UK Passes Surveillance Law For ISPs

NoiseLesion writes "The Standard has reports on a new bill granting surveillance privileges to a new arm of MI5. Carnivore looks tame compared to this."

Comments

Stability?

[Booker]

most Westerners take a stable nation for granted. You grossly underestimate the value of this privilege. Imagine living in Afghanistan. Or Sierra Leone. Or even Fiji.

To which I'd say... most Westerners take a free nation for granted. You grossly underestimate the value of this privilege. Imagine living in Afghanistan. Or Sierra Leone. Or even Fiji.

And who are you to judge the importance of the stability of the state? What if the state is engaged in wrongdoing? Should we preserve stability at all costs? Seems like a strange end to strive for...

Depending on your definition of "stability" I might have to say I'd pick freedom over stability. If the opposite of stability is chaos and anarchy, that's one thing. Often, though, "stability" is a placated populace, happily listening to Britney Spears and munching on Cheetos, and threats to that notion of "stability" are dealt with severely. That sort of stability generates the big bucks.

Now you've done it. I'm ranting all paranoid-like... :-)

Re:Stability?

[crulx]

booker said: To which I'd say... most Westerners take a free nation for granted. You grossly underestimate the value of this privilege. Imagine living in Afghanistan. Or Sierra Leone. Or even Fiji.

Richard Stevens said: It's really easy to say that when you've got a full belly and a roof over your head for the foreseeable future, isn't it?

There is this thing in logic called an Ad Hominem fallacy. You just used it. You didn't mention anything about why you thought that the author's premise that Westerns feel that freedom is taken for granted by most Westerner's, including yourself. Instead, you claimed that it was easy to say this because of certain conditions about booker's life. I imagine you wanted to tie that into your earlier point about stability, but instead you went arwy and made a logical fault. Please try to avoid these sorts of errors, or people will start to think you are a troll as that tatic is often used by them. If people think you are a troll, they will stop listening to you (that is the internet standard way of dealing with them). If your point is to communicate on /. , then this will be counter to your goals and thus unbenificial to you.

And who are you to judge the importance of the stability of the state? What if the state is engaged in wrongdoing? Should we preserve stability at all costs? Seems like a strange end to strive for... Sigh. You really have no concept of the real world, do you? The state had better be engaged in a damn good deal of wrongdoing before you start acting up, because chances are you'd make matters much worse in the process of trying to "improve" things.

Again, an Ad Hominem. What does his haveing "no concept of the real world" have to do with his feelign that freedom is more important than stability? I can think of a few reasons, but you make no clear arguments. Do you mean to tie it in with your next point about the state needing to "be engaged in a damn good deal of wrongdoing ..."? Is that what you claim "real world" knowledge to be? I'm sure you can see that many people would disagree. If you want to make any points, you need to elaborate.

And look at your logic in the second line. If you start "acting up" before the state is "engaged in a damn good deal of wrongdoing..." then you will end up making "matters much worse".

This seems to be the fundimental premise of your argument. Thus the rest of your argument suffers from a falicy know as petitio principii, Begging the question. Your argument looks like this..
1) The government is not "engaged in a damn good deal of wrondoing. (supposedly proved by the fact that things are stable and not every person in the nation is complaining)
2) If you act up and the government is not doing wrong then you will make matters much "worse in the process of trying to "improve" things. "
3) You do not want to make matters worse (definition of worse for most rational people)
Therefore, do not act up. (I think that conclusion can safely be implied by your comments. Especially comments below about people who have the power to make life miserable for everyone)
You have not shown 1 to be the case. Nor have you explained why 2 is correct. So your conclusion has not been shown. Please explain the following.

1. Why is invasion of not a "damn good deal of wrongdoing"?
2. What is a good deal of wrongdoing?
3. What is the definition of "acting up"?
4. Why is premise 2 correct? Why is acting up only good for for large amounts of wrongness and not small amounts.

