UK Government To Outsource Data Snooping and Storage

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."

Comments

Left on a train

[JohnHegarty]

At least it's less lightly to be left on the train, if it's not in government hands.

Re:Left on a train

[cyber-vandal]

You wish given that UK government IT is all outsourced to private sector cowboys.

Re:Left on a train

[Yacoby]

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?

Re:Left on a train

[Goose In Orbit]

I'll wager that both will happen... probably the same week

Re:Left on a train

[daem0n1x]

Yes, because the private companies never screw up.

Re:Left on a train

[bytesex]

No. Their employees just don't travel by train.

Re:Left on a train

[Merusdraconis]

They should outsource it to the train companies, cut out the middle man.

Re:Left on a train

[kno3]

I hope that that is sarcastic!
Look at how well the private company contracted to organise and mark SATs did, they have now abolished them at KS3 because they f**ked it up so badly.
I wish the government could learn that its far more sensible to do the job properly yourself than paying the private sector to do it.

Re:Left on a train

[thedonger]

Governments outsource plenty, and have for a very long time. Sometimes doing a job sensibly means knowing when to let someone with better-developed capabilities handle it.

Re:Left on a train

[Foobar of Borg]

Governments outsource plenty, and have for a very long time. Sometimes doing a job sensibly means knowing when to let someone with better-developed capabilities handle it.

Quite true to a point. The problem is that the UK government, and especially the current US administration, seems to believe that privatizing government functions is some kind of cure-all. Yes, there are many functions that should be privatized, but there are so many things being privatized (roads, General Jim's Army [a.k.a. Blackwater et al.]) that should stay within the sphere of government.

Re:Left on a train

[kno3]

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:Left on a train

[thedonger]

My first reaction to nationalization is usually negative. I see the government as a stifling force, too easily caught up in its bureaucracy to function efficiently. They are a better manager than they are a technician. I think that is how the framers of the constitution saw it, too.

Additionally, endowing the government with such control is dangerous. Control equals power. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That is already evident in our government, as well as many others in the world. And no, I don't mean something obvious like the wiretapping crap.

Nationalization is similar to generalization: what you want to do is now a factor of what is good for the whole of the population. Do you really want your bank run by the government? I am happy to let the FDIC insure my funds, but I don't want a senate committee managing the bank.

Granted, much of this type of control already exists, and I think it is a problem. The government has extended its reach beyond facilitator and manager and wants to actually do stuff. Congressmen are now statesmen first and have lost touch with what it means to be a citizen. They no longer have to return to their states to tend to crops or other primary vocations/occupations. This self-importance has turned into a desire to make themselves more than what they are; they have forgotten they are public servants and that they work in our employ.

I would never willingly give these idiots more power. It will only make them huff and puff harder, and will eventually lead to a bleak, Orwellian future.

Re:Left on a train

[Requiem18th]

Do you really want your bank run by the government?

Hell no! I want it to be run by greedy bastards that over lend sink the nation in debt and then crawl to the government crying for bailout money then attempt to pocket has much of that money into their accounts as possible.

  What we need is a small government that just ensures taxes are properly conducted to nice millionaires.

Re:Left on a train

[kno3]

Well, as I said, it is a question of trust. You have the view that politicians are idiots. I don't think this and I feel that it is incredibly unfair, and unrealistic. The press does its best to portray politicians as idiots, and I am pretty sure this is where this view comes from. Overall I trust my politicians, I think that for the most part, they are trying to help the nation, and the world, yes sometimes they go about it incorrectly, but that is just a matter of opinion. I don't think that the same can be said of the private sector. Esso, Microsoft, Nike... these companies have a lot of power, are completely unelected, and have behaved in an extremely unethical manner. I don't trust the people running these companies as far as I can throw them.

I think that government can extend their reach beyond management, it is a good thing. I think that they can do things better and safer than the private sector, and it is certainly more democratic that way.

Re:Left on a train

[daveime]

Yes well it cures-all aspects of culpability when shit gets left in public places ... "Oh, sorry, we realise that it was us who wanted to know every aspect of your online habits (for the children doncha-know), but it wasn't us who lost it, it was the (non prosecutable) corporates we outsourced to.

Re:Left on a train

[ultranova]

More to the point, seeing how the private business interests run everything anyway, why not cut out the middleman ?

Re:Left on a train

[ultranova]

I see the government as a stifling force, too easily caught up in its bureaucracy to function efficiently.

