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.
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
>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?
Who's 'we'? If you're referring to the Washington situation, then you should be aware that the UK already has extremely tight gun control laws. Possibly the US might look to making those a priority, but the UK already has.
Cheers,
Ian
I'm not sure, but I think the guy going round shooting people at the moment has a gun.
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?
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?
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!
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)
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?"
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 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...
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?