You need to prove your premises.

Often, though, "stability" is a placated populace, happily listening to Britney Spears and munching on Cheetos, and threats to that notion of "stability" are dealt with severely. That sort of stability generates the big bucks.

That's all what you've chosen to do with the fact that you're rich and content enough to not have to worry about whether rebel (or government) militia leaders are going to come to your house and steal all your food (at best).

This is a non sequitur. How does this follow from his statements above?

People in the Western world (especially the US) are generally well-off enough that freedom can coexist with stability. They don't want to lose what they have. However, when you start getting desperate elements in the population (who have the power to make life miserable for everyone), the story changes.

Both you and the poster make several arguments with the argumentum ad numerum fallacy. Just because most people are complacent with stability, does not justify your arugment that stability is more important than "not acting up". booker makes some of the same arugments.

Please, if you want to prove your point, choose a logical standpoint to go from. Your arguments will sound more professional and will less likely get you labled as a troll. (And there is somethign I hope we can both agree upon.) ---
crulx
crulx@iaxs.net

Solution To Funding Government!

[Seumas]

Okay. Carnivore and this new M15 system is a wonderful way for the governments to fund themselves!

All they have to do is follow what Dejanews.com does -- filtering messages and embedding links in Usenet posts. Carnivore could scan every single email sent through America and replace common words and product names with hypertext links that would allow the recipient of messages to automatically be transported to the site of a company paying the government for advertising!

Example:
Jim, Thanks for lending me your car lastnight. Hopefully I will have mine back from the body shop in time for the game tomorrow. I owe you big time. Remind me to give you some of these great cigars when we meet up at the game -- it's the least I can do!

Thanks,

Ted
---
seumas.com

wonder if havenco ever came up in the discussion?

[pangloss]

While HavenCo. and Sealand must insist that they are a sovereign country/principality/whatever, a number of people expressed the opinion (which I tend to agree with) that Sealand's status is only uncertain because Britain hasn't yet felt compelled enough to push the issue (the shots fired off Sealand notwithstanding).

I wonder if anyone in either of the Houses ever brought up HavenCo to support arguments in facor of the bill. After all, it's not just about email, but includes "other encrypted Internet communications". It would be ironic if the need for services like HavenCo. is in part perpetuated by the existence of services such as HavenCo.

Incidentally, what are the latest conspiracy theories around the integrity of PGP? I haven't been paying much attention since the U.S. started relaxing export restrictions on strong encryption, but whenever news like this hits Slashdot we always get the usual spate of "just encrypt all your email" and it would be interesting to hear the conspiracy theorists on how that's really just not satisfactory....

Re:Please Learn to Use Encryption

[mpe]

Which is yet another reason this country needs a Bill of Rights or equivalent.

Except that such a document is only as good as the body which enforces it.
The USA has shown that it is utterly trivial for a government to violate a written constitution. Also that police and judges will attempt to enforce statutes which are in direct violation of the consitution.
A "Bill of rights" is useful if it is backed by a government (and an army.)

Extremely false.

[rjh]

Speak for yourself.

During the years when export of cryptography was illegal, I was habitually encrypting everything crypto-related which I sent to other people via email. After all, the government went after Phil Zimmerman, and once tried to tell a group of mathematicians that they couldn't deliver a presentation on RSA. The government was very interested in export-control, and using crypto on email conversations about crypto was just a prudent way to keep myself safe and lawsuit-free.

Let's also not forget the business world. My previous job was for an Internet start-up which was going to be expanding quickly to Europe and the Pacific Rim. Certain countries (France among them) have industries which are partially or wholly owned by the government; and the governments of certain countries (France among them) have histories of using their intelligence agencies to gather economic intelligence on the competitors of these government-owned industries.

Were we concerned about the DGSE eavesdropping on our plans to set up shop in Europe? Damn straight.