The government is supposed to be inefficient. That way, any change will take long enough for concerned citizens to react. Inefficiency in the government is not a bug, it's a feature. And an important feature at that, for a democratic government must be inefficient. Democratic control is not efficient enough in itself to keep an efficient government under control.

Do you really want your bank run by the government?

Yes, I do. That way, I can be certain I can get my money out again, even if they have to print brand new money just for me; and I can be certain that I have plenty of chance to react to any "brilliant" investment scheme thought up by the CEO.

Re:Left on a train

[mattwarden]

What basis do you have for this comment? The public is protected against such action by the courts.

Not that private sector flamebaiting isn't fun...

Hooray for Crapita et al.

[u38cg]

Hardly surprising, considering the public sectors long and colourful history of IT debacles. See El Reg and Private Eye ad nauseum. One more reason to SSL all my traffic to a proxy somewhere (anywhere) else.

Re:Hooray for Crapita et al.

[Uber Banker]

Easy answer... SSH everything to a server the UK has no jurisdiction over.

It's not that hard.

Whats new?

[spj524]

The US does this now. There evidently are quite a few companies out there that specialize in gathering intel for nations.

I think I was listening to someone on NPR talk about this not too long ago.. Maybe the guy who wrote Shadow Factory?

Re:Whats new?

[ZombieWomble]

What's new is the scope of this database - the goal is to contain details of every single communication in the country. Information about every website accessed, every phone call made, every e-mail sent would be recorded in a database held by the government (or their appointed company), although not their contents (for now).

Previously this data wasn't collected in a central location and was only gathered from providers as required by criminal investigations etc, but the goal here would be that the government should have every bit of communications data directly at hand at all times, even if it's not suspect in any fashion.

Re:Whats new?

[Kagura]

There's already plenty of precedent for this kind of activity. It's not unheard of to collect and store tons of unnecessary information, not all of which is encompassed by the warrant (for example, if you're wiretapping a guy who's under investigation for something and you get private information about non-related people because he happened to call his mom or dad to say 'hi'). You're allowed to legally store information that you are not legally allowed to collect on, but you're not allowed to do anything with the information (like present it in court) unless it was encompassed by a warrant or other permission.

I don't actually know if you can go get "after-the-fact, we-just-happened-to-hear-about-this-crime-committed-by-someone-else" warrants. I'm pretty sure that in 99% of all cases, after-the-fact or out-right illegal use of collected intel does not happen.

Slippery slope

[slugtastic]

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:Slippery slope

[Culture20]

no plans for a database

"Oops, your communications data got in my database!"
"Hey, your database is encapsulating my communications data!"

- brought to you by Hershey's Reese's Foreign Government Datamining Division. We care about your data.

We're screwed

[Linker3000]

And as Jacqui drafts the invitation to tender document in Word - up pops clippy...

"I see you are outsourcing Government IT requirements. What level of cock-up and overspend do you want?

Shall I insert the address for:

a) EDS
b) Capita
c) SAP
d) IBM
"

Re:We're screwed

[nevdullc]

lol, I can see it now.. what a disaster, when will we ever learn, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora's_Box

Re:We're screwed

[Hognoxious]

SAP? Seriously? I wouldn't have thought that was their line of business at all.

Re:We're screwed

[lightversusdark]

It'll be Seimens. You heard it here first.

Re:We're screwed

[Hognoxious]

I figured he was just naming big software companies. Still, the crowd liked it.

only those specialists who know the system have any hope of winning

A cynical person might do s/those specialists who know the system/the assclowns who screwed the last one up/

missed the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:missed the issue

[RiotingPacifist]

My hope is its somebody really incompetent so good old bobby drop tables; will mess everything up for them

Re:missed the issue

[dkf]

(it's probably safer if the government isn't managing this anyway)

Safer for the government bureaucrats who want to hide exactly what they're doing with the data? Definitely.

Safer for the people who need to keep government abuses in check? Absolutely not.

Whenever your leaders start outsourcing to the private sector or relocating operations to oppressive regimes be warned. They are outsourcing blame and accountability as well.

What you have to understand is the key advantage to outsourcing is that the government will then claim that they can't permit any kind of public oversight of the activity at all due to it being "commercially sensitive" or whatever the exact phrase is, despite the fact that it is the public that is ultimately the purchaser of the activity. The slippery swines have tried it before with the financing of public projects, and look where that is taking us. (OTOH, it's a good thing that it is hard to finance many public projects; it's stopped various local governments from doing a wide range of utterly idiotic things that the electorate wanted nothing to do with...)

