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!

Privacy Groups Attack UK ISPs 'Collusion' With Government Snooping

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the must-have-something-to-hide dept.

Privacy 91

judgecorp writes "Privacy groups have accused British ISPs of a 'conspiracy of silence' over the impact of the UK government;s proposed Communications Data Bill or 'Snooper's Charter.' The letter accuses the SPs of allowing themselves to be 'co-opted as an arm of the state' — and of not telling their customers what they are up to. Under the bill, ISPs can be ordered to store their users' communications data (the who when and where but not the content of emails etc) for police to search through."

cancel ×

91 comments

Well.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522133)

What will they do when their snooping forces a large percentage of the people to use Tor or a VPN?

They can already lock you up for 2 years for failing to divulge encryption keys or passwords.

When I look at the definition of terrorists and then at my government I really dont see much difference these days.

Re:Well.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522169)

What will they do when their snooping forces a large percentage of the people to use Tor or a VPN?

Probably try to get ISPs to "Block Tor" like Japanese Police

Re:Well.. (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43522315)

What will they do when their snooping forces a large percentage of the people to use Tor or a VPN?

It's already happening. Typically, this is solved by doing the same thing that law enforcement's been doing since the days of Sherlock Holmes: You watch the suspect. Today, it's easier than having to use the old Mark 1 Eyeball -- we have a large variety of electronic surveillance devices to choose from, but the fundamentals of investigation haven't changed.

On the other hand, if your only lead starts at a Tor exit node, well... sucks to be you. Now you're going to have to work for your doughnut.

They can already lock you up for 2 years for failing to divulge encryption keys or passwords.

Citation needed. "They" is a bit non-specific.

When I look at the definition of terrorists and then at my government I really dont see much difference these days.

Well, I do. The government is better funded, they wear sharp uniforms, and are atleast partially accountable to the people my peers voted into office. Terrorists, on the other hand, want to make you part of their latest political statement... and unlike with the government, you aren't likely to survive the process.

Re:Well.. (3, Informative)

Zemran (3101) | about a year ago | (#43522349)

They can already lock you up for 2 years for failing to divulge encryption keys or passwords.

Citation needed. "They" is a bit non-specific.

Try using google like everyone else instead of expecting other people to do your research. Out of kindness I will help you by telling you that the act is called "Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act". Now, out of kindness to others, look after yourself.

Re:Well.. (-1, Flamebait)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#43522601)

i have a better idea, why dont you stfu? it's not my job to source your fact. citation needed or gtfo because i don't have time for that!

Re:Well.. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43523197)

You don't ask for citations for things you agree with, so it's not sourcing facts that's the reason people ask for cites, but to harass "the enemy", and anyone who doesn't share your opinion.

Re:Well.. (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#43527845)

youre right i dont engage in arguments with people i agree with because i already agree with them and there's nothing to argue about. however if they are wanting to make a good argument they hsould provide citations as well. i'm not going to be a /. pedant and tell people i agree with to citation just for pedants sake. in short citation or gtfo.

Re:Well.. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43528231)

Yes, the truth needs a cite, but someone's incorrect opinion is correct until proven otherwise. There have been multiple stories about the topic, even some on Slashdot. So a citation doesn't seem to be required.

Re:Well.. (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#43528803)

bahahahaha i would hate to live/work near you. someone's incorrect opinion is incorrect until they prove otherwise. BTW it's really hard to disprove an opinion. "I believe that citations aren't necessary", you say. How can I disprove your belief? How can I prove that you don't actually believe this? However, when someone states "facts" which are "knowable and provable", and somebody calls into question these facts, then the op must either support these facts or withdraw them. ho snap a citation! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification [wikipedia.org]

Re:Well.. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43529799)

bahahahaha i would hate to live/work near you. someone's incorrect opinion is incorrect until they prove otherwise.

Yes. Someone who says "[citation needed]" implies they believe the OP to be incorrect, and are being complete jackasses in claiming they are wrong in the most cowardly way. I assert that the implication of assertion of wrongness demands a citation itself. Anyone who requests a citation without providing one of their own is a hypocrite. That, added to the general asshatttery of [citation needed] is enough to assume they are wrong, as, in general, they are, and they are trying to shift the burden of proof to the OP. I reject that rhetorical game, and demand higher proof of those who demand a citation, otherwise devoid of content.

Re:Well.. (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#43529921)

Anyone who requests a citation without providing one of their own is a hypocrite. That, added to the general asshatttery of [citation needed] is enough to assume they are wrong, as, in general, they are, and they are trying to shift the burden of proof to the OP.

[citation needed]

Re:Well.. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43530157)

You proved you lost when you started stalkering me to harass.

Re:Well.. (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#43530199)

just making a point, that you're prone to unfounded statements. QED.

Re:Well.. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43530691)

Everyone is prone to such statements. You might as well assert that I'm prone to breathing.

I don't have a citation to prove I'm breathing. That in no way implies I'm not, but [citation needed] is used as an attempt to imply that the lack of affirmative evidence previously presented is somehow proof of the opposite.

