Slashdot Mirror


UK Government To Monitor All Internet Use

nk497 writes "The UK government has further detailed plans to track all communications — mobile phone calls, text messages, email and browser sessions — in the fight against terrorism, pedophiles and organized crime. The government said it's not looking to see what you're saying, just to whom and when and how. Contrary to previous plans to keep it all in a massive database, it will now let ISPs and telecoms firms store the data themselves, and access it when it feels it needs it." And to clarify this, Barence writes "The UK Government has dropped plans to create a massive database of all internet communications, following stern criticism from privacy advocates. Instead the Government wants ISPs and mobile phone companies to retain details of mobile phone calls, emails and internet sites visited. As with the original scheme, the actual content of the phone calls and messages won't be recorded, just the dates, duration and location/IP address of messages sent. The security services would then have to apply to the ISP or telecoms company to have the data released. The new proposals would also require ISPs to retain details of communications that originated in other countries but passed over the UK's network, such as instant messages."

446 comments

  1. Porn Database by notarockstar1979 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The UK is just putting together the biggest porn database in the history of the world to provide a search engine along with relevant advertising to bring in some extra cash.

    1. Re:Porn Database by sa1lnr · · Score: 2, Informative
    2. Re:Porn Database by clam666 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah but it's British porn.

      I don't know about you, but after their fifth DVD about men prancing around in women's clothes, I get bored.

      --
      I'm a satanic clam.
    3. Re:Porn Database by bFusion · · Score: 1

      I get bored of NORMAL porn before five DVDs man. I think you have a problem :)

    4. Re:Porn Database by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we sign off every email with "why does your husband need porn Home Secretary?" maybe she'll go off the idea.

    5. Re:Porn Database by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got one of those "porn cards" which you can use to buy VISA vouchers. So I guess I'll train them to follow my cute porn trail for a while, and then, one day, I'll declare "goatse day", and see who knocks on my door to tell me to stop.

  2. Like the old saying by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nothing can go wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong...

  3. 1984 by tritonman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok I guess Orwell was about 25 years off

    1. Re:1984 by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok I guess Orwell was about 25 years off

      The irony is that it was written by a Brit.
           

    2. Re:1984 by WindowlessView · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The irony is that it was written by a Brit.

      I hope we can stay away from the temptations to localize this behavior to one country. Let's face it, it is going on pretty much everywhere now. It's just a matter of degree and how much information about it has been leaked out to the public.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    3. Re:1984 by NetDanzr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not all that ironic; he was in the best position to see where Britain was heading. Since then, many other British writers described the future Britain as fascist. All these people simply observed certain trends and extended them to their logical conclusion.

    4. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Poor Orwell he must be turning in his grave. This reminds me I read V for Vendetta again.

    5. Re:1984 by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I don't get is why mostly conservatives support this kind of thing. They don't trust the gov't to monitor banks, to manage trade, to run healthcare, etc. YET they trust it to snoop fairly?

    6. Re:1984 by jgtg32a · · Score: 2, Informative

      conservatives != neocon

    7. Re:1984 by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because what we call Conservatives is in reality an massive amount of people with differing views about things. Some are libertarians some are facist ... the conservative parties try to cater to all of them which creates these crazy policies and contradictions.

    8. Re:1984 by damburger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Conservatives are not supporters of freedom - its all a big lie. When they talk about 'freeing' the market they mean 'handing it over to their pals from Eton/business partners.' The debate over whether the state or 'private' enterprise should run things is completely irrelevant because, in the UK at least, the business and political elite are in collusion, and in many cases are the exact same people.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    9. Re:1984 by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, the British writers seem to have only recently caught on. People from countries that are or have been under English rule have been aware the true character of Westminster governance for some time.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    10. Re:1984 by damburger · · Score: 1

      Note to moderators; 'Troll' is not a synonym for 'Does not agree with my Atlas Shrugged worldview'

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    11. Re:1984 by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I don't get is why mostly conservatives support this kind of thing.

      It's because what they aim to conserve is all that is parochial, small-minded and nasty. The trouble is, Britain's Labour party used to have a policy of supporting social justice. Now that has been totally abandoned, and they are dominated by raving Thatcherites. No bloody wonder the actual "Conservative" party hasn't a clue what to do to regain power - their philosophy has been entirely subsumed by their opponents.

    12. Re:1984 by DustCollector · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, according to our govt database, George Orwell turned over twice within an hour of this slashdot posting.

    13. Re:1984 by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 2, Funny

      Note to moderators; 'Troll' is not a synonym for 'Does not agree with my Atlas Shrugged worldview'
      Dude, you might have been tagged Troll by the Kosdot mods who dislike any assault on the political elite, since "progressives" are the ones in power now.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    14. Re:1984 by damburger · · Score: 1

      Its possible, but most of the progressive types here aren't rabid Obama/Brown lovers. Randroids are a far more common (and annoying) sight.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    15. Re:1984 by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I feel that the internet and technology in general will stop us slipping into a completely police state.

      The recent murder and assaults carried out by police officers at the G20 protests are a good example. Once they would have gone unreported, but now thanks to mobile phones and CCTV everyone gets to see the videos. Wikileaks is also very important, and it would be almost impossible for the government to get away with blocking such a high profile site now.

      My hope is that now the battle lines have been drawn people will start to take more care online and use software like Tor to maintain their freedom. In a perfect world politicians would care about freedom and privacy, but in the real world you have to fight a constant battle against them and at least we have the technological advantage.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:1984 by michalk0 · · Score: 1

      completely agree, except it's not limited to the right, but generally applies to any government - all governments tend to turn into fascism and merge with upper class elitists and shield big businesses from market forces

    17. Re:1984 by Techmeology · · Score: 1

      Secure connection to a server in a foreign country anyone? The problem with this kind of monitoring is that the target, terrorists and the like, will have access to the resources and knowledge needed to bypass it, whereas most ordinary citizens do not.

