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."
Summary:
Statewatch's analysis shows that there are "grave gaps in civil liberties protection":
- there are no grounds for refusing to execute a request on human rights grounds
- there are no limits as to what data can be exchanged where member states allow for the retention of data on all crimes, not just the 32 listed
- there is no reference to supervisory authorities on data protection
- there is no reference to the individual's right to correct, delete, block data nor compensation for misuse or for related judicial review
- no reference to controls on the copying of data
- no rules for checking on the admissibility of data searches
So, while it's nice that the ISP's showed some common sense and backbone, it's not really going to get them very far.
Is it just me or is the UK now the free nation America use to be. now they are the home of the free and land of.. well 1 out of 2 ain't bad.
-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
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 question is, WHY did they refuse?
Was it due to a principle, or was it due to the cost associated with the record keeping?
Sure, its easy enough to say "well done" and "finally some sense" - but do we really know what motivated them to say no to the voluntary retention of data?
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.
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?
Perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, the only publicly-owned media in the UK is the BBC. All other TV and radio stations, and all newspapers, are privately owned.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I don't know about these last attempts, but the RIP bill wanted 7 years. I'd love to see some nice juicy ads from ISPs with "We want to triple your Internet bill. Love, UK government." or something like it. Maybe that'll get the public opinion with them.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
US ISP's, in an attempt to match the actions of their UK counterparts, have anounced that they will only retain users records for 50 years insead of 100 and will ship their router logs only once a week to the NSA, instead of nightly.
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.
Kudos to all the UK ISPs who refused to obey this ridiculous government order...
I just hope all the ISPs will have the courage to do the same with their respective governments... But I seriously doubt it!
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
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.
I mean, the government gets whatever it wants, because it has all the power
I'm not so sure. There was talk a few months ago of the RIP Act being voided because of a new European law that had been passed.
Has anyone heard anything about this recently?
(-1 Hearsay, Suspicion and not a lot else)
"If being a geek means being passionate about something, then I pity those who aren't geeks." - Pike65
I think they should hire a better typist over there at the Guardian, I've never seen so many typos in one article in my life, to show just a few:
The investigations citedrefer
have been struggling to agree terms
No vember
to force internet prov-iders
I mean really! get a spell checker! And a grammar one too!
Blunkett has no time for libertairians. He is achieving everything the Tories can only dream of.
Remember, this is the man who is trying to remove the right to trial by jury. This is the man who is thinking of revealing a defendant's past convictions, which will bias the court even further against the unfortunate. This is the man who persecutes people crossing the channel with their car boots (trunks?) yet allows big corporations to get away with tax evation and theft on a colossal scale.
"New Labour - Same Old Tories"
David Blunkett has a habit of putting legislation into action that is far too heavy handed - think about his post-Sept 11 proposals, or his reaction to refugee housing. Thankfully most of it seems to get filtered out by due process.
He does seem to act a bit rashly, and seems to leap before he looks too often. I sometimes wonder if his presence is reverse-discrimination in action (he was blind from birth).
... and today's pet project has
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.
c oncessions citizen.
Not all the guns. The IRA still has a few, and the loyalist gangs have a load - oh, yes, and the Yardies tend to be well supplied, and the Tongs. But I guess you meant that the citizenry are not allowed to bear arms without a license, which is not routinely given.
However, I think that this is all but irrelevant in this case as (a) retention of ISP data records just isn't the sort of thing that popular revolutions are made of, and (b) as you say, most the of the people wouldn't even care (yes, sadly, the British population is just like the US population in this regard). You know the line "I've got nothing to hide, so why shouldn't they implant me with a v-chip?".
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
The only publicly owned media corporation is the BBC, which is paid for by television license subscription. It's not really owned by the government in the sense that you mean (ie, the government can't tell it what to broadcast, or not - though God knows they've tried time and again). The problem for the government is that the BBC carries more weight with the people that the government of the day ever will - so they have to watch their step. It carries more weight, because it broadcasts the soaps and reality TV shows that keep Joe Couch-Potato happy and fat.
And the rest of our media are owned by sundry groups - right-wing (mostly), left-wing (rarely), and a big chunk of it by Rupert Murdoch, who's an Australian/American/Chinese/whatever-gets-him-TV-
Anyway, to attempt to answer the question - will HMG just make the retention mandatory - I don't know. They've backed down before when it came to crapping over civil liberties (and at other times, they've just shit all over them). My guess is that there are a hell of a lot of people using ISPs in the UK right now, and there just ain't enough votes to be got by ramming this down the ISPs throats. On the other hand, never underestimate the power of the securocrats - the ridiculous mess that is the RIP Act was their handiwork.