Re:Well.. (1)

Zemran (3101) | about a year ago | (#43524825)

My fact? You really are dumb :-) If you do not know what you are talking about, it is better that you stfu because you can only make yourself look more stupid than you just did. I am not the op and it is not my facts that are being debated just the simple fact that if you want to take part, you should either find out for yourself what is going on or move on. No one is here to serve you. If you want servants, go and hire them yourself. If you want me to do your research for you, we can negotiate a rate but you will need to pay in advance as I would not be stupid enough to trust an arrogant arse like you.

Re:Well.. (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#43527803)

here's the deal, citations or gtfo. 90% of unsourced "facts" on /. are garbage, and I have no interest in wasting my time on other people's garbage. Not i'm not the GGP either, and I didn't ask for the citation myself. but i cants stand the GP argument (which is you) that I waste my time on your nonsense. tldr: citations or gtfo.

Re:Well.. (1)

Zemran (3101) | about a year ago | (#43532365)

That is not a deal, it is another childish rant.

Re:Well.. (2)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year ago | (#43522853)

Oh for some mod points. You want to make a point in an argument, it's up to you to support it.

Re:Well.. (4, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43522991)

Try using google like everyone else instead of expecting other people to do your research.

I googled "They". It came back with 7.7 billion results, none of which were very helpful (yes, I read all 7.7 billion pages, because I'm like, God and shit).

Out of kindness I will help you by telling you that the act is called "Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act".

Ah. Well now, that's much more specific. And British. I suppose I am expected to keep up with all the laws of not just my own country (whose laws are so numerous that even my own government cannot provide an exact count), but all the laws of the other 173 countries (give or take a dozen) as well. I feel like such a failure as a human being for not being able to memorize several libraries of congress' worth of legal documentation and intuitively know which, exact, legal document you were referring to based on the word "They". Thank goodness you didn't mean "Them" though, or I'd be really screwed... there's a lot more of Them than They. Incidentally, They was a terrible movie. I know, off topic, but I thought I'd share.

Now, out of kindness to others, look after yourself.

Well, I do try, but sometimes despite my bestest of intentions, I just can't keep up with all of the internet pundits. It's a personal failing I am working very hard at.

Re:Well.. (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about a year ago | (#43523185)

Ah. Well now, that's much more specific. And British. I suppose I am expected to keep up with all the laws of not just my own country (whose laws are so numerous that even my own government cannot provide an exact count), but all the laws of the other 173 countries (give or take a dozen) as well.

From my understanding, there are laws in the US that make it illegal for you to break other countries' laws if you're a US citizen in the US.
Assuming from your "libraries of congress" comment that you are, in fact, American, then yes, you are expected to memorize all those other countries' laws.

Re:Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43527503)

From my understanding, there are laws in the US that make it illegal for you to break other countries' laws if you're a US citizen in the US.

[citation needed]

There are laws that say you must follow other countries' laws when you are in their country as well as following US laws when out of the US, but I've never heard of a law like that -- consider that in Muslim countries, alcohol is illegal, as is badmouthing Muhammed. So if I must follow other countries' laws, why am I allowed to drink beer legally and why is it legal for women to wear bathing suits in public?

Logic fail and research fail. EPIC logic fail!

Re:Well.. (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about a year ago | (#43541721)

I'm not a US citizen. I don't care about their laws; just the stupid parts that seem to get exported by force to other countries.
I remember something mentioned on /. a year or so back, where some US citizen had something shipped to him from another country; some religious artifact if I remember rightly. It was legal to import into the US, and legal to own in the US, but illegal to export from the country it was sent from. He was charged under a US law that makes it illegal to break the laws of any other country.
Somebody, presumably from the US, quoted the relevant section of law, and I didn't look it up to confirm it, because, as I said, I'm not a US citizen, and I don't care about their stupid laws.
Unfortunately, I can't remember the exact wording, so I can't find it right now, but I'll do some digging and see if I can come up with it.

Re:Well.. (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43523573)

Your Google skills are pretty shit. If you had just searched for what he actually wrote instead of a single word you would have been enlightened. Here is an example. [google.co.uk]

This is a discussion about the UK. If you don't know enough about it to engage then educate yourself, but don't expect everyone else to fill in what is otherwise common knowledge to the rest of us.

Re:Well.. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43530439)

This is a discussion about the UK.

Oh, I'm sorry? Is the UK not part of the rest of the planet? Does the UK have its own internet that nobody else outside the UK can access? Is there no such thing as international laws? Assumptions are the mother of all fuckups -- and PARDON ME for not wanting to just blindly assume. I'd rather know exactly what we're talking about, than guessing and later discovering that we were talking about two totally different things.

Details. They fucking matter.

Re:Well.. (1)

Zemran (3101) | about a year ago | (#43524733)

Err, yes, its British because the article is about UK ISPs... American laws are not relevant to this topic.

Re:Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43528439)

And British. I suppose I am expected to keep up with all the laws of not just my own country (whose laws are so numerous that even my own government cannot provide an exact count), but all the laws of the other 173 countries (give or take a dozen) as well. I feel like such a failure as a human being for not being able to memorize several libraries of congress' worth of legal documentation and intuitively know which, exact, legal document you were referring to based on the word "They". Thank goodness you didn't mean "Them" though, or I'd be really screwed... there's a lot more of Them than They. Incidentally, They was a terrible movie. I know, off topic, but I thought I'd share

As TFA is talking about BRITISH ISPs and Government one could extrapolate that "They" meant the British Government.

