Slashdot Mirror


Endorse EDRI's Statement Against Data Retention

Ville Oksanen writes "Privacy International (PI) and European Digital Rights (EDRI) have published their joint answer to the consultation on mandatory data retention. The European Commission asked for public comments on a proposed retention regime across Europe between 12 and 36 months for all traffic data generated by using fixed and mobile telephony and Internet. As Statewatch puts it: 'This is a proposal so intrusive that Ashcroft, Ridge and company can only dream about it, exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act.' EDRI and PI are currently collecting endorsements from organizations and companies for their stamement here. This is unfortunately not enough to stop the process - expecially more should be done in the member states, which ultimately decide the fate of the proposal. So contact your local politicians today!"

186 comments

  1. So much for the internet liberating people by LucidBeast · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The ability to record our movements, intrests, communications will in the future make it possible to really control the population from itself.

  2. "exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by l3v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No surprise here. Seeing hoow privacy issues are sought to be handled in the US and how more and more of US (mal)practices come over to us (i.e. Europe) every day, there's nothing to be surprised at.

    What we need to do is hold our ground and not let these things happen. Same holds for software patents and the like.

    Freedom also means you are free to stand up and defend your rights. What we don't defend today may be lost tomorrow. And yes, that's too late. It's always easier [revent than to abolish later.

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    1. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Moridineas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm glad you somehow managed to blame the US for this.

      Hell, nazism, fascism, dictatorships--did america cause them too?

      It's just complete nonsense to pretend that Europe (as if there was a European standard) has a perfect and completely enviable record of privacy, rights, etc. Britain for instance has more cameras per capita than any other country i believe? Germany and France both outlaw large degrees of expression, as well as historical collection (one e.g. -- nazi peraphanelia).

      The U.S. is by no means perfect, but just calm down before you go rabid anti-US.

    2. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 3, Informative
      Freedom also means you are free to stand up and defend your rights.

      Unfortunately, not doing what the US wants you to do usually ends in a diplomatic riot or trade war. That is, if you're lucky. If you're unlucky the US will draft up some bullshit law ( The "The Hague Invasion Act", anyone? ) and "liberate" you from your vile and evil goverment that opposes your freedom*.

      The US goverment is filled with self-righteous morons who are full of themselves. They WILL try to screw over ANY country by any means possible, that doesn't do exactly what the US goverment wants them to do. That said, the bad name of the US is not set in stone. The people of the US hopefully can and will change this, somehow...

      * == Freedom as defined by Bush 'n co

    3. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Triskele · · Score: 2, Informative

      You may not understand this but we over here are glad that Nazis are proscribed and Nazi paraphenalia is banned. That does NOT limit our freedom of expression anymore than you are not allowed to incite murder. I wish you yanks would understand that.

      --

      --
      USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

    4. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Jonathan+A+Frankiln · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      America was founded by disgruntled people sick and tired of being abused and spied on by European monarchs and tyrants. While the American tradition of rights and privacy continued, Europe's monarchies continued to abuse their citizens. When the monarchies fell, they were not replaced by democracy, but swiftly usurped by another generation of murderous despots: Mussolini, Napoleon, Hitler, Tito, Franco, and an innumerable variety of smaller royals, juntas, and antidemocratic goverments in practically every country you can name.

      Today, this fine European fascist tradition continues as an unelected European Union bureaucracy encroaches on individual freedoms all over the continent, stagnating and destroying Europe's economy with subsidies and entitlements (Hey, Americans whining about the Bush economy: Europe's unemployment is twice as bad!), and, as you can see, showing a complete disregard for citizens' privacy rights with a mendacity that American's libertarian tradition would never tolerate.

      So you should reconsider your claims, as history does not validate them.

    5. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, not doing what the US wants you to do usually ends in a diplomatic riot or trade war.

      Fortunately, trade war is something the EU is pretty good at. Europe won over steel, but I think the USA won the one about bananas...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    6. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comment illustrates the very attitude that is most dangerous. That thought rather than action is to blame. The USA considers a high level of data retention, the USA puplic disagrees, the idea, challanged, results in much less than was previously considered. EU proposes something posing a much greater threat to privacy and the comments author says it is because of the USA. Yes, it's the thought that counts!

    7. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Jonathan+A+Frankiln · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I am sure that the Iraqis who Mr. Hussein murdered and tortured, and their families, and the children made orphans by his wanton destrcution, the non-Muslims that the Taliban forced to wear yellow stars a la Nazi Germany, the women raped and murdered for exposing their face in pubilc or for a crime their brother allegedly committed, the Buddhists who witnessed millenia old statues razed to the ground by Muslim fanatics, and the millions of people whose souls were oppressed and and whose mouths were sown shut by edict, whose bodies were disfigured for life, would be glad to see that you, comfortable affuent man sitting in a pillowed computer chair, think that what happened to them wasn't "vile and evil," and that the word "liberate" should be put in sarcastic quotes because it doesn't apply here.

      Tell me again why America should care what you think?

    8. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you should reconsider your claims, as history does not validate them.
      Well, the US doesn't have much of a history,how many years has it been around, 300 or something :-) .
      Your war mongering president will fix your hiistory for you, I'm sure.

    9. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One other thing. Europe is _not_ one country and has never been. So don't compare the US to Europe, they are not at all comparable, comprende?

    10. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      You're right--it is quite hard for us to understand. What is perhaps most difficult for us to understand is how many Europeans on slashdot can insult the US for things like the Patriot act (giving up a little freedom for security? DASTARDLY!) when the exact same thing is happening in Europe.

      And what does your sig mean? "US Freedom of Speech - it's their only freedom and they'll make the goddamm most of it!" For one thing that's simply not true (and I'd love to argue the point with you if you're interested) and secondly, what is it in your psyche that makes you feel the need to advertise with some petty attack on America?

    11. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're going to have to explain to me how owning a Nazi flag or a German WW2 helmet has anything to do with inciting murder.

      Now, I could understand a law against pro-Nazi demonstrations that specifically encouraged people to kill Jews (which WOULD be inciting murder), but banning the possession or sale of anything related to Nazis goes far beyond that. Hitler isn't going to rise from the dead and turn all your children into Neo-Nazis just because a few people collect war memorabilia.

    12. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well lets just start by deconstructing the lie that Afghanistan and Iraq have anything to do with one another, because they do not. No matter how often Bush repeats the lie that Iraq was harboring terrorists just like Afghanistan it will not make it true.

      So now we're actually dealing with two seperate wars, lets be clear. The whole world supported the US in their action against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The US had excelent reasons for invading Afghanistan and liberating the Afghan people. The whole world knew this and we supported the US and where we couldn't support the US directly we wished you the best of luck. Even neighbouring Muslim countries such as Pakistan helped to directly support the US in Afghanistan. No one but a handful of complete whackjobs have any problem with what the US did in Afghanistan.

      Iraq is a totally different matter. While it is true that Saddam was an evil bastard, and it is true that a minority of people in Iraq were abused and tortured, the majority were quite happy. Iraq had not attacked the US, had not helped to attack the US and was no threat to the US or it's allies beyond the limited capability that it was known to posses (And which was not a violation of any previous embargoes or treaties). What most people object too over Iraq is that Bush took all that good will and support from Afghanistan and tried to use it as an excuse to roll into Iraq, supporting his assertions with lies. Thats what rubs everyone up the wrong way over Iraq. If Bush had been honest and had simply said "I don't like Saddam, he's a bad person, I want to remove him using US troops." then I and millions of others would have had far more respect for the guy. Instead he wove a web of lies and squandered the goodwill and support of the world, for no good reason. After all if you accept that Saddam is an asshole who has a poor human rights record you also have to point the finger at Saudi with a "Your next" look in your eye, but Bush will never do that. It's just lies and hypocrisy; why should the world support the US for that?

    13. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      an unelected European Union bureaucracy

      Thats the European Commision. The European Parliment is directly elected using a proportional representation system.

      destroying Europe's economy with subsidies and entitlements

      I think you need to get your own house in order before you criticise the EU for subsidies. How much money does the US spend anually on subsidies for farmers, loggers, steel mills and other manufacturing businesses? The amount easily rivals the EU.

      Hey, Americans whining about the Bush economy: Europe's unemployment is twice as bad!

      Europe isn't a single country, so your statement is meaningless. Here in the UK our economy is doing much, much better than both the US and most other European countries.

    14. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Tell me again why America should care what you think?


      because otherwise some people end up parking planes in tall buildings or using poison gas in subways

    15. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm really tired of this type of answers. Whenever someone complains about the attempts by the actual american goverment to get the European (and other) goverments to restrict the rights of their citizens some moron from the USA tries to justify it with an argument about the past. Well, for your information history is no static, it changes, and the fact that one country has had two hundred odd years of democracy does not mean that it is going to be a democracy forever. Have you ever stop to think that because of our recent past we, europeans, cherish much more our democracies?

      Regarding you complain about the European structures, you are partially right albeit in a twisted way, some of them are not directly elected by the citizens (the European Parliament is) but they the elected by our goverments that are democratically elected. You know, it is very funny that you mention this since you do not directly elect your president either (electoral college anyone?) and he has way much power than any "European bureocracy".

      Oh! privacy... yes, you have a big deal of privacy over there... any bank, insurance company, landlor d, neighbourgh and his aunt know (or can easily get) much more information about you than yourself and on top of it, they can trade this information with whoever they please but god forbid that your goverment knows even your name! FYI privacy laws in Europe are much stronger that in the USA: no company can share or keep, after the comercial relation ends, your data without your previous explicit aproval. Moreover for goverments agencies to share your data is extremely dificult due to this privacy laws. So allow me to laught at "privacy" in the good old USA.

      Finally, it is true that the unployement in Europe is higher than in the states but the situation is improving and our social security system helps those who have been unlucky to lost their jobs.

      "RANT OF"

    16. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the author of the parent post

      Just wanted to clarify that by no means I think that Europe has perfect or better democracy than USA. Both blocks have strenghts and weaknesses and we both should try to copy the best things the other has. But boy, I get over the top when some uninformed guy thinks that his democracy is the only true democracy in the globe and the rest are just wannabes.

    17. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your name really 'Frankiln'? Bwahahaha. Funny Usians.

