Slashdot Mirror


UK Government Wins Villain of the Year

Anonymous Cowpat writes "The BBC is reporting that the UK Government, or rather their six month presidency of the EU, has been awarded the Internet Villain of the Year award by the Internet Service Providers Association for being the driving force behind the new EU data retention laws. These require that ISPs and other telecomms providers keep records of the time\date & recipient of every communication made by their subscribers."

201 comments

  1. Tor? by ZiakII · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wouldn't using something like Tor make all logs worthless?

    1. Re:Tor? by ZiakII · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wouldn't using something like Tor make all logs worthless?

      On a side note.... don't install this on a military computer just to check your yahoo mail.... it will get the computer taken and sent to Quantico, VA after it makes a connection in Brazil.....opps........and they will then discover that you managed to reset the xadministrator password (stupid NMCI)

    2. Re:Tor? by sumday · · Score: 1

      my understanding is that Tor encrypts all http traffic from you to the tor nodes, so yes, it should render any http logs useless.

      However, there are other protocols out there. I don't want my ISP keeping logs of all the porn i download from Usenet, for instance.

      --
      sudo killall humans
    3. Re:Tor? by Jon+Luckey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Tor can be pretty scarey, but I'm not sure he would make logs worthless.

      --
      -- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
    4. Re:Tor? by ZiakII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      However, there are other protocols out there. I don't want my ISP keeping logs of all the porn i download from Usenet, for instance.

      There are ways to get other protocols running though Tor I have done it I have gotten FTP, SOCKS, Telnet, HTTPS, HTTP, and .bitorrent to all work though it.

    5. Re:Tor? by Xanius · · Score: 1

      Indeed I don't think he would. He might make the people not want to check the logs though.

    6. Re:Tor? by Splab · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My bachelor project (masters?) was about makeing TOR run on a router using Dante, all TCP traffic gets multiplexed over TOR.

      Only downside on the implementation is its only running through socks4 - so DNS gets routed through the normal path rendering it a bit useless.

      Also, TOR is by no means strong anonymity, if you want that go have a look at Herbivore.

    7. Re:Tor? by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Tor is not a HTTP proxy, it's a Socks proxy. You can tunnel pretty much anything through Tor, although it may not be suitable for all purposes (VoIP, for example, would probably not be very useful due to the lag etc. Tor unfortunately introduces).

      I think the only thing Tor specifically disallows is to use it to connect to SMTP servers, but that's only to make sure it won't be abused as an anonymous untraceable spam relay.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    8. Re:Tor? by irby · · Score: 1

      Stupid NMCI; been there, did that.

    9. Re:Tor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid NMCI; been there, did that.

      Oh, so THAT is why it's FUBAR. :P

    10. Re:Tor? by tinkertim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually you sparked an idea, well sort of an observation and sort of speculation.

      You don't *have* to use your ISP's nameservers. Try 4.2.2.2 or other public ones relatively easy to find on the internet. You could also just toss the domain -> ip of activity you'd rather not have logged in /etc/hosts.

      If you are still that paranoid why not just spend the 50 - 60 bucks it costs to bring up a co-located Celeron , toss VNC on it and surf from there if you have any concerns. A quick search on google for "dedicated server" brings up cheap listings including Win2k3 termservs.

      While I agree its a crappy law it shouldn't deter even your halfway knowledgeable power user from doing whatever it is they do in complete privacy.

      Personally I use These guys. I'd rather deal with their AUP than ever changing polictical influences over the internet.

      So I surf on my desktop somewhere in texas. It rocks on my crappy cable at 1024x768 / 15 bit graphics. And it keeps my e-mail centralized, and I can "work" anywhere with a connection.

      If my ISP wants to go through the trouble of breaking RDP5 or VNC (could even just use ssh forwarding) .. they're *more* than welcome to see what I'm surfing as I feel at that point they've earned it.

      Most of us have a nix box somewhere (or even a celeron running windows) that could easily be setup for such purposes.

      If *any* isp started blocking RDP or VNC well (duh) we'd change ports, and if they persisted we'd take our business to one who did not.

      It's not like the heavy iron hand just came bounding down. Law makers have at least 10 more years of random stupidity and ego strifes before they could actually become (really) annoying when it comes to netlaws.

      Off my soapbox

    11. Re:Tor? by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if it actually existed publically yet. Get back to me when there is a download link.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    12. Re:Tor? by smoker2 · · Score: 1
      OT

      Nice .sig

      My moment of Zen for today.

    13. Re:Tor? by Splab · · Score: 1

      It really isnt hard to make a working implementation - the problem is it costs 2*(k-1) bits per bit with a clique size of k to send. That is, if I want to send 100MB of data in a clique of 80 people, its going to require sending a total of 7.9GB of data in the clique, that just isn't going to happen.

    14. Re:Tor? by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      I don't really get the mathematics - why is this more anonymous than, say, Freenet? Because it uses more data?

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    15. Re:Tor? by Splab · · Score: 1

      No,
      Herbivore provides strong anonymity by using Dining Cryptographers principle, problem is it requires alot of broadcasting, and the way you do that in Herbivore is having one client copying data to all.

      TOR provides anonymity by doing a multihop proxy, the problem with that is you can figure out who does what with enough resources - Even if you got acces to the networklines in Herbivore you only know that someone send a message, not who. Even cracking the message wont tell you who sent it unless sender includes return address...

  2. UK's not the only one by Meneth · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sweden's Minister of "Justice" has also been pushing for the retention laws.

    1. Re:UK's not the only one by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IMHO, it doesn't really matter who is the first one to get such laws passed.

      All that matters is it gets passed.

      Once that happens, the laws will spread through Europe & eventually overseas... all in the name of "harmonization"

      It's a kind of backdoor way to get laws passed in your country that would otherwise be unacceptable to the populace. The Bush Administration (maybe Clinton did it to, I dunno) is the most recent example I can think of.

      They encouraged restrictive European laws that would never have flown in the U.S. of A. and once they were passed in Europe, U.S. law had to be "harmonized".

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:UK's not the only one by Skrekkur · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's a kind of backdoor way to get laws passed in your country that would otherwise be unacceptable to the populace. The Bush Administration (maybe Clinton did it to, I dunno) is the most recent example I can think of. They encouraged restrictive European laws that would never have flown in the U.S. of A. and once they were passed in Europe, U.S. law had to be "harmonized".
      I think you are forgetting your patriot act, which got passed in the U.S. Those laws are pretty restrictive in every sense and restrict freedom and human rights far beyond that these laws do. They got passed "through the backdoor of terrorism" or more precisely the threat of it. These laws might have actually inspired these, since one of the arguments that could be used with this is to ease the track of terrorist activity.
      The NSA operate the echelon spy network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcheloN/ which does far more than just keeping logs for going through if something happens.
      That said I highly disagree with these kinds of laws, and the minister of justice here in iceland is pushing for similar laws, and might actually getting through. You are right about one thing though, once such laws get passed in one or more western nation (expecially european one) it will greatly increase the odds of similar laws passing elsewhere and since the european union is rather large I fear the influence alot.
      Just remember, we will get all kinds of bad and stupid laws if we don t get our voices heard.
    3. Re:UK's not the only one by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Yes, the same minister also pushing for aggressive surveillance of crime suspects -- of course to stop terrorism. Because Sweden is such a horribly obvious target for terrorists, you know. He's got a "no" from the Swedish Council of Legislation already due to the privacy issues involved, but think it will still get through soon enough and will continue to push for this, using his best G W Bush impression.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:UK's not the only one by nx · · Score: 1

      Once that happens, the laws will spread through Europe & eventually overseas... all in the name of "harmonization"

      Indeed. Although the matter of data retention has passed the European Parliament, and the Council of Ministers. It's now a directive in full force, which means member states has to pass it into law within a given period of time (18 or 24 months, iirc). The directive states that data pertaining to tracing and identifying communications, but not content, should be retained for a period of no less than one year.

      Another good example of harmonization rhetoric is Swedish Minister of Justice's[1] campaign to legalize audio surveillance of specific locations (they've been previously restricted to wiretaps, afaik) - including, under some circumstances, news organizations. Good way to get at those political dissenters. His main argument seems to be that similar laws exist in the other Nordic countries.

      [1] He is known as Satan, or the Adversary, in some circles (disclaimer: joke :P).

      --
      L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers.
    5. Re:UK's not the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no wikipedia arcticle there!

      *tinfoil hat on*
      I smell a conspiracy!

    6. Re:UK's not the only one by aybiss · · Score: 0

      Yes we got an "Australian Fair Trade Agreement" over here, which basically opens us up to any US laws in the name of 'fair trade'. One of the outcomes of this is that we can now be contacted by your RIAA or MPAA over downloads, where previously they were unable to take action and my ISP had no obligation to cooperate.

      --
      It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
    7. Re:UK's not the only one by Nuskrad · · Score: 1
      One of the outcomes of this is that we can now be contacted by your RIAA or MPAA over downloads, where previously they were unable to take action and my ISP had no obligation to cooperate.

      The RIAA/MPAA arn't governmental organisations, they're trade organisations representing companies within the US. If they wanted to take action in Australia or any other country, they could have done, they just have to go through that countries legal system. If they got a court order from an Australian court (provided they had the right to under Australian law) demanding that your ISP reveal information, your ISP would have had to cooperate.

    8. Re:UK's not the only one by aybiss · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the clarification. The point is they no longer need court orders to begin harassment.

      --
      It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
    9. Re:UK's not the only one by jo42 · · Score: 1

      Start practising your "Sieg Heil!"...

  3. Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Film at 11.

  4. We dont win much,so I will claim this.... by Don_dumb · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're number one, we're number one, we're number one

    --
    If this were really happening, what would you think?
    1. Re:We dont win much,so I will claim this.... by TheBogie · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There's always next year. We've got W till '08, and a republican congress until this November. Anything is possible.

    2. Re:We dont win much,so I will claim this.... by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      However, the laws are still there. It might be fun to mock the UK's Government, but a witty phrase can't stop a truncheon.

    3. Re:We dont win much,so I will claim this.... by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Funny
      > We're number one, we're number one, we're number one
      - UK

      "We're number two! We try harder!"
      - USSA

      "In former Soviet Russia, being number three means not trying at all!"
      - CIS

    4. Re:We dont win much,so I will claim this.... by rovingeyes · · Score: 1
      We're number one, we're number one, we're number one

      Thats because US is not in EU. Otherwise, we'd have kicked your butt without breaking a sweat.