There are two kinds of people in the world... those that can extrapolate from incomplete data

Re:Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43523173)

Excuse me? It's up to the poster to post the evidence or citation as wiki calls them

The reader shouldn't have to do any leg work.

Some people.

Re:Well.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43523217)

Burden of proof, you stupid fucking cunt. I would provide a link, but I know you're not into that.

Re:Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43525773)

Yep, RIPA -it's been about for a while

Re:Well.. (5, Informative)

Onymous Hero (910664) | about a year ago | (#43522889)

Citation needed. "They" is a bit non-specific.

Here you go, part 3 section 49 of RIPA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000 [wikipedia.org]

And here is a case where a kid has been jailed for not revealing his encryption keys: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/361693/teenager-jailed-for-refusing-to-reveal-encryption-keys [pcpro.co.uk]

Re:Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43523241)

That is usually encryption keys on stored materials, I have yet to hear a case of someone refusing or unable to reveal his keys to his VPN or even Tor, the latter of which you cannot reveal keys for anyway.

Misinformation : Armed Badgers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43523397)

They way around this big brother is to spike it with misinformation.

Contaminate their database with high scoring false leads.
Create credible 'leads' like the editor of xyz newspaper is really tipping of someone who recently converted to a religion, or that the legal adviser of newspaper is known, and the guy down in the mail server room, sends 'stay away' alerts to his tipoffs.
Your university lecturer that gives you bad marks, was spotted with a Koran, and upping marks to new arrivals.
It can't be as obvious as saying your local MP or Prime Minister is a double agent for Al Q.
The Parking/Ticketing officer on Route XYZ route asked whats the best way to discretely hide a bomb. Get back at your enemies and revenue collectors. Then clear suspicion by a racist rant about particular nationalities and how they are the scourge of England.Then join an activist group like 'save the badgers' at whatever on thames and have a respectable newspaper delivered daily.Given they are public servants they can then be manipulated to report a new threat :- Armed Badgers revolt against Islam and defend Britain, while the local parking inspector is dragged away on the strength of reliable tip-offs.- of badgers! .

Re:Well.. (1)

1s44c (552956) | about a year ago | (#43523111)

When I look at the definition of terrorists and then at my government I really dont see much difference these days.

Terrorists, and I mean real ones who kill people, commit one act then hide.

Governments work day and night eroding the freedoms of people, stealing from them, and making them afraid of each other so they are easier to control.

Re:Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43523335)

Yeah, why should the U.S. have all the fun? Share the wealth, brother.

Re:Well.. (1)

phdscam (2901299) | about a year ago | (#43526741)

...They can already lock you up for 2 years for failing to divulge encryption keys or passwords.

This is one of the most disgusting piece of laws the great democracy of UK has.

Re:Well.. (1)

turgid (580780) | about a year ago | (#43529679)

They can already lock you up for 2 years for failing to divulge encryption keys or passwords.

The thing is, if you are using good encryption, and they really want to see what you're up to, they will ask you to divulge your passwords/keys etc. so at least you will know you are being watched.

I can foresee a time where everyone will have to register their passwords etc. with the authorities (in some sort of official, "secure" database) just in case they want to check on what you get up to. I'm sure the Inland Revenue, for example, would be delighted to see all of our financial transactions as and when they like.

Theresa May co-opted more like (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522171)

We voted Cameron in on the basis that they would end the police/spooks driven surveillance culture. He put Theresa May in the home office, she then tried to implement the reforms, end ASBOs, separate police and spies, curb police secret comments on background checks etc. The things we elected him for.

The police PR division turned on her and started campaigning against her. Police officers were on TV arguing that by curbing background checks, "pedos will kill your children" and other scaremongering, and there's such a fear in the UK, that nobody denounced what they said. Each time an attempt to curb their powers comes along, they went on the attack, citing undisclosed terrorists plots, was another common tactic.

So now she's pretty much tamed, they want more snooping, she's too afraid to go against them, so she's become just another Home Secretary implementing mass surveillance.

So now we have the situation where the police are driving full speed towards a police state, and they are too naive to think of it as a police state.

Who you talk to is none of the govermments business. Tracking everyone as though they're criminals needs evidence that they are a criminal, what the government is doing is hypothesizing that EVERYONE is a future criminal and this EVERYONE should be tracked, and it's ok because we promise not to look at the data unless we think you are a criminal.... but yet EVERYONE is being treated as a criminal and monitored.

Be afraid of criticising the government, because you're being watched.

Re:Theresa May co-opted more like (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522191)

Be afraid of criticising the government, because you're being watched.

Oh. I thought that was why you shouldn't say "nigger".

Re:Theresa May co-opted more like (3, Interesting)

jrumney (197329) | about a year ago | (#43522335)

This is not a new thing that has come in under Theresa May's watch. I remember a time around 2000 on dial-up, when an excessive lag caused me to look into where my internet traffic was being slowed down. A traceroute showed the connection going around in a circle amongst a dozen or so routers near Milton Keynes before heading back to a server hosted in the exact same exchange I was connected to.

Re:Theresa May co-opted more like (2)

Lincolnshire Poacher (1205798) | about a year ago | (#43522445)

A traceroute showed the connection going around in a circle amongst a dozen or so routers near Milton Keynes before heading back to a server hosted in the exact same exchange I was connected to.

