Slashdot Mirror
Europol Describes Data Retention Desires
freakyboff writes "Found this on cryptome.org - It's a confidential document from Europol, basically a wish list of all data that they would like people to keep. Many things that violate peoples privacy are in the minimum requirements, such as caller line identification and assigned IP for dial-up Internet access; e-mail and ftp server logs; and companies running web servers should keep information on what information users put on their servers." Statewatch is a good source for more information. I find it odd that Europe is moving from a position of protecting a great deal of data with fairly strong laws to requiring that telecommunications companies store data on their customers for as long as seven years so that law enforcement can go data-mining - skipping the intermediate step of making it optional.
In your case yes, but consider for a moment the cost of no security whatsoever on the blanks. Want a blank license, just walk in and take as many as you want, no tracking, no chance of getting punished. Not you do you take 15 (presume that you need them for something), but everyone else does too. Now it isn't 15 blanks, it is 2,000 at a total cost of 1784 dollars. Starting to get meaningfull already. (note, the number 2000 was pulled out of the air). Now multiply that out by a few years...
Security and prevention always comes at a cost. Insurance companys can draw fancy curves and graphs to show where your cost for secuiry (including punishing offenders, and insurance) is the least compared to your potential losses. Perhaps it isn't worth the goverment's time to do anything about the theif of blanks, perhaps it is. (I don't know how to do that analysis) At some point though you have something that costs more then it looks like it should because you can't account for the losses spending that much prevents.
Well, I'm a syadmin at a University research lab, and when I want to do something the University may not like on the net (visit websites that may violate AUP or something) and I don't want those nosy upstream admins to notice, I pipe it through an IPSec tunnel I set up between my lab and my home network, since my DSL provider doesn't care what I do. So, I'll login remotely and run mozilla or something on my home comp and pipe the display back through the tunnel, so all anybody between my computer at the lab and my computer at home would see is a bunch of encrypted ESP packets flowing back and forth.
I wonder if a company in a place where laws like this don't exist (is Sealand still around?) could set up a proxy service provider, so all your traffic (or at least any traffic you don't want somebody spying on, like email, some web traffic) would be routed securely through them, so your local ISP wouldn't have anything but encrypted packets to monitor. Then they wouldn't have anything of consequence to share when the cops come knocking. I'd pay for such a service, would you?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Pretty horrid, I'd say.
We've had bombs placed in the centers of our cities, people being shot, mugged, raped and generally fucked over so whats wrong with putting up the cameras if they help prevent it, or at least track down the guilty person afterwards.
Why should I care if the police/govt/anyone watches me walk down the main street of town or sitting on a bus? I never understood the argument that they're invading our privacy by putting camera's in public places.