    5. Re:We dont win much,so I will claim this.... by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Yup. But something I read lately might give you some hope. The summation is roughly: it ain't fascism until you can't say it's fascism. We're not quite there yet, barring cops herding people into clusters at protests and smacking them down for being anti-war (yep, Chicago 2003, I think. I didn't make it to the roundup and false arrest party, but still, I remember how amazed the newscasters were at all those people who didn't listen to the President like they did, and how vicious some pro-Bush cops were, and how amazed the other cops were about their orders from the top to round up the protesters and arrest them. It was... surreal.)

    6. Re:We dont win much,so I will claim this.... by Eljas · · Score: 1

      I think it should be, umm... "In Soviet Russia, number three is not trying to be you at all!"

  5. so all this means..... by Kn1nJa · · Score: 1

    is that I should probably stop using all those "proxies" from over there...........

    --
    [Insert Witty Sig Here]
  6. The Customer Wins! by Saxerman · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "At the end of the day ISPs are not law enforcement agencies so they should not have to pay for it all," [a spokesman for the Internet Service Providers' Association ] said.

    And, of course, they won't need to as they'll merely pass the savings (sic) to their customers. While politicians might be willing to merely call this the 'cost of doing business in the age of terrorism' I call it yet another stab into the heart of freedom and liberty.

    --

    A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.

    1. Re:The Customer Wins! by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      That happens in every other field too. It's called "shit runs downhill" and is one of the major principles of military life, office life, school life, and plumbing.

      PS: Nice sig. Hope you brought your own towel.

    2. Re:The Customer Wins! by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ...I call it yet another stab into the heart of freedom and liberty.

      Brought to you by...the majority of people who vote.

      --
      What?
  7. Big Brother means cheaper big hard drives... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If all the companies are required to maintain this extra information, that would force the hard drive companies to produce higher capacity hard drives while driving down the unit cost. Who wouldn't mind paying $50 USD per terabyte?

    1. Re:Big Brother means cheaper big hard drives... by packeteer · · Score: 1

      Hell, i would give up MY rights for cheap electronics? wouldn't you?

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    2. Re:Big Brother means cheaper big hard drives... by Wolface · · Score: 1

      That would be an impressive moronic comment.
      Who in their right mind compares hd prices with the price of freedom and privacy.
      So you think is cool to have "$50 USD per terabyte" ?
      You certainly have been living in comfort for too long, and deserve what's coming your way.

    3. Re:Big Brother means cheaper big hard drives... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who in their right mind compares hd prices with the price of freedom and privacy.

      Considering that America is giving up freedom and privacy for security who to say that Corporate America won't come up with a better deal?

    4. Re:Big Brother means cheaper big hard drives... by Omaze · · Score: 1

      This has been a disturbing thought for me for at least four years now. Who the heck needs that kind of storage? I'm not real comfortable with governments the world over keeping internet logs of everything forever. It's a sign of world-wide genocide waiting to happen. In an effort to "cleanse" the human race we're soon going to see that anyone who has ever looked at "questionable" material will be moved into moral cleansing camps where they'll either be shot outright or allowed to rot away in their own incarceration. That questionable material, of course, will be happily provided by ISPs who have every digital transaction stored since the network began.

      I have two 80 gb and one 40 gb in two systems and I'm barely hitting 10% usage--most of which is just standard OS installs. People must be complete digital packrats. People need to start asking themselves,"In ten years... Am I really going to use any of this?" What are we going to do: pass this stuff on to our great-grandchildren as heirlooms? I've been trying to apply the ten-year test to everything I own. If it doesn't pass the ten year test there's a 98% probability that it won't pass the rm -rf test.

      The next time I move I'll probably end up ditching all but my favorite CDs, most of my college texts, and a good portion of my clothes. Stuff like blank stationary is always handy to keep around as scratchpads though.

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    5. Re:Big Brother means cheaper big hard drives... by MooUK · · Score: 1

      This machine has a total of around 200GB across two drives. That's around 80-90% used. Amongst other things, that's 30GB of CD images (so I can leave the originals at home), at least 20-25GB of music (mostly ripped and (legal, with-permission, for-the-band's-benefit) live recordings of various gigs), several gigs of photos and videos, twenty or thirty gigs of films (many ripped from DVDs owned by family members), and so on.

      It's easy to fill up space if you have it, without doing anything that people generally would consider wrong.

    6. Re:Big Brother means cheaper big hard drives... by Omaze · · Score: 1

      Holy cow. How many different colors of lipstick, fingernail polish, or different pairs of shoes do you take with you?

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    7. Re:Big Brother means cheaper big hard drives... by Isotopian · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how your analogy makes any sense. I myself own one pair of shoes, three pairs of pants, and a dozen or two tshirts. I can pack up most of my belongings in a single bag. Unless I count my electronics. My computer is sprawling, and I own more cables then there are threads in my clothes. I'm easily using 75% of my 240 GB of HD space. Why? Because I don't throw away anything that could be valuable later on. With storage so cheap, why would you?

      Comparison to what you carry on your person is irrelevant.

      --

      It's poetry with a beat behind it! And guns! They're like beatniks with automatic weapons.

    8. Re:Big Brother means cheaper big hard drives... by Omaze · · Score: 1

      I made no analogy.

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    9. Re:Big Brother means cheaper big hard drives... by MooUK · · Score: 1

      It might make things clearer to you if I point out that I am a student living away from home during termtime.

  8. Retaining Logs - Pah by LazySlacker · · Score: 5, Insightful
    thats the least of it.
    • id cards
    • extradition for crimes commited on our soil
    • extradition with out reciprocal agreements
    • Gitmo, an 'Anomaly'
    • an attempt at almost indefinate detention without trial
    • security services (or anyone) not allowed to link recent attacks here to a certain invasion

    It would appear that if you want to get legislation past PM Blair - just add a terorist threat - or say your name is Bush (guess who with have the extradition agreement with with).
    I'm not even starting to list domestic issues (well I guess id card is domestic) and will completely skip Iraq itself.
    1. Re:Retaining Logs - Pah by mormop · · Score: 1

      "It would appear that if you want to get legislation past PM Blair - just add a terorist threat - or say your name is Bush (guess who with have the extradition agreement with with)."

      And if your name's Gates, you can get every government I.T. project and dinner at No. 10.

      --
      Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
    2. Re:Retaining Logs - Pah by aslate · · Score: 1

      To be fair, isn't this an EU policy that just happened to go through when Blair was in charge of the EU? That doesn't really mean much in a system that takes months for stuff to process and go through. Why blame the UK for an EU policy? That's like blaming a State for US-wide laws.

    3. Re:Retaining Logs - Pah by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Actually, the last two are also domestic issues...

      You forgot RIPA, of course - hand over your encryption keys or go to gaol, tell anyone the demand was made and go to gaol...

    4. Re:Retaining Logs - Pah by Peter+Greenwood · · Score: 1

      Then there are the speed cameras that track you wherever you drive. They were used after the murder of that policewoman in Bradford to track and identify the getaway car ... leading to the arrest of the man who'd been forced to hire it and had then apparently reported the fact to the police.

      I hear the latest ticketing systems for railways now report back to Big Brother, too.

      --
      freedom, n. Allowing people you don't like to do things you disapprove of.
    5. Re:Retaining Logs - Pah by leenks · · Score: 1

      Gaol?????! You do realise there are rednecks here?!?

    6. Re:Retaining Logs - Pah by leenks · · Score: 1

      Err no, it was CCTV cameras and not the speed cameras. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/445591 8.stm

    7. Re:Retaining Logs - Pah by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      That's like blaming a State for US-wide laws.

      I still blame California for Sonny Bono. And Utah for Senator Hatch.

      --
      What?
    8. Re:Retaining Logs - Pah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most evil thing is The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. With this the UK government can make laws without having the problem of having to discuss it in parliament. So the government can abolish elections and things ...

  9. Who's to blame for all this? by zardo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Muslim extremists.

    1. Re:Who's to blame for all this? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Funny

      Muslim extremists.

      Strange, I thought most members of the House of Commons and House of Lords weren't Muslim.

      Good thing I'm a Jedi, then. Like most brits.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:Who's to blame for all this? by Gibsnag · · Score: 1

      In fact the House of Lords seem to have been putting a relatively stalwart effort into resisting Blair's Anti-Freedom laws.

    3. Re:Who's to blame for all this? by paeanblack · · Score: 1

      Strange, I thought most members of the House of Commons and House of Lords weren't Muslim.

      Nope, they're Brits of course, and we all know what that means:

      Being British is about driving in a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, and then travelling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture & watch American shows on a Japanese TV. And the most British thing of all? Suspicion of anything foreign.

    4. Re:Who's to blame for all this? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "...
      and then they came for the Jedi.who crushed their wind pipes."

      hmmm.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Who's to blame for all this? by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      Muslim extremists.

      I'm beginning to be convinced that there's no such thing as a Muslim extremist. I believe the US govt pulled the whole thing off clean. Like the gal in the movie Brazil said "How many terrorists have you MET?"

    6. Re:Who's to blame for all this? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Muslim extremists."

      That was the initial theory, Occam's razor has since shortened it to "extremists".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Who's to blame for all this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are strong hints that you are right. Just a few:
      - the "plane" that hit the pentagon did few damage for a plane.
      - there are no pictures of the plane approaching, althogh the pentagon is full of surveillance cameras.
      - it took the time to fly a half circle around the pentagon, ony to hit a part that has been known to be empty for same time.
      - although two planes crashed in the TWC one hour earlier and two more planes were missing, not a single air force plane was in the air. (You would expect some AWACS with support to be airborne within five minutes and investigate any unidentified contact).

      - the secret service had bureas in the WTC, but left them a few months before the impact.
      - experts said the WTC buildings are strong enaugh to to withstand the impacts, yet they collapsed. You would expect an investigation, but instead am company named "controlled demolition" disposes everything as fast as possible.
      - this company "controlled demolition" normally collapses unneeded buildings. As they say, it's no problem to collapse a building, the art is to make the building collapse in itself, without damaging the buildings around.
      - so it's really good that both WTC towers collapsed in themselves, instead of falling to the side, thereby destroying other buildings. Imagine those domino stones ...

  10. Introductions are in order by Jakuta · · Score: 1

    Excuse me where are my manners... Have you met the RIAA and the MPAA yet? So how about that internet, talk amongst yourselves.