Reminds me of a line-test number that was available in BT exchanges up until the early 1990s ( wish I could remember the actual number ). It was three digits you dialled for an immediate ring-back-on-hang-up to test the line. However, certain people began to notice consistent delays in the ring-back... in terms of several seconds. Other people on the same exchange at the same time did not encounter such delays.

It was withdrawn soon after and functionally replaced with the 17070 'engineering test' menu.

Re:Theresa May co-opted more like (2)

mrbester (200927) | about a year ago | (#43522497)

That was the original 1471, before that was changed to "who last called this number" when the 17070 extended system was introduced.

Re:Theresa May co-opted more like (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43522969)

That was the original 1471, before that was changed to "who last called this number"

I think you're misremembering. Ringback was 174.

Re:Theresa May co-opted more like (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43523019)

Ringback was 174.

That's it! Thank you for filling that small hole in my memory.

Re:Theresa May co-opted more like (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522973)

Which is bullshit, because the equipment in the exchange is part of an MPLS network, doesn't have an IP address, and doesn't show up on traceroute. Traceroute also can't tell the difference between the a switch and a server...

Are we there yet? (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#43522437)

So now we have the situation where the police are driving full speed towards a police state

Been hearing that since the 60's. All I can say it is must be a long drive to a police state, either that or they're stuck at one of those enormous roundabouts you have over there..

You have it now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522557)

Police drive policy not politicians and voters. You might be in denial about it, but you have it.

Why do you think we elected Cameron to dismantle it, and instead his Home Secretary is expanding surveillance?

Re:Theresa May co-opted more like (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522691)

We voted Cameron in on the basis that they would end the police/spooks driven surveillance culture.

Well, that was dumb. Never vote for a conservative on the basis that they'll reduce government power: they might claim that's what they want, but they'll never follow through, because they have to be seen as tough on crime.

Re:Theresa May co-opted more like (1)

1s44c (552956) | about a year ago | (#43523135)

You are correct but incomplete. It's in the interest of no government to reduce government power.

Politicians are sociopathic lairs, if you must choose one judge them on their past actions not their words.

Re:Theresa May co-opted more like (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522717)

" We voted Cameron in "

No we did not, the only reason he is there, is because he made a deal with the lib dems .

Did we vote for Chief Constable Hogan Howe? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522955)

The people who voted for Cameron voted for less surveillance, Lib dems had the same policy. He may not have gotten enough seats to hold power on his own, but its clear what the voters wanted.

Who votes for more surveillance in the UK FFS! One of the most watched societies ever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance

Here's Cameron circa 2009:
"Conservatives unveil plans to reduce the surveillance state"
http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/4020/conservatives-unveil-plans-to-reduce-the-surveillance-state/

Here's Theresa May now in full toerag mass surveillance marketing mode:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4235581/Terrorism-debate-Are-GCHQ-set-to-spy-on-you.html
"Only suspected terrorists, paedophiles or serious criminals will be investigated."
So which are you? A terrorist, pedo or serious criminal? The law requires your data logged, so you're one of them.

Reminds me of RIPA, now they have half a million warrantless secret data requests a year. And the police proposed fix for that is to make the count of RIPA requests a secret.

You can argue that people didn't vote for Cameron to be in charge, but nobody voted for the police to run the country!

Re:Did we vote for Chief Constable Hogan Howe? (1)

1s44c (552956) | about a year ago | (#43523145)

You know that under UK law everyone in London is a terrorist with reduced human rights don't you? This is how they legally justify random searches without even the suspicion of wrongdoing.

So it's option 1 but not 'suspected terrorist', it's 'actual terrorist' because there is no burden of proof.

Re:Did we vote for Chief Constable Hogan Howe? (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a year ago | (#43524513)

everyone in London is a terrorist with reduced human rights

I'd not heard that suggested before, but London does seem to be where we concentrate our undesirable population (gang members, bankers, politicians and so on), so it makes a lot of sense.

Re:Theresa May co-opted more like (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43522801)

Whatever about the rest, ASBOs are a useful social reform tool when dealing with increasingly feral inner city kids bent on making life hell for everyone around them. I'd rather that than imprisoning them straight off.

Re:Theresa May co-opted more like (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522817)

We didn't actually vote Cameron & his business associates in, though. Not even under the FPTP system -- where a minority of votes can decide the winner of an election -- were they voted in.

Too Late to Complain? (2, Interesting)

CodeBuster (516420) | about a year ago | (#43522173)

The British already live in a society where public surveillance, paid for by the state, is pervasive with an inward focused intelligence agency to watch everyone and pry into their private affairs. Consider also the long history of state monitoring and nanny state paternalism and it would seem that the privacy horse has long since left the barn in the UK, yes?

2004 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522235)

Only since about 2004, when Blair defined 'future crimes' as justification for surveillance today.

I remember a speech in which Blair argued that the database would be used to 'eliminate' people from an investigation, thus it was in their benefit!?! Flipping the whole innocent until proven guilty into guilty until proven innocent thing.

It was quite recent this culture ramped up, as technology permitted it, and it's not too late to fix, but Cameron clearly isn't tough enough to stand up to it.