And let's not forget the fact that you don't have to be important to warrant being searched. Let's say that you're a journalist and you're a big nobody. The government doesn't care about you. You're talking via email with someone, using them as a reference for a story, or maybe they're providing you with leaks, or whatever.

Let's say your source is also under investigation for drug smuggling. The FBI can eavesdrop his emails, but that might tip him off. Instead, it's easier to eavesdrop on the emails of the people he talks to.

After all, drug smugglers tend to take extreme precautions with their communications. There's no guarantee that the people they talk to do. It just makes sense.

... I qualify on all three points listed above, you see. I was violating ITAR/EAR before it became fashionable, and I was very concerned about getting a call from the FBI.

I worked for an industry in which we had very real concerns about foreign governments eavesdropping on our electronic communications and giving our secrets to competitors.

And I talk with a few lawyers and a journalist, and in 1993 I had a pretty long set of email conversations with Phil Zimmerman. I know that at least one of those people was under government surveillance at the time, and I don't know about the others.

So your statement--"I don't think anyone reading Slashdot is important enough that the government would want to read through his or her e-mail"--is quite false.

Also keep in mind--in every one of these events, what I was doing was legal. ITAR/EAR was struck down as unconstitutional in its control over computer source code; my business was totally legal; my communications with lawyers, PRZ and the occasional journo are all completely, totally legal.

Just because you're one hundred percent legal doesn't mean the government isn't going to snoop.

Re:UK's E-mail Scan Is Avoidable

[KahunaBurger]

Allegedly, the technology is extremely easy for savvy computer users to avoid (i.e. the sort of people that the government hopes to catch in illegal acts). If the cybercriminals can bypass the tap with ease, then whose e-mail gets scanned? Answer: ordinary people.

This seems like quite a leap. One might just as well say that people trying to rip off the phone company can avoid having their calls traced, so wiretaps or traces are only useful against "ordinary people". Just like phone taps or any other survelance method, the is a huge gulf of situations between "cyber-criminals" and "ordinary people" (implying no criminal concerns) where email survelance could prove useful.

That said, perhaps this should get people to chill out a little bit about carnivore, given that it at least opperates under warrent. Look objectively at the two programs and gain some perspective. Law enforcement has a right to monitor communications of those individuals who a judge will give them a warrent for. But depending on how UK LEOs will be able to use this stockpiled info, this seems much more of a concern.

-Kahuna Burger

Re:My goodness, yes!

[Skald]

What makes you so much more fit to judge who's a criminal and who's not than your government?

Actually, here in the US, there's a long tradition that holds that the citizens are more fit than the government to judge who's a criminal and who's not. We call it, "trial by jury".

They were undermining the stability of the state, a charge that most Westerners greatly underestimate the importance of.

*ahem*

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

True, theese people were charged for the wrong thing, but those were trying times for the American nation, and unruly groups causing chaos and unrest were the last thing it needed.

Or in other words, in times of trouble, freedom's fine, except when the going gets rough. Your words are inspiring.

Booker: And those damn Japanese-Americans during WWII.

This was out of line, agreed.

Why? This seems very much out of line with the rest of your reasoning. WWII was a much more troubled period than the early Cold War. Potential enemies at home were the last things America needed.

Once again, most Westerners take a stable nation for granted. You grossly underestimate the value of this privilege.

And you grossly undervalue those things which make stability of value, the freedoms which make America a nation worth protecting. Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Re:Encrypted Mail

[Shimodasan]

This story seems to believe that encryption is the answer to all your privacy problems.
If you have been following the progress of the RIP bill you will know that failure to hand over your
encryption key leaves you in the position that you must prove you NEVER KNEW IT. Seeing as this is probably impossible, you will face the
mandatory jail sentence or up to two years. Very draconian.

Does anyone have any comments on the security of services like hushmail?