    1. Re:Introductions are in order by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      This is about the UK presidency of the European Union. I suspect the RIAA & MPAA don't figure quite so highly over there, even though they obviously have *some* impact - DVD region coding, for a start.

  11. why do they get it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what makes them get the villan of the year award!? do they have friggin' sharks with friggin' laser beams?
    making laws. ha! in my day villans knew how to be evil.

  12. Privacy and the Internet by keilinw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been following consumer and privacy rights issues for quite some time now. The issue that ISP's are REQUIRED to log personal information is an interesting one.

    First and foremost, I consider the Internet to be a type of "public" space. I am reasonably certain that anything I do on the Internet can and probably will end up in someones log file. Whether or not such information can be used against me is what really concerns me.

    Second. It is reasonable to expect that ISPs do in fact keep logs of information. What they log and how they do it is generally up to them. Requiring the ISP to log information does not make sense as they probably already do it. Again, what should be of concern is whether or not the ISPs are required to share that information. Interestingly, the whole issue may actually involve the ISP's right to claim they don't have any logged information -- which is probably a lie -- or that they could delete it and thus not be legally responsible for it.

    Third. Spoofing is most certainly a "real" concept and these laws may, in fact, incriminate innocent people. Certain "dangerous" individuals may actually be able to LEARN how and what required logging is and use this to their advantage; effectively covering their tracks.

    In conclusion, I find it interesting that there is such a hoopla over laws that threaten privacy in general when they can't be that effective to begin with. Perhaps there should be a commission that limits the forming of useless laws. If things continue the way they have been it may soon be illegal to even touch a computer.

    I wish I had more time to distill and clarify my thoughts, but this will have to suffice. I hope that the readers will look past the disorganized nature of this argument and consider some of the actual points.

    Matthew Wong

    http://www.themindofmatthew.com/

    1. Re:Privacy and the Internet by jzeejunk · · Score: 1

      dude what? are you taking GMAT or something? this essay sounds like a GRE/GMAT AWA essay ;) on the topic you wrote ... they can't be that effective to begin with.
      May be they aren't intended for what they seem for. May be these laws are not to combat terrorism but to help businesses enforce DRM etc...

      --
      sarchasm
    2. Re:Privacy and the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Spoofing is most certainly a "real" concept and these laws may,
      > in fact, incriminate innocent people.

      In addition there's the question of outright fabrication. It's tough (but not impossible) to fabricate video or audio surveillance, a little easier to fabricate signatures. Fabricating TCP/IP logs, however, is as easy as a text editor or a simple program to send the proper text through the logging facilities' functions. With any two computers and a little bit of technical information it'd be easy enough to fabricate logs to show anything. Sibling rivalries gone too far. Jilted or vindictive ex-partners. How about you accidentally cut off your local politician who has a brother working in the local FBI office? They could subpoena your ISP for your logs and then easily fabricate you into prison. I doubt that many courts would uphold multiple subpoenas for the same information or that the ISP would even comply. "Why is the defense asking to subpoena the logs from the ISP again? We have them right here."

    3. Re:Privacy and the Internet by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      It is reasonable to expect that ISPs do in fact keep logs of information. What they log and how they do it is generally up to them.

      They only really *need* to keep enough logs to be able to bill customers correctly and deal with disputes that might arise. Presumably, "keep records of the time/date & recipient of every communication made by their subscribers" means tracking email, IM (of all kinds), ftp, telnet, ssh, http, https, &c. I mean, it would be trivial for a terrorist cell to use anonymous ftp to download target maps, or to upload surveillance notes. Or telnet into a a MUD or MOO type game and "meet" to discuss plans for the next atrocity.

      Shoot, I'd say let's roll with it and lobby our politicians and insist that they legislate that mail carriers *also* record every communication, and that would *have* to include Fedex, UPS *and* the Post Office...

    4. Re:Privacy and the Internet by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I see what you are saying but there is a bigger picture than privacy. The laws are obstensibly about how to deal with those who incite violence, that problem is as old as the human race itself. History has shown time and again that the answer is not to silence them but to educate ourselves to recognise those who manipulate our fears into vengence.

      Here's one that was spotted in Sydney the week before the Alan Jones riots that caught the attention of international media late last year. The fact that our top politicians have (for years) regularly appeared on his show and have often invited him to wine and dine in the halls of power,,,,makes me want to puke!

      If politicians were interested in the public well being they would refuse to dignify/support ANYONE who preaches hate and violence from their mass media soap box, instead they wait a few months before pandering to the mob mentality

      Note to AC's and right wing nut-jobs: The fact that, if I lived in Iran I could not make similar critisims about politicians, does not detract from their validity.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Privacy and the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The number of stupid laws in the UK is stupendous. Traffic cops can actually give any taxi driver a ticket for not carrying a bale of straw in the back (a law which still exists from the days of horse drawn carriages). You are also allowed to park your car, proceed to the passenger side and then proceed to urinate over your back tyre in full view of the public, also from ye olde times. Plus on top of that, we are still (BY LAW) required to practice use of a longbow each weekend.

      Does that mean that everyone who hasn't practiced archery recently, and anyone who drives a taxi is a Ter'rist? In that case then, I am changing my name to Osama Anonymous Coward.

      If you want to beat the people who keep passing laws to remove our right to privacy, then play them at their own game. Give them so much information to disect that they will have to hire thousands upon thousands of workers to sort through the information. If you give them enough information, they might end up requiring exabytes of storage space. Do you really think that governments, even with their "unlimited" resources, can handle as much data as we can generate for them? Can they fuck, there's about as much chance of that as all slashdotters getting laid every night by real (not blow-up) people.

  13. On behalf of the Minister of Intimidation by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd like to accept this award most humbly.

    Some have said "You can fool some of the people all of the time."

    Luckily for us, it turns out all you have to do is just go up to a queue of people, put on a stern face, say "Terrorist", and they'll all happily give away all the rights that people died to gain in just a quick nip of time.

    Now, on behalf of us and our ally Oceania, I'd like to thank you all, and ask you please show your papers and salute with stiff arms as we play our national anthem, "Brittania, Brittania, Uber Alles!"

    Thank you.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re: On behalf of the Minister of Intimidation by gidds · · Score: 1
      on behalf of us and our ally Oceania

      No no no. We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania.

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    2. Re: On behalf of the Minister of Intimidation by ctishman · · Score: 1

      That, and he managed to misspell "Airstrip One". Plusungood.

  14. Ah Tony Blair by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    Anyone else find it incredibly ironic that many conservatives in the US enthusiastically support him? I'm constantly amazed, as a libertarian, by the number of conservatives who cannot separate his support of the invasion of Iraq from his general policies. Blair and his labor party should serve as a reminder that socialism is not all about fluffy welfare states. Rather, the socialist state can also be very intrusive, and rather often is in fact rather intrusive on the basic rights of the public.

    1. Re:Ah Tony Blair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, just look at the what the godamned socialist neocons have done to America!

    2. Re:Ah Tony Blair by UdoKeir · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tony Blair is not a Socialist. His government is more right wing the the Conservative one that preceded it.

    3. Re:Ah Tony Blair by Detritus · · Score: 1

      For better or worse, it's a different country. You might not like Blair, but would you rather have someone like Tony Benn?

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:Ah Tony Blair by jimicus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Blair and his labor party should serve as a reminder that socialism is not all about fluffy welfare states.

      Blair and his Labour party are nothing to do with socialism. The abolition of Clause 4 and granting tax breaks to businessmen (even though it was later revoked - at least our judges have balls) don't sound very socialist to me.

      What we essentially have in today's Labour is the old conservative party only slightly less rabid.

    5. Re:Ah Tony Blair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tony Benn is through and through a believer in democracy and the practice of it (even if you disagree with his views)... Tony Blair only mouths such things.

    6. Re:Ah Tony Blair by Pentagram · · Score: 1

      That is an incredibly ignorant comment. Blair's government is by no means socialist! It is now significantly more right wing economically than the Conservative government that it deposed (if not yet as corrupt). In terms of authoritarianism it is probably about equal: though it has eroded many civil liberties, it has brought in new ones (such as gay rights).

      In any case, the government's social policies can be independent of its economic policies. See The Political Compass for an alternative (compared to left/right) measurement of political stances.

    7. Re:Ah Tony Blair by dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv · · Score: 1

      tony blair never has been & probably never will be a socialist. hes as conservative as the most extreme end of the 'conservative' party.

    8. Re:Ah Tony Blair by Chemicalscum · · Score: 1
      Anyone else find it incredibly ironic that many conservatives in the US enthusiastically support him?

      What a lot of dreck - you US so-called "libertarians" make me want to vomit. You are so so dumb - as a libertarian socialist and a former member of the British Labour Party before Tony Bliar converted it to "New Labour", I can assure you Bliar's government has nothing to do with socialism.

      The only difference between them and the Bush administration is that Bliar's government is more economically fiscally conservative than Bush (they don't run as huge deficits) while socially a little bit more liberal than Bush's in their support for gay rights. In terms of the suppression of civil liberties Bush and Bliar are about equivalent.

      There are a few real socialists left in New Labour like Jeremy Corbyn but most have either left or sold out their principles.

    9. Re:Ah Tony Blair by Archtech · · Score: 1

      At the risk of diving down a rathole, I agree. Moreover, I think the whole "left-right" political spectrum has outlived its usefulness. First introduced (from memory) in the French Assembly just before the Revolution, its original meaning was that those on the right side supported the status quo (i.e. monarchists) while those on the left wanted change of various kinds.

      Nowadays it is difficult to say what "conservatism" looks like - assuming they want to conserve something, is that the 18th century status quo? The 19th century? Pre-WW2? Or 1960s? So conservatives tend to define themselves as libertarians, supporting individual freedom and small government. Meanwhile they cast socialists (the left) as wanting ever bigger and more intrusive governments. But in practice, all administrations preside over steadily expanding governments. (See "Yes Minister", passim. And in the UK, at any rate, it seems the electorate is strongly prejudiced against conservatism; people seem to assume that life will get steadily better, so rejecting "progress" seems foolish to them.

      There is a PC tendency to identify "left, good; right, bad". Yesterday, on the BBC Radio 4 program "Any Questions?", Lord Tebbitt got a mixed response by asserting that Hitler was on the left, not the right. (Because his party was the "National *Socialist*" party, his philosophy was totalitarian, and he was strongly opposed to individual liberty). You certainly could not say that Hitler and the Nazis were in favour of conserving the status quo - whether as of 1933, or as of 1914. Perhaps 9 AD/CE?