      --
      Excuse for why is your room always messy?
    18. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous Coward here, 1984 was not supposed to be a manual!

    19. Re:1984 by Caledfwlch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed, it's not just the UK, as we've recently seen what the Australians are planning and the Americans, Chinese, and probably others, already have in use.

      --
      These views express my own personal opinions, not those of the other voices in my head
    20. Re:1984 by damburger · · Score: 1

      Market forces create the upper class elite; they then convert their economic power into political power. They are capable of doing this under any western government, of any political orientation.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    21. Re:1984 by michalk0 · · Score: 1

      i cannot agree with that statement. Market (as it is a natural force) despises monopolies and generally excess profits attract competition, it is only by means of governments and its regulations that make of market entry less attractive or impossible or other tools that cement the wealthy in their status. Look at US today - socialist egalitarian wording and propaganda, but if you think of it more carefully - you'll find out that it's pure fascism.

    22. Re:1984 by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      We've known it since the 1770s.

    23. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government said it's not looking to see what you're saying, just to whom and when and how.

      Whew! That sure is a relief!

    24. Re:1984 by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --' The debate over whether the state or 'private' enterprise should run things is completely irrelevant because, in the UK at least, the business and political elite are in collusion, and in many cases are the exact same people.--

      Same in US. Haven't caught up to your level of spy cameras but are gaining quite rapidly. I assume the brits have figured ways around these schemes. I see a lot of destroyed video camera pictures from the UK here in the US on the net. I think there are site just dedicated to that.

      We have millions of X10 cameras everywhere that are wireless, no encryption, cheap junk to watch the watchers with I guess if you can buy them there.

      http://www.x10.com/

      Beware of Link above

    25. Re:1984 by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1

      "The debate over whether the state or 'private' enterprise should run things is completely irrelevant because, in the UK at least, the business and political elite are in collusion, and in many cases are the exact same people."

      Yes, I know. You see, despite the absence of orange jumpsuits and giant puppet heads, that's the actual definition of fascism. And sadly it's what a lot of shortsighted and greedy people on both sides of the pond have been pushing for decades. Why? Mostly because they get their jollies by seeing eeevil uppity "rich people" knocked down a peg.

      The problem, as you noticed, is that when government runs all your businesses, it also means those businesses are running your government. And history shows that they do so very poorly, because the government has helpfully eliminated the competition via coercive regulation or outright seizure of property. That part is pretty easy when you're a government, because the laws designed to protect customers and shareholders from abusive trading practices, illegal influence peddling, and shady back-door deals really don't apply to the politicians who passed them. Funny how that works.

    26. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      described the future Britain as fascist

      Wasn't there a Chinese saying something like "If you go after a dragon, watch out for not becoming a dragon yourself?"

    27. Re:1984 by Threni · · Score: 1

      > The recent murder and assaults carried out by police officers at the G20 protests are a good example. Once they would have gone unreported, but now thanks to mobile
      > phones and CCTV everyone gets to see the videos

      Perhaps a few people who spend too much time at home were surprised by the police actions, but anyone who's ever been to a demonstration in the UK knows that eventually the 'riot police' will 'act', and by 'act' I mean attack anyone they can get to, and later explain the actions as being 'controlling violent protestors'.

      No court in the world would convict the G20 policeman who killed that guy of murder as it's simply impossible to prove that he intended to kill him. The charge would be manslaughter or accidental death. Anyone who's followed the follow-up to legal or internal investigations of the police in these sorts of situations will be aware that this policeman would be extremely unlucky to even be formally reprimanded, let alone sacked and let alone convicted and sent to prison as someone who did the same to a policemen would be. It just doesn't work that way.

    28. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fascism is the next logical step from imperialism. is it coincidental that the families of the various authors that described what's going on (e.g. the open conspiracy) are the same families that have stakes in the real open conspiracy?

    29. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law makes it punishable to not to hand over the keys when asked by the police. About the secure communications, the Mujahideen seems to have their own automated encryption tools of a decent quality already. It is very likely that the organized crime is already using similar tools since the tools are readily available. No special knowlegde required, just the capability to read the instructions.

    30. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sure, no one's perfect. The Chinese may have their Great Firewall, the Australians may have their insane copyright laws, the Germans may have their list of things you cannot say online, and the NSA may be secretly hoarding a copy of the entire internet feed in a bunker in the Southwest.

      But as far as Big-Brother-is-watching-you-style surveillance, the U.K. wins hands-down. It's like they were using 1984 as an instructional guide. So it is at least a little ironic that Orwell is British.

    31. Re:1984 by Shark · · Score: 1

      I don't think conservatives trust the government with that either... Or much of anything. What you're describing (in an US setting) is Republicans.
      Big difference nowadays. Republicans are only supposed to disagree with dempocrats long enough for us to keep believing in the whole sick joke and to vote like it's going to change anything.
      Change the American people got suckered into believing in once again. This is what the 'lesser evil' gets you.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    32. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Market (as it is a natural force) despises monopolies and generally excess profits attract competition

      Yes, excess profits attract competition. But once a monopoly is established, it simply uses that excess profit to eat any new competition.

      And despite your assertion to the contrary, the "Market" does not despise monopolies. Monopolies can begin as simply as random fluctuations resulting in one company being temporarily more profitable than the others in the market. That company can then grow, resulting in economies-of-scale which make it more profitable. If the management is competent, that is sufficient for the company to grow to dominate the market, i.e. a "natural" monopoly.

    33. Re:1984 by Goodgerster · · Score: 1

      They don't need to do anything to regain power. Gordon Brown is the best thing ever to happen to the Conservative Party.

    34. Re:1984 by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Actually, according to our govt database, George Orwell turned over twice within an hour of this slashdot posting.

      So what you're saying is that all this major surveillance program is just UK's research into alternate energy sources?