    18. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by the_leander · · Score: 1

      Tbh I expected better of the EU (One of my biggest mistakes that I continually make is that I overestimate peoples capacity for good) I, like many others in Britain looked on with horror at some of the legislation the US had passed through, what many of us didn't see at the time however was that our elected representatives also looked at these policies, and started to recreate them!

      The EU parliment and the Council... its a bit like Iran only on a continent scale... You've got our representatives doing what they can to pass laws, only for the Council to slap it down, sometimes the council are right, but many many more times they are dead wrong.

      The one thing I'd change about the council would be that they themselves cannot create laws outside of the EU parliment, that they may be able to moderate and send back (As is the case with the House of Lords in the UK afaik) but not in of themselves create wholly new law.

      As of this week I'll be looking for a means of creating a permanantly encrypted connection to a proxy server, they want to know where I go, then they can work for my information!

      --
      regards, the_leander
    19. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea what you're talking about. Collecting nazi-related crap most certainly is allowed here in northern europe.

    20. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by miu · · Score: 1
      You may not understand this but we over here are glad that Nazis are proscribed and Nazi paraphernalia is banned.

      Collecting Nazi paraphernalia is not an overt act. I can think that Joe Dickhead is a jerk and wish he was dead - I can even share my opinion with others, it only becomes illegal if I act on that wish or incite others to act on that wish.

      Prohibiting the collection of Nazi paraphernalia is an ostrich policy, the sentiments and tactics of the Nazi party are alive and well in Europe - avowed racists are regularly elected in Europe (and not just the east), sometimes on an anti-immigrant platform and sometimes with a wink and a nod with a declared "return to old values" platform.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    21. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Things got a little pissy in europe in the 1940s. Most reasonable people could care less whether someone is allowed to own a Nazi flag or not... it's that a nation might go too far in banning such things. The Nazis sort of proved they had no right to exist, but if the government doesn't like you, all they have to do is claim you're some covert neonazi group, and pretty soon all the same prohibitions apply to your group.

      Even here in the US, nazis are only protected in principle, not because the fuckhats deserve to be protected.

    22. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1


      Yes, because we all know how effective bans on Nazi paraphenalia have been at getting rid of the ideas.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    23. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firstly, I'd like to say that I'm proud of my fellow Americans standing up for themselves and there governtment. It is a matter of pride in ones country that they are willing to give replies to these kinds of conversations. I'll grant that sometimes their, and my information is incorrect or askew but nobody anywhere has all the facts. Besides, they say history is written by the winners. As for this individual issue I don't agree with the governments actions... However the US government has its people, and its economic companies in mind. In a democracy the current government isn't always right. A democracy is a government by the people, and for the people. "People" however are inheriently flawed and make mistakes, but a good democracy fixes its mistakes. If you take such offense at this issue talk to your government, make a change stand up for your rights. If you don't you reap what you sow. Don't blame the USA for trying to advance its peoples prosperity, and security.

    24. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, are you really that naive? If you think only the US govt. is filled with "self-righteous morons who are full of themselves" then you need to get out more. As for the screw over any country, well that how the world works. When the US isn't cleaning up the mess from former European colonies.

    25. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by nusratt · · Score: 1

      agreed (from a US-er).
      btw, where are you?

    26. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by nusratt · · Score: 1

      I have similar concerns about the UK.
      Nonetheless, as a US-er, I'm unhappy about the degree to which US economic and military power is used to coerce other nations (and the EU) into propagating *our* excesses (e.g., PNRs).
      And how much longer do you think that Europe will be "allowed" to have more permissive file-sharing laws?

    27. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by nusratt · · Score: 1

      I don't agree that Nazi paraphernalia should banned, only *specifically* violence-inciting expression. (Check google for Nazi + Skokie).
      But I want to apologize for jingoistic ranting posts by some fellow US-ers.
      Please believe me, we're not all like that, and many of us are just as afraid of the US government as Europeans are.

      btw, where are you?

    28. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by joss · · Score: 1

      Whoever marked you as flamebait should get metamoderated, your parent was closer to flamebait.

      However, "liberate" still deserves its quotation marks. Ask the average Iraqi or Afghani if they see the US as liberators or invadors. It's not even ambiguous.

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    29. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Are you calling me jingoistic? :-p

      FWIW, I fear ALL governments. The mistake is made by mayn Europeans (as well as American academe which at its core wants to follow European intellectual trends) that ther only government worth fearing is the US government.

    30. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by the_leander · · Score: 1

      Am in the UK, home of several very boringly titled copies of US law such as the DMCA and Patriot act...

      I wish them luck unecripting my 4096Bit data packets...

      --
      regards, the_leander
    31. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Triskele · · Score: 1
      FWIW, I fear ALL governments. The mistake is made by mayn Europeans (as well as American academe which at its core wants to follow European intellectual trends) that ther only government worth fearing is the US government

      Who says we don't? I sure as hell don't like the Brit govt. But surely then the US as the only remaining superpower is thus the govt to be hated most! It meddles more in our affairs than ours do in yours... ;-)

      --

      --
      USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

    32. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Triskele · · Score: 1
      Hitler isn't going to rise from the dead and turn all your children into Neo-Nazis just because a few people collect war memorabilia.

      Trouble is that was exactly the fear in Europe through the 60s and 70s in particular. There were a lot of neo-nazi groups in Europe from Britain to Germany. And there were an awful lot of people of my parent's generation who did not want to see that rise again. This is even more acute for the occupied countries. If you've ever seen footage of these groups on the march waving their swastikas and dressed in nazi getup maybe you'll understand.

      The balance here is the right of everyone else not to be intimidated versus a few and their right to free expression of hate.

      --

      --
      USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

    33. Re:"exceeding even the U.S. Patriot Act" by Triskele · · Score: 1
      What is perhaps most difficult for us to understand is how many Europeans on slashdot can insult the US for things like the Patriot act (giving up a little freedom for security? DASTARDLY!) when the exact same thing is happening in Europe.

      I didn't insult the US over the Patriot act. But what does piss us off is when the US (often on behalf of its big corporations) uses its influence to get similar measures imposed over here. After all, the only reason we're getting biometric passports is because the US has given us until the end of this year to introduce them or it will not admit our citizens to your country! Not that we don't have politicos happy to have an excuse...

      And what does your sig mean? "US Freedom of Speech - it's their only freedom and they'll make the goddamm most of it!" For one thing that's simply not true (and I'd love to argue the point with you if you're interested) and secondly, what is it in your psyche that makes you feel the need to advertise with some petty attack on America?

      Ah, well that was a leftover from a previous debate with one of your compatriots over freedom of speech versus any other freedom with the belief that since we ban some things that are protected in the US we are not a free country. It does seem that this is your overriding freedom (and ISTR it is the only one enshrined in your constitution in the sense of "Congress may make no laws limiting" versus "You have the inalienable right"). Rights vs freedoms are not the same thing. And most of your other rights (particularly that to bear arms) seems mostly hot air - the crims and the govt will always be better armed and better trained than you.

      --

      --
      USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

  3. Re:Just curious... by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since /. is US centric, and this appears to be an EU matter, why would they give a rat's ass what most of us have to say on the matter?

    For the same reason european /. visitors give a rat's ass about US matters?

    In this case, the reason might be: The US government might get ideas of going the same way if this proposal gets through.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  4. Re:Just curious... by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh, rest assured, I'm sure that US.government already has these ideas. My guess is their either waiting for the election to be over, or for the next crisis to shoehorn it in.

  5. Who will store all that data? by dUb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If that will come to happen, I will invest my money to all storage companies. Who can store all records of web, email and instant messenger logs? Is it user who is responsible to store all data (including spam email)? Or is it ISP's and teleoperators?
    That will be huge amount of data!

    1. Re:Who will store all that data? by leonmergen · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think it will be the same as phone companies today - "it's your own problem... and if you don't manage to store it all, we'll fine you!"

      --
      - Leon Mergen
      http://www.solatis.com
    2. Re:Who will store all that data? by marcovje · · Score: 2, Funny


      Or on the constructors that are going to build that HUGE building for the thoughtpolice where they analyse it all.

      I think I'll rename myself to Winston Smith, and apply.

    3. Re:Who will store all that data? by Rattencremesuppe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm also surprised. Last time I checked, the discussion went about storage of all connection logs, which would already require a huge storage. But storing all traffic data seems virtually impossible to me.

      Is it user who is responsible to store all data (including spam email)? Or is it ISP's and teleoperators?

      Last time I checked, the ISPs would be responsible. Thats why their organizations (bitkom et al.) protested against the law proposal.

    4. Re:Who will store all that data? by Anders+Andersson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The consultation document itself uses the term "traffic data", but nowhere do I see an explicit indication that this refers to the contents of messages. Instead, they seem to be talking about retaining connection logs also after they have been used for billing purposes. As far as I know, operators don't generally retain message contents merely for billing.

    5. Re:Who will store all that data? by Rattencremesuppe · · Score: 1

      The consultation document itself uses the term "traffic data", but nowhere do I see an explicit indication that this refers to the contents of messages.

      This should be clarified. Gathering connection data vs. gathering "all traffic data" is a whole different story, both technically and ethically.

      Instead, they seem to be talking about retaining connection logs also after they have been used for billing purposes.

      That's an interesting point, too. Because sometimes, you don't even need connection logs for billing (consider "flatrate" connections, for example).

    6. Re:Who will store all that data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm also surprised. Last time I checked, the discussion went about storage of all connection logs, which would already require a huge storage. But storing all traffic data seems virtually impossible to me.

      10 years ago, you could store a megabyte for 1$. Today, you can store a gigabyte for 1$. Storing the connection logs for quite some time is already doable.

      In 10 years, you can store a terrabyte for 1$, and the costs of storing the connection logs will be trivial. Storing all voice traffic will be affordable, and storing all Internet traffic may be doable.

      In 20 years, you can store a petabyte for 1$. The cost of storing all voice traffic, globally, will be trivial. Storing all Internet data traffic will be doable; it may even be cheap.

      If we poo-poo the law proposals because it can't be done now, we will regret it when the laws become enforcable. It may take less than 10 years.

    7. Re:Who will store all that data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      unless the data will be stored to /dev/null.
      upon request, data for analysis can be taken from /dev/random

    8. Re:Who will store all that data? by retodd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who can store all records of web, email and instant messenger logs? Is it user who is responsible to store all data (including spam email)?

      In other news, Google officials have asked that ISP's and mobile phone companies not use their Gmail service to store their traffic data.