David Blunkett did go on record as saying that there were some things that a governing party must not do, even if it could steamroller any opposition (the Labour party has a huge majority in Parliament). So, who knows - maybe they'll just decide that without the co-operation of the ISPs, it ain't a fight worth having.
Watch out for the low-flying pigs though.
--Ng
There is no chance of my ISP every doing this in the UK. They can't arrange for the cable box to be fixed. They can't get my bill right after 12 months of me telling them that I do in fact pay by direct debit and they shouldn't be charging me a levy. They can't even pick the phone up after 10^6 rings...
What chance do they have of recording all my web page visits and emails?
http://www.nthellworld.com/
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Note also
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
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.
Hmm, I wonder if that's cos he's blind?
Deleted
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.. :)
Clearly though the idea that Echelon can hoover up phone/emails and record/scan them is just so much hooey, as I always thought it was. Reassuring in a way.
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.
The government has power because we the people give it power. The governments gets things it wants and we don't want because we the people do not stop the government from getting what the government wants before it is too late. I am constantly amazed by how the majority groups with in Nations, Trade unions and Political organizations neglect to make use of their democratic rights to govern them selves and get rolled over by a small but determined minority that makes excellent use of its democratic rights. I have actually seen unpopular legislation passed in an unnamed national assembly just because half of the majorities MPs were stuck gossiping at the watercooler when the vote was called and being absent they could not stand up and be counted.
If we keep expecting to exercise our democratic right to influence government after bills we dont like have been passed because we were to lazy to show up to vote or too brain-dead to speak up we will have a hard time ahead of us. It would be so much easyer if people opposed legislations that robs them of their rights BEFORE it is passed. Sort of like putting on the FLAK jacket BEFORE you get shot
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
I'm not sure it really matters. A lot of annoying behavior would come to an end if businesses just started behaving more rationally, taking long-term profits and considerations into account.
What's the big deal? Slashdot groupthink has been saying (correctly) for years now that standard network protocols like SMTP and HTTP are very easy to sniff, and if you want privacy you should use encryption. There are people (govt or otherwise) sniffing network traffic right now, all that the British minister has done is bring the issue into the open.
You should assume that whatever you send over your network link is publicly readable (if not always modifyable) and encrypt accordingly.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
It's like this in the USA, too. It's not just that during our 2000 presidental election it was obvious that G.W. Bush Jr. was a moron, it's _also_ that anybody that _really_ cared to learn what kind of executive he'd be could look at his record in Texas. Anybody that voted for Bush under the theory that he gave a shit about the environment or poor people (especially poor brown people) or anything, really, except large companies did so in total defiance of his record as governer.
In short, voters everywhere are 100% unable to correlate between past performance and future likely behavior. It's very odd, given that you'd think such an ability would be highly adaptive, but there you go.
I don't know how possible or feasible this idea is, but something needs to be done.
Freedom of speach is at stake. I'm not sure of the details, but wasn't there a court case or a precedent that says that if you are scared about the repurcussions of you accessing information, your right to free speach is being hindered? Well if logs are going to be kept for significant ammounts of time, and the govt or private companies are going to have access to it, i'd consider this to be of concern.
And in the US, those guns have stopped your government passing laws that threaten your freedoms, right?
Oh... wait
They refused retaining the logs beyond 15 months. I repeat.. beyond 15 months. and they cited cost as one of the major reasons. So why are we all discussing irrelevant things ?
The fact: They would keep the logs for 15 months. Beyond 15 months, it's not affordable to keep the logs, and hence they would not. Big Deal.
This guy would lack both the cover and the alienation required to snipe strangers if the US wasn't dominated by low-density suburban planning. The American obsession with the automobile has shattered the older urban communities and scattered people to the suburbs, which are no substitue for a healthy neighbourhood.
People in high-density/pedestrian-oriented urban areas would probably a)have a stronger bond with people in their vicinity, b)play a more active role in policing their neighbourhood, and c)notice a guy setting up down the block with an assault rifle.
This guy is sick, for sure. How did he get that way? Why doesn't every contry have a sniper killer? All I can say is: the conditions that created this individual aren't changing, so prepare for more. He won't be the last.