    35. Re:1984 by ppanon · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, "greater evil" got you George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. What you need is to fundamentally overhaul the election model to something other than first past the post and other current political barriers to entry to get rid of the duopoly. Your best bet is to start state by state, switching to STV (or something similar) in a smaller state, show that the End of the World hasn't happened, and get more states to make the switch.

      Start in some small New England states and build. Then move to the West Coast. If you can eventually convince California to make a go of it for a decade, then it won't be too long until you can get some Federal representatives elected on that platform and work towards a constitutional amendment. I suspect that's about the only thing that can break the duopoly at this point.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    36. Re:1984 by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Carry on, and attach a dynamo to his corpse! I think we'll be able to generate a lot of free electricity!

    37. Re:1984 by whereareweheadedto · · Score: 1

      But that's great. The governments need to control the general population, not the terrorists. If they wanted, they could remove the causes for "terrorism" all over the world. But then what? Who will buy new weapons? Where will new targets for hostile takeover emerge or come from? From my perspective, they need terrorists to terrorize the general population and thus asure the continuation of certain forces.

    38. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the British writers seem to have only recently caught on. People from countries that are or have been under English rule have been aware the true character of Westminster governance for some time.

      ^^^^What's insightful about this post?
       
      Sounds more like someone just having a pop at the English for the sake of it. In short not insightful, just slightly racist.

    39. Re:1984 by Kaetuu89 · · Score: 1

      Dear Damburger, As a real revolutionary (I was there in the 60's and remember some of it).. I can tell you that Che was never REALLY in it because he was a true believer. That's all revised history -- which, much to my dismay, cuts both ways -- He was in it to get the hot chicks.. All of us were. You folks need to lighten up... pssst.. there really IS no real truth.. After all, its hard to take a guy seriously who wears military fatigues, sports a santa beard and smokes a ton of cigars... If you covered his eyes and nose, it would be hard to which end you were actually looking at.. a mouth with a cigar or.... But I'm glad that you've returned from those secret, high-level meetings to inform us all what is REEEEELLLLLLEEEEEE going on. Now get back to Ms. Kuhn's class.. the 8th grade assembly is about to start.

    40. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering when it was written though (1948) you don't think he might have based it on the actual fascist country?

      The moral of the book alluding to how it might happen to any country - even our own. But the actual examples given are so close fascist Germany its not even questionable.

    41. Re:1984 by damburger · · Score: 1

      Dear old reactionary twat,

      Your pitifully unfunny attempt to pin a Che Guevara t-shirt on anybody who isn't a Reaganite is pathetic. Just because you were a self-indulgent phony in the 1960s, don't project your pathetic weakness on everyone else.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    42. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Irish, Chinese, Indian and Polynesian affairs. Who knows what has happened in colonial Africa.

  4. Good news for the Royal Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So now the only method of sending data without leaving a trace is the British Postal Service. Providing they don't loose you mail of course...

    1. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

      So now the only method of sending data without leaving a trace is the British Postal Service.

      Maybe the e-snoop plan is a ploy by the postal service to boost revenues. Very clever, those Brits.
               

    2. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by FluffyWithTeeth · · Score: 4, Funny

      Please, as anyone who does sorting in RM will tell you, losing stuff is damned rare.

      Most mail that doesn't reach its destination is because the public is apparently too damn stupid to write a proper address.

      Hell, just last week I had two letters to Dublin, United Kingdom; three to West Germany and a couple of dozen with no town or city...

      Never mind the people who just make up post codes.

    3. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by neokushan · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sorry, but if I want to write my address as "1337 Drive, Leetown, HAX X0R" simply because it sounds a lot cooler than "123 Main Steet, Liverpool", I bloody well will and it's your job to make sure it gets there!

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    4. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As anyone who used Royal Mail will tell you, losing stuff is damned common.

      Open mail, missing mail, battered parcels, things mailed 'recorded' that go missing.
      Posties who can't be arsed leaving packages with random strangers.

      I'd much rather have RM transport the tapes of my logs based on their past history with my post!

    5. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      West Germany, hum? Do you see many addressed to Soviet Russia?

    6. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by mea37 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, no, in Soviet Russia mail addresses you...

    7. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by Magee_MC · · Score: 1

      The next step will to either forbid snail mail, or require that an electronic copy be retained of all physical correspondence. Anything else would leave open an unacceptable security hole in which the terrorists could coordinate their plots with impunity.

    8. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by fprintf · · Score: 1

      Well who the heck can keep up with your addresses anyway? All my relatives are in the U.K. and you have to write a freakin thesis to get the thing to its correct destination...

      Joan Smith
      Yardley House, Heath on Rye
      411 Heath Widgetsnit Roadway, 44H
      Alton, Hants, UK, 44HH11KK

      Sheesh! And they wonder why us lazy 'mericans don't write very often. Thank heavens for Facebook and email!

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    9. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I'd have more faith in the postal service if I didn't get almost as much mail addressed to the wrong address as I do addressed to me. This morning I got four things in the post. All were to the same house number, but two with a different road name to the one I live on. I have a small collection of mail that has very clearly-printed addresses that are not for my house, which I need to remember to drop in at the post office soon.

      Last week I had two parcels. One the postman rang the doorbell and then left it on the doorstep without bothering to wait and check if I was in. The second, he didn't even bother to ring the doorbell, and I only found it in the afternoon.

      If you send anything by the royal mail, send an email to let the recipient know, or they may never get it (someone probably will though...).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Hmm I think some of those in Royal Mail used to take it as a challenge.

      One of my friends had mail sent to him but with the address incomplete (no street address!). When a letter came for him with a full address, he got both :).

      --
    11. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      At last... another "In Soviet Russia" that actually makes sense!

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    12. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by orudge · · Score: 1

      Eh:

      Bob McDonald
      1 My Street
      Town, County
      POST CODE

      Doesn't seem much longer than your average US address to me.

    13. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by asc99c · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid (about 5) I wrote a letter adressed to Grandma Mary and posted it, and it got there! It was in the same village, but looking back I'm pretty impressed the postman took the trouble to find out who it should have got to (especially since there was no address or even a stamp!)