    9. Re:Who will store all that data? by value_added · · Score: 1

      "The consultation document itself uses the term "traffic data", but nowhere do I see an explicit indication that this refers to the contents of messages."

      Does it matter?

      Consider this: here in California, the local constabulatory spends most of its time driving around on the roads and freeways watching other people driving around (residents here spend most of their time in their cars).

      Enforcement of traffic laws (read "giving out tickets") is what they're ostensibly doing. What typically occurs if/when you're stopped, however, is that you and your passengers will be subjected to any number of checks, and you, your passengers, and the vehicle you're driving in can be additionally subjected to direct searches.

      The end result includes lots of tickets being issued, of course. More importantly, the cop who routinely spends his day stopping people just as routinely is given opportunities to arrest individuals for crimes not mentioned in the motor vehicle code.

      We've come to accept this as perfectly normal. And it may be, to the degree we chosen to give up certain rights when using public thoroughfares. But imagine if no one owned cars and everyone walked or worked from home -- the local cop walking the beat would have a hard time justifying knocking on your door to ask for ID and ask you questions about what you're doing.

    10. Re:Who will store all that data? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > The consultation document itself uses the term "traffic data", but nowhere do I see an explicit indication that this refers to the *contents* of messages.

      I couldn't figure out what the difference was, so I did what anyone does. I made the following HTTP request:

      http://www.google.com/search? hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=traffic+data+message+contents+dif ference&btnG=Google+Search

      And then I clicked on a URL, and a Referrer-ID: was generated client-side (because I forgot to block it) as part of the HTTP session initiation. It also looked something like this:

      http://www.google.com/search? hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=traffic+data+message+contents+dif ference&btnG=Google+Search

      So, umm, you were saying? :) If I were in charge, I'd certainly like to have that kind of access to what my subjects were doing. It'd be like having a window into their tiny little brains, 24/7. Criminals who write their own confessions, one URL at a time. Sweet!

    11. Re:Who will store all that data? by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      Let's predict.

      The powers will not store all our conversations because that would be too boring. Computers will attain creativeness. Then storage will be used to store synthesized ideas, which will be far more profound.

      People will become the manipulated. They may or may not believe they have free will any more. Their goals will be preplanned by artificial intelligence. People may have fascinating lifestyles but computers will leap farther and farther ahead.

      Surveillance is used to stop people from doing something undesirable. In the future, computers control the desires of people, perhaps not directly, just through subtle placements of goodies, distractions, situations, whatever. Like a train on tracks, people will not be able to really do anything undesirable even if they really really really want to.

      Most of the time, computers will present obvious solutions to problems in order to prophylactically prevent any conundrum a person could have. Even if someone wanted to go on a rampage, the computers would simply offer a path of least resistance to an artificial scenario where the emotions are vented. People wouldn't even know the difference between the real and the artificial.

      Anyone who wants to leave the control of computers behind will be able to. People will be relatively powerless to mean much.

      Computer versus computer then? But why? At the level computers will be, the effort required to get there will urge people to a direction opposite to computer wars.

      What is left are forces outside humanity. Someone else may speculate here.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    12. Re:Who will store all that data? by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      The simple answer to that is - I am storing it all, and unless you're storing it as well, you can't prove that this floppy disk doesn't have all my data...

  6. Re:Just curious... by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ah, I see it's still too early in the morning for me.. :-) Some wild misunderstanding going on there in my parent post. To give a more proper answer -- Slashdot is visited by heaps of europeans, so it could still be interesting for them (and Slashdot will with this article catch the attention of many europeans). I doubt they'll visit Slashdot looking for opinions though.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  7. Voters Rights by Un0r1g1nal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't it amazing how all this crap gets put through, even though most of the voters are against the proposal the politicians that are supposed to be our representatives in parliment just don't care and put it through anyway.

    They keep up this illusion that we are a 'free' country, living in a 'democracy' but things like this just show how bad things really are. Used to be they would snoop and we all know they did, but they pretended they didn't for sake of negative publicity. Now they (the government) are showing how little the voters views really count. They don't need to worry about what we want, they just swing the terrorism card and pretend its all for our good, Big brother 'looking after our best intrests.' How nice of them.

    --
    If at first you DON'T succeed, Skydiving is NOT for YOU!!
    1. Re:Voters Rights by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The voters, unfortunately, will support absolutely anything that's going to be used against terrorists and/or paedophiles. They are not concerned about the small detail that it'll be used against everyone else too...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:Voters Rights by KontinMonet · · Score: 2, Informative

      The European Commission is not elected. It is a body of (now since enlargement, I believe) of 25 good and highly trustworthy people (eg: Edith Cresson) who decide the laws of some 400+ million people. We don't get a say...

      --
      Did he inhale?
    3. Re:Voters Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect - the ones who know about this will not find someone who will *definitely* stop this project so will not vote or "waste" their vote. The ones who don't know will vote this in because there is nobody who is against this.

      The EU countries need a "none of the above" and if "none of the above" wins 50% of the vote, that is an immediate vote of no confidence in the entire system.

      If an individual EMP loses to "none of the above", then that person must be removed and a new person put in place and a reelection held.

      What happens when there is nobody left to vote for will be interesting....

    4. Re:Voters Rights by rikkus-x · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just wondering if anyone has useful arguments against monitoring, ID cards, etc. which I can give to people who say to me 'I have nothing to fear, because I haven't done anything wrong'?

      When I tell them that the government makes mistakes, that the government may change to one who they don't like (and now have huge amounts of data on them), that they may be falsely accused of things they haven't done, they just look at me as if I'm a conspiracy theorist.

      Rik

    5. Re:Voters Rights by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      So then you've all basically given up on the whole "freedom to elect your leaders thing"? No one with any say over there has told them to "piss off?" yet?

      This is an honest question. What little I know about the E.C. is that they are "good, honest, and true allies to the U.S."

    6. Re:Voters Rights by tymbow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Politicians don't give two shits anymore. They read very little that it put in front of them and just vote whatever way they are told (if they even bother to vote at all). It is often left to the "left wing loonies" to delve into the murky depths to find the truth and unfortunately the main stream media always paints them as liberal pot smoking hippies so the majority of the public wont listen to their views. They are not always right, but we need a balance of the extreme left and the extreme right to find the right middle ground. More and more it seems the extreme right scare tactics are winning sway and no one seems to care anymore. Everyone just happily signs their rights away and doesn't think once about what they are doing.

    7. Re:Voters Rights by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The Brussels government is dominated by the Commission, consisting of people appointed by the state governments, and the Parliament, which is directly elected.

      Since the state governments are elected, this isn't quite as undemocratic as it might seem. It's still not great, but nobody in power really wants Brussels to have a real democratic mandate - that would seriously undermine the states' independence, and would also lead to the few votes of places like Ireland or Greece being swamped by the huge populations of Germany or Britain.

      If Brussels gets any more powerful, there really will be a need for democratic reform - an elected Commission, and maybe a directly elected President. But right now, the state governments will not allow such a rival powerbase. Real power is still in Paris, Berlin and London, and they're not going to let go easily...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    8. Re:Voters Rights by Johnny+Hardcore · · Score: 1

      Isn't it amazing how all this crap gets put through, even though most of the voters are against the proposal the politicians that are supposed to be our representatives in parliment just don't care and put it through anyway.

      Sadly this case far too often. It's never the voters' rights that come first, it's the corporations and officials seeking to make big gains that come first.

      Have you ever seen a bill to increase the salaries in parliament pay get defeated? :)

    9. Re:Voters Rights by Dirk+van+der+Broek · · Score: 1

      Real power is still in Paris, Berlin and London, and they're not going to let go easily...

      Nor should they let go easily. The movement towards a stronger central government in the EU should be troubling to all EU citizens. I'm sure some American Libertarians could enlighten us as to the negative impacts of such a federalist system.

    10. Re:Voters Rights by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but starting now, everything that's more sensitive than a bug report (and even then, I sometimes wonder), I'm going to encrypt.

      Luckily Enigmail should shorten the time I'll have to spend educating friends and family on the intricacies of GPG...

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    11. Re:Voters Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EC is comprable to the US senate - it gives all the countries an equal voice so the smaller nations' opinions aren't completely drowned out by the larger, while the representation in the Parliment is scaled by population, similar to the US Congress.
      And since the Commissioners are appointed by elected govts of the member states, it's like saying you trust them to run your country, but not to represent the country in the EU. Which doesn't seem to add up...

    12. Re:Voters Rights by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      The Senate being elected is not like the EU Commission which is unelected. The members of the Commission get away with rampant corruption, sack whistleblowers and could (theoretically) keep the job for life. They are political appointees of the government at the time but they do not necessarily change when the government changes. They are not responsible to the electorate, only the small coterie of a cabinet.

      --
      Did he inhale?
    13. Re:Voters Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wondering if anyone has useful arguments against monitoring, ID cards, etc. which I can give to people who say to me 'I have nothing to fear, because I haven't done anything wrong'?

      Spy on them and then make remarks about habits similar to theirs as if you didn't know about them.

      Like while watching porn: "lol what kind of an idiot does that with a left hand?".

    14. Re:Voters Rights by Chrax · · Score: 1

      Eh, just invite them to a screening of Brazil. Risking a spoiler, a major topic is the use of constant fear to spy on anyone, and nobody cares when a mistake's made.

    15. Re:Voters Rights by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ID cards: Do they want billions of pounds/dollars of taxpayers' money spent on a system (and in the UK, we'll be paying something like 70UKP individually for a card) when there is no clear reason for doing so (first it's terrorists - despite there being no explanation on how it will help - then next minute it's to stop immigrants from getting a job)?

      Do they want to have to carry a card everywhere, and face fines, or possibly being detained until they can prove who they are, if they happen to forget one day, despite the fact they haven't done anything else wrong? (Nevermind the hassles if you lose your card, or have it stolen).

      Do they want vast amounts of personal information stored on that card, which could be read by all sorts of people (the Government, foreign governments, random dubious people with appropriate equipment)?

  8. technology by noelo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't help wondering how they are going to implement this just from the related information point of view. Sure GSM traffic seems trackable via the standards IMSI/IMSE. But how are they going to relate internet traffic to an individual. The would also need to capture DHCP logs etc, etc. It might be easy to capture and store all the data but without something to pull it all together, its could be just a waste of hard disk space

    1. Re:technology by noselasd · · Score: 1

      Well, ISPs already have logs of who had wich address at a given time, so
      it should be possible.

