Slashdot Mirror
UK ISPs Refuse to Monitor Users
An anonymous reader writes "The internet industry has refused to sign up to plans to give law enforcement and intelligence agencies access to the records of British web and email users, throwing David Blunkett's post-September 11 data surveillance regime into fresh disarray.
In the latest of a long line of setbacks for the home secretary's data retention campaign, the Guardian has learned that internet service providers have told the Home Office that they will not voluntarily stockpile the personal records of their customers for long periods so that they can be accessed by police or intelligence officers."
I mean, the government gets whatever it wants, because it has all the power. It has all the power because it has all the guns, and that is especially true in the UK.
What differs from country to country is how well the government knows what it wants. If the government in this case is determined enough to pass a law requiring that ISPs keep mandatory records, there's nothing the ISPs can do about it. If the population of the UK is anything like that of the US, the people won't even notice or care.
I guess the biggest difference between the UK and the US is that the media isn't privately owned to quite the same degree in the UK as it is in the US, right? But that media which isn't owned by private entities is owned by the government, so we get right back to the issue of how much the government itself actually wants this.
No matter how this turns out, though, I have to give a hand to the ISPs for telling the government where to stick it...
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
The UK is the last place I expected to see anyone take a stand against monitoring citizens. Good show.
Churchill said it best:
"Through utilitarian intentions, a moral victory was won."
I am a Karma Library.
Currently the only free domain is the internet, rest everything from transport to what you eat to what adv you watch is in hands of "control". Such legistlations will eliminate freedom on internet also. This is the beginning, soon more and more rules will come.. like what email you send what chat you do, which software you download
People call me paranoid... but thats what they called andy too.. and look where intel isMy Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
see how much an idiot with a gun can do to public emotion (and health). is it then a real priority to spend who-knows-how-much on logging user activity? IMHO we have a priority problem here.
It has all the power because it has all the guns, and that is especially true in the UK.
Governements in democraties do not have all the power. And this has nothing to do with guns. Many americans always bring back the issue of guns in the most irrelevant situations!
I guess the biggest difference between the UK and the US is that the media isn't privately owned to quite the same degree in the UK as it is in the US, right?
This is equally irrelevant. Privately owned media can be forced by governements to say anything the governements want as much as public media.
Anyway, this is about ISPs which are all (AFAIK) privately owned.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Except for that whole cameras everywhere you turn thing...And that law forcing you to hand over crypto keys and passwords to the govt.
Which brings me to something I was thinking about before, Whats worse:
1) A govt that forces you to give them your keys when they ask.
or
2) A govt that dosnt ask or inform you in any way, but instead uses tools like Magic Lantern to get them?
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Part of the problem is that the UK Govt seems to assume that private businesses will be happy - in difficult market conditions - to be an effective cheap/free police force for them to monitor people. Given conflicting legislation coming out of both the EU and UK Govt's, it is unlikely that this would be welcomed by UK businesses.
>Except for that whole cameras everywhere you turn thing
Hows the hunt for the sniper going? Any idea how many people he would have been able to kill in the UK before he`d have been caught?
Heard of David Copeland? He's the guy who bombed and killed/injured gays/blacks in the UK a few years ago. He worked alone but was still caught after `only` three attacks. He was the only consistant person on film in the three locations at the appropriate date/time.
Or do you think that it's worth letting people like him get away with it with no chance of arrest other than waiting for him to make a mistake (like in your sniper case), because the horrible loss of rights by people being..uh..filmed while walking in a public place outweighs the advantages?
I mean, the government gets whatever it wants, because it has all the power. It has all the power because it has all the guns, and that is especially true in the UK.
I feel sorry for a certain type of American. You don't realise how screwed up your world-view is.
So you mean that another attack can be prevented with your ISP logs? You really have that knowledge?
No but really. What will happen is that they will check your computer logs AND another attack will happen.