    14. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by borizz · · Score: 1

      Another good one is (I work for the Dutch Mail service) is not properly closing envelopes, so the actual letter falls out during sorting.

    15. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I do lament the amount of mail that goes missing (amazingly, it's ALWAYS stuff from play.com ...), RM do occasionally surprise me.

      We recieved a letter in our office a few months back, addressed as:

      Colleague's name,
      Company name,
      UK

      and posted from Germany. Now, we're a reasonable sized company, but not exactly famous outside our field. We also have 3 or 4 offices in the UK, and it got to the right one! To top it off, it only took 4 days to arrive.

      Now if they'd just see fit to deliver all those games and DVDs that disappeared...

    16. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Hell, just last week I had two letters to Dublin, United Kingdom; three to West Germany

      Well, try to check WHEN the letters were posted. I bet that the ones to Dublin/W.Germany were written more than 90/20 years ago respectively - and thus having correct address. It is not writers fault that it takes the Royal Mail so long to deliver these day^H^H^H times.

    17. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by AlgorithMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      don't you mean
      int main Street?

      --
      The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
    18. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by FluffyWithTeeth · · Score: 1

      No, but loads to Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Taiwan, P.R.C. is a favourite too.

    19. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the thing is you keep hearing about how RM managed to deliver such fantastic addresses anyway. Well done by the way. My favourite was a postcard sent to my mother - the sender forgot to write the address and just put her name. OK, we're a minority surname but it showed up three days after posting.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    20. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Well, at least you know where those were, it's not like someone writing to Elbonia.

    21. Re:Good news for the Royal Mail by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      Isn't that somewhere near the 'Andes...?

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
  5. And in other news by KingPin27 · · Score: 1

    And in other news hundreds of people dressed up as Guy Fawkes have been seen marching angrily up to parliament...

    --
    "i lost my dignity on a slippery wiener"
    1. Re:And in other news by AlHunt · · Score: 1

      >And in other news hundreds of people dressed up as Guy Fawkes

      And, the "New American Tea Party" in the US - http://newamericanteaparty.com/
      And Americans stocking up on guns and ammo: http://www.ocala.com/article/20090426/ARTICLES/904261015/1001/NEWS01?Title=Ammo-scarce-after-many-stock-up/

      What could possibly be wrong with this picture?

      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
    2. Re:And in other news by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And Americans stocking up on guns and ammo:

      That would end if people didn't believe that Obama and the Democratic leadership were itching to infringe on their 2nd amendment rights. Most sportsman are extremely annoyed by the run on ammo and firearms because it's driving up prices for everybody -- but it isn't going to end until some sanity comes out of Washington.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:And in other news by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      I thought sanity had left Washington ages ago.

    4. Re:And in other news by KingPin27 · · Score: 1

      Sanity left Washington... Was it ever really there?

      --
      "i lost my dignity on a slippery wiener"
    5. Re:And in other news by jo42 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "New American Tea Party"

      AKA "Republicantards".

    6. Re:And in other news by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That depends on the issue, doesn't it? The last eight years seemed pretty sane for gun rights -- Clinton's gun ban expired, Heller was rightfully decided, DoJ issued memos saying that the 2nd amendment protects individual rights, retired law enforcement officers can now carry in any jurisdiction, etc, etc, etc.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:And in other news by badfish99 · · Score: 1

      No; demonstrations anywhere near parliament have been banned for several years now.

    8. Re:And in other news by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      You can add the Ninth Circuit Court's incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to the list, momentum from Heller carried that.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    9. Re:And in other news by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      I would just like to add that there are 12 million hunting licenses sold in the US, while there are approx. 80-100 million gunowners.

      Most gun owners are not hunters. Hunting calibers are also not as hard to find as military stuff. .243 is everywhere, but 5.56, .308, .30-06, .45, 9mm --- that's what is hard to find.

      Not a direct rebuttal to the parent post, I'm just sick of "sportsman" being synonymous to "gunowner".

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    10. Re:And in other news by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Not a direct rebuttal to the parent post, I'm just sick of "sportsman" being synonymous to "gunowner".

      Fair enough. I know my share of gunowners that aren't very happy with the current situation. It's aggravating to plan to spend a day plinking with your various firearms only to wind up taking just the .22 because that's the only thing you could find ammo for. Handgun ammo is particularly hard to find right now.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:And in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A correction .308, and .30-06 are very popular hunting cartridges. Even on the lower end of hunting cartridges the 7.62x39mm and .30-30 (poor man's deer rifles) are hard to find. It is annoying since the good SKS deer hunting ammo (154gr soft point) was difficult to find to begin with, and now has all but disappeared. Add to that the huge increase in cost for shotgun loads (slugs, target, or bird loads) and it is getting painful. So to say that "hunting" calibers are not hard to find is a lie since there has been a run on ammunition lately and I have seen a 25% to 50% increase in the cost of what is available.

      I do agree that there are people who are overly paranoid about gun rights and those who feel they need a gun for protection. And yes there is some overlap between hunters and these poeople but in general the other group is making it difficult for hunters.

    12. Re:And in other news by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      .308 and .30-06 are military calibers first, and hunting calibers second. They are popular hunting rounds because military weapons are cheap surplus.

      I'm admittedly a little skewed - I shoot a lot, and when I do hunt (which is very rare) I generally use a .270 or .22-250 on whitetails, depending on the range. I own a lot of guns, though, and my preference for hunting guns and milsurps are quite a bit different.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
  6. you set the precedent..... by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Who would have thought that willingly giving up one right would have set the precedent for the Government taking away other rights? When will our brothers and sisters across the pond wake up from this horrible nightmare?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:you set the precedent..... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Who would have thought that willingly giving up one right would have set the precedent for the Government taking away other rights?

