UK Government To Outsource Data Snooping and Storage

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Government To Outsource Data Snooping and Storage

Posted by timothy on Thursday January 1, 2009 @11:40PM from the avoid-conflict-of-interest dept.

bone_idol writes "The Guardian is reporting that the private sector will be asked to manage and run a communications database that will keep track of everyone's calls, emails, texts and internet use under a key option contained in a consultation paper to be published next month by Jacqui Smith, the home secretary. Also covered on the BBC."

13 of 114 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Slippery slope by slugtastic · 2009-01-01 23:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Senior Whitehall officials responsible for planning for a new database say there is a significant difference between having access to "communications data" - names and addresses of emails or telephone numbers, for example - and the actual contents of the communications. "We have been very clear that there are no plans for a database containing any content of emails, texts or conversations," the spokeswoman said.
Pretty slip indeed.
Re:Left on a train by cyber-vandal · 2009-01-01 23:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

You wish given that UK government IT is all outsourced to private sector cowboys.
Re:Left on a train by Yacoby · 2009-01-02 00:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

At least it's less lightly to be left on the train, if it's not in government hands.
To be replaced by the private company selling it to the highest bidder?
missed the issue by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-02 00:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't be concerned at who is holding the data rather be concerned that the data is actually being collected.... (it's probably safer if the government isn't managing this anyway)
Standard practice by Burnhard · 2009-01-02 00:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm afraid this is standard practice. Outsourcing allows those in charge to blame the company or corporation for any theft or data loss, not government ministers.
Jackboots Jacqui strikes again by damburger · 2009-01-02 00:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

What the hell is wrong with that woman? More to the point, what the hell is wrong with us? In any sane society a person like that would've been strung up from a lamppost a long time ago.

--
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
1. Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again by u38cg · 2009-01-02 00:43 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If you think that a sane society is one that strings people up to a lamp-post for saying things you disagree with, then I'll stick to being insane. Truth will out; mob lynchings should not be necessary.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
2. Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again by jimicus · 2009-01-02 00:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What the hell is wrong with that woman? More to the point, what the hell is wrong with us? In any sane society a person like that would've been strung up from a lamppost a long time ago.
  She's the product of a party which is obsessed with micromanaging the citizens of the country. A party which got to power by ruthlessly instilling discipline within its own membership - in other words, "follow the party line to the letter or get out".
  Jack Straw and David Blunkett were almost as bad. Tony Blair has openly gone on record as saying that he doesn't consider the civil liberties argument against ID cards to be a particularly strong one.
  There is no fscking chance you'll find anyone in a remotely senior position within the current Labour party who's prepared to contradict the party line - particularly when the arguments presented in favour always boil down to "it will drastically reduce crime" - never something that's easy to argue against.
3. Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again by Hal_Porter · 2009-01-02 01:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  She's the product of a party which is obsessed with micromanaging the citizens of the country. A party which got to power by ruthlessly instilling discipline within its own membership - in other words, "follow the party line to the letter or get out".
  LOL WUT?
  Have you ever been a member of the Labour Party? Pretty much every meeting I went to was devoted to people carping about the leadership.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:Left on a train by daem0n1x · 2009-01-02 00:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, because the private companies never screw up.
Re:Please... by Anne+Thwacks · 2009-01-02 00:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Has anyone, from a sane country, got any room left? I want to leave the UK now, please?
As a UK citizen, I am currently considering moving to one of several insane countries!

--
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Re:Left on a train by kno3 · 2009-01-02 01:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Governments outsource plenty, and have for a very long time.
This is true, however weather it is sensible I'm not so sure. All comes down to trust in the end, do you trust the private sector with all your details? And do you trust them to behave ethically when the inevitable conflicts of interests occur?
I personally do not, and would nationalise everything that could be, banks, land, public transport, etc... but that's just me.
Re:People who have something to hide, can. by janrinok · 2009-01-02 02:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Until they make the use of SSH tunnels or even encryption illegal. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why would you even consider using either? - or so their argument will go.

--
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view