Communications Data Bill

iPete

What.the.fuck.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18434112

davis

Terrifying, isn't it? I've been emailing my MP about this for a while and have met with a stonewall of misunderstanding and hand-waving allusions to paedophiles and terrorism.

Time to break out those cross-state VPNs, everyone.

DonDaddyD

Does this mean I can't watch porn anymore?

iPete

Yes but all actresses [or actors or animals] faces will be auto dubbed with that of Teressa May.

SteppenHerring

Another disturbing thing is that, effectively, the gov are writing a blank cheque. They say "they'll pay whatever it costs" - which you have to reckon will be a lot.

And the paedos & terrorists will just use VPNs/proxies to get round it so it's both expensive and pointless.

davis

SteppenHerring wrote:

And the paedos & terrorists will just use VPNs/proxies to get round it so it's both expensive and pointless.

And those of us who are paranoid...

But yes, it could be incredibly expensive, and will only serve to monitor the people who aren't that worried about it, or are too stupid to be a credible threat. Utterly, utterly pointless.

nation

It occurred to me that it would be worthwhile exercise for someone to write a browser plugin that just runs a hidden tab accessing random sites at random intervals.

Would serve to obscure what you were actually doing by flooding the system with useless noise, and (questionably) provide some kind of plausible deniability if someone decided your activity was suspicious.

Alternatively there're always Tor and VPN services. might have to invest in a WRT54g.

SteppenHerring

Records will include people's activity on social network sites, webmail, internet phone calls and online gaming.

But not Usenet where most of the swapping of dodgy stuff occurs (or used to. Apparently)

Looks like the way they'll specify it, you'll be fine just using a different port.

rjsterry

Hang on. Before we all get too excited, phone companies are already required to keep records of who called who, so there is some logic in extending this to other forms of electronic communication. As I understand it, the data that is proposed to be collected will follow a similar format - dave.smith@blah.com visited Bikeradar.com at 15:52 on 13th June 2011, etc. - or have I missed something. It won't go into the detail of exactly which pages were browsed.

So long as there is a requirement for a warrant to access these databases, and access is limited to the police - not local authorities - then I'm not sure I see it as a huge problem. I'd prefer it if it weren't necessary, but I don't see the difference between logging phone calls and logging social media. I do however agree that unless the obvious workarounds are dealt with, it'll be a lot of effort for few results.

nation

The issue for me is that I do pretty much everything online.

Banking, utilities, dealing with my pay and benefits, shopping, a decent chunk of my socialising, etc. Keeping records of all of that is the digital equivalent of someone following me around all day with a clipboard taking notes of where I go. It's massively invasive.

The other problem is that tracking visited webpages means recording URLs, and you can get a pretty good idea of what someone did by looking at the detail contained therein. For example: from a list of accessed URLs for a given session here it would be possible to determine exactly when you logged in, exactly what threads you looked at, and precisely when you posted (and therefore by extension what your BR username is). I haven't seen anything that suggests that all that data would be stripped out and only the base URL stored (indeed part of the problem is that nobody seems willing to get into the detail of precisely how this is going to work).

The data stored by phone companies can tell that you called somewhere, but not what you talked about.

SimonAH

It's a bit like why I would refuse to carry a compulsory ID card.

No matter how benign the state we live in, if you put in infrastructure that makes it easy for a future repressive state function then you are setting some very dangerous precedent.

We are already more surveiled than soviet Russia was.

The ogre of terrorism is such a handy peg to hang erosion of civil liberties on.

jonny_trousers

DonDaddyD wrote:

Does this mean I can't watch porn anymore?

You quit that when you had your first kid didn't you? Suddenly made you see females in a new light?

redderekthelampshade

Let'em see what they want.. they could read my emails/texts with pleasure.. they would be bored shitless but they could feel free - today they would've seen pizza hut text me with an offer, our lass telling me I'd forgotten my dinner and a mate organising a night out.. they could've listened to me have a battle of wits with my personnel department and if they read my emails that would be handy as its more than I've done today :-)

SimonAH

redderekthelampshade wrote:

Let'em see what they want.. they could read my emails/texts with pleasure.. they would be bored shitless but they could feel free - today they would've seen pizza hut text me with an offer, our lass telling me I'd forgotten my dinner and a mate organising a night out.. they could've listened to me have a battle of wits with my personnel department and if they read my emails that would be handy as its more than I've done today :-)

Of course.