      Any particular right you have in mind there? I can't quite see your argument here. There's been a gradual erosion of civil liberties throughout the last decade or so, but I can't think of a single major breakthrough that led to all of the rest.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:you set the precedent..... by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      That's because enabling corruption started more like 30 years ago in a variety of forms.

    3. Re:you set the precedent..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the "anti-terror" laws were being passed people demonstrated and shouted about how they would lead to more and more invasive laws being passed. They government ignored the populace again, as they have every time for the last 15 years and passed the laws.

      I need to move to a country where the people in charge give a toss about the people that put them in their positions of power.

    4. Re:you set the precedent..... by pisto_grih · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...but I can't think of a single major breakthrough that led to all of the rest.

      The election of Tony Blair as Prime Minister and the rise of New Labour, 1997.

    5. Re:you set the precedent..... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      You have a short memory. I was living in England at the peak (or nadir) of Thatcher's reign, and she had everything well set on its present course. Though I gather there were worse or at least equally egregious cases of abuse of authority during WWII. I just wasn't there to see them.

    6. Re:you set the precedent..... by Rhapsody+Scarlet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have a short memory. I was living in England at the peak (or nadir) of Thatcher's reign, and she had everything well set on its present course.

      I think his point was that even during the Thatcher years, you at least had Labour as an alternative. But when Tony Blair took control of the Labour party and sent it down it current Thatherite course, British politics effectively became varying shades of conservatism.

    7. Re:you set the precedent..... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I suggest Sealand, but I hear that their immigration policies are rather strict.

    8. Re:you set the precedent..... by Tailsfan · · Score: 1

      So much for being a democracy. And all this over "EXTREME PORN". So some people like sadist porn. Your limiting their sexual rights too, whats next, mandatory castration.

    9. Re:you set the precedent..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a word: Reagan. (President 1981-1989)

      Specifically, his trusting of the Cheney-esque (thoroughly evil and powerseeking) members of the military industrial complex (that General Eisenhower warned against when he left office in 1960!)

      Like supplying germs to Sadam Hussein that WMD's could have been made out of.

      Like creating the religious zealot resistance in Afganistan (since it was the Soviets fighting there at the time) by beefing up the zealotry by shipping in Wahabi's -- a centuries-old ultra extreme, totally-out-of-the-mainstream Extremist Islamic Sect based in Saudi Arabia. They've wanted to destroy western civilization since before Hollywood was even invented, and basically claim the Koran "requires" believers to be totally at war until everyone who disagrees is dead. Swell bunch.

      All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Or trusting and delegating power to the wrong people. Or just be a very very nice man in person, and never think of the long term consequences of your actions.

      Or maybe even Ford's pardon of Nixon.

      I mean, if the country had stayed obsessed with Nixon's evils long enough to put him in jail for a bunch of years (remember all that energy we spent watching Ford fall down and Chevy Chase imitating it?), would we ever have had an administration stupid enough to dare call the Geneva Convention "quaint"? And then act like they really meant it?

      I think prospective presidents should be scared shitless to be evil and corrupt due to the severe punishment they'll receive when enough of a percentage of the country finally sees their criminality.

      Even if we descended into alternating party, retaliatory prosecution and imprisonment, well it would certainly give the middle and advantage over the extremes (whose outlandishness is overreported by media, distorting truth big time).

  7. USA-style solution: by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    {sarcasm} It's cheaper to just waterboard the suspect rather than save all that data {/sarcasm}

    1. Re:USA-style solution: by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Laugh all you want but here in the US our Government can't compel us to turn over an encryption key and detain American citizens for 45 (or is it 90 now?) days without charges. And we still have our guns ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:USA-style solution: by neokushan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "And we still have our guns ;)"

      Yeah, how's that working out for you?

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    3. Re:USA-style solution: by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      But once we've declared you an "enemy combatant"...

    4. Re:USA-style solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just so the OP Brit doesn't get TOO smug, remind him that we have an actual on-record "Bill of Rights" enshrined in our very constitution.

      One wonders why on Earth the British left that little detail out of their government, seeing as how they got such a good start with the Magna Carta and all.

      Ah, well, I guess being old isn't the same as being smart -- but that's always been true, hasn't it?

    5. Re:USA-style solution: by WindowlessView · · Score: 1

      Laugh all you want but here in the US our Government can't compel us to turn over an encryption key and detain American citizens for 45 (or is it 90 now?)

      So what? 90% of what they want to know is who you communicate with and how often. Encryption won't help you much there.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    6. Re:USA-style solution: by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Laugh all you want but here in the US our Government can't compel us to turn over an encryption key and detain American citizens for 45 (or is it 90 now?) days without charges.

      The US can't torture prisoners either. Oh wait...

      Your argument assumes the government is constrained by the laws it passes. Given that its happy to exceed those constraints at will, and is not held accountable even after the fact, even after a change in administration, its a pretty false sense of security.

      And we still have our guns ;)

      They will be worthless until the revolution comes. And even during a revolution you'll be relying on the military fragmenting (both to weaken the state and to arm your side). That will be far more important than your personal small arms. To put it bluntly, if the military doesn't fragment it won't be much of a revolution. (And you'll need to pray NATO/UN allies... etc, etc doesn't send additional forces to bolster the state side.)

      And if you pull that gun out by yourself before the revolution you are just a criminal shooting at the police. That will just compound your problems... and you won't get much public sympathy either.

      More false security.

    7. Re:USA-style solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And good luck even if the revolution succeeds. It is much more likely to end up worse instead of better unless you find a way to reanimate George Washington.