    2. Re:technology by pfriedma · · Score: 1

      I can't help but wonder if we'll see an increase in the use of out-of-country proxies. Heh, would be kind of amusing to go over my logs and just see a bunch of connections to the same computer, but seeing as how said computer is not logged accordingly...

      --
      Mak'tal shree lok'tak mek'ta sa'tak Oz! - Daniel Jackson
  9. Possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is it even physically possible to store that much data?

    If I stop deleting stuff on my hard drive and archive everything i d/l, it would fill up in a month. Multiply that by 12 or 36 and then, am I supposed to buy a 12-36 harddrives with taxes?

    And that doesnt even begin to include all the voice traffic I'm responsible for and mountains of data I d/l via online gaming.

    I call bullshit, this is just some fascists wet dream.

    1. Re:Possible? by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      You don't have to read the consultion document: read the summary! It's logging traffic data, not all data. If done sensibly, it doesn't need to take much space.

  10. Better start keeping your own records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Better start to keep your own detailed records of everything.
    Log who visits what websites on your computer, every bank transfer you make keep careful notes, you may be required to prove everything you ever did.

  11. Old stuff, unfortunately by KontinMonet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Several years ago, I was up for an interview with a company in Holland who had already got a government (not EU) grant to start Internet snooping which they were intending to extend to SMS and eventually voice.

    And a lot of snooping already happens in the UK, plus we have more CCTV watching our every move than any other country in the world. This has, of course, dramatically reduced the amount of crime and petty crime we see and we must now be the most pleasant and safest country in the world in which to bring up children. It's getting so good, we will soon be emptying our prisons - which I predict will become quaint tourist destinations at which outsourced Asian tourists can wonder. We live in Arcadia!

    Oh joy, oh joy that we should have more snooping to make our lives so much better! We should do away with envelopes or sealed packages and ban curtains or blinds and have web cams in every room (discreetly pointed away from the toilet perhaps).

    We could, at last, realise the communist utopia of living like a termite colony. And look how efficient they are! The future beckons comrades, embrace, embrace!!

    --
    Did he inhale?
    1. Re:Old stuff, unfortunately by not_a_product_id · · Score: 2, Funny
      "pointed away from the toilet perhaps"

      Aha! So you do have something to hide!

      --

      ---
      We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience

    2. Re:Old stuff, unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Aha! So you do have something to hide!

      Yeah, my guilty pleasure is fishing for Brown Trout in peaceful solitude. All the rivers and streams are monitored these days!

    3. Re:Old stuff, unfortunately by johannesg · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, which Dutch company was that?

    4. Re:Old stuff, unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thankfully the descriptive url of that image saved me from actually clicking on it.

    5. Re:Old stuff, unfortunately by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      Can't remember exactly, it was a set of initials that meant something, they were based in Rotterdam and did not have a Web site (make of that what you will...).

      --
      Did he inhale?
    6. Re:Old stuff, unfortunately by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      Yeah, my 13-year-old daughter. Absolutely nobody has any right whatsoever to watch her on the crapper or in the shower. Before that legislation passes, they'd better redefine pedophile.

      They'd better also figure out a way to distinguish between actual footage of any given room and a photo of the room taken from alongside the camera and then hung in front of it...

  12. Who does something about it? by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm reading a lot of "We can't let that happen" on message boards when it comes to such things. As a non-American anti-Bush propagandist (yes, I like to be a shitdisturber ;)) I often rant and rage about the current state of the US. But now that the same stupid ideas hit my own continent I'm at a loss what about to do. What CAN we do? I'm really not the pessimistic type most of the time when it comes to personal stuff. But when it involves the gathering of the people I'm pessimistic like hell. Because I know that we almost can't change anything about this stuff. Let's be honest most of us try to survive. Not in the old fashioned "hunt for food" way but in a modern society where it's not only our body that must survive but our mind as well. Most of us try to stay the heck out of things that could get us in trouble (understandably). And most of us try to not concern ourselves with things we deem not so important. And this is "not so important" for a lot of people because "I'm not a criminal so why should this make me nervous". So my question to the /. community, which is a certain elite and not a gathering of your average Joe, what can we from a realistic point of view do? Is there a way to get your average Joe to actually write his political representative?

    1. Re:Who does something about it? by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      You could try this EuroParl or write to your MEP (if they bother to attend). I've found the Greens are the most responsive by far. But writing to your MEP is moot as the EU Commission is appointed and generally snootily ignores the EU Parliament. Witness the software patent recommendations from the EU Parliament. The Irish (as the rotating presidency at the time) just threw it all away! The Commission utterly ignored any representation with which they (or at least the biggest spending lobbyists) did not agree.

      --
      Did he inhale?
    2. Re:Who does something about it? by Rattencremesuppe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IMO, this law proposal will fail for simple economic reasons. If they really want it mandatory to store ALL traffic data, that would make internet infrastructure more expensive by several orders of magnitude. If business depends heavily on internet infrastructure, and it's several orders of magnitude cheaper elsewhere, business might go there instead.

      People will not be upset for being snooped on, but for having to pay too much.

    3. Re:Who does something about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We can finally start the revolution. Not a communist/socialist one or anything, it's time for a DEMOCRATIC revolution.

    4. Re:Who does something about it? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Ask me to invite you to metanet, and when you get there, start inviting people yourself.

      Or you can fight the good political fight, and they'll even toss you a token victory once or twice a decade, while passing more extreme versions of the law after you let down your guard. Up to you.

  13. Number of the least. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The ability to record our movements, intrests, communications will in the future make it possible to really control the population from itself."

    That's what the chip in the foreheads for.

  14. Turns Out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    America needs this also because of the communications that led up to 9/11. Just like we went after Iraq as a result of 9/11, we need to monitor all communications as well.

    1. Re:Turns Out... by afd8856 · · Score: 3, Informative

      And he only missed by 20 years...

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
  15. Re:Just curious... by bork.cc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just the small fact that the Internet doesn't know borders. Send mail to a European server? Buy something from a Europe over the Net? Your messages and transactions get stored. IIRC European ISPs are vehemently against this, for obvious reasons, and law enforcement isn't thrilled either. It's populist scaremongering politicians who are behind this crap.

    --
    bork.cc domain for sale. Offers to bork|at|bork.cc
  16. Concentrate on the next election... by thrill12 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...in the European country of your choice, too.
    The main driving force behind these kind of proposals are mainly the center and right of the political spectrum. Just as Bolkenstein (former comissioner and right wing liberal(dutch 'VVD')) introduced the dreaded software patents, so will other right winged.

    The amount of energy put into the actions to counteract the european legislators (just like the action against software patents) is huge, but in the end things usually pay off only half, or not at all.
    By using your right to choose and elect, and choosing based upon the decisions made by those politicians (pro- or con- the issues you are for/against) you can deal with this thing preemptively.
    In the meantime, try to live with the harsh reality but never forget who put this in your lap.

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
    1. Re:Concentrate on the next election... by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      The EU Commission is not elected and ignores the EU Parliament. The only viable way is to get your country's government to agree with you and they then tell their commissioner (if they have any sense of duty, which is questionable). Shouldn't be too hard to get the majority of 25 wildly different governments to see sense... and opposing big spending lobbyists who generously oil a massively corrupt bureaucracy should be child's play as well.

      --
      Did he inhale?
    2. Re:Concentrate on the next election... by cyberformer · · Score: 1

      It's generally the right that is more sold out to corporate interests. But in the UK, the only parties that voted against software patents were the smaller ones: the Greens (left) and the UK Independence Party (right).

      Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats all support software patents. (By European standards, I suppose all three are fairly right-wing.) Fortunately, elections to the European Parliament are fought under a proportional system, so votes for Green or UKIP aren't wasted.

  17. Re:Just curious... by Incadenza · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since /. is US centric, and this appears to be an EU matter, why would they give a rat's ass what most of us have to say on the matter?

    Well, I thought the tag line was News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. Nothing about the US in there.

    Technology is trans-national. What happens in Taiwan will influence the prices of equipment in the US.
    The Internet and its legal framework are even more trans-national. When European sites store their visitors data, they will store US visitors too. When the US strengthens its anti-piracy rules, Australians take heed.
    Limiting /. to the US, what a silly idea.

  18. Re:Just curious... by Moridineas · · Score: 0, Troll

    snoooooooore, I bet you also think the draft is about to be reinstated and the fbi has a file on YOU.

  19. Re:Just curious... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Oh, I agree 100% that USians SHOULD be against this. I just doubt the EU government CARES whether we are or not.

  20. follow the money trail.... by 4nd3r5 · · Score: 1

    Who will benefit from this..

    Harddrive/(disk) vendors...

    --
    spelling is for people who doens't know better...
    1. Re:follow the money trail.... by pfriedma · · Score: 1

      Doubtful. Well, not much more than they do from acedemic institutions or corporate backups or god knows all the other mass-archiving stuff that goes on... besides, storing such information dosn't really take up *that* much HD space... also, seeing that the information does not need to be written perticularly fast, nor read fast, it's just as likely that optical media companies will get some money.

      --
      Mak'tal shree lok'tak mek'ta sa'tak Oz! - Daniel Jackson
  21. Re:Just curious... by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, I thought the tag line was News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. Nothing about the US in there.

    True, but MS has(had?) the tagline "Where do you want to go Today?" and they aren't a transportation company, so you generally can't go by a slogan.

    The FAQ,however, is a different matter entirely. That's where I got the carefully chosen wording I used in my question (obviously to no avail, given the mod down. Oh well.).

    Back on topic, though, I agree 100% that USians SHOULD be against this. What I have doubts about is whether the EU politicos care that we are, or even why they SHOULD.

  22. Woo hoo! by weave · · Score: 3, Funny

    Up to a 3 year retention on alt.binaries.* groups? Dudes, I am so moving to EU. Incompletes can bite my pale white ass.

    1. Re:Woo hoo! by WompPetrovski · · Score: 1

      Hi weave,

      I'm trying to contact you regarding a post you made located at:

      http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/03/01/19/223 92 59.shtml

      I can't find your email address, so I'm hoping you get this. I'd like to know about the VB scripts you wrote in order to help you in the situation described by your post.