We need a hard-nosed leader with a purer-than-the-driven-snow history, to fix this. That's a difficult combination to find. If there's any blemishes in his/her past, the security forces will 'leak' that part of their massive surveillance database to protect their 'good' deeds and eject the leader they don't like. That's the nature of police states, they're full of people thinking they're doing 'good'.

Of course if we add internet history to that data pool, it just gives them more ammo to pick a leader.

Re:2004 (4, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43522415)

We need a hard-nosed leader with a purer-than-the-driven-snow history, to fix this. That's a difficult combination to find. If there's any blemishes in his/her past, the security forces will 'leak' that part of their massive surveillance database to protect their 'good' deeds and eject the leader they don't like.

Or you could just lower your damn leadership standards. That's what we did in the USA...

Re:2004 (1)

1s44c (552956) | about a year ago | (#43523153)

Blair was a christian nut-job war-criminal who branded himself as socialist in order to get voted in.

The real problem is that no-one is undoing the damage he did.

Re:2004 (1)

turgid (580780) | about a year ago | (#43529587)

who branded himself as socialist

Ha ha, that's a good one!

Tony and his cronies devised New Labour, which was very much a continuation of Conservative Thatcherism but with a slightly less right-wing attitude to the Welfare State.

The real problem is that no-one is undoing the damage he did.

Quite. They're adding a whole lot of damage of their own and ensuring that the rich get to keep their money while the poor and middle are squeezed to pay for it.

Re:Too Late to Complain? (2)

Zemran (3101) | about a year ago | (#43522361)

and can you name a country that is different?

Re:Too Late to Complain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522521)

Somalia. Glorious, glorious Somalia.

Re:Too Late to Complain? (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | about a year ago | (#43522567)

The Bhutanese [wikipedia.org] seem to be pretty happy with their lives, perhaps we could learn a thing or two from them?

Re:Too Late to Complain? (2)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year ago | (#43522789)

While I certainly admire the famous Bhutanese "gross national happiness" philosophy, they do seem to pay for it in other ways. Their national literacy rate is around 60%, their life expectancy is in the low-60s, and climate change is doing nasty things to their farming, so some of the grass on the other side of the street is not greener. Of course, many of us might still do well to consider their general attitude to life...

Re:Too Late to Complain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522469)

Well, in Britain they'd have stables rather than barns...

Re:Too Late to Complain? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43523209)

Oh quit this bloody nonsense already.
Stop using that stupid article on how Britain is filled with cameras, it is completely wrong and exactly one of the things that is wrong about retards when they get their hands on statistics. Probably failed at maths at that.

The only places cameras are at are:
1) problem areas
2) large town areas with lots of people
And most of the time, the latter is PRIVATE PROPERTY. Yes, that stupid report counted private cameras as part of it.
Because obviously every single camera ever is public-run CCTV, RIGHT?

Britain isn't any more spy-state than any decently large country that wants to figure out what the hell happened "last night" when some van appears outside a shop or whatever else.

Re:Too Late to Complain? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43523497)

The most scary aspect is that people are complicit in it. People love CCTV, they want it to protect their property because the police won't. I want it because people keep damaging my car or throwing bricks through my windows.

Whenever you report a crime the first thing they ask is "is there any CCTV?". If there isn't... well, too bad, your crime will be forever unsolved because it wasn't handed to the police on a plate, complete with salad dressing and garnish all at your own expense. The clear message is that you need your own CCTV, and when a crime happens near by you can expect the police to come knocking and ask for it. I'm not sure were you stand legally on refusing to give it up.

Swedish VPNs and Tor seem to be the only reasonable way to browse now. Having someone looking over your shoulder the whole time is just too creepy.

Oh I see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522179)

Under the bill, ISPs can be ordered to store their users' communications data (the who when and where but not the content of emails etc) for police to search through."

Oh, so it's like CISPA but not as bad...

Re:Oh I see... (1)

mrbester (200927) | about a year ago | (#43522505)

It's our version, an original and unchanged since the "consultation" (a public one would take a year and then be uncomfortably close to the 2015 election so that's not going to happen) and ISPs only have to store details of all communications for a year at their expense. You know, just in case.

At what point in time (2)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#43522185)

Do the ISP's simply get together and say 'get stuffed'?

Isn't it about time for corporations that support open communications to stand up to a government behaving like a 6 year old wanting a new toy? If the top 10 major ISP's got together and said 'screw you, shut us down!' do you think the government would push their luck?

Why is it always the little guy who has to stand up to the overzealous government hoping to get a 'new toy' to frighten the public into reaction? Aren't corporations moral entities upholding personal responsibility?

Re:At what point in time (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43522329)

Do the ISP's simply get together and say 'get stuffed'?

Depends on how much you like that pretty face of yours. "One Does Not Simply... tell the government to get stuffed." -- Boromir

Isn't it about time for corporations that support open communications to stand up to a government behaving like a 6 year old wanting a new toy?

Corporations that support open communications are in the same bucket as unicorns and flying pigs. So short answer: No.

If the top 10 major ISP's got together and said 'screw you, shut us down!' do you think the government would push their luck?

Better question: How do you feel about corporations being so powerful they can dictate terms to your government?

Why is it always the little guy who has to stand up to the overzealous government hoping to get a 'new toy' to frighten the public into reaction?

