258287)

It couldn't be that national governments get their European counterparts to push through unpopular directives?
Or that Britain doesn't have a Veto.

You know you would think people would remember voting in Conservative MEP's and they are not aliens but members of the same political party that also has members in the national government.
  It wasn't Microsoft attacking Linux it was SCO much easier to attack the sock puppet.
It's not the record labels making disproportionate attacks it's the RIAA.

It's not so surprising that this legislation is getting pushed through, with the current measures this government are pushing through who is to say a terminal cancer patient won't decide to take out David Cameron for the good of the country. And wouldn't I be in trouble for saying this if I still lived in the UK. There are still patriots around who believe in British fair play, that believe it is Right to protect the weak and defenceless and who will sacrifice their lives in defence of their country and it's values. These are not the kind of people who stand and gawk when action needs to be taken. At some point someone is going to say it's time to fight back.

People are angry and disappointed, disappointed that the LibDems seem to have failed to moderate the worst excesses of Tory Policy.

Social media is a big thing now, even thou most of it is trite, it is possible for ordinary people to band together and speak with one voice. There are other voices to be heard other than the likes of Rupert Murdoch. It won't be the Sun that won it at the next general election.

Data loss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41257985)

How long after collecting this data will some be found on a USB stick or laptop in the back of a taxi, like so much of our personal data in the UK.

We need new protocols to defeat the govts (1)

cheekyboy (598084) | about 2 years ago | (#41258239)

Maybe a HTTP over BitTorrent maybe.

Something that is not tcp, and encrypted (not just byte for byte ,but with -bogus bytes- mixed in to round up the size of traffic, so all files under 128 bytes will be all the same size, 128 bytes so LEOs cannot even use file sizes to narrow down your access).

Something that talks to many servers to get the content.

This would require a whole new server design, or proxy wrapper to existing http servers, but yeah bittorrent http would work.

A) bittorrent server can server all the http files
B) your browser can re-server cached content to other browsers in your LAN or ISP subnet, or B class.

Anyone?

Start coding, make it truly difficult and so expensive for the govt, it would cost billions to achieve.

When it came to the MP's information (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258367)

When the records (public records by the way) of the expense claims by MPs were FORCIBLY revealed, even in that case they redacted the address of second homes owned by the MPs.

They cited that this information would lead to a greater need for security at these addresses.

Problem:this information is publicly available too, in the electoral register (which even if you're not published, merely means you have to go to the local council to find the information).

When it comes to THEIR information, even if it's ENTIRELY public information, they refuse.

Reminds Me To Use TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258453)

The Onion Router. Yes, probably not perfect, but better than nothing. Also, the Commercial SIGINT Operations are cut out of the game. Yes, they do exist.

Internet Freedom - piffle (1)

Martin S. (98249) | about 2 years ago | (#41258481)

The current government do not care about Internet Freedom.

What they do care about is Competitiveness .

2 words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41258581)

Narus Insight

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...