      I think it's better to use a multidimensional grid, assessing people's views on several scales such as economic liberalism, political liberalism, religion, etc. But that doesn't suit the politicans' need for making everything as simple as possible - and then much simpler.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  15. Myopia by lheal · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Perhaps a little review is in order:
    1. China seeks not allow its citizens even to know what privacy means, and puts journalists in jail for using the web to speak out.
    2. Something over 90% of the email I get is falsely titled advertising from people I've never met and will never meet trying to sell me products I don't want. And so:
    3. The communications companies want to double-bill for bandwidth.
    4. There is an active market for system exploits, bot armies, and malware-driven popup ads.
    5. The U.S. wants to keep DNS root server rights to itself. This is not such a big deal to me, but other people got worked up over it.

    With all of that, the EU wanting to make sure data is kept, not forever, but just long enough for most normal criminal investigations to take place doesn't bother me much. If they did other stuff with it, that would be a problem, but just making sure it's there seems prudent.

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    1. Re:Myopia by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 2, Funny

      but...but...Evil Corporations....and...Big Brother....and....Ben Franklin quotes....
      I tell ya man. "And then they came for me". Fear it.

      (did I miss anything?)

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
    2. Re:Myopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *SPUTTER* Don't mock the Slashdot gods! They'll mod you down faster than they do a Republican speaking their views here!

    3. Re:Myopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China seeks not allow its citizens even to know what privacy means, and puts journalists in jail for using the web to speak out.

      If this was a poll of Chinese internet service providers, that would be relevant.

      But it isn't.

      And it's not.

      There are repressive governments in the world. This doesn't mean that democracies are excused from being democracies. It's like you got arrested for car theft, and when you got into court your only defense was "Perhaps a little review is in order. I see people in the newspaper who are (1) raping (2) murdering (3) committing terrorism. These people are much worse than I am. Why are you charging me with car theft, and not them?"

    4. Re:Myopia by rob_squared · · Score: 1

      "(did I miss anything?)"

      The point?

      --
      I don't get it.
    5. Re:Myopia by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Oh, I get it. Everybody else is so much "worse". So it's okay for us to act badly so long as it doesn't appear to be as bad as the "other guy". So China has 32 journalists in prison. The Americans have 5 that we know about(this doesn't count those in prison for not revealing their sources, how convenient). That's okay in your book? It's certainly what you're implying. It might behoove you to check out the reasons that the "freedom loving" Americans have them locked up. Of course we won't know that because the "reasons" are classified. I know, you're going to tell me that we don't execute journalists. No, we "outsource" that job to the extremists. Just like we don't torture prisoners. We just reward the other inmates to do it for us. You just go on believing their spin, like they're actually telling the truth or something.

      --
      What?
  16. And there was me thinking... by PhotoBoy · · Score: 0, Troll

    ... that Blair did fuck all during the presidency except giving away a billion pounds of tax payers money to French farmers. Turns out he managed to find some time to implement more of his fascist laws too! How does he do it, eh?

    1. Re:And there was me thinking... by Physician · · Score: 1

      How does that affect you as a Canadian?

      --
      Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
    2. Re:And there was me thinking... by PhotoBoy · · Score: 1

      Wow, Blair actually has a supporter who will waste mod points modding me troll! Or has someone been slipping Blair mod points again? I suppose he'd want to mod me +1 Terrorist and lock me up for saying he's crap though.

  17. When will the English take back their country? by deacon · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Really, when will enough be enough? Or are there so many state "workers" voting to keep things as they are that you have no escape?

    First they took your guns, and you sat in the pub and said it was for the good of the people.

    Then they effectively took away your right to self-defense (they took away the means in step one), and you locked yourself in your bathrooms when the burglars break into your occupied house.

    Then, they sent letter to the shopkeepers telling them not to bother reporting thefts of less than 75 pounds and not to detain thieves.

    Linky:

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006060516,00 .html

    You have cameras installed in every orfice, officious busybodies poking noses into your every affair.

    Your medical system is refusing treatment to patients who are over weight (gasp) or smoke (the horror) in order to save money. An un-assimilated population of immigrants is holding up signs saying "wait for the real holocaust"

    What will it take to push you over the edge, the banning of cricket?

    Wake up, it is already too late, and you better get cracking on fixing things.

    1. Re:When will the English take back their country? by packetmill · · Score: 1

      What will it take to push you over the edge, the banning of cricket?

      No. The banning of rascists should do the trick.

    2. Re:When will the English take back their country? by LazySlacker · · Score: 1

      WTF
      First they took your guns
      Most of us didn't have/didn't need them.

      Then they effectively took away your right to self-defense
      Since when? Not having guns is not the same as no right to self-defence. See above. What has happened is that you're not allowed to shoot people in the back, as they run away from you - no matter how must they have pissed you off.

      Your medical system is refusing treatment to patients who are over weight (gasp) or smoke (the horror) in order to save money.
      Well there has to be some criteria, money is limited, the other answer is to tax more to create more money.

      An un-assimilated population of immigrants is holding up signs saying "wait for the real holocaust"
      A fair number of those immigrants where born here. We have a history of allowing dissent and the voicing of unpopular views, you know it's called 'free speech'

      Wake up, it is already too late, and you better get cracking on fixing things.
      If it's too late why bother?

    3. Re:When will the English take back their country? by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      I can't say things are much better here in the US. But any way you look at it it's true. Mod parent insightful.

    4. Re:When will the English take back their country? by _the_bascule · · Score: 3, Informative
      Using the sun news paper as a reference to your post is quite possibly the worst example of close mindedness or ill thought out opinion posting I have ever seen.

      The sun news paper rates up there with fox news (as I understand fox news to be) in the US. Fear and Anger. Fear and Anger. Fear And Anger.

      --
      Our diversity is our strength
    5. Re:When will the English take back their country? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What has happened is that you're not allowed to shoot people in the back, as they run away from you - no matter how must they have pissed you off.

      That's why the USA is so good. It's legal in Texas to shoot someone in the back for, say, letting the air out of your tires (excuse me, tyres) provided that it is at night. Also, if they have robbed you, are running away, and are off your property, it is perfectly legal to shoot them in the back. I could list all the ways in which the law states you may shoot someone in the back, but you get the general idea and those are the two most discussed. Have a nice day, keep them loaded, and don't piss off a Texan.

    6. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Sanity · · Score: 2, Interesting
      First they took your guns
      You just lost the interest of 99.9% of the British population. You should be aware that outside the US, and perhaps Switzerland and one or two other countries, the notion that people have some kind of natural right to own guns is taken about as seriously as the assertion that people have a natural right to own nuclear weapons.
    7. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The medical care part of your post made sense. This part didn't:

      "'First they took your guns'
      Most of us didn't have/didn't need them."

      Your argument for why it doesn't matter that your Government took your guns is that you didn't need them at the time and most people didn't have them? Do you think they're just going to give them back to you when you DO need them? Even the tired old "they're too dangerous for the common man to use" argument makes more sense than that.

      And why does how many people have or don't have something matter when the Government is trying to ban it? Most people 15-20 years ago didn't have cell phones; does that mean it shouldn't have mattered if the Government had banned them from private use? Plenty of people fifteen years ago would have liked to regulate the purchase of computers and bandwidth, you know (some still would).

    8. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You should be aware that outside the US, and perhaps Switzerland and one or two other countries, the notion that people have some kind of natural right to own guns is taken about as seriously as the assertion that people have a natural right to own nuclear weapons.
      You cannot give to government any power/authority you do not possess yourself. If you do not have the right to own nuclear weapons, then you cannot give that right to your government.
    9. Re:When will the English take back their country? by BuhSnarf · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I *want* guns, ever. I mean, let's just look at America where everyone is armed and shootings are way above what they are in the UK! If I was to have a gun, so would the thieves, the cops and the risk of being shot and killed would replace the risk of being beaten up on a night out. Great.

    10. Re:When will the English take back their country? by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well there has to be some criteria, money is limited, the other answer is to tax more to create more money.

      We don't have socialized medicine in the USA. We also don't have doctors refusing to treat patients because they're overweight or because they smoke. We also don't have three to four month waiting lists for bypass surgery, or a large number of other proceedures. Maybe the answer isn't more taxes, it's going back to the old system of private practice because it works better. Yes, that would mean you'd have to pay for health insurance, but it probably wouldn't be any more than the taxes you're paying now, and you'd get a lot better service for it.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    11. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Martz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Being a UK citizen - and once being happy we got rid of the Conservative goverment with a Labour victory, I've become very annoyed and angry at the situation. I've written numerous letters to my MP, who has made plenty of promises and shown to be good at writting replies to me - perhaps nothing more. It does require a huge amount of effort from an individual to change things, and this combined effort can make a difference.

      I was reminded of it tonight watching a satirical comedy current affairs show, when the last demonstration/protests which actually influenced the Goverment into changing a decision - was for lowering the homosexual age of content. [The gag of the story was that it wasn't 16 year olds males demonstrating, rather it was millions of 40+ single men with leather trousers and pierced ears]. Millions of people marched, the goverment listened - and the law was changed. Democracy worked?

      The lastest demonstrations were at the G8 summit, whereby the day after the London underground/bus bombings took place - whilst all of the countries security was focused in Gleneagles. Before *that*, up to a million people demonstrated in London against the invasion of Iraq. So many many people were on the streets, a huge turn out which took an enormous amount of effort for people to make - people traveled several hundred miles to be there, which is a mean feat in itself in the UK anyway).

      If the goverment won't listen to a few hundred thousand people (minimum, 1 million max) who peacefully demonstrate, execute their primary right to disagree with the goverment decision as strongly as possible - what can be done? How many people does it take to reverse a decision, or to even get a referendum on it?

      The control and balance does need to be taken back, but people have too much to lose these days. They aren't directly interested in anything which isn't going to effect their bank balance or routine. Back in the day perhaps, the average family might have a lot less, be more hardup and actually demonstrating and protesting publicaly and peacefuly wouldn't be much more effort than their general hardships. Now-a-days (pipe in mouth, slippers on and reminiscing about the war..) we have it too easy that we order pizza thats cooked less than a mile away, delivered by scooter, and posted through our letterboxes. We are lazy, and we do not care/

      What chances do we have while we have it so easy, such an appeased population. :(

      I disagree with the examples in your post, but you are actually pointing in the right direction I think. As long as you make a noise, even if it isn't for the right reasons - just at the moment.