    8. Re:USA-style solution: by Jack+Sombra · · Score: 1

      Not heard of the Patriot Act have you? What's worse is under it you will not even be able to complain because if you tell anyone you got compled via that law, even your lawyer, you will be breaking the law

    9. Re:USA-style solution: by Sylos · · Score: 1

      The reason is, is because there are many rights.. By their very nature, they are not supposed to be able to be taken away. By writing them down, the thought was that this enumerated *all* of the rights a citizen had, which would lead to the government trying to work around them. By not writing them down, this was supposed to ensure that if a government ability wasn't enumerated, the right was reserved to the citizens. That same conflict occured in the formation of the US of A and the signing of the Constitution. The Federals did not want them written down, because they feared that by doing so, the government would assume the non-enumerated rights and wittle away at the enumerated rights. But a comprise was made for the Constitution...and we have the Bill of Rights(a list of supposedly the most important ones). Profact: The Constitution and then-established laws were originally a limitation on the ability of the government. The intent was to say"If it's not here, it's reserved for the States or the people". You can thank Abraham Lincoln for shitting on that idea.

      --
      'Number-memorizing Chinese people.'-Anon
    10. Re:USA-style solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite well, thank you very much.

    11. Re:USA-style solution: by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      there has already been a US court case where someone was denied the right not disclose the value of their encryption key because the cops merely claim to already know what data was encrypted by the key string.

      the court treated a string of characters in your brain like a physical object in the real world.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    12. Re:USA-style solution: by aaandre · · Score: 1

      Think about you and your gun against military grade weaponry, training, body armor, air and medical support, reconeiscance, teamwork etc.

      Once the army gets a shoot on sight order, guns are useless.

      If a true revolution happens, it will be rooted in more of us waking up to alternatives of endless greed, violence, separation and un-acknowledged cruelty.

      If a bloody one starts, it would be very difficult to stop the bloodshed. The ruling oligarchy is smart and will continue to find ways to divide people, so at some point it is very likely that you will be sniped out not by the military but by your Christian (or fill-in-the-blank) neighbor.

      As long as we are asleep, Divide and conquer will work wonderfully.

    13. Re:USA-style solution: by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      They will be worthless until the revolution comes. And even during a revolution you'll be relying on the military fragmenting (both to weaken the state and to arm your side). That will be far more important than your personal small arms. To put it bluntly, if the military doesn't fragment it won't be much of a revolution. (And you'll need to pray NATO/UN allies... etc, etc doesn't send additional forces to bolster the state side.)

      Who said the guns were for the revolution? My point was that we still have a right that our British friends don't.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    14. Re:USA-style solution: by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 0

      Nah they just use enhanced asking methods to get them. And your not detained, just on a secret holiday.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    15. Re:USA-style solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Your argument assumes the government is constrained by the laws it passes. Given that its happy to exceed those constraints at will, and is not held accountable even after the fact, even after a change in administration, its a pretty false sense of security."

      Governments are not only happy to exceed those constraints at will, they are happy to write new laws to change their constraints. FUD helps to convince people moving the constraints is a valid thing to do and even if its not, they use enough FUD until the moved constraints are fogotten.

    16. Re:USA-style solution: by lwsimon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pretty well, actually.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    17. Re:USA-style solution: by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      We are no longer asleep, though. People all across the country are waking up to find we're well down the path of Socialism.

      Also, if you think the US military will fight against the population, you're crazy. A revolution today would be fought on the internet mainly, and by individuals committing individual acts of terrorism/guerrilla warfare.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    18. Re:USA-style solution: by The+Slashdot+8Ball · · Score: 1

      That's because, quite simply, British people do not consider owning firearms a right any more than we don't consider it a right to own nerve gas. And no, there is no qualitative difference between these examples, it really is just a question of scale.

      What confuses me is the fact that the 'right' to bear arms is actually enshrined in the constitution. I'd ask what other possessions you feel the need to have constitutionally protected? The 'right to bear broccoli' perhaps? (Or slightly more interestingly, just the right to eat whatever damn food you want - try getting an Aberdeen Angus steak anywhere in America).

      The whole point of outlining rights is that they are non-negotiable but they certainly shouldn't be arbitrary (would you like to see the 'right to cartwheel to church' enshrined in the constitution?). The GP's point, that guns don't prevent oppression but provide a false sense of security, means that owning a weapon doesn't make you any more free. The right has no pragmatic value, and it certainly isn't morally self-evident like the 'right to clean water'. It is entirely arbitrary
      .

    19. Re:USA-style solution: by gijoel · · Score: 1

      A revolution today would be fought on the internet mainly

      My god, 4chan is full of patriots.

    20. Re:USA-style solution: by ring-eldest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually it turns out soldiers are human and die like the rest of us when you put a bullet in their heads. Actually it turns out when you bring soldiers into an armed urban center where the populace hates them they die like flies.

      Look at how many died invading Basra, and Basra is full of starving insurrectionist goatherds. Now try invading a city of 4 million heavily armed Americans and see how far you get. I doubt our military could successfully invade, capture, and hold _one_ of our larger cities, much less all of them at the same time... a situation pretty much impossible given the geography involved.

      The difficult part is starting a revolution, not defending yourself against the all-powerful military. The difficult part is waiting for the situation to be bad enough to get the average guy off his ass and into the garage making pipe bombs.

    21. Re:USA-style solution: by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      I think you need to really study your history to really know where most of your rights came from. Didn't the Brits abolish slavery first. You can say what you will about colonialism but are the people of Africa better off now that the US polices the world or were they a little better off under Queen Victoria and the UK doing the policing. I'm fro the US and as far as I am concerned you guys can have the world policing job back.

    22. Re:USA-style solution: by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 1

      Actually, they can make you turn over an encryption key.

      They can also detain you without charges, especially if they deem you an enemy combatant.

      At least in the UK they tell you you're being monitered. In the US, you get monitored by the NSA. (They still haven't stopped the warrantless wiretaps.) If you're communicating with someone overseas, ECHELON is watching you.

    23. Re:USA-style solution: by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      I know you're being facetious, but what I meant was that individual fighters would use the 'net as a decentralized command & control. A place to ID targets, get news, and fight the ideological battle.

      If the government were to shut down the internet, they would topple pretty quick - there's no faster way to piss off the average American than to take something away and inconvenience them.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    24. Re:USA-style solution: by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's because, quite simply, British people do not consider owning firearms a right any more than we don't consider it a right to own nerve gas. And no, there is no qualitative difference between these examples, it really is just a question of scale.