Sounds good in theory, but us Americans are paranoid, What most of us are scared of is not being filmed for defensive reasons like you point out, more jumpy on what it could turn into. Do you want a ticket sent to you monthly cause some camera caught you doing 55 in a 50 zone without your seat belt on since they were hard pressed to reach thier violation quota for the month?
Ben Franklin once said anyone who wants security over freedom deserves neither, and I happen to think the guy was onto something.
-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
Nice laws. But since the government wants all this overhead, who should pay for this 'security' that consumers don't want? The providers themselves? Don't think so. I think the politicians should eat their own dogfood, and cough up those euros.. and even then, I can imagine better IT investments.. :)
By supporting their action and citing our reasons, we are making our own statement. This statement is independent of their motivation and one which we might not have been able to make otherwise. I don't see how that hurts.
Devon
I'm not sure, but I think the guy going round shooting people at the moment has a gun.
He's a _sniper_ shooting from a distance in wooded areas. Do you propose we erect a grid of cameras to cover the entire country, both rural, suburban, and wooded?
Maybe we should put government run cameras in our homes too. Because by your theory, we should be willing to give up our rights so the government can cacth criminals.
You should assume that whatever you send over your network link is publicly readable (if not always modifyable) and encrypt accordingly.
What good will encrypting your mails do you, when the Police have the power to demand that you surrender your keys, on pain of a prison term?
Mind you, if you're using the internet to send stuff you don't want Them to read, you're asking to get caught anyway...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
And are you saying that you'd resent getting caught breaking two laws by a machine as opposed to a person?
And in the US, those guns have stopped your government passing laws that threaten your freedoms, right?
Oh... wait
When a corporation does something like this, it has nothing to do with morals or rights. They have simply seen that they stand to lose money from it. When the government revises it such that they are compensated for their losses, even by the users, it will be FULL STEAM AHEAD!
Yeah, but he has been profiled as a White Male, so he can't be a terrorist, right?
No sireee, he is not terrorising anyone AT ALL. Heve you heard the word terrorist mentioned in news reports of this man AT ALL? Is this not entirely hypocritical?
Indeed. I think that basically, a gun is only going to help you defend yourself when your assailant *doesn't* have a gun.
Do you want a ticket sent to you monthly cause some camera caught you doing 55 in a 50 zone without your seat belt on since they were hard pressed to reach thier violation quota for the month?
I see, so what you're saying is that you want to break the laws that you don't feel like obeying with impunity, while resevering the right to whine when the state can't enforce the ones that you think are important? I rather like that idea, and see that it's becoming increasingly popular with many US citizens.
You can keep the driving laws for yourself then, and I'll excuse myself from accounting and securities fraud, if that's OK with you? Who needs a pension anyway?
But woe betide anyone who breaches my copyright. Hanging is too good for them!
that this will not have the desired effect. If any terrorist or other criminal wants to send subversive information they can go to an internet cafe, register a false name and address, do the deed the disappear. Similarly with mobile (cell) phones - buy a pay as you go phone and discard it after a few uses. Impossible to track
N
When we had all the trouble with the RIP bill (what happened to it? not heard much on it in ages) didn't quite a few ISPs threaten to put at least their mail servers outside the country so that the government couldn't even force them to hand over the data?
What happened to that and doesnt Blunkett realise that the ISP can easily move these vital pieces of equipement out of the UK jursidiction? It just shows what lack of understand politicans and their advisors really have of the Internet and its workings.
The only truely safe way for them to stop any so-called net-terrorism is to shut down the net which obvisiously wont happen!
I have no problem with ISPs logging usage, or that data being used by law enforcement agencies, but there *HAS* to be some governance, oversight and control. It's no good asking ISPs to log the information without clearly explaining the cost implications, who will meet the cost, and ensuring in law that they are allowed and protected in doing so. Furthermore, to inspect the data law enforcement agencies should require a court-issued warrant. Blunkett's plans earlier this year allowed all manner of agencies (even the post office for god's sake) access to this type of information, under unspecified "supervision" of an official. Thank goodness that got canned, (at least for the time being). It is simply not good enough for governments to increase their own power without similarly increasing the protection and rights afforded to the people against that power.