It just amazes me

[DreamsAreOkToo]

It just amazes me how STUPID our governments are nowadays. I mean, we used to put up posters about how "loose lips sink ships" and now we want to trust our "intelligence gathering" to "private" firms that'll inevitably end up in India?

This reminds me of the article about how China is salvaging old consumer microchips, relabeling them as military grade, and selling them to the pentagon as "brand new." I hope it makes people feel better knowing that those lethal weapons and bombs we have cached everywhere have the reliability of your worst gadget ever.

Intelligence and military manufacturing MUST stay within the borders, period.

Re:It just amazes me

[mad_robot]

For some reason I read that as "loose lips pink slips".

I guess what the government has realized is that cock-ups are inevitable. By outsourcing this work they can put someone else in the firing line next time it all goes wrong.

Nothing is going to improve until we take a stand against this culture of state-sponsored snooping.

Re:It just amazes me

[RMH101]

I got "loose, pink, lips; slips". Probably just post Xmas hormones, though

Re:It just amazes me

[thedonger]

This reminds me of the article about how China is salvaging old consumer microchips

Is that why my military-grade computer has only 3583 bytes free when it starts up?

Standard practice

[Burnhard]

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.

Re:Standard practice

[dnwq]

That's because governments are too incompetent and stupid to do anything themselves, don't you know that! [/groupthink]

Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[damburger]

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.

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[u38cg]

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.

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[jimicus]

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.

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[Anonymous Coward]

UK citizens, get on this: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Anti-Big-Brother/

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[owlnation]

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.

I think what is wrong with Citizen Smith is clear. If you look at her, she's a woman who is neither attractive nor intelligent. She's obese too. I wold guarantee she was unpopular in school. Her brooding resentment of her then peers has resulted in her current state of mind -- revenge. Her weight denotes her greediness and her insecurity. She's now taking it all out on the rest of us -- the people she's hated since she was a little girl.

Why anyone voted for such an obviously flawed person is beyond me. Now she's in power, she has flourished under the Neues Arbeit Regime much as Himmler and Goebbels did under Hitler, and for the same reasons.

As to the lamppost, ultimately that may be where we are headed. Dictatorships always fall eventually, and usually bloodily. She most surely would be one of the first against the wall.

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[CmdrSammo]

Please mods, wherever you are from mod parent up, do it for England! It has been known for the government to actually act on these petitions (or at least comment), and I've just added only the 70th signature. I personally can't wait to finish at university and get out of this rapidly sinking ship I call home, although to be honest most countries that have a similar culture (Europe/US) seem to all be going downhill...bugger...

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[funkatron]

Why bother? You'll only get an email in a few months explaining why they're going to do it anyway.

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[Hal_Porter]

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.

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[xaxa]

I've signed several of those petitions. They do nothing -- someone writes a response, and the issue is then ignored.

If you have the time, write to your MP. Go here: http://www.writetothem.com/
I haven't written to my MP yet, but I have written to the Mayor of London a couple of times. I received real, written responses and felt it was a much better use of my time than signing 10 spur-of-the-moment petitions. I'm currently waiting for a response from Boris Johnstone after responding to his transport policy document.

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[replicant108]

That's a nice theory, but it's actually not about the party. The Home Office has been pushing for these powers since long before New Labour came to power.

In fact, the Tories under John Major were pushing for ID cards in 1995 - a move opposed, ironically by Tony Blair.

If you think that a Tory government will be any different then, you will be sorely disappointed.

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-61886

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[damburger]

Yes. Lets have another cuppa and roll out the red carpet for those who are no better than the fascists we fought again two generations ago. The killing of Mussolini was such an act of insanity, they should've just written a strongly worded letter to il duce

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[Admiral Ag]

We don't live in a sane society. Most people don't care if the government does this, because they believe that the government will only ever look at your email if you do something wrong.

People talk about freedom, but they don't care about it as long as no-one is stopping them buying useless shit to fill up their house with.

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[drspliff]

Yes, it is strange that every petition I've been informed enough about and seen as valid enough to sign, has ended up being ignored with some very vague reasons.

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[RiotingPacifist]

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.

The problem is we don't have a choice. The Tories are making a fuss about the speaker allowing the police to conduct an investigation in the house of commons (something that is IMHO fine) and quietly forgetting that they pushed through the anti-terror legislation that caused the entire problem. The liberal democrats and other fringe parties, that may care about our freedom simply don't stand a chance under the first past the post system.