    12. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Shemmie · · Score: 1
      As has already been said, we're odd because we don't see legally owning guns are some sort of right? I'm 'glad' guns are illegal in the UK... people (on the whole) have no need to own a gun. What is it that makes you happier to know you can kill someone easily?

      Yes, the fact we can't do much to defend ourselves in our own home legally 'is' a concern. Agree on that point.

      Our health system's bad? Damn, it sure ain't perfect, agreed, but at least even the poor get treatment - it could certainly be worse, eh? That whole "If you're poor, you die" thing I don't really get.

    13. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fair number of those immigrants where born here. We have a history of allowing dissent and the voicing of unpopular views, you know it's called 'free speech'

      Unless, of course, those unpopular views involve race or religion (with an exception for Muslims; they can call for Sharia and Jihad as desired). Then the government locks you up, as they're currently trying to do with the head of the BNP. Or, apparently, if you deny the Holocaust in Austria (a belief that is surely silly, but I don't think being an idiot ought to be illegal).

      But those evil racists deserve to be suppressed, right? I'm sure a few enlightened Europeans can reply and describe exactly how the speech of racists isn't really speech at all, but a nebulous, evil force that must be eliminated at any cost, thus justifying this bizarre and totally false claim that they enjoy the right of "free speech".

    14. Re:When will the English take back their country? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I think you might want to check on the homocide rate per capita in both England, and the US.

      Also, no one keeps track of the lives fire arms have saved.
      Some jack hole shoots someone at random, it is in the national news, some 70 year old lady manages to stop a mugging with a gun, it is in the local paper.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:When will the English take back their country? by cliffski · · Score: 1

      and if you cant pay for insurance? what then?

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    16. Re:When will the English take back their country? by cliffski · · Score: 1, Informative

      last time i checked you were twenty seven times more likely to be killed by a firearm in the USA than the UK. As i recall that was from nationmaster.com, although columbia was slightly more dangerous, so theres that to be proud of.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    17. Re:When will the English take back their country? by whoever57 · · Score: 1
      Then they effectively took away your right to self-defense

      Since when? Not having guns is not the same as no right to self-defence. See above. What has happened is that you're not allowed to shoot people in the back, as they run away from you - no matter how must they have pissed you off.

      It's not just shooting people in the back. Read this about housholders being prosecuted for defending their homes and families -- not attacking perpetrators who are already leaving.

      The fact is that Blair reneged on a promise to give a statutary right to householders to defend themselves.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    18. Re:When will the English take back their country? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I don't know if there are still free clinics, supported by charities, but I'd be surprised if there weren't. I never said the US system is perfect, just that it doesn't have many of the flaws of the British system.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    19. Re:When will the English take back their country? by xtieburn · · Score: 1

      'We don't have socialized medicine in the USA.'

      I hope that works out for you.

      'We also don't have doctors refusing to treat patients because they're overweight or because they smoke.'

      Nah instead you just refuse anyone who doesnt have cash. Wow that sure sounds way more fair than us...

      'We also don't have three to four month waiting lists for bypass surgery, or a large number of other proceedures.'

      Nah you just have a phenominal amount of unneccesary surgery leading to countless thousands of deaths. I think ill just hang tight for a few months thanks.

      'Maybe the answer isn't more taxes'

      True, I believe a lot of money is eaten by beurocracy and inefficiency in the system that could be solved.

      'it's going back to the old system of private practice because it works better'

      Ive met people who've argued for private practice as an alternative but never someone so arrogant as to believe it works better.

      'Yes, that would mean you'd have to pay for health insurance,'

      Which a large part of the population cant afford.

      'but it probably wouldn't be any more than the taxes you're paying now,'

      How do you figure? The medical part of out taxes is no doubt large but do you honestly believe the government would reduce the taxes by exactly that amount? Of course not theyd reduce it by a much smaller percentage then slowly bring it back up so we have a country that not only pays the same taxes but medical insurance as well.
      Throughout this not one mention of the fact that those who cant pay get terrible to zero help at all. I like to think our country gives a shit about people who are in a rut.

      No medical system is perfect. Ours works well enough for me, and certainly no worse than the American one.

    20. Re:When will the English take back their country? by metallic · · Score: 1

      It's illegal to refuse medical care in a life-threatening situation in the US. For everything else, you can always go to a state hospital. Where I live, there is the LSUS Medical Center, which is run by Louisiana State University.

      --
      Karma: Positive. Mostly effected by cowbell.
    21. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Pentagram · · Score: 1

      I think you might want to check on the homocide rate per capita in both England, and the US.

      I think you should check it out. It's much much higher in the US than in the UK (per capita). And I think you should also read up on the difference between England and the UK.

      some 70 year old lady manages to stop a mugging with a gun, it is in the local paper.

      If an OAP managed to fight off a mugger it certainly would make the national news -- human interest story. I have visited the US and the biggest fans of guns were not little old ladies.

      Of the many civil rights abuses perpetrated by the UK government you could have chosen, you seem to have picked on the "abuses" that almost everyone thinks are beneficial.

    22. Re:When will the English take back their country? by xtieburn · · Score: 1

      'When will the English take back their country?'

      Too right. The yanks have made a right mess of the US! We should have taken America back long ago.

      Im joking, im joking. Seriously though getting aid from the French. That was low.

    23. Re:When will the English take back their country? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      I hope that works out for you.

      Just fine, thank you. Of course, I'm a 'Nam vet and get nearly free care for life from the VA.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    24. Re:When will the English take back their country? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "I think you should check it out. It's much much higher in the US than in the UK (per capita). And I think you should also read up on the difference between England and the UK."
      yes I know, my bad.

      However, the homocide rate per capita in the UK is 13 people out of 100,000. In the US it is 6 people per 100,000.

      "
      If an OAP managed to fight off a mugger it certainly would make the national news -- human interest story. I have visited the US and the biggest fans of guns were not little old ladies."

      No, it doesn't. I have seen many police reports where someone has thwarted an attack with a fire arm. None of which ever made national news.

      I happen to know quite a few little old ladies that are armed. But my point was that guns are used to protect one self, and no one tracks that information. So saying x number of people were killed by guns is meaningless without comparative data.

      "Of the many civil rights abuses perpetrated by the UK government you could have chosen, you seem to have picked on the "abuses" that almost everyone thinks are beneficial."

      That doesn't mean it is beneficial without data to back it yp.

      Plus, how can an unarmed subject protect themselves against abuses? we do not live in some magical age where no one will come to power that will become a blood thirsty tyrant.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    25. Re:When will the English take back their country? by UpnAtom · · Score: 2, Informative

      Things are much worse than that. We've started locking up innocent people indefinitely, using anti-terrorist laws on Holocaust survivors and have introduced a Hitleresque dictatorship law.

      Next on the agenda is the world's most intrusive mass surveillance system and a law to bypass Parliamentary scrutiny.

      We are heading towards a police state faster than 1930s Germany and probably less than 0.1% of the population are doing a thing to stop it.

      It's scary to see how quickly the defences against fascism which we've evolved over a millenium have been dismantled. Assuming you're a US citizen, defend your Constitution with your life. And stop rendition and Guantanamo, for God's sake.

      I have been talking with the House of Lords (our second House) about opposing the ID Cards Bill and although they understand the Orwellian implications, they're scared to oppose it in case Blair abolishes the Lords altogether.

    26. Re:When will the English take back their country? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      that's a shame, because the countries will privatly owned fire arms had fewer homocides per capita then countries where the citizens don't carry guns.

      OTOH, if all the people in IRAQ were unarmed, it would make the US's goals a lot easier.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    27. Re:When will the English take back their country? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so the person arguing against socialised medicine is getting socialized medicine and it 'works fine'?

      what did I miss?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    28. Re:When will the English take back their country? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You do relize you are both discussing implementation issues right?
      for example, there i no reason someone had a socialized system that didn't preclude the obese and smokers*

      Or someone could implement a hybred of both. Have social medicine, but don't outlaw private practice.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    29. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot - stop repeating your crap. The homicide rate is ~ 1.7 per 100,000 in England

    30. Re:When will the English take back their country? by dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv · · Score: 2, Interesting

      england never had a wild west & we dont want one either.

      guns (on their own) dont bring down governments either, especially not small guns.

      every iraqi houshold had a gun under saddam, it did nothing to stop that oppressive government.

    31. Re:When will the English take back their country? by spuzzzzzzz · · Score: 1

      I just responded to your same statistic elsewhere, but I'll do it again here so people aren't misinformed.

      The homicide rate per capita in the UK is 1.3 people per 100,000, not 13. In the US, it is around 6 per 100,000.

      --

      Don't you hate meta-sigs?
    32. Re:When will the English take back their country? by lubricated · · Score: 1

      >> We also don't have doctors refusing to treat patients because they're overweight or because they smoke.

      no instead we have doctors refusing to treat patients because they don't have health insurance, or because they are poor. How is that any better.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    33. Re:When will the English take back their country? by ron8888 · · Score: 1
      You should be aware that outside the US, and perhaps Switzerland and one or two other countries

      Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, Somalia,... All interesting places where the government doesn't have the means to disarm its population.

    34. Re:When will the English take back their country? by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      The Sun is owned by News Corp, who own Fox.

      That explains it :)

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    35. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Cadallin · · Score: 1
      And the great point about all of this is that pro-gun people in the states think that they're going to be able to use their guns to protect their freedom. RIIIIGHT. Maybe if we had stormed D.C. in the 1920's with the revolution armed with Thompson sub-machine guns, and various automatic (i.e. semi-auto) rifles vs. the national guard and U.S. military armed with very little more than that. Not today. Forget about it. The U.S. is already a fascist dictatorship. They control the media, so they don't have to worry if a few people squawk. The disparity in terms of hardware between the private citizen and the organized military is just too large for guns to be an issue at this point.

      We could try to take back the country at the polls, except the voting machines are rigged with no paper trail, and even IF, IF they were honest the media control, and the U.S. winner-take-all elections make it impossible.

      Guns are pointless, all the do is make the paramilitary nuts feel like they can protect their home from minorities they have a rascist bias against.

    36. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Grym · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear, I'm going to respond to your post and another respondent's post at the same time.

      I don't know if there are still free clinics, supported by charities, but I'd be surprised if there weren't. I never said the US system is perfect, just that it doesn't have many of the flaws of the British system.

      Have you ever seen a free medical clinic? They're usually understaffed, inundated with patients, and unable to provide anything but the most basic brand of care. If you're one of those people who points at the waiting lists in the British and Canadian healthcare systems, I suggest you analyze the waiting times for treatment (assuming it's available) at free clinics and state hospitals before leveling this criticism.