Because the little guy typically has nothing to lose.

ren't corporations moral entities upholding personal responsibility?

Great, you just made me blow mountain dew out of my nose. Well, this keyboard's dead...

Re:At what point in time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522507)

Interestingly in Australia there are a number of large ISPs that do tend to fight these things (and usually win), the one I can think of off the top of my head is iiNet. It is actually quite good PR for them.

Re:At what point in time (1)

r33per (585447) | about a year ago | (#43523647)

Isn't it about time for corporations that support open communications to stand up to a government behaving like a 6 year old wanting a new toy?

Corporations that support open communications are in the same bucket as unicorns and flying pigs. So short answer: No.

Interestingly, London once had a flying pig see over Battersea Power Station [wikipedia.org] .

If the top 10 major ISP's got together and said 'screw you, shut us down!' do you think the government would push their luck?

Better question: How do you feel about corporations being so powerful they can dictate terms to your government?

Rewind 35 years and replace "corporations" with "unions". I would also expect the government to say "screw you" to these hypothetically petulant ISPs because they (the government) are part of the representatives of the people duty bound to uphold the rule of law and the protection of freedoms.

Ironic, eh?

Re:At what point in time (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522605)

There are several ISPs where management are totally opposed to this sort of thing of you know where to look. A&A get mentioned here regularly, and they've publically stated they will arrange their services to exploit loopholes in this law. The owner of my ISP will just decline these requests and state that his logs show nothing, although I won't mention the company name as this is obviously an illegal stance.

Re:At what point in time (1)

1s44c (552956) | about a year ago | (#43523163)

Aren't corporations moral entities upholding personal responsibility?

They are only interested in Profit and nothing else. The famous example being IBM during WW2.

Re:At what point in time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43523237)

BT is about the only one that would do it.
And even then, likely not since the government stuck their dick in to BT a while back to break it up for the sake of competition, and forced them to open up a little more in terms of reselling infrastructure because they stole taxpayer money and done nothing with it but open some bubbly and buy expensive steaks.

It could happen, but in the end they could probably just straight-up tap the backbone without many people knowing.
I'm not sure where the backbones are in the UK again, but hooking in to those servers would provide them with pretty much all connections going through the internet to and from this country.
I know JANET are the education and research sector provider, but not sure who ran the general internet services backbones. I'd assume BT as well, but who knows, could well be wrong.

devil's in the details (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43522223)

... and of not telling their customers what they are up to.

Well yeah. Their customers don't show up at their doorstep with shotguns and take whatever they feel like when they aren't told certain things. The government does. And every government I'm aware of tells businesses not to tell their customers when they show up that they showed up. That whole "ongoing investigation" business.

So let the privacy groups whine until the cows come home, that will never change no matter where you live. On the other hand, if you want to go after dragnets and mass-storage of everyone's data, which is then trolled through by law enforcement without a warrant or similar, well then I'm all ears and then some. The mere storage of data that can then be searched, in the future, with a properly-executed warrant, is a non-issue. The transitory nature of the internet means that without audit logs such as this, you'd never catch anyone. For anything. "Well, I'm sorry Mr. President, but we weren't able to catch that terrorist who gave us a specific and credible threat, because we didn't know ahead of time he was going to do it. Sorry about all those dead civilians, but you know, we gotta respect people's privacy and all that," said no law enforcement officer ever.

Privacy groups making unreasonable demands like this I put in the same category as scumbag politicians who want to remove judicial protections like probable cause before invading someone's privacy. It doesn't matter which you are to me, you're both extremists.

Billions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522339)

"Well, I'm sorry Mr. President, but we weren't able to catch that terrorist who gave us a specific and credible threat, because we didn't know ahead of time he was going to do it"

Which terrorist attacks had credible threats sent to the President? (Or PM since this is UK)? None? Zero? Zip? Zilch?

See the logs are there, they last a few days, they may not be indexed or searchable or stored for a long time, but they are there. They currently need a warrant already and an investigation.

This law adds a few key things: The requirement to presume every communication is criminal and this needs to be logged and stored. They also make it searchable, including data outside any warrant.

From ISPs point of view that means storage costs and indexing costs, they're storing and indexing a lot of innocent people's data just in case they might send a credible terrorist threat to Mr President. But much more likely, they'll be protesting something the government.

We had a case recently, a man had his laptop stolen and the police refused to do anything about it, this is the nature of the MET, they always want more laws, they always pretend they're powerless using the current laws, they do more damage to freedom than good. Yet they could investigate a credible threat, without this law.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/04/21/1739254/stolen-laptop-owner-outwits-mugger-police-and-the-media

Re:Billions (1)

mrbester (200927) | about a year ago | (#43522533)

Plus there's over 30 distinct bodies who have requested access to this data. Really important ones involved with "national security", like the Charity Commission, Ambulance Service and the Welsh Tourist Board. This then means that rather than a select few whose job is to safeguard the nation / populace over 250000 people who are prone to gossip like any member of the public well have access to *everything* you do. That snotty bitch in the chemist who is good friends with a friend of your SO? She knows how much porn (and what type and when) you look at.

Information is power (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522607)

When people hated Jacqui Smith for mass surveillance, they released her husbands hotel porn viewing on expenses and it ultimately kicked her out of power. Imagine what power you have if you can see every politicians internet history.