I think there is a much more fundamental problem that is overlooked. Nobody is mentioning the fact that it /used/ to be the case that you needed to be under some suspicion before you were allowed to be spied on!
There is a fundamental problem that arises when you start to collect data without a directed suspicion: people will start to fear that merely their patterns of behaviour (which he knows to be be monitored) will raise some suspicion and cause subsequent trouble. This is has chilling effects on society, on peoples very perception of freedom. Look at the horrors of the USSR, the DDR with its Stasi.
I think the issue needs to be centered around this, and leave the exact criteria, which are completely irrelevant. Governments should not be allowed to spy on people without a clear suspicion, period. Collecting data may only start *after the suspicion is backed by a public court of law*, not when some police officer decides that it might be handy, and even less *by default*, for crying out loud!
Doesn't anybody realise what a *huge* step this is?
All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
I think many do. And even more would realize it if they just had the chance to realize it: I believe that 90% of people do not know what this really means because they are not capable of opening the content put behind the technological "black box". If people were told that from now on you have to inform officials about who you communicated with, when and how - they could actually panic. If you had to inform the police every time when you chat with your neighbour, send a letter to your grand mother, or call their husband. What is happening with these data retention laws is exact analogy.
A favourite English expression.
If they want to watch me. FINE!
But I want to read Blunketts mail too.
THAT IS EQUITY. The UK has NO equity. It is one of the most prescriptive and restrictive societies on earth - they also seem to believe that law stops people breaking it. This is completely wrong!
One further thought. Modern law practice is stupid. The best system of law EVER invented was the 10 commandments - NOT BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT OF THE COMMANDMENTS. But because it is a simple set of laws that most people would agree with - any idiot can read (or be read to) and understand them. UK law runs into tens of thousands of pages. It is not possible to live for a day without breaking the law.
"None of this shit works" -W.Shatner
It's also the case that the media in the UK (private or public) can be considerably more critical of the governement and politicians than media in the US. Anyone who's ever watched Larry King interview a senator, then seen Jeremy Paxman do the same with a British MP will know that blustering Larry is a cream puff.
Also interesting to note that the BBC News website carried an interview with Noam Chomsky on 9/11 this year. No US network would ever have done that.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
Yep, and it's up around 50% since Dunblane and the subsequent handgun restrictions. Is that in spite of the ban, or because of it?
I'm not at all convinced I'd want routine carrying of handguns legalised in the UK at present, but more because I'm afraid of the number of unfortunate accidents that would occur because people here haven't grown up with them than because I object to them on self-defence grounds. Getting a gun isn't hard if you're a bad guy as it is, it's just that right now, the only people who have them are the criminals.
In principle, I don't see that any government has any business restricting anything (carrying weapons for SD or sport, speed of travel in your car, use of drugs, bringing alcohol home from your booze cruise, whatever) unless it is preventing a clearly demonstrated threat to the general population. The government has failed to demonstrate this beyond random spin in any of these cases, and plenty of informed criticism argues that they are actually causing more damage to the population as a whole with their current policies. Yet, as it stands now, my girlfriend can't legally carry CS spray for self-defence, I can't legally drive faster than 20mph on a road near my home where 40mph would normally be safe, and cannabis is illegal although the vast majority of population want it legalised in every recent survey taken.
What was that about appropriateness of laws and police states? Damn, I can't remember...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'm not sure, but I think the guy going round shooting people at the moment has a gun.
So presumably if guns were made illegal, he wouldn't use one?
In the UK, gun crime has shot up at least 50% since our government banned handguns in 1997. A guy in Australia also recently killed a couple of students and injured several more - with handguns. I believe Australia also banned handguns a few years ago (or at least made the subject to extremely strict controls, which is technically what has happened here in UK).