      Actually, yes, there is. I can defend myself using a firearm with minimal risk to my neighbors. I don't think you can make the same claim for nerve gas.

      What confuses me is the fact that the 'right' to bear arms is actually enshrined in the constitution.

      Because the framers suspected that eventually some jackass politician would come along and try to disarm the population for their "protection"? Because the people of the time had just fought and won a war of independence using their own firearms?

      The right has no pragmatic value, and it certainly isn't morally self-evident like the 'right to clean water'. It is entirely arbitrary

      Self-defense isn't a morally self-evident right?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    25. Re:USA-style solution: by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Actually, they can make you turn over an encryption key [slashdot.org].

      Ah, I just knew that someone would cite that case to try and disprove my argument. Two problems with that though.

      1) That case hasn't worked it's way through the appeals process yet.
      2) That moron screwed himself when he initially cooperated with law enforcement. Any dipshit with half a brain would have asked for a lawyer. "Oh, you want to see my laptop with the incriminating evidence on it? Sure, here it is" If he had remained silence and invoked his rights from the outset we wouldn't be having this discussion. The story that you linked to seems to make this point. Rights aren't any good if you don't use them. I have zero sympathy for him.

      They can also detain you without charges [wikipedia.org], especially if they deem you an enemy combatant.

      Strange enough, he got his day in court and was found guilty by a jury of his peers......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    26. Re:USA-style solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it clearly isn't

    27. Re:USA-style solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony is that it was staunch conservative John Ashcroft that led the fight against the government encryption key escrow proposed by the Clinton administration.

      http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1998_cr/s980617-crypto.htm

    28. Re:USA-style solution: by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, how's that working out for you?

      It's working out great. Surprisingly, you can abuse your citizens to great length, so long as you leave their shiny gun toys to them, and they get keep that delusion that "if things really go bad, we're gonna revolt and overthrow the evil government". It's funny how the revolt never happens, but the theoretical possibility alone already keeps the steam vented off.

    29. Re:USA-style solution: by gilgongo · · Score: 1

      Pretty well, actually.

      Oh really? I'd like to see you hold out against the 101st Airborne, or even a single M1 Abrams with half its crew on leave in Jamaica.

      Really - the whole "right to bear arms" thing is just a symbolic myth. If the authorities *really* want to get rid of you, there is no difference between the US, UK, Latin America or anywhere. They just have to be a bit more careful about how to do it in some places.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    30. Re:USA-style solution: by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Now try invading a city of 4 million heavily armed Americans and see how far you get.

      The VAST majority of Americans qualify as 'unarmed' to 'barely armed', not 'heavily armed'. But that aside I agree.

      The difficult part is starting a revolution, not defending yourself against the all-powerful military. The difficult part is waiting for the situation to be bad enough to get the average guy off his ass and into the garage making pipe bombs.

      Again agreed.

      My point wasn't so much that the military had to fragment in order for you to have a fighting chance against the military, but rather that if the military didn't fragment the revolution didn't have the significant public support / political clout it would need to rise above being a 'terrorist group'.

      And on the flip side -- if the revolution did have enough public support to fragment the military, then whether or not you had the right to carry 9mm handguns is mostly moot, because you'll have access to much heavier weapons and soldiers trained to use them.

    31. Re:USA-style solution: by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Look at how many died invading Basra, and Basra is full of starving insurrectionist goatherds. Now try invading a city of 4 million heavily armed Americans and see how far you get. I doubt our military could successfully invade, capture, and hold _one_ of our larger cities, much less all of them at the same time... a situation pretty much impossible given the geography involved.

      The crucial difference between the two cases you describe is that American army has to keep civilian casualties as low as possible, for PR purposes, when fighting overseas. In a civil war, there's no such constraint. And without it, invading and capturing a large city of "heavily armed" (do you seriously think that handgun is that? even an assault rifle alone is not that!) is not hard at all, when the army's hands are not tied against using white phosphor, thermobaric explosives, and other such kinds of weapons.

      Of course, you make a number of other flawed assumptions, such as that all 4 million Americans in the city will actually try to fight the army, and that a significant number of them is trained well enough to be able to do any serious damage (and not e.g. just empty a full pistol clip into the nearest soldier's full body armor with no effect whatsoever, and then get killed).

    32. Re:USA-style solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And we still have our guns"

      Apparently this is changing pretty soon too:
      http://www.topix.com/forum/source/lowell-sun/T2THVOE0VI9DBCAGR

      Notice how little this "little incident" was picked up in "mainstream" press, even though, 19 people were killed last weekend - several magnitude more than what the swine flu has done sofar.

    33. Re:USA-style solution: by xkcdFan1011011101111 · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan who have nothing more than some small arms and homemade explosives...

    34. Re:USA-style solution: by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Well, yes but there you're in a foreign country subject to criticism by the EU, UN, etc. Let's face it, if it ever came to putting down an internal insurrection, they would start nicely at first. But if the US government was failing with the soft touch and looking weak enough that they might lose political power, the kid gloves would come off and they would teach the Chinese a thing or two about handling "internal matters" that would make Tiananmen Square look like a hunting trip with Dick Cheney. All they have to do is deploy the Red state troops in the Blue states and vice versa. Before you can say "Kurds vs. Saddam Hussein", you'll get the white phosporous shells, nerve gases, and all the other nastiness in the USA arsenal (short of tactical nukes) used to wipe you out and, aside from some holdouts in the Rocky Mountains, most assault rifles will be nicely plucked from their owners' cold dead fingers before they've been fired. As for finding someone to replace you in your job, they would just relax the immigration laws from Mexico, Central America, and India (for the high tech jobs).

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    35. Re:USA-style solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, firearms in the hands of private citizens stop violent crime some two million times every year in the US. The vast majority of times without being fired.