      Last time I saw the figure, there were 41 million medically-uninsured Americans. Claiming that free clinics will take care of their medical needs is the equivalent of "let them eat cake." Given the rapid shift in age demographics we are experiencing, our healthcare needs are, by all estimates, going to drastically increase. I don't think 'imperfect' is the right word.

      It's illegal to refuse medical care in a life-threatening situation in the US. For everything else, you can always go to a state hospital. Where I live, there is the LSUS Medical Center, which is run by Louisiana State University.

      Ahh... but therein lies a problem: Bouncing from life threatening crisis-to-crisis costs more than diagnosing and treating problems preventatively; with the added bonus of increased patient satisfaction and outcome. Relying upon emergency medicine to treat the uninsured is quite literally pennywise, pound-foolish.

      Furthermore, imagine workers as a resource. We can easily assume that healthy workers are more productive than sick or injured workers. In this way, wouldn't it make sense, then, from a national economic perspective to treat the health of our workers as an infrastructure issue? Under the current system, might we be, in a way, hamstringing our overall economic efficiency by providing a sub-standard quality of healthcare simply because we lack a proper perspective?

      But more than the economics of it all, at some point, do we not have an obligation to one another to provide a modern level of healthcare to one another if we are in a position to do so?

      -Grym

    37. Re:When will the English take back their country? by nicklott · · Score: 1
      you might want to provide a reference for such a bold statement... My brief research seems to suggest that you are talking out of your ass.

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fi r_percap

      Murders with firearms (per capita)

      #1 South Africa 0.719782 per 1,000 people
      #2 Colombia 0.509801 per 1,000 people
      #3 Thailand 0.312093 per 1,000 people
      #4 Zimbabwe 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
      #5 Mexico 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
      #6 Belarus 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
      #7 Costa Rica 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
      #8 United States 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
      #9 Uruguay 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
      #10 Lithuania 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
      Numbers 1 thru 4 all allow the carrying of firearms (or are effectively lawless). Don't know about 5,6,7. 8 and 9 do, don't know about 10.
    38. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, how can an unarmed subject protect themselves against abuses? we do not live in some magical age where no one will come to power that will become a blood thirsty tyrant.

      Yes, the US already has one. Yet the ownership of guns didn't stop Cheney coming to power and it won't remove him.
    39. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You just lost the interest of 99.9% of the British population. You should be aware that outside the US, and perhaps Switzerland and one or two other countries, the notion that people have some kind of natural right to own guns is taken about as seriously as

      ...the assertion that people have a natural right to trade pictures of 50-year-old men sodomizing 5-year-old boys?

      Two can play the strawman game, bitch.

    40. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Then they effectively took away your right to self-defense (they took away the means in step one), and you locked yourself in your bathrooms when the burglars break into your occupied house."

      No, you have the right to take reasonable steps to defend yourself if attacked by a burglar, up to, and including killing the burglar. In the last 10 years only two people have been convicted of killing burglars - Tony Martin, who had a history of shooting at people (e.g. his brother), and another man whose name I have forgotten who chased the burglar a couple of hundred yards down the road before stabbing him to death. In both cases it was felt that the people were not in immediate danger or fear of their own lives at the time they killed the burglar. If a burglar came at you with a knife and you hit him over the head with a cricket bat and he died you would not be convicted. You might be charged initially as that would be procedural, but the typically the DPP would then have the charges dropped.

    41. Re:When will the English take back their country? by xtieburn · · Score: 1

      'Have social medicine, but don't outlaw private practice'

      Thats what ours is. You can have the best health care in the world if you have the money. Its just we also set the bar high for the bottom level.

    42. Re:When will the English take back their country? by vrai · · Score: 1
      every iraqi houshold had a gun under saddam, it did nothing to stop that oppressive government.
      True, but its done a pretty good job of derailing the current occupation.
    43. Re:When will the English take back their country? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Plus, how can an unarmed subject protect themselves against abuses?

      Please. One gun nut vs a SWAT team. Who wins?

      we do not live in some magical age where no one will come to power that will become a blood thirsty tyrant.

      Try exercising your right to vote. Try not giving your leaders carte-blanche every time they cry "Terrorist" or "WMD".

    44. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they disolve the act of union? When are you going to learn? ENGLAND is only ONE part of the UNITED KINGDOM.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom

      http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /uk.html

    45. Re:When will the English take back their country? by GnuDiff · · Score: 1

      In Lithuania, I believe it is the same as in my country, which is its neigbour. And I think it is basically the same in a lot of other countries in Europe.

      It is not illegal. You can get license to own a gun (pistol, hunter rifle or suchlike), and if you can reasonably state that you might be having a dangerous situation or are taking risks during your daily life (like, back in 1990ies, when racketeering was rampant, many of the small businessmen), you can get a licence to carry a gun.

      It is just that it is/is perceived/ as big enough hassle and bureaucracy, so that only a small percentage of people do it.

    46. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Pentagram · · Score: 1

      However, the homocide rate per capita in the UK is 13 people out of 100,000. In the US it is 6 people per 100,000.

      You're an idiot. Check your facts before you try to "correct" someone.

      No, it doesn't. I have seen many police reports where someone has thwarted an attack with a fire arm. None of which ever made national news.

      Maybe it is because it doesn't happen very often?

      So saying x number of people were killed by guns is meaningless without comparative data.

      Well you find the comparative data then. But you'd better provide references because I don't trust your "fact" finding skills.

      Plus, how can an unarmed subject protect themselves against abuses?

      That is why we have democracy, a legal system, a police force, a free(ish) media, etc.

    47. Re:When will the English take back their country? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      What you missed is the fact that I earned those benefits by putting my life on the line for my country. I was off-shore in '72 when the NVA came across the border with more armor and machinery than the Germans took to the Kursk Salient, and I helped send them running home on foot because we'd smashed all their transport, at a cost of less than 500 American casualties. During that time, I watched 6" shells land within 30 yards of my ship. Part of the contract I signed was that I'd receive these benefits, so it's just Uncle Sam complying with a contractual obligation.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    48. Re:When will the English take back their country? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Hospitals are forbidden to refuse emergency service to anybody, even if they can't pay. Alas, this has lead to more and more hospitals closing their Emergency Rooms or Urgent Care facilities because it's gotten too expensive for them. I don't say our system is perfect, but we don't have overweight people or smokers refused service simply because the are overweight or because they smoke. We also don't have wating lists for operations other than transplants because we don't have government bureaucrats deciding how many each hospital can perfom per month. (I'm not sure if that's the real reason for the waiting lists on bypass surgery, but if not, it's still somethng outside the hospital's control because I'm sure they'd rather not make people wait months for their bypass.)

      I don't say that the idea of having the government provide medical service for everybody isn't a nice idea, I just say that I've never heard of a place that tried it and ended up with as good service as places that don't use it. To me, it's just another nice ideal that Just Doesn't Work. Getting back to the original point, our government requires hospitals to provide expensive services but refuses to pay for them. It's just Yet Another Unfunded Mandate, and that's wrong. Hospitals should be able to be reembursed for emergency care to the indigent, after they've made a proper attempt to collect from the patient and failed.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    49. Re:When will the English take back their country? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your information. I never thought Free Clinics gave more than the minimum care, but it's good to have my impressions confirmed. I mentioned them only to show that the indigent aren't completely cut off from medical care, not to claim that they had all they needed.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    50. Re:When will the English take back their country? by lubricated · · Score: 1

      so we have a half-social system that brings out the worst of both worlds. If you can't afford treatment, you have to wait till it's a costly emergency. Or you will never be able to walk because physical therapy is non-emergency.

      Everyone else getting medical treatment pays for the emergency treatment. At least the english system punishes you for an unhealthy lifestyle.
      I think the waiting lists are a result of a limited amount of doctors, so everyone waits in line.

      IMO, the hospital should basically provide you a "menu" with prices on it. When was the last time you went to a hospital and they told you upfront how much it was going to cost. It should cost the same for everyone including insurance companies. If you could actually compare prices across hospitals you may start choosing the less expensive one. Oh and deregulate the whole malpractice insurance industry.

      Like I said the problem in the US could be fixed either by going free-market, or socialist, but the mixed system is just too fucking confusing.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    51. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      An un-assimilated population of immigrants is holding up signs saying "wait for the real holocaust"

      They're not immigrant; no more so than the caucasians of America.

    52. Re:When will the English take back their country? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      At least the english system punishes you for an unhealthy lifestyle.

      When I was a child, one of my father's good friends weighed well over 500 pounds, and had to be weighed on a butcher's scale. In a resturaunt, he'd order a child's portion and not finish, but he couldn't lose weight. He really did have a glandular condition that made him so heavy. (No, I don't know what it was; I was only about ten or eleven when he died.) In England, he'd now be refused medical service because of an "unhealthy lifestyle." Is this fair?

      I also have a friend that's confined to a wheelchair because of various problems. He's a long-term smoker, but that hasn't caused his medical trouble. One of his conditions is a heart condition. Nicotine is, among other things, a heart stimulent, and his doctor has instructed him not to quit because a cigerette will give him the right dose quicker, easier and cheaper than a pill. In England, not only wouldn't he be given this advice, he'd not be given treatment at all. Is this fair? I mention this to show that not everybody who's obese is at fault, and that there are times that smoking isn't a "bad lifestyle choice." I also don't like the English refusing medical care on those grounds because it's not the doctor's job to force patients to change if they don't want to. Their job is to advise their patients, and do the best they can with what the patient decides to do.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    53. Re:When will the English take back their country? by lubricated · · Score: 1

      you can pull anectodes out of your ass till the cows come home. People didn't all of a sudden start to have more disseases that made them fat, people are just getting fatter and blaming it on more shit. It's like the guy who drinks double big gulps for most of his life, gives himeself diabetes and blames his fatness on it. Yes there are poeple that are fat through no fault of their own, I don't know wether the english system gives them a pass or not. As far as smoking, I've never heard of people's hearts being better afterwards, sound like something you made up. Regardless a few anectodes do not prove anything.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    54. Re:When will the English take back their country? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      It's like the guy who drinks double big gulps for most of his life, gives himeself diabetes and blames his fatness on it.

      As a Type II diabetic that's almost underweight, I resent that. I'd also like to point out that eating too much sugar doesn't give you diabetes; at most, it aggravates a tendancy toward it. Try learning what you're talking about before throwing insults around.