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
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
From the 1st Jan there will be a number of changes in the servers 'an ISP' is providing.
We will be increasing you subscription charge by 25%,
Your bandwidth will be limited to 26kbits.
We will be capping you email to 20mb a month and browsing to 2000 pages.
All this has been necessary to comply with recent government regulation introduced by David Blunket.
If you have any problems, you know how to vote next time around.
Have a nice day.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
The ISPs rejected it because of economic reasons not because of some high moral stance. Also HMG has had the power to track your internet usage and read (before you do) your emails for some time.
Also the difference between the US and UK media is two small enties known as the 'Constitution of the US of A' and the 'Offical Secrets Act'. The US Constitution gives the right of free speech to US citizens, it also prevents the US Gov from banning any kind of publication (ie can't tell the media what to say). It is slightly different in the UK as it doesn't have a written constitution, the Official Secrets Act allows the UK Gov to prevent the publication of certain information that may be adverse to UK National Security, an example of this is during the Falklands War when the UK Gov prevented the invasion of the Falklands from being reported for a number of days, this allowed UK forces to be readied without the Argentines knowing about it be watching the BBC.
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.
It is NOT the PEOPLE that have complained about this - it is ISPs - they are worried about being arrested for failing to log the smallest amount of data (even accidently) and, possible more importantly, they don't see why they should pay to do the governments work (of course WE actually end up paying as users).
The population of the UK are dullards, sad, boring people obsessed with entertainment and celebrity. They don't know or care who is in charge and a vast majority of them don't vote anyway (9% turnout in the last council elections round here).
They are too stupid to understand how law affects them and generally don't care anyway.
People go to work like zombies do the bare minimum to get a pay packet go home and plug themselves into the nearest drug supply (TV or booze usually).
They people of the isle are sheep - they do as they are told - innovation is dead - long live the service sector.
Nobody ever sees the "big picture" and the greatest threat to our nation is (apparently) paedophiles.
"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?"
Gun ownership is protected because what was true yesterday is not true today and what's true today isn't true tomorrow.
Violent crime is a symptom of a sick society.
Anyone that can't see that needs shooting!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
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.
Small addition/clarification: the BBC actually have 8 nationally-broadcast terrestrial channels - except 6 of them are only broadcast digitally. Furthermore, the BBC is at the head of a consortium, which includes BSkyB, that is about to start broadcasting 30 or so channels as free-to-view digital terrestrial.
Have you ever seen Talmud?
Considered harmful.
One problem, as others have remarked, is that most people don't know that this is happening, or forget quickly.
The current UK government is very good a raising stealth taxes (taxes that are easily forgotten). One of these is an air-flight tax. The budget airlines don't like these as they can be a significant %age of the total price; so they quote these separately - which ensures that everyone always remembers that they are being taxes.
The ISPs should do the same: itemise cost to provide service + cost to record all your traffic.
This 'in your face' mechanism may help get this obnoxious intrusion removed.
Does the post office record the address of every letter that you send ?
Visit Europe. Hell, visit New Orleans or Brooklyn. This guy could NOT operate the way he has been in those places.
If you still find my hypothesis hard to swallow, think about the locations has been using: parking lots, gas stations, convenience stores, bus stops in the middle of nowhere. What do these things have in common?
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
Generally you're right, although it's worth noting that both your examples are BBC ones.
Sky News is pretty good from the now and then that I catch it, as is Channel 4 news.
All the broadsheet newspapers generally provide more challenge to the government than the present Westminster opposition do - even The Guardian which is nominally a Labour-supporting paper.
It's actually quite interesting that the one policy theme that the current opposition could successfully pick up on as a basis for the next election is the Libertarian agenda, currently being touted by The Daily Telegraph (which has been the Conservative Party's candid friend for a long time).
However, the Conservative Party has far too many internal interests who are bound to social authoritarianism despite their economic liberalism to go for this. It would be a brave step for them to refocus the party and lose a large part of the existing (small) support in the hope of gaining a larger support elsewhere.
They've started to recognise this - that their authoritarianism makes the country view them as the 'nasty' party - but they'll have to move very carefully to make the move effectively.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
Let's all guess which country allows anyone to sell lists containing your name, age, sex, marital status, car, number of kids, address, home phone number, spending habits and much more besides. It seems like the US has a lot of catching up to do with the EU.
I have posted similar comment several times before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:
Ask Security Services in the US, UK or Indonesia (Bali), or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Meet you in the pub Monday (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - bull*.
SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from CNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in the UK when government checked for dirt on individuals of the Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom they arrogantly presume would have nothing to worry about, having her privacy invaded.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the LIES of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Don't believe me? Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. Even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. It is major Corporations illegally abusing and expand their brand using domain names - above other trademarks and all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Trademark and Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with the corrupt United Nations WIPO.org !
Personally, I'd like to see the responsibilities for security and for justice in the UK split up into different government ministries: the Home Office is institutionally incapable of balancing the two.
An easy misperception to make. Actually, the BBC is not owned by the government, and certainly isn't run by the government (although the government is a stakeholder which sets the broad regulatory (and funding) environment in which it operates, as is the case for all broadcasters).
The BBC is an independent, self-running organisation, controlled by a board of governers which has a license to collect a license fee from television owners to fund itself. It is not politically possible for the government of the day to direct the content of the BBC, although it may from time to time pass statutes which control all broadcasters (such as the act which prevented the broadcasting of the voices of leaders of defined terrorist organisations. This act didn't actually accomplish anything as the broadcasters simply dubbed the pictures with the voices of actors).
As the BBC is seen as broadcasting in the public interest, any move to bring its output under government direction would be seen by the population as the strongest movement possible towards a dictatorship.
It would be easier for the government to revoke/reallocate the license for a commercial operator than the BBC. And the government has done this before when in the 80s it invited the incumbent ITV companies to reapply for their own licenses, including the level of cash they were to pay for the priviledge.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
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)
To put my answer even shorter: the fact that human communication is used to plan terrorist attacks, does not mean we should fight human communication.
/any/ hijacked airplane or A-bomb.
We'd be trowing away civilization faster than can be done by
All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
What you say stands, just to clear up a couple of points
1) What about (channel) five?
2) The BBC have 2 analog stations (with opt-outs), and 4 digital (news24/parliment/[choice|cbeebies]/[four|cbbc]). Thats 96 hours a day.
3) There are 5 national bbc radio stations (1,2,3,4,5) on analog, and another 4 or 5 digital. There are 3 national analog independent stations (talk, classic, virgin), and a few on digital. There are more local and university radio stations then bbc local stations - although most come under about 5 big networks (GWR, Century, Galaxy etc)
4) The BBC is pretty independent, more so then the biased views of other stations which exist to futhur their own viewership and therefore profits, and the CEO's political stance.
But "quite possibly" has not previously been a valid excuse for reducing civil liberties. The article qute clearly stated that, in the ISP's opinion, the govenment had failed to make the case that they data they wanted held would help in the fight against terrorism.
If it would genuinely, provably, help in the fight against terrorism, I would be happy for this sort of thing to go through. But what is happening is that the government is finding things that, in their opinion, might help in the fight against something - social security fraud, for example - and trying to bring that in under the umbrella of the "war against terrorism". And that random extension of police powers on only a vague suspicion that it might help is somethign we must fight against.
As a Brit, I am cheering this report. I don'tr want to be blown up, nor do I want anybody else blown up. But the government has to make a good case that these records will give a better chance of catching terrorists to justify both the infringement of liberties and the costs to the ISPs (which I, the ISP's customer, will pay).
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Damn good point. Although anyone made home secretary seems to instantly shoot rightwards by about 50 feet. David Blunkett seemed half reasonable before his appointment.
My Journal
On staistic to bear in mind is that more children are killed with guns in bona-fide accidents (children thought it was a toy, didn't know it was loaded...) in the US than were killed with guns from all causes from accidents to police marksmen in the UK. (The Economist, a few months ago).
Of course there is a *4 in population to account for here, but it is still a heck of a lot of accidents
So regardless of the rights and wrong, the morality or immorality, the criminals or the innocent hobbyists, the Constitution and all, the US is paying for its freedom with its childrens lives.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
hmmm...
He had some very right wing teaching policies when he was education secutry. Reading hours and very set lesson structures.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
A rober armed with what looked like a shot-gun attempted to steal 100 bars of chocolate from a petrol station. When the attendant resisted the robber was heard to mumble, 'fuck, i'm to stoned to even bother'.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
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?
In fact, that's what I am referring to. :)
There is an entire body of laws in Judaic
tradition that deals with such variety
of cases that is comparable to those
laws you decry. Life is not as simple as
"do not steal". For one, people can't agree
on what stealing means and whether it includes
trading mp3s
Considered harmful.