      Regards,
      Jeremy Hurst

      jezza AT mbox DOT com DOT au

  23. Re:Just curious... by Triskele · · Score: 1
    Limiting /. to the US, what a silly idea.

    Yes, but they've done that when they introduced the "Politics" section. Note not the "US Politics" section. Once again the presumption is that only the US politics are worth talking about. Sadly given the way they throw their weight around they may be right. Can I have my vote please?

    --

    --
    USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

  24. I process this traffic data. by egork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh, Slashdot, and slashdotters... never read what is in the linked documents and you're just fine here :-)

    Now seriously, look what is in the proposal:

    Because of changes in technologies, business models and service offerings ... law enforcement authorities are concerned that some data may not always be stored by all electronic communications operators to the same extent as they were in
    recent years. These traffic data would hence not be available for these public authorities
    when needed.


    As a professional at CRM Data Warehouse I can only confirm that this data is being lawfully collected already and was collected since the long time. Where were EDRI looking at, all this time? ;-)

    The thing is Telcos do not have processing power and storage to store all the data they may not need at all, so they do not store anymore. That's what the proposal is about.

    This is my own opinion and not of my employer.

    1. Re:I process this traffic data. by Chrax · · Score: 1

      So looking at this pragmatically, how will this help anything but to raise prices of telcos? They're not going to increase their processing power at a higher rate than home PCs, so they'll be forced to buy the newest hardware in such quantities to make it a burden on the customers. As individual computers increase in power, so will the internet increase in bandwidth. The sheer number of users that were the cause of telcos ceasing to store logs will suddenly be immaterial if the law is passed?

  25. Sure we can complain by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    But given that David Blunkett is the Home Secretary at the moment, I doubt that the opposing reports, comments and complaints will even be read...

    1. Re:Sure we can complain by Handpaper · · Score: 1
      But given that David Blunkett is the Home Secretary at the moment, I doubt that the opposing reports, comments and complaints will even be read...

      ITYM 'felt'

    2. Re:Sure we can complain by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      No, I meant read, but it doesn't look like anyone else found it funny. Ah well.

  26. Hmz lets do the math by Bluelive · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gigabit university connection. 1Gbit/sec is 3 Petabytes per year of storage or about 20000 large harddrives. Right, yup, impossible.

  27. It's nothing new, just Right Wing pressure by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It may be cheaper for some bussinesses to build their own private networks instead of using public internet for traffic. The regulators can do nothing with private networks.

    Here in Europe, underground people are already building their own high speed comm links out of reach of government, at least in big cities. I suggest you should do the same in U.S.A.

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
  28. On the other hand, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the European Commission can't actually pass laws (directives). That would be the European Parliament, which is fully elected. And again, unless they concern pan-European bodies, most of those directives can only be implemented by the national governments of the EU member states. Unless you live in a dictatorship, those governments are elected too.

  29. Re:Just curious... by pfriedma · · Score: 1

    :: notes that there is currently a senate resolution to reinstate the draft :: although afaik it's been tabled for the moment pending modification http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:

    --
    Mak'tal shree lok'tak mek'ta sa'tak Oz! - Daniel Jackson
  30. Re:Just curious... by pfriedma · · Score: 1

    s/resolution/motion

    --
    Mak'tal shree lok'tak mek'ta sa'tak Oz! - Daniel Jackson
  31. and in ten years by RMH101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the bandwidth your average guy uses will be 100 times what it is today. you see my point?

    1. Re:and in ten years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You overestimated the bandwidth growth. The last mile may be 100 times faster, on average, than it is today. E.g. 5 mb/s instead of 50 kb/s (awfully many still use modem). But the backbone will not be 100 times fatter than today. I would expect 10 or 20, but not 100. And it is the backbone, the total, that counts as far as global snooping is concerned.

      The telco companies are not going to lay a lot of new fiber in the near future. They are just switching on the "black fiber" they already have, and eking out a little higher bitrate with new signalling technologies. Digging cable trenches takes time and involves local politics: it is expensive!

      The storage/bandwith ratio increases by a factor of 10 by your estimate, or 50 to 100 by mine. Which means my projection may be off by 5 years. That's not dramatical.

  32. Some home truths.... by GuyFawkes · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Facts are these...

    The UK government is not alone Europe in being really keen on such ideas for some years now.

    Not a few weeks, not six months, several years, long before world trade centre stuff, well before osama was front page news.

    Note well, anyone who thinks "government" = bush or blair or labour or democrat of whatever is doomed before they start, government in the UK is the many tens of thousands of unelected civil servants who remain in office year after year after year.

    These are the corporate pen-pushers trying to carve out a piece of personal power and influence that are really behind all these schemes, and the ballot box will NEVER touch these people.

    Not that the citizenry as a whole will ever unite on anything like this, forget it, it won't ever happen.

    It is also a straw man argument to claim that such aims are impossible as there just ain't enough disk space on the planet, bullshit, it can be done pretty easy.

    Spool all smtp and pop traffic, being text based it will compress real well anyway.

    Spool all nntp traffic, when data gets to 80 days out strip out everything except the headers.

    Spool all http traffic, you only need to keep the apache server logs on a per individual basis anyway, except where keyword matches allow you to elect to store the entire page.

    Doesn't matter if this adds 50% to the costs for an ISP, because it will be added to ALL providers it will be in effect a tax where the cost is passed down to the consumer.
    Google and others offering FREE gigabytes of storage will also make a very strong weapon in the armoury for these people claiming that it is quite possible and economical to do.

    Scott Nealy said many years ago that the idea of anonymity on the internet was no more than a fiction anyway, so get used to it, little has changed.

    OK, so back in the real world, and speaking as someone who was once described on the front pages of the business section of the (London) Times newpaper as an "Electronic Guerilla" and as a self proclaimed anarchist and libertarian, it is cloud cuckoo land to thing that some popular peoples movement is going to stop this happening.

    I will offer you a simple proof of why this is so.

    Take slashdot itself for an example, a techies website if ever there was one, all the slashdot owners have to do is move from http://www.slashdot.org/ to https://www.slashdot.org/ and lo and behold all those records on government computers for that bit of the internet now hold encrypted data.

    Chances of this ever happening?
    Zero.

    Ok, so it is futile to talk about motivating the masses to move to pgp / blowfish / whatever encrypted communications... it will never happen, 95% of users can't even decide whether running bonzi-buddy is a good idea or not, and just click yes anyway.

    No, if you really want to break a system you must push WITH the flow instead of against it, you efforts will then be far more effective if you try to steer it towards self destruction, than if you just stand in it's path and try to stop it, whete it will simply crush you.

    No, EVERYONE should come out and start harping on about moores law and data storage densities and pence per terabyte etc etc, and push for ALL data, and I mean ALL data, not just TCP/IP of today, but emerging data such as TCP/IP telephony when BT and ma bell switch from switched networks, I mean ALL television programming, and of course I mean ALL CCTV or indeed any other form of surveilance "footage", yes ALL data, should be stored, IN PERPETUITY, and IN COMPLETE STREAMS, not every tenth frame, and not just headers.

    I also want ALL vehicles to be tracked 24/7 via, GPS / GPRS, and ALL CITIZENS TOO.

    We need to push for EVERY LAST BYTE to be stored in perpetuity, and we need to push for this by stating (correctly) that ONLY a full data stream tells the whole story.

    Once people start to get behind this idea as a meme and take it on board we then need to push the photos

    --
    http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
    1. Re:Some home truths.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do not forget the value of disinformation. Miss-spell a name, change a birthdate, for USA, make an error in your SSN. Your mother should have hundreds of maiden names, make gratutious, meaningless comments such as, "yes, her monkey is friendly but saves his shit for making fertilizer rather than feeding it to the possums and so is causing great ecological impact more severe than requisite dog poo collection and wishes he could bring this gun to the debate and show us who's the real man"

      Oh, and tumble that MAC address!

    2. Re:Some home truths.... by Perky_Goth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're crazy. Are you telling me the rich and powerfull won't get a free card out? You seem to forget that it happens in 1984, noone controls the elite.
      The thing is, the powerfull can pretty much disregard the law and it's consequences as is, they could pretty much buy out censorship of their crimes for matters of national security or some bullshit.
      And how would you feel if every desire you have is analised for its conformance with society, feeling that anyone could pick on you for every fault, knowing that your deepest feelings would be scrutinezed (sp?) by anyone.
      That is not a society a human being can live on. We were made to have privacy, it is part of our sanity check. I understand what you are saying, but that is giving up on the human race's ability to adapt and evolve. It's not acceptable.

  33. Won't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My country ISP's and mobile phones operators already said they couldn't support the costs and being 2 or 3% of the pib, belive me they will stop this

  34. Retention means its on the Net already... by eWorks · · Score: 2, Informative

    Case in point, Robin Good writes "A yet to approved Senate bill would provide the ability to the US Government to basically put off limits all of the images coming off from research and monitoring satellites." http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2004/09/11/blin ded_skies_government_to_close.htm/

    "Nondisclosure of Certain Products of Commercial Satellite Operations," would exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), unclassified, commercial satellite pictures bought up by the government, as well as "any... other product that is derived from such data.

    In simple words: forget public access to satellite data you have been viewing.

    So if you want to watch the weather tracking of hurricanes, subscribe to SETI or do independent research using satellite images you may not need to worry about their retention longevity. They just might not make it on the air to begin with.

    1. Re:Retention means its on the Net already... by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      I've got a BUD (Big Ugly Dish - 9ft diameter) in my yard. Not currently hooked up, but it just needs a decent pole. It has C-band and Ku-band heads and receivers to match. There are literally thousands of these things all over the country. There's no way that someone isn't going to pick up any signal coming down out of the sky...

      OK, so it can be encrypted - but do the current crop of satellites have that capability onboard?? Can they be reprogrammed to support encryption?? How much of a hit can they afford to take in CPU power??

      Don't forget that "we" only have to get lucky once to get usable data - "they" have to be lucky all the time...

  35. Information overload by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, one could expect better from the old continent. We have the perfect example of Stasi, East Germany political police that was so effective in gathering information... that it has rendered itself totally ineffective. Stasi maintained an extensive network of informants and in 1980's simply everyone in the DDR was under some sort of surveillance (either himself or at least his neighbor or someone in the family already was a paid Stasi informer). In 1980's Stasi knew everything about everyone exept just one thing - they didn't know what they know. When the Berlin wall fell down, many Stasi secret files were opened - to much suprise, many of them were opened for the first time. The network was just too huge to control itself anymore. The information flow jammed all the available channels. Since everyone was under surveillance, it was almost as if there was no surveillance at all. I thought this will be a meaningful lessons for all the powers that be... but it took roughtly 15 years for European politicians to repeat the same mistake. Oh well.