      As far as smoking, I've never heard of people's hearts being better afterwards, sound like something you made up.

      It's a good friend of mine, and both of us were astonished at the doctor's suggestion. I've never heard of it before, and I doubt I will again. I mentioned it only to show that there can be valid medical reasons not to stop.

      Yes, I know that hard cases make bad law, and it'd be tough writing a set of guidelines to fit these two people. What you really want is general rules with the ability to make exceptions where needed. Unless English doctors have enough leeway in applying their rules, there are going to be people denied care for all the wrong reasons. This is my main objection, a perceived lack of any understanding that One Size Doesn't Fit All.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    55. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1
      you might want to provide a reference for such a bold statement... My brief research seems to suggest that you are talking out of your ass.

      He's not the one talking out of his ass. You've shown us nothing on firearm ownership or overall murder rates. Switzerland and Norway, for example, have higher gun ownership rates than other European nations, and also have homicide rates amongst the lowest.

      Both South Africa and Mexico have stringent gun prohibitions, and are far from "lawless". US citizens have spent years in Mexican prisons for having a single bullet in their vehicles left over from hunting trips. As for 2, 3 and 4, I'll bet you real money that their gun laws are far more restrictive than those of the US.

    56. Re:When will the English take back their country? by lubricated · · Score: 1

      >> As a Type II diabetic that's almost underweight, I resent that. I'd also like to point out that eating too much sugar doesn't give you diabetes; at most, it aggravates a tendancy toward it. Try learning what you're talking about before throwing insults around.

      type II diabetes has been reported with increasing frequency this century. The effect is almost certainly environmental. All I was saying is that poor diet can lead to a condition that makes you fat. I pointed out an example that hit a nerve. It's your fault you were insulted.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    57. Re:When will the English take back their country? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      In my case, it was probably Agent Orange related, but I never set foot ashore, so it's assumed by the VA that I wasn't exposed. I did, however, sail regularly through clouds of sand, grit and debris from B52 raids. Alas, the records of where it was used are mostly gone, so that's the standard they set to avoid opening a can of worms.

      As far as it being more common, I sometimes wonder if it really is, or is just better diagnosed now. No way of knowing, of course.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    58. Re:When will the English take back their country? by pkphilip · · Score: 1

      Why do people assume that having the right to own guns automatically ensures greater freedom?

    59. Re:When will the English take back their country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overall Murders per capita. Source, same as GP. ( http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap )

      You will notice that the US has 3 times the murder rate than that of Canada or the UK, or any Western European country, or any Scandinavian country.

      Rank Country Amount (top to bottom)
      #1 Colombia 0.617847 per 1,000 people
      #2 South Africa 0.496008 per 1,000 people
      #3 Jamaica 0.324196 per 1,000 people
      #4 Venezuela 0.316138 per 1,000 people
      #5 Russia 0.201534 per 1,000 people
      #6 Mexico 0.130213 per 1,000 people
      #7 Estonia 0.107277 per 1,000 people
      #8 Latvia 0.10393 per 1,000 people
      #9 Lithuania 0.102863 per 1,000 people
      #10 Belarus 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
      #11 Ukraine 0.094006 per 1,000 people
      #12 Papua New Guinea 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
      #13 Kyrgyzstan 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
      #14 Thailand 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
      #15 Moldova 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
      #16 Zimbabwe 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
      #17 Seychelles 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
      #18 Zambia 0.070769 per 1,000 people
      #19 Costa Rica 0.061006 per 1,000 people
      #20 Poland 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
      #21 Georgia 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
      #22 Uruguay 0.045082 per 1,000 people
      #23 Bulgaria 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
      #24 United States 0.042802 per 1,000 people
      #25 Armenia 0.0425746 per 1,000 people
      #26 India 0.0344083 per 1,000 people
      #27 Yemen 0.0336276 per 1,000 people
      #28 Dominica 0.0289733 per 1,000 people
      #29 Azerbaijan 0.0285642 per 1,000 people
      #30 Finland 0.0283362 per 1,000 people
      #31 Slovakia 0.0263303 per 1,000 people
      #32 Romania 0.0250784 per 1,000 people
      #33 Portugal 0.0233769 per 1,000 people
      #34 Malaysia 0.0230034 per 1,000 people
      #35 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of 0.0229829 per 1,000 people
      #36 Mauritius 0.021121 per 1,000 people
      #37 Hungary 0.0204857 per 1,000 people
      #38 Korea, South 0.0196336 per 1,000 people
      #39 Slovenia 0.0179015 per 1,000 people
      #40 France 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
      #41 Czech Republic 0.0169905 per 1,000 people
      #42 Iceland 0.0168499 per 1,000 people
      #43 Australia 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
      #44 Canada 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
      #45 Chile 0.014705 per 1,000 people
      #46 United Kingdom 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

  18. Damn Right by segedunum · · Score: 1

    Our government is a group of spineless, traitorous wimps willing to sell our country down the river for anything that their Bush friend wants - including making Britain a policed state. Mark my words, that's what we're becoming, all in aid of international terrorism that simply isn't really happening.

  19. Kill the pidgeons! by chris_sawtell · · Score: 2, Informative
    They are bound to use the bird-flu scare to kill millions of birds when the real intent is to stop this sort of thing:-
    http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt
    http://tecfa.unige.ch/perso/staf/nova/blog/2005/04 /28/pigeon-empowered-wireless-internet/
    :-)

    The problem for all 'governments-of-the-day' who enact stupid legislation is that there is always a way around the 'problem'. There is also clandestine high frequency high speed RTTY.

  20. uhh... Log Retention?? by v3xt0r · · Score: 0

    /me gives them some ex-lax...

    --
    the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
  21. CONtrol by sane? · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What you don't seem to understand is that its all driven by a fear of not being 'in control'. How can you be 'in control' if you can't access what people are saying, what they are doing? How can you understand them if you don't know their innermost thoughts?

    UK government is scared by that they don't understand, Islam, Internet, anything that has passed their arts education by. They don't understand and therefore they need 'more information' to feel that they have 'kept on top' of the problems that confront them.

    You know that feeling when you are swimming, but its not working out and you are getting lower and lower in the water, swallowing more and more water? That's the UK, and when they realise it, the US governments.

  22. Ok you win.. by packetmill · · Score: 3, Funny

    This round anyway. We Americans must admit our defeat, but we'll get you twats next year when we convince google to hand over those logs.

    1. Re:Ok you win.. by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      We Americans must admit our defeat, but we'll get you twats next year when we convince google to hand over those logs.

      I'm betting on the third place contender, China, to pull off an upset win next year, myself.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:Ok you win.. by packetmill · · Score: 1

      Woah, slow down there buddy, you're talking a completely different *league*.

      We are still playing democracy-being-hypocritical-as-usual here.
      China belongs to the yes-we're-big-brother-and-we-don't-like-you-either division.

      We're getting there, but not just yet.

    3. Re:Ok you win.. by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      We are still playing democracy-being-hypocritical-as-usual here.
      China belongs to the yes-we're-big-brother-and-we-don't-like-you-either division.


      But King George says that China is our ally and we should sell them our military technology, or was that our US ports, so isn't that the same thing?

      Dang, forgot my sarcasm key ...

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:Ok you win.. by TheGhostOfDerrida · · Score: 1

      I thought the ports were going to the United Arab Emrates, not China. Or maybe I'm mistaken. Or maybe they're both the same place?... These days, what's the point of geography... or the news for that matter.

      --
      Paul: If you're reading this, pick your shoes up out of the hallway. I keep tripping over them. Slob.
    5. Re:Ok you win.. by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      These days, what's the point of geography... or the news for that matter.

      Well, the point of geography is to keep you from wandering off into the moors, when you were headed for a nice warm pub.

      And the point of the news is to get you upset about things you can do very little, if anything, about. Kind of like clocks in your car - then you can worry you're late, but you'll still be late.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    6. Re:Ok you win.. by TheGhostOfDerrida · · Score: 1

      Yea, since gradeschool wanderin' into the moors has been a bit of a problem I've had, but after learnin' that China and the UAE are not only not the same place, but, in fact, aren't even really all that close, I've been doin a little better at avoiding it... And one other reason the news is good for something: When you watch/read/telepathically scan the news, you can not only get angry about things you can't help, but now you can also get angry about being the only person that reads/watches/makes the news.

      --
      Paul: If you're reading this, pick your shoes up out of the hallway. I keep tripping over them. Slob.
  23. Re:Ah xx-Tony Blair-xx Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else find it incredibly ironic that many conservatives in the US enthusiastically support him? I'm constantly amazed, as a libertarian, by the number of conservatives who cannot separate his support of the invasion of Iraq from his general policies. xx-Blair-xx Bush and his xx-labor-xx Republican party should serve as a reminder that xx-socialism-xx conservatism is not all about xx-fluffy welfare states-xx lower taxes. Rather, the xx-socialist-xx conservative state can also be very intrusive, and rather often is in fact rather intrusive on the basic rights of the public.

    Yeah, I find it incredibly ironic.
  24. It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New Polish fascist government wanted 15 years of retention.

  25. Perhaps one day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully people will bother to watch the program on Channel 4, I'm crying in my Victory Gin already.
    We're all taking it up the backside, and only because the governmental powers are actually being clever enough to lubricate things fully enough that we simply don't notice it's going up there; I digress, there is undoubtedly a large number of the public who are completely unaware, but until a large enough uprising forms, I don't see a hell of a lot happening.
    Picture it; if a paramilitary organisation was formed, something with the sort of strength of the IRA, and with public support, didn't ultimately etch away at this sort of Big Brother crap, I think I'll change my name Winston Smith for the hell of it.

    How do they propose to keep all traffic for 6 months, that's a lot of hard drives right there, ad if I was an ISP, I can't say I'd go out of my way to put that into a RAID config, I bet it ends up being packets logged on the default ports for services like POP3... ooh looks like we don't even need to bother with encryption anymore boys.

    that's my lunatic rantings over anyway.

  26. Please explain this to me. by db32 · · Score: 1

    So what? They have to keep logs they were probably already keeping anyways. The big deal is going to be what they are required to do with them BEYOND just keeping them around. If the powers that be can demand access to all of them, or only demand logs involved in whatever they are investigating, etc. Given the ammount of real problems on the net, I'm not entirely convinced that making it easier to track people down for doing these things is all that bad. I certainly would like to see a reduction in the number of idenity theft cases, fraud, online predators, botnets, script kiddies. It all boils down to how they are used.