INFORMATION IS POWER, IS CONTROL!

And before anyone pretends to be holier than thou, with nothing to hide, I'd like to remind you of the Vatican and its users who watch BDSM porn and pirated DVDs:
http://torrentfreak.com/priests-watch-dvd-screeners-while-pirates-download-filth-in-the-vatican-130407

You could basically pick the government using their internet comms history. That's extraordinarily dangerous. And yes they are proposing to capture and log everyone's URL data and yes we have a right to privacy, its fundamental and its based on the idea that we can't be free if we're watched.

My point is, even if it was restricted to just the police, policemen have been found to be paid by News Corp for info. Prosecutions for that were only brought long after they were caught tapping telephones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation_scandal

The right to privacy protects us from them, and sometimes them wear uniforms and think they're the good guys.

Re:Billions (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#43523517)

Yeah, accountability and excessively broad access are the issues. The law pitched in Parliament as bring anti-terrorist/pedo is invariably used for fishing and for more mundane offences. The power is bound to be abused. It's like issuing AR-15s for fighting terrorists, and finding out that done local council twonk has ordered a bunch for their benefits fraud department.

Laws of this kind must be very narrowly defined in terms of reasons for requests and the people who can make them. There should be regular disclosure of who is making these requests and the crimes for which requests are being made. Individuals should be able to know if they've been snooped upon, the types of data obtained and the reasons for this.

Fine to set a time limit here, that can be extended by the judiciary (if it would jeopardize an active investigation that is reasonably expected to lead to charges), but not complete secrecy or unreasonably long periods of secrecy.

TAILS OS - do you use it? Privacy / Security - Tor (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522233)

TAILS OS - do you use it? Anon needs help to improve it.

New Anonymous project to curb Tails privacy/security issues!

Tails - new unofficial project to nip the buds

(Please see the .onion link at the bottom of this article for where to respond and help this project with your suggestions. Please do not post at the Tails forums, Tor mailing lists, or in IRC - we are only checking the existing thread at the .onion location below, which requires Tor to access.)

In a few areas of the Tails Forums, (one example below) Tails users have posted about certain 'data collection, logging, debugging, Whisperback', and other issues a distro such as Tails should not include!

I am working on a project which will stop this type of collection and it will be free and released with each new version of Tails (it won't be included with the Tails distro or worked on by Tails/Tor developers) â" matching any changes the Tails team may make to try and obscure these data logging/collection activities between versions.

Here is one example post from a concerned user (post exists now, could be deleted later!):

Why does Tails log too much? .recently-used.xbel
https://tails.boum.org/forum/Why_does_Tails_log_too_much__63___.recen%E2%80%8Btly-used.xbel/ [boum.org]

#

An example of this is this hidden file: .recently-used.xbel located in amnesia folder. To see, open Home/amnesia, press Cntrl+h, look for that file. The contents of that file logs recently used programs and files with names and timestamps.

There are many other logs for different activities and events, a simple look around can locate these.

Caching thumbnails, recent documents, terminal command history and the similar..

Why would Tails need to log all these things during the session?

Some are useful for bug reporting, but many other arent and are widely revealing of system activities.

Yes, a restart will wipe everything, but what about while in the session?

Can an option be made for Tails to be log free or normal where the user can choose between the two? Like run log free and if a problem occurs to re-run tails with logs to identify the problem.â

#

There are debugging scripts, Whisperback, a script to drop all firewall protection, and much more in Tails.

I need more information from Tails users (Tails developers and those pretending not to be Tails developers posting against this will be ignored) before the first release is announced.

Boot into Tails and examine every nook and cranny and post about any file(s) with full path, which contain anything related to logging (excluding /var/log directories â" those will be dealt with) and/or sending of individual personal data.

On their mailing list they even had the balls to discuss whether or not they should add the package 'popcon'!

This project will be developed by an anonymous user (not included in the well known 'Anonymous' group). I will not reveal usernames from posters here, but I may credit this forum with each release with thanks for the help.

So boot into the most recent release of Tails, sniff around as much as possible, and post back juicy information to the thread in 'NEWS': http://clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion/ [clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion]

Thank you.

Explosive farts clear the room quickly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522239)

Smells of sulfur, methane, stale beer, and taco bell cause people to run away gagging.

Suppose you get spam from a Russian criminal gang (2)

kawabago (551139) | about a year ago | (#43522269)

You delete the spam but the ISP records the who where. Then someone in your organization does something illegal and you are among a pool of suspects. They must investigate you to clear you. They immediately find you have an association with a Russian criminal gang. Suddenly you are Prime Suspect! That's what's wrong with it. Stupider things have happened, to me!

Re:Suppose you get spam from a Russian criminal ga (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43522301)

They immediately find you have an association with a Russian criminal gang. Suddenly you are Prime Suspect! That's what's wrong with it. Stupider things have happened, to me!

Well, were you associated with a Russian criminal gang? Because if you were, and that criminal gang had a history of (or a direct link to!) the crime they were investigating, then you have some explaining to do. If you don't, well then, you've met the criterion for "reasonable suspicion", which merits someone interviewing you, but doesn't ordinarily rise to the standard of being sufficient for a search warrant.