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[RiotingPacifist]

Insightful my arse, the Torries would be no different. as proved here*

*link provided by replicant108 (690832) above

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[ultranova]

Yes. Lets have another cuppa and roll out the red carpet for those who are no better than the fascists we fought again two generations ago.

Fascists - you mean those people infamous for killing lots of people because they didn't like them ? That's the best example you could come up with to justify lynch mobs ? The most infamous lynch mob in history ?

As for your idiotic strawman, no, you don't have to roll out the red carpet for fascists. You have many tools in your disposal to oppose them: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and only as the absolute last rest, the ammo box. Do not confuse the order; for I, for one, do not welcome another Krystalnacht.

The killing of Mussolini was such an act of insanity, they should've just written a strongly worded letter to il duce

By the time he was killed, Mussolini was no longer Il Duce. He had been deposed and was fleeing. He was already beaten. The only thing killing him did was make it impossible to drag his ass into court to try him like any other criminal. It was a victory for fascism; which, ultimately, is simply one variance of the old idea that "might makes right".

Mussolini wasn't beaten by democracy or freedom; he was killed by fascism. He was shot by people who thought like him: I have a gun, therefore I am law.

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[ultranova]

You are confusing fascism with resistance to fascism.

No, I'm equating fascism (rightly or wrongly) with all statements of "might makes right".

There is a moral difference between state violence motivated by expediency and citizen violence against the state motivated by outrage.

There is; and when you're suggesting that someone be hanged by a lamppost because you disagree with them, the line has been crossed.

They control the media, and I can't shout loud enough. I could build a transmitter to get my views out but I would be arrested. There is always the Internet, but unless this post kicks off an anti-government protest, I think it is safe to say that will not work

Your view has been recorded here, on Slashdot an likely on Google. I will shout along with you, as long as you shout against all oppressors, those of aristocracy and those of the proletariat.

A choice between several different authoritarian corporate shills. Won't change a thing.

Perhaps. However, nothing stops you from getting nominated, now does it ? And a vote against major parties will most certainly make them realize they no longer represent you.

the jury box,

Spoken like someone who has never worked for the UK 'justice' system

True, I haven't. But I know that UK juries have acquitted people in the past, so it must be possible.

and only as the absolute last rest, the ammo box. Do not confuse the order; for I, for one, do not welcome another Krystalnacht.

You are a moron, a sheep and a coward. Fear of violence is not pacifism, its just fear.

I am none of those. Nor am I afraid of violence; indeed, I've lived with the fear of it for most of my life. I simply understand, beyond all doubt, that might does not make right.

I wish to restate that. Might does not equal right. I don't care if it's the might of humans, of something supernatural, or of God himself. The ability to do something does not equal the right to do so. Us humans always seem to think that thinking of these things equals weakness, so I declare here and now: a curse to everyone who thinks so, from the lowliest human to the Almighty. There are moral imperatives that must be fulfilled, no matter what; And the chief along them is that you do not crush underfoot those that believe differently, and at the absolute most do the least you need to ensure you need survive.

Put yet another way: I wish to live in peace with anyone. Damnation to anyone who won't let me, up to God himself; but I don't think I will be, for I think this is the core of what he wants.

This is what I believe. Top that in the balls department if you can, you who calls me a coward.

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[aproposofwhat]

Lol - Neues Arbeit is my coining, and I demand my royalties!

Kraft durch Dummheidt!

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[makomk]

The problem is we don't have a choice. The Tories are making a fuss about the speaker allowing the police to conduct an investigation in the house of commons (something that is IMHO fine) and quietly forgetting that they pushed through the anti-terror legislation that caused the entire problem.

Perhaps you haven't been following things quite closely enough. The Speaker (who was from the Labour Party, but was supposed to have given up any party affiliation) allowed the police to raid the office of a Conservative Party MP without a warrant. Yes, you read that right - he let them do a warrantless search and seizure of an important opposition member's office. Not only was there no legal requirement to do so, it's his responsibility to protect MPs of all parties from such interference.

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[makomk]

Oh, and the investigation by the Metropolitan Police was requested by the Home Office, which is run by the Home Secretary, one Jacqui Smith. The Home Secretary also has the power to appoint the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, a job that's currently vacant. The investigation was led by the Deputy Police Commissioner, one Bob Quick, who also authorised MP Damien Green's arrest - and is a candidate for the Police Commissioner job.