Until the day comes a few years from hence when you email a mate to say that you don't like the policies and you should run for political office, or organise a demonstration, or lead a strike and some men are waiting for you with handcuffs when you get home after work.

Sorry. I don't mean to sound paranoid, but I come from refugee from a totalitarian state stock. Don't give them the power.

Or at least don't allow infrastructure that allows the power to be assumed with zero effort.

Honestly, total deaths and injuries from terrorist action in the UK in the last 1000 years? Vs total deaths from, I don't know, poor diet or tobaccoin the last two years? FFS

If we continue to allow our lives to be wrecked further and further we let them win even more comprehensively.

I value my privacy.

The argument of "what have you got to fear if you're doing nothing wrong?" Is crass, specious and frankly naive in the extreme.

nation

Remember that any power you allow a government to have is a power that you are entrusting all future governments with. You may not be worried about what the government we have right now will do with this information, but what about the government that exists ten years from now?

Just look at how easy it's been for the extreme right to get a foothold in mainland Europe.

SteppenHerring

nation wrote:

Remember that any power you allow a government to have is a power that you are entrusting all future governments with. You may not be worried about what the government we have right now will do with this information, but what about the government that exists ten years from now?

Just look at how easy it's been for the extreme right to get a foothold in mainland Europe.

This

Also
* Incredibly expensive
* Won't work

Also, given recent news, imagine that you're arrested as a suspect in a rape (or something else bad) case. Do you imagine a tabloid newspaper won't be able to bribe someone at the ISP/a policeman for your internet records? What if you've been browsing some (legal) porn just for amusement? The next day the Sun has "Rape nutter is internet filth pervert" over the front page.

There is no possibility of catching a serious (non-inept) bad guy with this. There is the possibility of persecuting innocent people and there is a definite chance of spending a lot of money - doubtless with one of the government's favourite IT consultants.

jejv

I think it would make a lot of sense if Labour and the Tories merged.

That would save a lot of people from bothering to vote.

They have so much in common.

Trouble is we don't seem to have another leader like Tony waiting.
Could we interest Salmond or Merkel ?

Any socialists or one-nation tories left over can make their own party.

rjsterry

nation wrote:

Remember that any power you allow a government to have is a power that you are entrusting all future governments with. You may not be worried about what the government we have right now will do with this information, but what about the government that exists ten years from now?

Just look at how easy it's been for the extreme right to get a foothold in mainland Europe.

This doesn't give a power to the government, it gives a power to the police (and other security services presumably), with control (the need for warrants) by the judiciary. Given that the police already have controlled powers to access phone records, and in serious circumstances intercept telephone communication, I can't see why these powers shouldn't apply equally to other forms of electronic communication.

The threat of the far right and totalitarian governments is exaggerated as much as, if not more than, the threat of terrorism

SteppenHerring

rjsterry wrote:

(Stuff)

The threat of the far right and totalitarian governments is exaggerated as much as, if not more than, the threat of terrorism

Yes, but as stated this will cost a lot of money and will not work. So why do it? A cynical person might suggest a) to give work to a bunch of IT consultants and b) to be seen as "doing something". See: CRB checks.

redderekthelampshade

I just don't see why people care that much.. I would guess they would only 'snoop' on me if I was suspected of doing something wrong, in which case it would either prove my innocence or confirm my guilt..I would also guess that it would be tightly regulated and monitored. Besides which it's already happening.. look at the leveson enquiry where they read out private texts between ministers and newspaper types from years ago.. Personally I think it's great.. I'd love to see a country festooned in CCTV where people would be afraid to do something, I'd love for DNA to be taken at birth and I don't see why we should be worried if some police officer somewhere sees that I've text my mate this morning to say my chain came off and got stuck between the crank and the BB lol!.

iPete

Boring life or not, the thought that one organisation would have a log of every link i've clicked, every skype chat, video call etc. is wrong for so many reason.

I can't put it better than the above comments and those on the BBC so I'll not try to improve on them:

What a foolish, and frankly insulting waste of money. There's no sterling to pay for our sailor's ships. None to cover the cost of our elderly's NHS care And our young can not afford University any more.