"Traditional communications did not include the same reasonable expectations of privacy that we have today."
What do you consider traditional? In the UK you needed (The RIP act made that past tense, hence why I will never vote for whichever party Jack Straw is in) to have a court order to be allowed to read somebodys mail or to tap their telephone.
The reason that ISPs don't want to help the police in monitoring the activities of their users is that they know illegal activity is an attractive part of the Internet.
AOL already does this. Their entire UK operation is run out of the USA. They use this neat little trick to avoid paying sales tax on their subscriptions too.
Although that loop hole will be closed next June.
has also picked this up, with quite a few interesting links to add
I'm going over here and I don't know why!
Sorry Dustin - your logic is flawed. Also you seem unaware of the big picture of the corruption that has been going on - possibly because of propaganda by authorities and corporations.
e wt ldevaluationprocess;3CAF3A260000026F
.reg would do that. This is for the same reasons, primarily to advise people that the mark is legally registered and protected by law.
> Paranoid about trademarks?
No - I always said that I am pro-trademark - not wanting anybody to be conned by some fraudster passing themselves off as trademark holders.
> The corporations can object to use of their trademarks in trade. And when they try to do the same in areas not connected with trade and the little guy stands up to them, they get slapped by the courts. Your vocabulary and freedom of speech is not being limited by trademarks.
You are ill-informed - this is not the case on the Internet.
> As far as domains are concerned, are I haven't heard a case of www.[generic noun].com being adjudicated against the holder under pressure from a corporation with [generic noun] trademark (considering that you can't easily trademark a simple noun unless you're in an area of business not related to that noun, its not surprising...
You are wrong. Trademarks are given priority in Sunrise and UDRP - abridging your choice of words - surely a violation of the First Amendment. Virtually every word is trademarked - here is a list of a few domains taken by WIPO: video net, roller blade, best locks, nitro fuel, tonsil, north face, marketing mix, 0xygen, edentist, state-farm, new-gig, video direct, iphones, open mail, traditions, open view, unicode, southern company, pc gateway, ultra pure water, time keeper, click here, current, beauty co, sound-choice, e-auto-parts, eresolution, body and soul, talk about, esquire, office specialists, crew, praline, the total package, faith net, buy PC, home interiors, big dog, euro consult, music web, RANT...etc.
This does not include domains like JT.com taken by UN WIPO which could be used by any business or individual. Nor does it include any domains that have been bullied by corporate lawyers before they got to WIPO - nor any of the other 'so-called' arbitors.
> By way of explaination, you could probably trademark "Computer" for a restaurant but couldn't for a computer shop).
I am well versed in this subject and have used this "Computer" example myself. Quote:
A trademark cannot be for the same class as the word - for instance the word 'COMPUTER' can be used for selling socks and tights - but not computers.
UK trademark 1134604 - 'COMPUTER'
Proprietor: Dunlop Australia Limited
Class 25: Stockings, panti-hose; socks and tights, all for wear.
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?n
> Now a more original turn of phrase can be trademarked and only the trademark holder can state that it has a moral (and legal) right to an original phrase that it uses. I have no sympathy for people squatting on Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble and other original, non-generic phrases. But I'm open to comments and rebuttal.
The Coca-Cola to stop cybersquatter example is one that is used in corporate propaganda to give all big business unlawful priority in Sunrise and UDRP.
The solution to this problem has been ratified by honest lawyers. Trademark holders do not own the vast majority of domains - it is obvious that something is needed to highlight them - to replace the registered trademark symbol. A new protected TLD of
Hell yes, but a little thing happened last year in September that pushed civil liberties to the background for the "Free World".
Without civil liberties, you do not have a "Free World".
The British gov't has been fighting IRA terrorists for what, 60 or 70 years now? I recall seeing a BBC article about a year ago, which stated that all that extra surveillance inflicted on UK citizens has not prevented ONE SINGLE terrorist incident. None.
Monitoring ISPs sortof assumes that everyone who is up to no good has forgotten how to read, write, speak, dial a phone, ride a bus, etc. Maybe when a locator and thought monitor chip becomes mandatory, they'll actually catch a terrorist in advance of the event.
Or maybe they'll just catch a lot of grade schoolers shouting "I wish you were dead!" at each other.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I didn't mean to inconvenience *you* into having to watch your own kids.
Murphy was an optimist.