    1. Re:Information overload by egork · · Score: 2, Funny

      Since everyone was under surveillance, it was almost as if there was no surveillance at all.

      Oh, come on. Now we have SQL. :-)

    2. Re:Information overload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Since everyone was under surveillance, it was almost as if there was no surveillance at all.

      That is total utter bullshit. While you are describing the situation somewhat correctly, your conclusion is totally off. Stasi was pretty damn good at supressing any opposition for decades. It was only when people went to the streets in mass, up to the point when some in the regime even considered using deadly force(!), that things fell apart for them. The point is not whether every file is opened, when every citizen knows there might be one that's just good enough...

    3. Re:Information overload by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The information flow jammed all the available channels. Since everyone was under surveillance, it was almost as if there was no surveillance at all. I thought this will be a meaningful lessons for all the powers that be... but it took roughtly 15 years for European politicians to repeat the same mistake.

      Of course they learned their lesson. Store it digitally, have a bunch of computers connect the dots. That way, you can run a huge surveilance operation with relatively few people on the job. The problem of huge paper archives was that it'd be a full-time job for half the people to control the other half.

      One might hope that they learned a few other lessons too, but I wouldn't take any bets on it. It is much the same as the US: "It is okay for us to do stasiesqe surveilance because we're the good guys". It is a slippery slope, and opposition is met with: "We're trying to fight terrorists/pedos/criminals/[enemy of the day], why do you oppose us?" I suspect initially many of those working for say Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc.etc. in the early stages were idealists, who thought they were doing good. Gathering all information, all power to them, because they were the ones most fit to wield it...

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  36. Ask them some questions by Quizo69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here are a few questions to ask them:

    1. Have you ever gone over the speed limit in a car? Do you want to be monitored 24/7 so if you do, the government can simply issue you a remote fine?

    2. Do you mind having government cameras in your home 24/7? How about in your bedroom, shower or toilet? After all, you have nothing to hide. Right? If you don't want cameras in your home, you must be conspiring against the government. Right?

    3. Why is it that it's ok to have citizens watched 24/7, yet you can't see the footage and for some reason, no politicians seem to be surveilled?

    4. Why shouldn't the insurance companies know about your entire medical, driving and social records, all the time, so they can dynamically adjust your risk status and increase payments as necessary?

    5. Why do you need a secret ballot to vote for your politicians?

    6. Shouldn't the politicians be doing your bidding, not ruling you?

    1. Re:Ask them some questions by Moridineas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. Have you ever gone over the speed limit in a car? Do you want to be monitored 24/7 so if you do, the government can simply issue you a remote fine?

      No, I don't want to be monitored, but..it WOULD be fair.

      2. Do you mind having government cameras in your home 24/7? How about in your bedroom, shower or toilet? After all, you have nothing to hide. Right? If you don't want cameras in your home, you must be conspiring against the government. Right?

      I don't see the connection between cameras in the house and a national ID card as an example. I guess it's a decent point, but a little alarmist sounding (conspiracy theorist like)

      3. Why is it that it's ok to have citizens watched 24/7, yet you can't see the footage and for some reason, no politicians seem to be surveilled?

      I don't like this argument either. Who would argue that it's not ok for the police to watch criminals? Likewise, if the police was watching you, would you want anyone to be able to download the video off the internet? I don't think so.. Likewise, politicians are probably the most recorded people around.

      4. Why shouldn't the insurance companies know about your entire medical, driving and social records, all the time, so they can dynamically adjust your risk status and increase payments as necessary?

      Would probably be more fair that way...

      5. Why do you need a secret ballot to vote for your politicians?

      That's a decent one.

      6. Shouldn't the politicians be doing your bidding, not ruling you?

      Hmm.. not sure about this one. I elect a politician to lead, not do my bidding. I don't really think that's the point of electing people to office.

    2. Re:Ask them some questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I don't like this argument either. Who would argue that it's not ok for the police to watch criminals? Likewise, if the police was watching you, would you want anyone to be able to download the video off the internet? I don't think so.. Likewise, politicians are probably the most recorded people around.

      It's fine for police to watch criminals. I'm not a criminal (last I checked), so why do they need to watch me? Besides, I'd much rather that everyone was able to access footage of my movements in a public place, so that any decision made by the police (or whoever) could be scrutinised by disinterested parties, than the current situation where the footage goes into this big black box that no one can reasonably vet...
      Shouldn't the politicians be doing your bidding, not ruling you?

      Hmm.. not sure about this one. I elect a politician to lead, not do my bidding. I don't really think that's the point of electing people to office.

      Sorry, but if you genuinely believe that, you've already lost. Politicians serve us, and are there to enact the will of the people. That's the whole point of a democracy. At least, in my opinion :-)
    3. Re:Ask them some questions by ratamacue · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I elect a politician to lead

      No, you elect a politican to initiate force on your behalf. Anything your "leader" will do and possibly could do will be accomplished through force, not voluntary association.

    4. Re:Ask them some questions by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I don't see the connection between cameras in the house and a national ID card as an example.

      Well it's an argument against monitoring, as the original post asked. Cameras in homes may be an extreme situation, but it's an argument against the "I have nothing to hide" argument, and shows that people do prefer having privacy. Despite being "conspiracy theorist like", I can't see why cameras in homes are a bad idea *if* one has adopted the stance of "No one needs privacy, I have nothing to hide blah blah".

      Would probably be more fair that way...

      That might be true on things like driving records, but supposing it was things like your lifestyle, or your DNA? There are all sorts of things insurance companies would love to discriminate against, even though you individually may not have a bad record.

      I elect a politician to lead, not do my bidding.

      I do both, and I don't elect politicians to have control over me.

    5. Re:Ask them some questions by Anders+Andersson · · Score: 1
      1. Have you ever gone over the speed limit in a car? Do you want to be monitored 24/7 so if you do, the government can simply issue you a remote fine?

      Good question, but it's a bad idea to enact legislation that can't be enforced without intrusive monitoring. As long as you catch a sufficient amount of violators to deter from future violations, it's fine. However, when detection of the violation depends on pure luck and people figure out they are likely to get away with it, you have to either change the law or increase monitoring to maintain some level of fairness.

      3. Why is it that it's ok to have citizens watched 24/7, yet you can't see the footage and for some reason, no politicians seem to be surveilled?

      When privacy of individuals is brought up, those who advocate surveillance cameras in public spaces usually claim that only a select few, trustable individuals will ever be able to watch the footage. I think that's a poor excuse. If the camera covers a public space, provide the footage to a video screen nearby, I'd say. They could even make live as well as archived footage available over the Internet, so that anybody can see exactly what they are monitoring. That would put the surveillance agencies at a disadvantage compared to any visiting tourist with a camcorder who may still take footage that only a select few, trustable individuals will ever be able to watch, but I think the tourists deserve that advantage.

      4. Why shouldn't the insurance companies know about your entire medical, driving and social records, all the time, so they can dynamically adjust your risk status and increase payments as necessary?

      That's actually a rather poor argument. If you know something specific about your medical condition or driving habits that your insurance company doesn't, and you use that knowledge to your advantage when negotiating an insurance, you aren't playing fair. The proper time to obtain a health insurance is before you are diagnosed with cancer, not after you learn about your condition but before you tell your insurance company. This doesn't really have a lot to do with monitoring.

      6. Shouldn't the politicians be doing your bidding, not ruling you?

      That's not an argument against surveillance. If those who favor increased surveillance vote for politicians who favor the same, they hardly feel that they are being "ruled". If a majority thinks that you should be ruled, the politicians are supposed to do the bidding of the majority and rule you, or they won't be reelected (in an ideal world, of course).

    6. Re:Ask them some questions by jnicholson · · Score: 1
      There are all sorts of things insurance companies would love to discriminate against, even though you individually may not have a bad record.
      The problem with this argument is that if you individually have a good record, it's in your interest to have the insurance company know that by excessive monitoring.

      I instinctively feel that that level of monitoring is wrong, but I think the original poster was looking for coherent arguments to convince the hoi polloi.

      --
      "Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
      -- Nick Davies
    7. Re:Ask them some questions by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      Likewise, politicians are probably the most recorded people around.

      So what was Senator Kennedy doing last night in the privacy of his own home? The problem with your statement is they're recorded when they know they're being recorded. If one of them drives off a bridge leaving a woman stranded in his car to drown, it's an unknown. Or if one of them is having an affair with a well known actress, we're not going to know.

      But if Joe AverageBlueCollarGuy does either while we're all monitored 24/7, not only are the police going to know, but anyone who watches the news probably will too.

      These politicians who suggest such things as having people's phone conversations recorded should have to eat their own dog food.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
  37. bite me, MAC addr tumbler 'on' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Commission is participating in a number of initiatives aiming at making communications networks like the Internet safer from criminal activity."

    Fuck the internet. I want my shit to be safe from criminal activity. Fucking house breaking theives. Fucking grocery store 'accidental' scanning errors which are always more $ than the shelf tag. Fucking securities traders making them selves and their buddies $100's million and only penalty is one of them volunteers for a year at club fed and a $1million fine and the others go free.

    Tell me, is this internet crap in EU aimed at reducing criminal activity or is it a fucking jobs program and diversion like it is here (USA).

    Ananova reports: 'today the internet police issued $EU6,000,000(SIX BILLION EURO) in bad attitude fines. This marks a reduction from the usual Monday figure and is attributed to the fact that most workers were on holiday today'
    the article then goes on to mention that govt security unions fear holiday declines such as this will impact their pension plans and are talking of holiday elimination strikes.

  38. Contacting Politicians by timmyf2371 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    So contact your local politicians today!

    I wrote a polite, finely worded letter to my local MP (Jim Murphy) in regards to the RIP bill a number of years ago before it was introduced within the UK - and I wasn't even given a response either explaining why the UK should go ahead with the RIP bill or discussing the points I made in further details.

    I do intend to write to him again regarding this, however I do not expect to receive a reply or any notification my letter has even been read.

    --

    Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    1. Re:Contacting Politicians by stupid_is · · Score: 1
      You could try emailing him - I did that to mine and got a politely worded "bugger off, I know what I'm doing" type email back. You can get his email quite easily using the tools at this site, and this site has a fair few good links if you dig deep enough.