But the Government does, however, have enough money to start spying on normal, law abiding citizens like some 3rd world despot regime. Bravo number 10. Bravo.

---

Privacy is something you only have until it's given away. That's exactly what this bill does, gives your privacy away to the government. Just wait a couple of governments down the line and this data will be sold and leaked to whoever pays enough money. The last time I checked the police were more than capable of capturing internet criminals without this £2 billion system.

---

This government complains about other countries snooping on their populations, China, Syria, Iran etc... and yet when this government do it it's for 'security reasons'. Hypocrisy or what?

---

I have nothing to hide, I am not a criminal.

So who I talk to, what I say, and when, is none of the governments business. They work for us. This is an invasion of privacy and state control that is unacceptable.

This isn't the thin end of the wedge, folks, this IS the wedge.

Thought Policing doesn't get any worse than this. I'd suggest writing to your MP, but no need. They already know...

davis

...and the £2 billion figure is totally and completely made up. It may very well cost much more than that.

If you're engaged in criminal activity and you wish to avoid this snooping, then all it takes is a subscription to iPredator (or someone else, there are many), and hey, you've got a private, unsnoopable internet connection. Now the criminals have privacy, and the innocent and uncaring are subject to monitoring.

So, it'll be expensive, won't monitor the (presumed) targets, but will monitor the masses.

Does it still sound like the best possible use of the estimated £2 billion? Or does (say) the NHS deserve it more?

daviesee

davis wrote:

...and the £2 billion figure is totally and completely made up. It may very well cost much more than that.

If you're engaged in criminal activity and you wish to avoid this snooping, then all it takes is a subscription to iPredator (or someone else, there are many), and hey, you've got a private, unsnoopable internet connection. Now the criminals have privacy, and the innocent and uncaring are subject to monitoring.

So, it'll be expensive, won't monitor the (presumed) targets, but will monitor the masses.

Does it still sound like the best possible use of the estimated £2 billion? Or does (say) the NHS deserve it more?

^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^

rjsterry

SteppenHerring wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

(Stuff)

The threat of the far right and totalitarian governments is exaggerated as much as, if not more than, the threat of terrorism

Yes, but as stated this will cost a lot of money and will not work. So why do it? A cynical person might suggest a) to give work to a bunch of IT consultants and b) to be seen as "doing something". See: CRB checks.

I agree that this is the biggest problem with the proposals - the blank cheque to the comm's companies and the fact that it is so easy to avoid. That said, the fact that web use is not currently monitored at all is why it is being used in preference to telephone calls by those that don't want to leave a trail.

schlepcycling

redderekthelampshade wrote:

I just don't see why people care that much.. I would guess they would only 'snoop' on me if I was suspected of doing something wrong, in which case it would either prove my innocence or confirm my guilt..I would also guess that it would be tightly regulated and monitored. Besides which it's already happening.. look at the leveson enquiry where they read out private texts between ministers and newspaper types from years ago.. Personally I think it's great.. I'd love to see a country festooned in CCTV where people would be afraid to do something, I'd love for DNA to be taken at birth and I don't see why we should be worried if some police officer somewhere sees that I've text my mate this morning to say my chain came off and got stuck between the crank and the BB lol!.

You are Theresa May and I claim my £5

It's not about the fact that your life may be boring it's about the fact that the state has no right to know that your life is boring unless and with very good evidence it suspects that you may be up to something. Where you go, who you see and speak to, what you watch/read/listen to is your private business and just hoovering up everyone's whole lives is not acceptable in a supposedly free society.

Would you be ok with them installing cameras in your house?, after all they'd only record you doing boring stuff like making tea and watching the telly, but the fact is it's YOUR private life and you have a right not to have everything you do monitored by the state. How about they lock you up just in case, in that way you won't be able to commit a crime, do that with everyone...hey presto problem solved or fit you with a GPS tag so they can see what you're up to all the time.