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[RiotingPacifist]

I fully support the police being able to do warrant less searches of parliament, why should MPs be above the law they write. The houses are parliament should be open for anybody to investigate, if MPs have something to hide they can stick on private property, not in a public place.

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[RiotingPacifist]

IMO the problem is that the government has the right to do this all legally, not that it was done. The blame for it being legal for the government to raid opposition MPs for leaking non security related information lies firmly in the hands of BOTH parties.

Re:Jackboots Jacqui strikes again

[makomk]

Not really. They abused some obscure and little-used offense to do it - there's a lot of those lying around, and it's not difficult to find one that fits. (Getting a conviction is harder, but obtaining a warrant is easy.)

The UK never had a whole lot of protection in its constitution - a lot of it relies on convention and people in positions of power behaving themselves. (With, of course, the implied threat that they won't remain in said positions of power if they abuse their trust too much.) Unfortunately, the current government has been on a mission to gut what protection there is. The opposition had nothing to do with this.

Apparently, something similar happened before to a journalist in Milto Keynes with even less grounds.

Happy New Year 1984 !

[neonux]

TPB's new year celebration is more true than ever :-/

Please...

[Anonymous Coward]

Come one now Wacky J., a joke's a joke, we've had a laugh, a few giggles, when are you going to do your job properly?!

Has anyone, from a sane country, got any room left? I want to leave the UK now, please?

Re:Please...

[xaxa]

Has anyone, from a sane country, got any room left? I want to leave the UK now, please?

Well, you can choose any country in the EU with no difficulty. Anywhere in the EEA isn't much harder. Some Commonwealth countries, like Canada, Australia and New Zealand, want skilled immigrants.

Or you could just complain about it online :-).

Re:Please...

[Anne Thwacks]

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!

Re:Please...

[Anonymous Coward]

He asked for a sane country. "Any country in the EU" won't do.

I live in Finland. We here have internet censorship.

It is illegal to question holocaust in France. (Not that I personally would deny it but making it illegal to deny takes it off the list of sane countries)

I could probably find examples from most other countries too. It is really hard to find a western country which still respects freedom.

Switzerland would do but they have pretty strict immigration policy...

Re:Please...

[xaxa]

He asked for a sane country. "Any country in the EU" won't do.

Ah, sorry, I missed the "sane" part. Many other EU countries seem saner than the UK, although from my point of view here in the UK I'm sure some of that is just "the grass looking greener".

Re:Please...

[pjt33]

My initial response was that running to another EU country won't help, because this data collection is mandated by an EU directive. Then it occurred to me that Greece probably won't implement it for another 10 years.

Re:Please...

[cheros]

Immigration is easy for EU residents - AFAIK no problem as long as you have a job to go to..

Re:Please...

[Kjella]

As a UK citizen, I am currently considering moving to one of several insane countries!

sane:
1: proceeding from a sound mind : rational

Having your country decide what's rational or not is the totalitarian way. I guess an insane country would be a country that is irrational to boot, but that wouldn't make it better. The best countries are indifferent, they don't have an opinion at all. In the US declaration of independence it said one of your inalienable rights is "pursuit of happiness" that never really made it into the constitution, because what does it really mean? To me it's a default, a "0th" right that says that everyone should be given as much freedom as reasonably possible to pursue their own, individual happiness.

You don't have to be violating anyone's human rights to infringe on it, unnecessary meddling is enough. If I feel yellow polka dot pants look great, then I should be able to wear them. Even if a majority thinks they're ugly as sin. In fact, even if I'm the only person in the whole wide world that likes them you shoouldn't be able to outlaw them. Freedom is the right to do irrational things, to do crazy things, to live life the way it makes you happy. Every time we've collected vast quantities of information on people we begin to meddle. It seems to be in their nature to dictate and control how other people live their lives and to measure it up to their standards and their rules.

Privacy is our protection, noone can meddle with what they do not know and can not see. Those that say "if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear" have completely and utterly failed history and psychology. There's plenty intolerance to go around, in slightly different variations than before but it's still not safe to pose in a pirate hat with a cup of unspecified swag so your employer might see. If I was doing something naughty I'd cover it well, so that long before you started touching people's dirty little secrets you'd have their life on file, ready for inspection.

