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]

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

[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.

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.

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
"

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)

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.

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

[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

[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.

Happy New Year 1984 !

[neonux]

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

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: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.

ITIL

[retech]

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

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...

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.