A lot of times, what the police do is inconvenient, but it isn't "stupid". Investigators focus on people with a criminal past or criminal connections because those are the people that, statistically, are the most likely in a pool of suspects to be the actual criminal. And if you're going to be a successful investigator, you'd better play by the numbers.

Re:Suppose you get spam from a Russian criminal ga (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43523541)

I guess you are not from the UK because that isn't how it works here.

When you become a suspect the police will take away all your computers, phones, discs, memory cards, games consoles, basically anything with a processor or memory in it. You won't get them back for at least a few months, but typically a year or two is common. When you get them back they will likely have been broken and any storage formatted or returned to factory settings.

A friend of mine was accused of sending death threats to some crazy person, so they interviewed him and took his phone for a month to check for the text messages he was alleged to have sent. When he finally got the phone back his messages had all been wiped. Massive disruption to his life, no compensation, no action against the accuser who was clearly lying. They also took his fingerprints and DNA which will be stored forever.

Basically the police want an easy life and don't care how much it screws up yours. There is no protection for the accused, if your life is destroyed and business fails... well, too bad, can't inconvenience the police with, you know, police work and investigations.

Its getting very local (3, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#43522537)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/council-spending/9991351/Town-halls-join-rush-to-use-the-snoopers-charter.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Many years ago if you where political a national task force would track you - telephone, car, protests, work, friends...
Years ago you faced the Forward Intelligence Teams (FITs) - maybe local but much more active with facial recognition.
What I find very chilling about this new vision for data collection and sharing is the low level of gov getting GCHQ like data powers e.g.. "council ... to snoop into the private lives of ordinary citizens"
Write too much about rates, parking costs, talking about a chauffeur-driven Mercedes expenses claim - the UK has few real whistleblowers laws.
Anyone with this new clearance been exposed e.g.. in an expenses claim story could go on a search deep into the private lives of staff until they 'find' something or a press contact.
With what your average isp keeps, anyone could rewind any digital life in the UK for a day, week, month based on working for a local gov?

Re:Its getting very local (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43523073)

" anyone could rewind any digital life in the UK for a day, week, month based on working for a local gov?"

No.

To answer your question.

Yes there were cases (in Dorset iirc) where the council was snooping in people's bins using new powers created to fight terroism. They were caught doing so and they were stopped and they were chastised.

Should it have happened?

No.

But to think that we live in an out of control surveillance state is bollocks. They watch us, we watch them... feck it, we ARE them, who do you think the police are?

Re:Its getting very local (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#43523177)

TAILS OS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43523037)

TAILS OS - do you use it? Anon needs help to improve it.

New Anonymous project to curb Tails privacy/security issues!

Tails - new unofficial project to nip the buds

(Please see the .onion link at the bottom of this article for where to respond and help this project with your suggestions. Please do not post at the Tails forums, Tor mailing lists, or in IRC - we are only checking the existing thread at the .onion location below, which requires Tor to access.)

In a few areas of the Tails Forums, (one example below) Tails users have posted about certain 'data collection, logging, debugging, Whisperback', and other issues a distro such as Tails should not include!

I am working on a project which will stop this type of collection and it will be free and released with each new version of Tails (it won't be included with the Tails distro or worked on by Tails/Tor developers) â" matching any changes the Tails team may make to try and obscure these data logging/collection activities between versions.

Here is one example post from a concerned user (post exists now, could be deleted later!):

Why does Tails log too much? .recently-used.xbel
https://tails.boum.org/forum/Why_does_Tails_log_too_much__63___.recen%E2%80%8Btly-used.xbel/ [boum.org]

#

An example of this is this hidden file: .recently-used.xbel located in amnesia folder. To see, open Home/amnesia, press Cntrl+h, look for that file. The contents of that file logs recently used programs and files with names and timestamps.

There are many other logs for different activities and events, a simple look around can locate these.

Caching thumbnails, recent documents, terminal command history and the similar..

Why would Tails need to log all these things during the session?

Some are useful for bug reporting, but many other arent and are widely revealing of system activities.

Yes, a restart will wipe everything, but what about while in the session?

Can an option be made for Tails to be log free or normal where the user can choose between the two? Like run log free and if a problem occurs to re-run tails with logs to identify the problem.â

#

There are debugging scripts, Whisperback, a script to drop all firewall protection, and much more in Tails.

I need more information from Tails users (Tails developers and those pretending not to be Tails developers posting against this will be ignored) before the first release is announced.

Boot into Tails and examine every nook and cranny and post about any file(s) with full path, which contain anything related to logging (excluding /var/log directories â" those will be dealt with) and/or sending of individual personal data.

On their mailing list they even had the balls to discuss whether or not they should add the package 'popcon'!

This project will be developed by an anonymous user (not included in the well known 'Anonymous' group). I will not reveal usernames from posters here, but I may credit this forum with each release with thanks for the help.

So boot into the most recent release of Tails, sniff around as much as possible, and post back juicy information to the thread in 'NEWS': http://clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion/ [clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion]

Thank you.

There's a petition against this policy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43523095)

There's a petition against this policy for UK residents. It's proving rather popular.
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/stop-government-snooping

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43534283)

It's the fucking UK!

When have they ever given a fuck about privacy?

They'd prolly give their bank details away for a snack size bar of chocolate.

Check for New 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...