It's amazing like people act as if Gestapo, STASI and the KGB were myths from the ancient past rather than fairly recent example of gross meddling with people's lives. Throughout history, occupants and terrorists have been a relatively small threat to the people. It is by far the oppressors like the communist, facist, fundamentalist and other totalitarian regimes that are the true threats. But all ahead full speed in that direction in the name of stopping the few, scattered terrorists. That is truly an insane country - and it's contagious too.

Re:Please...

[Hognoxious]

Most EU countries already have mandatory ID cards and just as much, or more, government interference and corruption.

I suppose there's always Somalia.

Re:Please...

[Hognoxious]

But all ahead full speed in that direction in the name of stopping the few, scattered terrorists.

I must take issue with your suggestion that repressive, badly-thought out and intrusive laws are promoted under the excuse of combatting terrorists.

It's terrorists and paedophiles, didn't you get the memo?

Re:Please...

[RiotingPacifist]

[citation needed]

Re:Please...

[Anne Thwacks]

Having your country decide what's rational or not is the totalitarian way. I guess an insane country would be a country that is irrational to boot, but that wouldn't make it better.

I have actually lived in countries where the head of state appeared to be criminally insane, and IMHO, at least it is more fun than our present regime. A government that is incapable of doing anything may not be much good, but they are incapable of doing much wrong either. The present UK government has the power to make enormous numbers of peoples' lives misery, and does not have the skill to do anything useful.

The police are already a bigger threat than the terrorists - you are very unlikely to be killed by a terrorist, but you are virtually certain to be charged with some petty offence like parking or speeding, or "driving in the rich people's area" (congestion charge) and fined a disproportionate amount, administered in such a way that it is not practical to defend yourself.

In third world countries, where you routinely have to pay the police, at least the amount they demand is usually quite small.

Re:Please...

[damburger]

That isn't a bad idea. I could sell my technical skills to the pirates of the sea to the northeast of Africarrrr!

They already have this in the USA

[moniker127]

Its called snoopernet. No joke.

ITIL

[retech]

Everything will be fine. Whoever it is will have to be ITIL certified. And a good certification guarantees a perfect outcome.

We can't afford to do it to you...

[erroneus]

...so we are going to insist that you do it to yourselves.

I wonder when the British people will realize that the cost of non-compliance will be nothing if no one complies.

How could it go wrong?

[dov_0]

Hasn't privatisation gone just a little too far this time? I mean it's bad enough that the UK is planning to spy like this on all it's citizens, but to outsource it to contractors?

If they outsource it to anyone, they should outsource it to google. They already know all our personal stuff anyway!

Impeachment

[omb]

What the UK sorely needs is Impeachment to deal with people like Smith.

Re:The Empire Strikes Back

[Hal_Porter]

Here is the Buckingham House Marching Band playing it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=artOXVZxECA&feature=related

People who have something to hide, can.

[QJimbo]

The thing about this whole database, is that it will only be able to log activity of people who don't think they have anything to hide, in other words, you and me. The average person.

Criminals can just SSH tunnel everything through a server in some far away country. They will have no idea what those people are doing.

So forgive me for seeing this as just an invasion of privacy as opposed to any serious way of fighting crime.

Re:People who have something to hide, can.

[janrinok]

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.

Re:People who have something to hide, can.

[mattwarden]

Your use of logical dissent has been logged and will be reviewed by an analyst.

Lucius Fox

[corychristison]

Don't worry... all we have to do is type in 'Lucius Fox' to self-detonate the tracking system!

No one should have that much power.

(... wow I feel like a loser)

Re:Lucius Fox

[MadnessASAP]

(... wow I feel like a loser)

And rightfully so!

I want that contract!

[Jane Q. Public]

Man! I could make billions! And get paid by the government too!

Journalspace to the rescue!

[cparker15]

Former Journalspace employees should start a data hosting company for opportunities just like this. If they can lose data that we don't want lost, they should have no problem losing data that we do.

Too early?

Ninety percent probability the company chosen

[Master of Transhuman]

will be Israeli. They've been infiltrating this sort of government program everywhere. At one point an Israeli company was in charge of the wiretapping software for the FBI and other US government agencies - until they got caught selling wiretap info to drug gangs in LA. The FBI threw a fit and now somebody else in charge of CALEA hardware.

Israel is a major supplier of security products to the world - because they decided decades ago that the best way to spy on the world is to be the world's supplier of anti-spying and spying gear. Many, if not most, of the Israeli security companies are funded by and have direct ties to the IDF and the Mossad.