Re:Please Learn to Use Encryption

[MoOsEb0y]

The problem with this, however, is the fact that if you encrypt your communications as you suggest, you face a 2 year jail sentence for refusal of giving them the keys. Furthermore, you can't tell ANYONE that you have given them the keys (if you decide against a 2 year sentence). If you do, you face a 5 year jail sentence. This kind of crap literally SCARES me. If the US ever thinks of pulling that, I'm moving to sealand to work at Data Haven.

My goodness, yes!

[Booker]

I mean, everyone knows that whenever a government practices surveillance on its citizens, it's only if that citizen is truly a dangerous criminal. A quick scan of history reveals that, right off!

All those communists in the McCarthy era got what was coming to them.

And those damn Japanese-Americans during WWII.

Arlo Guthrie most certainly deserved to have his life on file at the FBI. As did Pete Seeger. Damned agitators...

Make a stand...

[gi_wrighty]

I've read through the posts and no-one has mentioned http://www.stand.org.uk. At their site you can webfax your local MP and they have a good source of information about the effects of the bill.

Another useful site is http://www.fipr.org/rip/RIPcountermeas ures.htm . No explainations required.

wrighty.

(Is it me or does the lameness filter add in spaces to long strings?)

Hasn't passed yet...

[SamHill]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill hasn't passed yet.

What happened is that the House of Commons discussed and accepted the amendments to the bill made by the House of Lords. No vote to accept or reject overall passage of the bill was made.

You can read the discussions for yourself.

For up-to-date tracking of the bill's progress, see the Home Office's RIP page.

UK's E-mail Scan Is Avoidable

[qbasicprogrammer]

Since Britain passed its Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill, security experts have examined the technology behind the e-mail snooping that is allowed in the law. Allegedly, the technology is extremely easy for savvy computer users to avoid (i.e. the sort of people that the government hopes to catch in illegal acts). If the cybercriminals can bypass the tap with ease, then whose e-mail gets scanned? Answer: ordinary people. That's why a number of experts are explaining to citizens what steps are necessary to remain invisible to the RIP's black boxes.

Full story at ZDNet or BBC.

Rumour Control on the RIP Act

[AndrewD]

OK, here's the basics:

Here, we have the Bill itself as it emerged from its report to face it's third reading (last stage in parliament before Royal Assent and passage onto the statute book: it comes into force on a date to be fixed thereafter)

Thi s is the complete list of amendments, and you'll notice that Lord Bassam and chums seem to be out with their castrating knives and good on 'em, ain't it handy to have legislators who aren't going to have to face re-election.

This schweinerei is the really offensive part.

Things you ought to know about this Bill:

1. It's already been beaten back once. The really offensive stuff started out in the Electronic Communications Bill (now the Act, minus all the nasty parts and as such totally useless and unlikely ever to be brought into force)
2. On and from 2nd October 2000, when the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force, it will be more or less impossible to get convictions under clause 53 (it may not retain that section number in the Act-as-it-passes) since the threat of a penalty for non-disclosure amounts to a violation of the privilege against self-incrimination. This particular legal device - questioning under compulsion, a rather genteel and bloodless form of torture - resulted in the defendants in l'affaire Guinness getting judgments in their favour in the EHCR. Because compelled answers to a (non-criminal) DTI inquiry were used as evidence in their eventual (criminal) trial, they were found to have had their human rights violated.
3. The Encryption stuff isn't the big deal. It's the government's automatic right to install whatever variant of the carnivore system they want into any ISP, telecom provider, whatever so that they can monitor whenever they like without prior judicial restraint. The warrants are to be signed by the Secretary of State. And how much scrutiny is he going to give them?
4. There's a Commission going to be appointed to hear complaints. Sure, right. Fact fans, listen carefully: this is what they did last time around, when they passed the old Interception of Telecommunications Act fifteen years ago. In those fifteen years, the Commissioner has heard four (4) complaints. And rejected all of them. Can you say "dead letter?"

I could, and at very small provocation will, go on.