No, by "normally" I mean in dry conditions with decent visibility. (Sorry, I also put in a typo: where I wrote 40mph, I actually meant 30mph, the previous speed limit on the road in question.)
The road I'm thinking of is long and straight, you can see for probably 250m on a clear day, there is clear space for several metres on both sides of the road most of the way down, most of the time there's a fence at the side, and there are only a few access roads, which all have decent visibility. Where exactly was this child of yours going to come from?
Ah, yes, the school. The one place along the road where the above doesn't quite apply (though you can see much further to the side of the road there). Anyone who drives quickly past a school when there are kids around probably shouldn't be allowed on the road anyway, whatever the speed limit. This is not a good reason to turn more than a mile of 30mph road into 20mph with speed humps, mini roundabouts and such. (Incidentally, the mini roundabouts were marked up so badly they actually caused accidents, and had to be changed a few months after installation.) Of course, the fact that the route was sometimes used as a rat run by a small number of inconsiderate drivers is also ample grounds for penalising the rest of us.
This is just one example, in a city full of them (Cambridge). We have speed cameras all over the city now, on "accident black spots", in the interests of increasing "road safety". Curiously, accident figures just published are actually up around 50% this year, and as usual, the authorities are out claiming that speed is the major cause of accidents. Obviously, the absurd road layouts (the ends of bus lanes are great for silly traffic lights), the total disrespect for speed limits now exhibited by many drivers because so many limits are inappropriate, and the number of roundabouts they've redesigned recently making them much harder to drive around safely have nothing to do with it, though.
Hell, the government's own research group, the Transport Research Laboratory, has published reports debunking the "speed kills" myth and showing that speed is actually a major cause of only a small number of accidents. The government chose to ignore the recommendations of that, and many other, informed reports, in favour of politically correct (or so they think) measures such as blocking off access through the town centre. Now it takes me half an hour, adding to congestion on main routes, to get to the gym after work. Before, I could have driven along a direct route, completely out of the way, in five minutes. That's really aiding the environment, congestion in the second most congested city in the UK, etc, isn't it?
The sort of blind adherence to dogma and complete cynicism with which they act on it are exactly the reasons government shouldn't be able to restrict our freedoms in this sort of way. The alternative, trusting the population at large to be sensible and going after those actually causing real problems, seems to be beyond them.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
You are all missing the point. The argument I've presented is exactly that proposed by governments around the world, case in point: Canadian Government's Lawful Access Consultation Document.
That being said, the fact is, whether or not you choose to believe it, that criminals, terrorists, etc etc are using new technologies to communicate and legislation for the new techologies tends to lag behind that for existing and well established technologies such as POTS. Governents know this, and legislation such as CALEA seek to bridge that gap. What we need to be vigilant about is to ensure that mistakes made in existing legislation are not propagated for the new.
We must ensure that civil liberties and human rights are maintained while allowing law enforcement to protect the rights of the people. Retaining logs at the ISP level does not equate with disclosing logs to law enforcement agencies. I don't know what legal hoops LEAs in the UK must jump through to arrange disclosure, but there are legal tests that must take place and judicial involvement to ensure that the rights of the "person of interest" are maintained.
Those of you modding my original comment down, or refusing to mod it up because you don't like what I said despite it being informative (it is, if you don't think that is the stance that government is taking and their publicly stated perspective, then you are fooling yourself), you should check your assumptions and think very hard on whether you are capable of thinking objectively. Information which is distasteful to you can be just as valid and informative as that which coincides with your world view. Think outside the box, try devil's advocacy some time, you might find it opens your mind so you are actually thinking, not just regurgitating what you've been taught.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Okay, I know this is a troll, and you shouldn't feed trolls because they grow...
But the reason that America is the country it is today is that "we" (obviously I was not living at the time) fought back (with guns and other weapons of destruction) against oppression.
The constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms partly so that we can overthrow the government. The idea is that if the government rests uneasy they will spend more time considering the repercussions of their actions.
The down side (and there always is one) is that the American government has a two-forked plan to keep us under control. First, take away our guns, especially those useful for harming the government. This (and not crime) is the real reason they are taking away our assault rifles, and high-powered rifles with clips which hold more than five rounds. I do agree that only a lousy hunter needs more than five rounds in his rifle, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to have a 15 round magazine on my .30-06. Any asshole with a little manufacturing skill can make one, after all, and they ARE out there and available, so people who want to use them for ill can get them. It is somewhat more difficult what with "gun control" in this country but by no means impossible. Anything less than impossible is just jerking off.