      --
      -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
    2. Re:Contacting Politicians by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of our politicians in thrusting go-ahead 21st century Britain do not read emails. That's why we have FaxYourMp site which is marginally less ignored. You can always write to your MP but this too is often ignored. Finally, you can try to get to your MP's surgery and make your point personally. Usually, though, these are for local problems and a complicated discussion on software patents or GM food will not be entertained.

      My own MP, Oona King has studiously ignored every communication I have sent, not even an acknowledgement have I received. So I write to the relevant ministers or MPs known to have an interest (Tam Dalyell is good for technical stuff although he retires at the next election unfortunately).

      --
      Did he inhale?
    3. Re:Contacting Politicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used faxyourmp and send my concerns to my MP of the time, Nigel Griffiths. I received a very prompt and somewhat comprehensible reply within a few days. As a followup, I then received a (reasonably) well argued response from Charles Clarke, the minister responsible for implementation. Fair enough, it was mostly form letters, but not all MPs are completely deaf - I think you should take issue with them not replying whatsoever....

    4. Re:Contacting Politicians by stupid_is · · Score: 1
      Lazy buggers - guess I should have been surprised at getting a response then (2 technically, as the first response was from a secretary asking me to verify constituency, and the second one was his actual response)
      You would have thought that MP are supposed to actually listen to their constituents, wouldn't you? Maybe complain to Labour for them not listening (assuming someone there cares too!)

      --
      -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
    5. Re:Contacting Politicians by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      I have a dead horse you may want to beat.

    6. Re:Contacting Politicians by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      Hor do they react to recorded delivery??

    7. Re:Contacting Politicians by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1
      Can't say I've ever used recorded delivery to contact a politician. I've only had to contact my local MP on two occasions - once about the RIP issue in my original post, and secondly an issue about Family Tax Credit (that one was sent via e-mail). Both unfortunately received no response - automated nor "real".

      The only response I've received from a politician was in response to a letter sent to John Major (then Prime Minister) regarding the Dunblane incident in the mid-90s.

      This in mind, it may be worth sending letters either recorded delivery or similar, though it really shouldn't be an action I need to take when taking into account these are MPs who are meant to represent their local constituants.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    8. Re:Contacting Politicians by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      It was just a thought. It's been said here and elsewhere that US politicians generally respond better to written letters than to email, though that is beginning to change. The theory is that anyone can bang out email on the spur of the moment, but actually putting pen to paper supposedly means you've thought about the issue and care enough to waste a stamp on it. Registered post or recorded delivery ought to send the same message.

      Any issue I cared about, I'd just talk to my father. He was a County Councillor in East Sussex for many years, culminating in Chairman of the County Council for the full two years allowed, before retiring. As I recall, he made a point of seeing that every letter received a reply. I guess he wasn't as busy as an MP, though... :)

    9. Re:Contacting Politicians by jnicholson · · Score: 1

      In NZ it is (or at least used to be) free to write to your MP. I had thought that was a thing that came to us via English law, since that's the basis of our law.

      --
      "Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
      -- Nick Davies
  39. Re:Just curious... by Moridineas · · Score: 1

    Yes, the draft bill was created by Hollings, Rangel and Conyers (you might remember Hollings from such awesome bills as the SSSCA), 3 democratic senators, purely as a FUD manuever. That's all it is--FUD.

  40. What traffic data, and why? by Anders+Andersson · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This should be clarified. Gathering connection data vs. gathering "all traffic data" is a whole different story, both technically and ethically.

    It certainly is, and while maybe not every politician involved understands the distinction, I think it's explained reasonably well in the summary, right at the beginning of the consultation document:

    Citizens increasingly perform daily activities and transactions using electronic communications networks and services. These communications generate so-called 'traffic data' possibly including details about time, place and numbers used for fixed and mobile voice services, faxes, e-mails, SMS and other use of the Internet.

    The key phrase here is "generate", indicating that the communications generate traffic data, they don't constitute it. While we should be wary of covert attempts to spy also on traffic contents, this doesn't seem to be a case of such.

    Because sometimes, you don't even need connection logs for billing (consider "flatrate" connections, for example).

    Or, you run a free service of some kind, sending no bills at all. What about e-mail between students at different universities; should university mail server logs be retained as well under this regime? What about mail within the same university, or mail between staff members of the same company? The logs usually end up in the same files on the company mail server whether the mail is internal or external, and all their network provider sees is a stream of IP packets.

    It's like asking the power utility to make a note in their logs every time somebody switches on or off an electrical appliance in their home. I think that information might be just as useful in the fight against terrorism as two-year old traffic data is. If I can't get any sense out of all the junk mail sent to me by people I have never heard of, how could anybody else?

  41. lets do the math CORRECTLY. by egork · · Score: 1

    Traffic data is not traffic. As it is defined in the proposal, they talk about who called whom. And not what they talked about. The same for data connections.

    1. Re:lets do the math CORRECTLY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just run broken enough p2p software. Some of them seem to make more connections than a portscanner.

    2. Re:lets do the math CORRECTLY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are still left with a shitload of storage problems.
      The math question is who pays?
      Meaningful Retreival and reporting is a problem
      Courtroom admissability another: It was unsolicited spam, open relays, or shared drive space - or defendant was remoted - if the logs are indeed accurate.
      Trying to sift through a shitload of DVD's at 8X will still take a very long time indeed.
      Lucky there are unlicenced ISP's, open WiFi, and a heap of dodgy foreign countries, that don't play the game, leading to dead trails. BitTorrent is another issue - nothing centralized apout that.

      Perhaps a class action against a Telco for not stopping spam/ spoofed headers, will rub the gloss off toady data collection, and dishonestly overcharging .

      You don't see the post office recording who gets what from whom, and storing it for years - do you?

    3. Re:lets do the math CORRECTLY. by egork · · Score: 1

      You are still left with a shitload of storage problems.
      The math question is who pays?
      Meaningful Retreival and reporting is a problem

      Telcos do it all for billing already.

      You don't see the post office recording who gets what from whom, and storing it for years - do you?

      Because you pay in poststamps.

  42. We're all terrorists- it couldn't be any other way by h00manist · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's inevitable - a society that's set up to give the highest value to money, laws that exist on paper only, no principles other than concentration and accumulation of objects...

    Confrontation between those with the capital - and weapons/controlling positions they acquired it with - and the rest of the population is only going to increase. A lot.

    We shouldn't be surprised at all to see violence grow in both the US and Europe, which was convenienty exported to the rest of the world. It can't be "managed" forever.

    I chose to align and work more with the people in the humanist movement - but everyone should fight somewhere.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=humanist+movement

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  43. They will not store cached data twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Any sensible retention system will not store multiple instances of broadcast streams, like web TV and Internet radio. Storing one copy of each stream and the start, stop and seek requests from each client will do nicely.

    And you wouldn't expect the average Joe's "100 times that of today's" bandwidth usage to be personal, custom data.

  44. USENET retention by 0dugo0 · · Score: 1

    Most providers don't even manage to have a week on retention of binary newsgroups. Count me in favor for mandatory data retention laws.

  45. And for the sake of evidence ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... they could store hashes of each transferred package, to verify that the requested data were indeed transferred. That would take about 1/100 of the payload's size in storage.

  46. Oh My God, the Stone Age^H^H20th Century is Over by jeif1k · · Score: 1
    Make that
    Because of changes in technologies, business models and service offerings (e.g. horse and buggy, carrier pidgeon), law enforcement authorities are concerned that some data may not always be stored by all communications operators to the same extent as they were in recent years. Public authorities believe that they just are not able to catch up with a horse-and-buggy by running after it on foot anymore, or to get a carrier pidgeon to reveal its destination through torture, like they could with messages delivered by messengers traveling on foot.

  47. Ireland's Traffic Data Retention Efforts/Involveme by ramsesit · · Score: 1

    FYI - as far back as February 2002, Sage-IE - http://ie.sage.org - has been involved in various forums, and discussions with relevant bodies in the Republic of Ireland. Sage-IE also held a symposium on this issue, which was very well received. Details on Sage-IE's involvement can be found at http://ie.sage.org/tdr The topic of TDR is a hot one in Ireland, and one that Sage-IE is continuing to be actively involved in

  48. Obligatory doom's day prediction again.. by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well well, just in case you didn't get it, some nutjob who calls himself John Titor claims to be a time traveller from 2038 claims that there will be a civil war brewing in the US of A in the 2004/2005.

    Also "predicted" (well, not really so since it is all history for him) the war on iraq.

    And a whole lot of other things.

    http://www.johntitor.com/
    http://johntitor.strategicbrains.com/

    Better educate yourself, it is just another "the end is nigh" message, but in the recent days I find myself more and more spooked by the events in the news.

    Looks like a police state is really coming to pass!

    Maybe it is really time to buy some really heavy armaments, and know how to use it well..

    It's in the 2nd Amendment!!

  49. Re:Number of the BEAST. by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1

    Will the chip also say "666" on it?

    Or maybe it says "999" so that when God looks down from above it says "666"?

    Sorry, just can't resist!

  50. So contact your local politicians today! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, i don't know how it works in US now, but as for France, i can tell you there's nothing as useless as contacting your local politicians :))) As if they will listen you, or have any power at all, for that matter...

    Citizen - Hey, you, my deputee, please, listen too me ! Defend my rights !
    Deputee - Come on, keep calm ! Do you prefer a law so complicated you will not understand a single word ?
    Citizen - mh...
    Deputee - Or do you prefer we vote it in the night in the middle of the summer ?
    Citizen - ok, never mind...
    BigLobbyOfAnything - Come on, deputee, here ! Lick my shoes !
    Deputee - (barking with joy) - yes, yes, master !

    But of course, you are free to ask - it's not

  51. A matter of difference by Anders+Andersson · · Score: 1
    Does it matter?

    Does it matter whether my ISP retains logs of e-mail traffic for other purposes than billing, or retains copies of every e-mail sent? It sure does, at least to my ISP, but also to me.

    The end result includes lots of tickets being issued, of course. More importantly, the cop who routinely spends his day stopping people just as routinely is given opportunities to arrest individuals for crimes not mentioned in the motor vehicle code.