My point is, if you can't stop criminals and psychopaths getting hold of weapons, you might as well at least allow ordinary people to fight on the same level. This was the view taken in Britain until 1920, when gun control in this country started in earnest. Indeed, the Prime Minister Lord Salisbury was one of the founders of the Working Mens' Rifle Club in (I think) 1900.
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
It reminds me of when Oklahoma City bombing happened. When at first it was blamed on Muslims in the media they were terrorists. But when it was white militia men...the word terrorist faded from the media. And I certainly don't recall a outcry to profile these groups. Round them up and arrest them., etc.
Or the shootings, assults and arsons linked to these white power Christian fundamentalist groups. Why aren't they called Christian terrorists?!? A number of which are members of the same Christian church sect!
Don't even get me started about the killings, bombings, assults, arsons and anthrax scares linked to anti-abortion groups. How come they aren't called terrorists?!?
You can bet, that if a group talked of a need to eliminate bankers. Posted assassination lists online of key bankers, some of which were later killed. Had bombed a number of banks, set fires to others, harassed customers, sent in anthrax scares to banks...You bet the FBI would be rounding them up fast!
Or how with all the school shootings, the media avoids talking about the pattern of them being middle-class white teen males? It's all kept vague and they refer how it's hard to find a pattern!
- MichaelThe difference between guns and all those things is that the other things were designed for various purposes to help people, and can be missused as weapons. Guns have only one purpose -- to kill.
The problem is that the rapid proliferation of new technologies, i.e., Internet, wireless, PCS, etc, is leaving law enforcement and national security agencies in the dust. Without new laws they simply cannot address new threats or criminal activity that use those new communication methods. Is this a threat to civil liberties? Hell yes, but a little thing happened last year in September that pushed civil liberties to the background for the "Free World".
And which of those new technologies were used for September 11th, exactly?
That this event has pushed civil liberties to the background is not something to base policy on, it's something to fight against.
Increased surveillance on citizens does *not* prevent terrorism by people determined enough to do it kamikaze-style. Period. See 9/11, see Israel every day, see Bali. Forget it. The idea that it would is tasteless, perverse propaganda from power-hungry politicians that are not ashamed to abuse 9/11 to further their existing agendas.
All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
Bin Laden is extremely rich. If you believe he is living in a cave, then you are buying into the bullshit propaganda that has already been refered to in this thread.
People who deal dodgy things, e.g. drugs, know there is always the possibility that their communications aren't secure, so they don't talk about it over the phone or e-mail. Believe it or not, terrorists also know this.
Anyone that believes that a terrorist could get caught by saying something on e-mail or browsing on the web clearly doesn't have a clue. These measures are all about spying on the little people. The big fish know the score already and use encryption and third-party messengers to exchange information, if they even bother using modern communications.
They also don't try to give signals over videos in the news. That was another bullshit lie. God forbid the people ever find out the real reasons why some terrorists attack the US...
I also live in the UK, and I know where you likely get this impression from: the advert with the kid getting knocked down. It's horrific and makes me particularly angry.
There are a number of falacies in this campaign, added to greaten the shock value. Did you notice how the car had it's wheels locked when braking? Well, locking the wheels makes your brakes next-to-useless. Notice how the car was quite old? No ABS. It's far from a modern representation of what would happen in that situation, in either a newer car, or if the driver had actually passed the emergency stop section of the driving test.
Now, I'm not saying doing 35 in a 30 is a good thing, I'm particularly careful about my speed in built-up areas, because the fatality rate between these two speeds of pedestrians is a huge leap. However, death/injury does not rise exponentially with speed generally, only in the case of hitting a pedestrian. But for motorway driving, the risk difference between 70 mph and 90 mph does not follow an exponential curve at all. Far from it.