Threat of armed revolt has been known to keep governments working more or less in the interest of the people in the past. Armed revolt has been known to replace tyrannical governments with ones which work more in the interest of the people, as well.
So tell me again how screwed up the world view of an American who believes that guns can help secure rights is, and I will continue to think you are a pompous buffoon who wouldn't understand freedom if it was sitting on your face.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No, we still have trial by jury and we still currently have double-jeopardy protection. Blunkett seems to shove lots of extreme bills at parliment in the hope of getting some of the measures through in a toned down form...
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.
Actually quite a bit of the problem appears to be that law enforcement has itself been so interested in using new technologies for intercepting communications that "old-fashioned" detective work has taken something of a back seat. Simply trawling through emails and phone calls stands very little chance of catching terrorists or mobsters. Especially if there is no one in the agency concerned who understands the language or dialect the people involved use.
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".
How would having new laws ensured that the FBI had people who understood Arabic languages? How would such laws have made sure that the FAA and NORAD jad followed their published procedures? How would they have ensured that the US had an air defence system which actually worked? How about stopping someone in WTC announcing "things are pefectly safe, go back to your offices"? Would these laws have persuaded someone that having a fire drill in The Pentagon would be a good idea?
The new technologies make it very difficult to allow agencies to develop the suspicion further surveilance requires as an antecedant. Traditional communications did not include the same reasonable expectations of privacy that we have today. A phone call always required you to be tied to a handset on the wall, with the possibility of being overheard.
The idea of being able to communicate without third parties knowing what is being communicated or even if any communication is taking place at all date back to prehistory. Covert communication is quite probably started soon after humans invented the concept of language.
Increased surveillance on citizens does *not* prevent terrorism by people determined enough to do it kamikaze-style.
Indeed it may make things easier for actual terrorists and criminals. Since mass surveillance has an utterly awful signal to noise ratio. Assuming that it will actually be used for law enforcement, rather than blackmail or espionage. There is also a big risk of the information gathered getting in to the hands of criminals, either because they have spys within the data gathering organisation or even be the people running it.
Monitoring ISPs sortof assumes that everyone who is up to no good has forgotten how to read, write, speak, dial a phone, ride a bus, etc. Maybe when a locator and thought monitor chip becomes mandatory, they'll actually catch a terrorist in advance of the event
Such technology would come with the ability to hide and fake such signals. Otherwise every criminal would simply use their black market "cop detector", to be sure that no police were around and their gang had not been infiltrated.
Or maybe they'll just catch a lot of grade schoolers shouting "I wish you were dead!" at each other.
That's the problem with mass surveillance, so much noise that the real "baddies" probably don't have to try hiding too much.
Were fighting to perserve the status quo of government they feel threatened (remember here in america revolutionaries were TERRORISTS they dont want that repeated)
The definition of "terrorist", "freedom fighter" or "revolutionary" tends to subjectivly depend on if the writer/speaker supports or opposes the position represented. From a historical perspective if they succed or fail.
The only way threy could have slowed down something like 9/11 would have been a nice heavy steel door to the cockpit that stays locked perferably with armed personel inside a lot of them are old air force jocks.
Having fighters scrambled immediatly the jets went off course would have helped too, which is the usual procedure in most parts of the world, including the US. Whilst suicide terrorists might be perfectly prepared to die (if they complete their mission) they could easily change their minds if it were given a choice between being dead & having failed and alive & in custody.
It is not politically possible for the government of the day to direct the content of the BBC
Other than appointing Party donors to all the top jobs, you mean? Which is exactly what they've done. I don't know if you caught any of the coverage of the recent Labour Party conference, but it was impossible to tell where the spin doctors stopped and the BBC began.
The reason that ISPs don't want to help the police in monitoring the activities of their users is that they know illegal activity is an attractive part of the Internet.
Well, maybe not illegal, but stuff you wouldn't necessarily want the public (and hence your family and friends) to know that you did, like looking at pr0n and gambling. Demand from paying pr0n customers is why we have cheap, ubiquitous bandwidth like ADSL available now. If those users go away, it'll make the dot.com implosion look like a picnic.
You're right about the hide-and-go-fake problem ... in fact, I foresee a thriving new market for tinfoil hats!!
:)
As to the noise level issue, it becomes clear that everyone with six rowdy kids MUST be a suspect. Otherwise why would they put up with six rowdy kids??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?