Not only is it a massive waste of time, effort and money, it may contravene the ECHR I think article 8 which states
'respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications', which coincidentally is the bit the Tories want to scrap.

rick_chasey

redderekthelampshade wrote:

I just don't see why people care that much.. I would guess they would only 'snoop' on me if I was suspected of doing something wrong, in which case it would either prove my innocence or confirm my guilt..I would also guess that it would be tightly regulated and monitored. Besides which it's already happening.. look at the leveson enquiry where they read out private texts between ministers and newspaper types from years ago.. Personally I think it's great.. I'd love to see a country festooned in CCTV where people would be afraid to do something, I'd love for DNA to be taken at birth and I don't see why we should be worried if some police officer somewhere sees that I've text my mate this morning to say my chain came off and got stuck between the crank and the BB lol!.

There's not much precedent that it will be tightly regulated.

The terrorism act was originally supposed to be tightly regulated but ended up being used by local coucils to snoop on people who may or may not have been paying council tax. Not quite sure what that has to do with terrorism. Not much, I'd suggest.

See here - for example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ldren.html

daviesee

schlepcycling wrote:

hey presto problem solved or fit you with a GPS tag so they can see what you're up to all the time.

Not the best example to use.............
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18437974

jonny_trousers

No idea if their campaign will do any good, but I received the following email yesterday with a link to a petition...

Make sure 38 Degrees emails reach your inbox: add action@38degrees.org.uk to your contacts. If you would like to unsubscribe click here.

Dear Mr Trousers,

Today, the government laid out its plan for massive new powers to invade our privacy online. [1] It’s bad. Information about who we’ve emailed, websites we’ve visited and much more will be routinely available to the government.

People power can stop this invasion of our privacy. Over 150,000 of us have already signed the petition. And today’s papers mention the size of our petition as evidence that the government may struggle to get its plans through. [2]

We’re going to need huge numbers of people if we’re going to work together to defeat these Big Brother plans. Every single extra name on the petition will help. Can you ask your friends and family to take 30 seconds to sign it?

You can forward this email and ask them to sign the petition here:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/privacy-petition

The government’s plan would mean phone and internet companies would have to keep details of your use of email, websites you’ve visited, phone calls you’ve made over the internet and how you've used Facebook and Twitter - for a whole year. [3]

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, today claimed that the plans would only affect terrorists and paedophiles - and called people who value their privacy from government “conspiracy theorists”. [4] But that’s simply not true - the plans would allow the government to spy on every one of us. [5]

Let’s show Theresa May that there are huge numbers of people in this country who value their freedom and privacy as private citizens - and that doesn’t make us “conspiracy theorists”. Can you help grow the campaign by asking more people to sign the petition?
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/privacy-petition

You can also share the petition on Facebook with one click:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/privacy ... n-facebook

Or on Twitter:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/privacy ... on-twitter


Thanks for being involved,

Marie, David, Belinda, Becky, Hannah, James and the 38 Degrees


PS: Thanks to pressure from 38 Degrees members, the government has made one tiny concession - local councils won’t get new snooping powers. But the real, everyday invasion of our privacy will come from the government itself. Please forward this email and ask as many people as you can to add their names to the petition: https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/privacy-petition

schlepcycling

daviesee wrote:

schlepcycling wrote:

hey presto problem solved or fit you with a GPS tag so they can see what you're up to all the time.

Not the best example to use.............
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18437974

Existing electronic tags in the UK don't use GPS they use either a base station wired into the offenders house which creates a 'zone' which the tag mustn't go out of or they use mobile phone masts for location, that's partly the reason why they're so crap. The new ones that are being introduced will use GPS so will be more accurate.

Drfabulous0

When the government want some extra cash they will sell this data to their corporate pals, ostensibly for the purposes of targeted advertising, then there will be no control over who can access it or what it is used for. Complete infringement of privacy and should be taken before the European Court of Human Rights.

bails87

Drfabulous0 wrote:

When the government want some extra cash they will sell this data to their corporate pals, ostensibly for the purposes of targeted advertising, then there will be no control over who can access it or what it is used for. Complete infringement of privacy and should be taken before the European Court of Human Rights.

Or it just gets contracted out to Serco/G4S etc in the first place.

If you become famous for any reason there'd be a pretty good chance that the papers would pay for access to your records (like we know they already have with phones, voicemails, texts, medical records etc) and there'd be a "X is internet pervert" headline on the next day's Sun.