Cameras for road policing IMO are a bad idea, except 30-mph speed cameras and red-light cameras, especially at accident blackspots. A camera can not pick up an erratic drunk driver. It cannot run a check on the car/driver to see if they have outstanding warants. It cannot detect false plates that don't match the make/model of the car. It cannot detect dangerously overloaded cars. It cannot detect 5 children squeezed into the back seat.
They should never be used as a replacement for real police in real cars. Only a suppliment.
Without civil liberties it's not a very "free world" now is it? If we don't have freedom, what are we fighting to preserve, exactly?
I'm from New Orleans, and he could operate that way there. If you are only interested in a one shot, then run, that can be done anywhere.
One Mardi Gras a person opened up with a pistol on Canal Street. He wasn't trying to hit anybody, just making noise. The "group" I was hosting started to run. I grabbed them, stopped them from running and told them just to pay attention to their surroundings, as nobody knew where the shots had come from, so how would you know where to run!
My point is that this can be done anywhere, and in most of the cities I've been in, I would say it's more likely to happen because of the crowding.
People are alot like locusts. Crowd them to much and they become dangerous.
Have you ever seen the murder stats from cities like New Orleans? I currently live in a somewhat rural area and so far, the murder rate for the year is nill...
Maybe I should blame it on a over-abundance of gun control in the DC area. (Don't worry, I won't do that, but it's as arbitrary as anything else.)
Homo Sapiens are the only creatures on this planet that kill for no apparent reason. And, there isn't anything you can do to stop them, or deter them. It's just a fact of life.
has also picked this up, with quite a few interesting links to add
I'm going over here and I don't know why!
If Tora Bora is in Afganistan (I don't know the region), then I doubt it. All the important terrorists got out of there long before the bombs started dropping. Do you think they just sat on their hands while the US was moving their forces? The Afgan war was really to get rid of the talliban, for whatever reason you see fit to believe...
There are also advantages in your enemies thinking you are dead. They stop looking for you etc, allowing you greater freedom.
Bush and pals likely know exactly whether he is dead or not. What gets released into public knowledge is always a subset of what goes on. For example (only because a saw a documentary on this last night) at the resolution of the Cuban missle crisis, Russia agreed to remove the forces if the US also withdrew it's nukes from Turkey. This was never reveled to the public, as far as everyone was aware, the US got the USSR to back down completely. Even Castro didn't know about this arrangement and he saw it as a defeat, when in essense the USSR got pretty much what it wanted: the equalisation of both sides first stike capability. It took 20 years for the truth to come out.
Perhaps 20 years from now, we'll be discussing what really happened on 9/11 and the war on terror.
What's your point? A death is still a death. Innocent or not. We have gangs here as well you know, very rarely does anyone get killed.
Law abiding citizens are affected. Crossfire I'm sure kills quite a few folk. The money spent policing to get the area to the point that decent people can walk safely must be a huge portion of the Police budget. Or the not-so-well-off person who has to queue at community hospitals where a large portion of their budget is spent healing gunshot wounds. Jeez, it's so common you even have an acronym for it, GSW.
While you are at it, let's talk about home invasions being several hundred percent more common in the UK since the ban on guns.
OK, let't talk about it. First, cite your source, it's completely new to me and I've never heard or seen any statistic that shows this sort of crime going up, especially to the extent of several hundred percent.
Next, you have to realise that there is no gun culture in the UK, there never has been. Handguns were banned after 60ish man shot and killed at least 20 very young children. The man in question was a permit-holding member of a gun club and was legally entitled to own his weapons. Public opinion led to the complete ban of handguns only, at which point the owners of the guns were obliged to hand them in, after being given the monetry equivalent value of the gun.
Guns have absolutly no bearing in home invasion statistics here. Because guns are so rare (in my years I have NEVER even seen a gun in this country), the likelyhood of a homeowner having a gun was so remote that criminals wouldn't even give it a second thought.
So, I fail to see how the banning of handguns had anything to do with any increase in house breaking.