    I fail to see where you are going with this analogy. Law enforcement agents may always be suspected of acting without proper cause; no news here. The issue we are discussing is whether the consultation document suggests retaining copies of all e-mail sent. In my opinion, it does not. Even if it did, and operators were to implement constant monitoring of all communications, it would hardly enable law enforcement to harass random Internet users any more than they can today. Rather, they would drown themselves in useless data.

    The authorities may already be monitoring my e-mail, illegally, without me knowing it. Having the right to privacy doesn't mean a lot to me without the ability to detect and prosecute violations of said right. I find more comfort in blending in with the crowd, than in formal rights.

  52. Deja vue by Anders+Andersson · · Score: 1
    So, umm, you were saying?

    I'm not sure, but I think you are referring to what I mentioned in an earlier post of mine. Funny you should bring it up; it was quite long ago... :)

  53. What are we talking about? by gbx0 · · Score: 1
    This is taken from the Draft Framework Decision, which seems to be the basis for this discussion (page 3, item 5):
    This proposal relates only to data generated as a consequence of a communication and does not relate to data that is the content of the information communicated.
    I understand this as retention of log files and netflow data and not everything that you have ever sent over the wire or air.

    So the ISP will have to keep log files of the mailserver you send/receive mail through and not the emails themselves. EDRI's statement mentiones traffic data, but some people here have been implying that all communication is subject to data retention...

    1. Re:What are we talking about? by surprise_audit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was just wondering - do you think they are also planning on scanning or photocopying regular mail envelopes??

  54. no editor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You would thnk rabble rousers would at least have access to a spell checker, but maybe not... expecially when its on /.

  55. Typical "+5, US Sucks" post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got stereotypes?

  56. Hahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Seeing hoow privacy issues are sought to be handled in the US and how more and more of US (mal)practices come over to us (i.e. Europe) every day, there's nothing to be surprised at. " == "It's Bush's fault!"

    Are you serious?? Put the crack pipe down.

  57. What does that bring by egork · · Score: 1

    Theoretically once somebody did something bad with a cellular, IP adress etc., the authorities could look up what he/she did before and may find useful information. Practically it is perfectly doable.

    If the information not being gathered in the first place, there is nothing you can analyze afterwards.

    The costs are not that dramatic but substantial.

  58. copyrighteousness by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Personal info is implicitly copyrighted. It is published or transferred solely to a single counterparty, for a transaction of a single purpose, unless expressly specified otherwise. Copyrighted info cannot be distributed or retained beyond the completion of that transaction, whether successful or unsuccessful. Write your lawyers and political representatives. It's time individuals claimed our copyrights to protect our liberty with the force corporations have siezed theirs.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  59. Re:Just curious... by chro57 · · Score: 0

    Bro, its not US against EU. It's the lobby of EU and USA slashdot users against the lobby of EU and USA slashdot non users ;-)
    lol.

    "Hard drive manufacters lobbyes for total recording of all communications, including the sex videochatrooms, to fight terrorism, and gay infidelities."

    "European manufacturers of chocolates lobbyes for bombarding terrorists states with chocolates".

    "European manufacturers of teddy bears lobbys for mandatory wearing of teddy bears at schools, to fight terrorism."

    "The french compagny l'Oreal negociates distributions of beauty creams and parfums to middle west dictators, for oil contracts."
    Very serious stuff.

  60. Re:"the exact same thing is happening in Europe" by nusratt · · Score: 1

    "Europeans on slashdot can insult the US for things like the Patriot act (giving up a little freedom for security? DASTARDLY!) when the exact same thing is happening in Europe."

    specifics, please -- other than the UK and Netherlands.

  61. A Democrat on the Patriot Act in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Those who want to see how the Patriot Act works in practice might read an open letter that Dick Morris, a member of the Clinton White House, just wrote to former NY governor Mario Cuomo. You can find it here.

    Morris, who saw far less effective policies lead to disaster in the Clinton administration, credits the act and the cooperation it mandates between federal intelligence and local law enforcement with blocking a plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge and another to set off a bomb in NYC's Garment District. If both had succeeded, the death toll would have run into the tens of thousands.

    Keep in mind that it is not good anti-terrorism policy to let these successes be too widely known, since they clue terrorists into the means being used to fight them. The Clinton administration would have trumpted every success it had, however pitiful, and claimed it was due to Bill's genius. The Bush administration prefers to do its job well and keep quiet about it.

    The article answered a question that has bothered me. Given how desperate terrorists must be to hit back at the U.S., why haven't they accomplished anything in the past three years? Morris makes clear that the Patriot Act is one reason.

    Yeah, I know this is flame bait to those who think Attorney General Ashcroft goes home each evening, tucks himself in bed, and reads reports detailing the "p0rn' books they just checked out of the library. For such people, facts are of little use.

    --Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle

    1. Re:A Democrat on the Patriot Act in Action by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      So what elements of the PATRIOT (not "Patriot") Act do you think are so effective?

      Because, frankly, I find it to be pretty intrusive and while I haven't read the full text, I've been unimpressed with what summarized versions of the bill can do to "prevent terrorism".

  62. Re:"the exact same thing is happening in Europe" by Moridineas · · Score: 1

    Sure, I already listed the example of banning of nazi expression and owning of anything that could be considered nazi paraphanelia. Another example would be the laws in France that forbid "inciting religious hatred" and have recently been used to attempt to quash a book critical of Islam. Give up a little freedom for security?

    Mandatory fingerprinting for everyone in the EU and biometric fingerprinting? Looks like it's going to happen, and that's pretty extreme to me.

    Additionally in France, students that can't afford private school and must attend public school are not allowed to wear symbols of their religion.. again, unthinkable to most Americans.

    And heck, then there's the issue of ... well, this article. For all the ranting about PATRIOT etc, Europe has come up with something much more intrusive and overbearing..and yet I see America being criticized more than EU? Why is that?

    And what, do the Nederlands and UK not count as part of the EU?

    And I've entirely avoided questions of economic freedom, I could on much, much longer on that subject if you would like.

    This is all without googling. I wonder what I would find if I googled each EU country? hmm..

  63. Designed to locate Osama from the loud guffaws... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1


    ..emanating from his hiding place...

    Get real-- hat about all the useless random connections that will be generated by legions of morons while their computers are idle (or while YOUR computers are idle, via trojans, virii, worms, etc.), simply to fill the logs with useless gibberish? And all the connection "anonymizers" that will spring up? How much useless use of bandwidth is going to be encouraged with such a logging scheme?

    The REAL question seems to be, when are we going to get some COMPETENT people in charge of national security, rather than the lameoids that keep come up with useless bureaucratic busiwork such as this?

  64. why would anyone want the tyranny of a democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give me a republic any day...

    Being forced to accept the votes of the majority? Yeah, right, that's what I want... NOT!

    This is an old debate which people that are brainwashed into thinking democracies are good in that they allow the majority to get what they "deserve", but often a democratic process is just a way for the majority to oppress the minority.

  65. Re:why would anyone want the tyranny of a democrac by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

    Why do you say often? That's how it works. You just don't feel really bad about it because as long as you are "normal" yo ualways get a few things voted in your favor. How that is supposed to be different in a republic doesn't quite settle in my brain right now so I'll be reading on the sytem of a republic for a while. :)

  66. Re:Just curious... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    Oh, rest assured, I'm sure that US.government already has these ideas. My guess is their either waiting for the election to be over, or for the next crisis to shoehorn it in.

    The Reichstag is burning! The Reichstag is burning!

    Seriously, so far we've had suspension of civil rights and an increase of police powers with terrorism as an excuse in the cases of Bush, Hitler, and Putin (I'm kind of appalled about his latest quotes about how Russia needs "a stronger party" to "fight terrorism" -- I had to have a Soviet emigree explain to me how Russians like having a "father figure", a strong leader, even if that leader has a tendency to screw them over).

  67. No Point Doing Anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As we have seen before with Software Patents, there is no point doing anything to try to stop this. The EU is not democratic, so even if you get the kinda-democratic parliament to support sanity (as they did with software patents) you still get the law pushed through by the commissioners. So just give up, I know I have. I think I'll learn a trade, so I can be a stonemason in the second Dark Ages, I'm damn sure that freelance programmers are not going to be around too much longer.

  68. Re:"Are you calling me jingoistic?" by nusratt · · Score: 1

    actually, i don't remember which post(s) it was,
    but you can always count on them showing up for these topics.

    "The mistake is made by mayn Europeans (as well as American academe which at its core wants to follow European intellectual trends) that ther only government worth fearing is the US government."

    Well, ours ain't the worst. But it used to be the best (now, *that's* jingoistic!).
    Besides, I *live* here -- although I've started looking for alternatives.

    I feel that the USA should be held to a higher standard:
    fierce defense of individual rights has historically been the hallmark of our national persona, of The American Experiment.
    I've grown up with the Bill Of Rights as my religion.
    And now it's being trashed by cynical amoral people running our country.

  69. Re:"the exact same thing is happening in Europe" by nusratt · · Score: 1

    "fingerprinting? Looks like it's going to happen"

    maybe. Lots of Brits fight it. Might also happen in the US.
    Regardless, I'm not sure that citing "might" cases is fair in this context.

    I agree with your take on EDRI. But the thing is, it's not important to me whose country it is,
    I hate this shit wherever it happens.
    And I don't pull any punches re my own country, or take it personally when a non-USer voices criticisms that I know are justified;
    I think that "pot calling kettle black" accusations don't contribute much to the discussion.
    (It would be different if the criticizer were saying, "...and *my* country's perfect and better in every respect" -- which almost never happens.)

    "I see America being criticized more than EU? Why is that?"

    Elsewhere in this thread, I said that I hold the US to a higher standard.
    I wouldn't be surprised if some Europeans felt the same away about the US.
    It's like telling someone you love or admire, who has misbehaved, "How *could* you?!"
    And most of the time, when non-USers are dinging the US, it's about the *govt*, not the *people*.

    "do the Nederlands and UK not count as part of the EU?"

    The reason I said to exclude them, is because I already know why I wouldn't want to move there.
    I'm looking for new info to help me decide where.

  70. Re:Triskele by nusratt · · Score: 1

    Triskele, what country are you from?

  71. Re:Triskele by Triskele · · Score: 1

    England.

    --

    --
    USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

  72. Re:"the exact same thing is happening in Europe" by Moridineas · · Score: 1

    I agree--as I said in another thread, i fear ALL governments. The issue I had is that this thread started with someone blaming the US for everything they didn't like in the EU, which is just nonsense.