    Ultimately, while this could be very slippery slope if not handled well, I really fail to see how this is anywhere near the most villianous thing done this year. I would venture to say that Yahoo! helping track down chinese dissenter journalist and throw them in jail is a far cry worse just as a small example.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    1. Re:Please explain this to me. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that they made people keep logs that they can't access?

      There is a lot of crime outside, maybe we should make peoples stay in their homes.

      Also, I doubt very many ISPs kept logs around for very long.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Please explain this to me. by db32 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure banks are legally required to keep a transaction history (beyond just not wanting to upset their customers). The lawmakers would be the ones to tell them they have to keep it. That doesn't mean the lawmakers can just come in and grab everyones transaction history just because they want to. They have to go through a process to gain access to the specific transaction histories they want for their investigation, and have to show why they need them.

      The "AAHH LOG EVERYTHING" as well as "OMG THEY ARE TRACKING US ALL" are both kneejerk reactions, and to me labeling this fiasco as a villianous thing, let alone the MOST villianous thing, just makes the side trying to prevent it look stupid.

      I said I don't have much of a problem with the idea, not that I agree with every aspect of the way they are going about doing it. The problem here is reactions like "So you want us to all stay in our homes" just makes your case look bad. If you want to get things done in a sane manner, you can't react with insane behaviour. I don't want it to be a huge draconian thing, but as long as people respond with such innane comments and "awards" there will be no meaningfull opposition because they will be laughed off.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    3. Re:Please explain this to me. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      My point is that keeping logs "just in case" is no different from keeping people home "just in case".

      If I am walking down the street and go into a store, and that store 'logs' me, I don't have a problem. If I was 'logged' every time I just walked down the street, I would have a problem.

      Also, if stores were forced to log me, that would be an issues as well. You can open a bank that doesn't give logs to the government, but don't expect FDIC, or any other government help.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Please explain this to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That doesn't mean the lawmakers can just come in and grab everyones transaction history just because they want to. They have to go through a process to gain access to the specific transaction histories they want for their investigation, and have to show why they need them.

      Process??? You must be new here (or lucky enough not to be here at all). You see, there's this new law, the PATRIOT ACT, and the "process" goes something like this:
      1 - Become curious
      2 - Demand data
      Note that step 1 is becoming more and more optional; the wonderful data mining initiatives are only just beginning.

    5. Re:Please explain this to me. by db32 · · Score: 1

      Well, kinda the nature of the beast with the web. Really, you ARE logged every time you walk down the street, its just in an entirely different way. People are logging you. For example, looking at porn on the net for example, isn't terribly different from looking at porn in a public park. There is just an illusion of privacy because you are at home doing it. In the park, people will see you doing it, and may or may not remember specific details about who you are and what you were doing. The difference is, the 'people' that see you do things on the net are machines and tend to have longer and more accurate memories. If you are worried about being logged on the internet, encrypt what you are doing (stuff that porno mag in a newspaper).

      The greatest bit of irony to me with the left wing vs right wing beliefs centers around how the they both hold some very self contradicting ideals. The right has this tendancy to want strict control and monitoring of people, but supports pro gun laws. The left doesn't want the people monitored, but supports anti gun laws. (At least generally). Ultimately the purpose of the gun laws as written in that so special ammendment, is to prevent the government from taking too much control from the people. The government is supposed to fear an armed populace for the possibility of revolution, and the history of western civilizations has shown that dearming the populace was a big part in maintaining control of the populace in the past and attempting to prevent the populace from ever rising up.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    6. Re:Please explain this to me. by db32 · · Score: 1

      The Patriot Act, I think, is a patently bad idea. (Which incidentally I plan on patenting the use of bad ideas in government and business, and then sueing pretty much everyone) However, the reality of it is, while there are many groups that abuse the hell out of those laws, I would hardly say that the majority of criminal cases or investigations make any use of them.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  27. 2Gb+ Email accounts by Junik1 · · Score: 1

    with email providers giving more and more space to store all "your" email doesn't it you wonder what they are storing? what about cashed web pages? everything online is being stored

    1. Re:2Gb+ Email accounts by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      ....cause if it wasn't it wouldn't be online?

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:2Gb+ Email accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its not privacy, you're using someone elses network.

  28. Chill! Retention, not new capture by redelm · · Score: 1
    Those of you hot under the collar [and impatient] POP QUIZ: What does you ISP log now, and how long does s/he retain it? Have you asked?

    I read TFA & elsewhere the word "retention". No-where does it mandate that information not being captured will suddenly have to be.

    I do not expect ISPs will have to log all TCP/IP traffic (ala tcpdump). They'd need massive new firewall logging servers. Insteady, they will just have to keep their sendmail and login files for two years. And phone billing info likewise. Many probably already are. AFAIK, US telecoms have been required from pre-PC days to keep this info for at least one year.

  29. In related news by Mike+Kelly · · Score: 1

    The US Postal Service is now required to keep records of every letter and parcel delivered to every address in the US for 6 months.

  30. Remember, Remember by MikeSty · · Score: 1

    The fifth of November. Coincidence anyone?!??!

  31. Bush did it by ninjadroid · · Score: 1

    Clearly, this is part of a vast righ-wing conspiracy. Karl Rove is trying to divert attention from the Chimpler's Cabal of Evil (TM), and their complete disregard for even the most basic of human rights, by intimidating the ISPA into calling Britain the villain of the year, when that title should obviously be awarded to Bushitler. QED. BTW, if you need to be reminded that this post is sarcastic --- well, you know you've spent too much time on Slashdot when...

  32. Insightful my arse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The RIP act (remember that one?) predated any such 'threat'. At this point, the threat of rabid Islamists is on a par with the 'nukes to hit us in 45 minutes' we got to hear about when the war on Iraq was looming. It's an excuse, folks.

  33. You missed the point by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

    It doesn't matter if you were shot or stabbed, dead is dead. I didn't ask for the total gun related deaths, the total homocides per capita.

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.as p?More=Y

    http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Cri me/State/statebystaterun.cfm?stateid=52

    in short:
    England ~13 per 100,000
    U.S.A. ~6 per 100,000

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:You missed the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need a simple arithmetic lesson!!! Look at the English murder statistics at http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.as p . Remember the population of England is approximately 50 million. The figure would be about 1.7 per 100,000 for England. If you include deaths from traffic acidents it would be about 2.5 per 100,000

    2. Re:You missed the point by spuzzzzzzz · · Score: 1

      Your england link isn't complete, but here are some stats (only up to '98) from the same site. You will notice that the murder rate is per million people. That is, the murder rate in 1998 was 1.2 per 100,000 compared to the USA's 6.3 (in 1998, 5.5 in 2004) per 100,000.

      --

      Don't you hate meta-sigs?
    3. Re:You missed the point by sunwukong · · Score: 1

      Please, it's simple minded to yell causation for a population's gun possession rates and its homicide rate. Why ignore all of the social, economic, historical and geographic issues?

      For example, Canada in 2003 (the latest year I have numbers for) the homicide rate continued its steady decline to 2 per 100K. Our level of gun ownership is probably comparable to that of the US -- especially in the rural areas.

    4. Re:You missed the point by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      in short:
      England ~13 per 100,000
      U.S.A. ~6 per 100,000


      look again:

      England ~13 per MILLION
      U.S.A. ~6 per 100,000

      So the US rate is FIVE TIMES HIGHER.

  34. Look on the bright side by serutan · · Score: 1

    They may have to keep all that information, but at least it's legal to keep it in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying, "Beware of the Leopard."

    At least I think so.

    1. Re:Look on the bright side by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Write the logs to hundreds of thousands of unmarked CDROMs and chuck them down an elevator shaft for safe keeping...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    2. Re:Look on the bright side by jgrahn · · Score: 1
      Write the logs to hundreds of thousands of unmarked CDROMs and chuck them down an elevator shaft for safe keeping...

      Wouldn't work. Part of the law is to do data retention; another part is to provide a convenient interface to the data. At least it is in the .se case, but I suspect that the .uk and .se proposed laws are remarkably similar ...

    3. Re:Look on the bright side by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      OK, then do what telcos used to do with early electronic exchanges: Set up a log printer that prints everything to fan-fold paper. Paper has a 6000 year history of being archive quality and convenient to use. Then you neatly stack the boxes in a damp basement...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
  35. What is the penalty for not keeping logs? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    Unless the penalty for noncompliance is very large, it may be cheaper to ignore the law. Also, complying with the law would probably expose an ISP to more legal risk than noncompliance would.

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  36. Mod parent funny or insightfull by nhnfreespirit · · Score: 1

    Damn, no mod points! This post deserves them though.

    Had me laughing out very loud! :-)

  37. And I thought that was George W Bush by ljrmorgan · · Score: 1
  38. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes by GnuDiff · · Score: 1

    The thing that worries me, is actually, what kind of information (kept by ISP) can be used in what capacity? As proof in court??

    Since it is generally so ridiculously easy to insert or completely rewrite anything that is kept in logfiles, this places a tremendous responsibility on (especially) the sysadmins taking care of that information. Which seems to be something that the data retention doesn't care much about.

    Where there is paper involved, there can be copies made, and any actual changes can be examined for forgeries.

    With logfiles, if law enforcement asks me eg, for webmail activity logs of person X, I can just copy/paste any log of another person, modify a bit, delete the info, replace the logfile in backups, and in fact create an entirely different usage pattern than what really took place. And I bet nobody is going to check that, and even if they did, they'd have hell of a time proving I modified anything.

  39. Re:Chill! Retention, not new capture by lucaslucaslucas · · Score: 1
    I do not expect ISPs will have to log all TCP/IP traffic (ala tcpdump). They'd need massive new firewall logging servers.

    They have to save all metadata. So, all urls, time stamps, IPs, basically everything except the content of the packets. And yes, they'll need 'massive new firewall logging servers', for wich they'll have to pay themselves.
    Americans won't have to be jealous of our high-speed low-cost connections anymore, prices will certainly go up.

  40. Re:Chill! Retention, not new capture by redelm · · Score: 1
    Do you have a reference saying ISPs will be required to capture new [metadata] that they are already not capturing? TFA said that incompleted cellphone calls might not be captured if the equipment wasn't capable.

    Running a full capture (minus content) will not be possible on most current equipment. Crisco will be selling a lot of new routers. There are very few 100baseTX hubs out there (most are switches) so sniffing traffic will take new [router] hardware as well as the new beefy logging machine. And I don't have any idea how intra-ISP traffic can be captured.