    36. Re:USA-style solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFL - and we reserve the right to laugh our arses off at you!

      Seriously - if the only reason your keeping the Guns is because you think you have a right to them, its bloody pointless.

      And if you still think they're going to be any use against the Government your clutching to straws - unless by 'use' you mean 'aid to suicide by army'.

      But yes, you're right - hold your head up high because you can claim one right that we don't have.

    37. Re:USA-style solution: by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Keep laughing. Someone in London is recording you and will be along shortly to discuss how horrible your laugh is ;)

      And if you still think they're going to be any use against the Government your clutching to straws - unless by 'use' you mean 'aid to suicide by army'.

      If things ever got that bad I'd rather die clutching my rifle then die pleading for my life like all of the unarmed masses that have been murdered by governments gone bad during the 20th century. Maybe I'll take one or two of the bastards out with me. If everyone had that attitude and the freedom to arm themselves I suspect that we wouldn't wind up using the 'G' word (genocide) nearly as often. Take a look at the Rwandan genocide sometime. It was largely carried out by militia's armed with rifles. Has it ever occurred to you that if the victims had rifles it would have turned out very differently?

      Mind you, I find it extremely unlikely that things would ever get that bad in the United States. I do find it pretty telling that you've already given up any thought of even bothering to try and defend your life though. I guess your life isn't worth fighting for, eh?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    38. Re:USA-style solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a civil war, there's no such constraint.

      Of cource, the winning side will organize a prosecution of the losing side after the war and when sufficiently time has passed, the remaining losing side perhaps challenges the leaders of the winning side over a nice court session at Hague or some other suitable arena. This, however, requires the participants of the war to actually believe the idea of certain universal priciples and their positive effect on the strength and stability of the nation.

    39. Re:USA-style solution: by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      First, you're absolutely wrong. If the US government took a heavy-handed approach dealing with an insurrection, they would only compound the problem.

      Second, you have no idea what "assault rifles" are if you think that's what US civilians own right now. Don't try to argue your viewpoint if you don't even know what the fucking words mean.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
  8. Counterproductive by grapeape · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When will governments figure out that pushing big brother tactics on their constituents doesnt help them find the badguys in fact all it does is make the law abiding masses paranoid and pushes the ones they are after further underground into darknets, and other more nefarious methods.

    In the end the only thing this will be used for successfully is kowtowing to corporate interests and eroding the rights of citizens.

    1. Re:Counterproductive by lorenlal · · Score: 1

      And that's different than everything else the UK and US governments do?

    2. Re:Counterproductive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will governments figure out that pushing big brother tactics on their constituents doesnt help them find the badguys

      You say that like they don't already know it.

      It's not really about finding the badguys, it's about turning everyone into a badguy.

    3. Re:Counterproductive by Calmaveth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Organized Criminals and terrorists will just start using payphones and traditional mail (post).

    4. Re:Counterproductive by characterZer0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the end the only thing this will be used for successfully is kowtowing to corporate interests and eroding the rights of citizens.

      Kowtowing is the primary goal. Eroding rights makes it easier to kowtow later.

      Surely you do not think this was done for the benefit of the people?

      Oh, you did? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    5. Re:Counterproductive by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      None of that is "counterproductive", unfortunately. As a politician, you don't get graded on finding the bad guys. You get graded on looking like you are finding the bad guys. The more paranoid the masses are, the happier they will be to have you looking like you are finding the bad guys. The further underground the bad guys are, the greater the emergency powers you will need to go after them.

      If big brother tactics weren't pragmatically useful(albeit not for their stated purposes) they wouldn't be nearly so popular.

    6. Re:Counterproductive by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      doesnt help them find the badguys in fact all it does is make the law abiding masses paranoid

      Except that they will never find that out, because the masses don't care, and it doesn't matter if laws are effective or not.

      n the end the only thing this will be used for successfully is kowtowing to corporate interests and eroding the rights of citizens.

      Which is all that matters to them.

    7. Re:Counterproductive by Hurricane78 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where did you get the idea that this has anything to do with catching the bay guys? ^^
      And why do people always equate politicians not doing what you expected with them being stupid?
      I don't think they are stupid. It just looks that way, because their actions are so completely counterproductive of what they say are their goals.
      Well, every person that has lived trough the change in tone before and after an election, should know not to believe one word of that. ;)

      So... if they are lying, and if they are not stupid, then why do they do this?
      Simple: Everything people do, because someone has someone has something to gain from it.
      Find that one, and you got your reason.

      But I guess we all knew this before. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    8. Re:Counterproductive by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sorry. Of course I meant "Everything people do, they do because someone has someone has something to gain from it."... I think.
      I'm so tired I can't think straight anymore. So I better stop commenting, and go to bed. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    9. Re:Counterproductive by pisto_grih · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, your argument falls down when repeated surveys suggest the general populace is less and less trusting of the government and more and more cynical of the expansion of the database/surveillance state.

      The General Public deserve slightly more credit here.

    10. Re:Counterproductive by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      Obama is bringing "cost-effective" medicine to the U.S. I hope it is only a matter of time before they start it with cost-effective security too. Sure, you can spend billions on drug enforcement, but when a successful prosecution & punishment costs tens of billions more, you have to evaluate if incarceration is the best avenue, or if at-home therapy and treatments reduce relapse rates at considerably lesser cost.

      From a security stand point, you fix the holes that are too expensive to fix after they've been exploited. Everything else is just a cost of doing business. The FAA has used this approach for procedures for some time, with great success.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    11. Re:Counterproductive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They realised that long ago. Governments don't require or want the trust of their citizens. Fear is a much more tractable emotion. Whether the citizens fear the government or (to all practical purposes) non-existent threats like terrorism and paedophilia, is irrelevant. Mass surveillance is not about catching bad guys, it's about making good guys too scared to dissent.

    12. Re:Counterproductive by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      More likely they will use word of mouth in an open field. Payphones mostly don't exist (now everybody has a mobile phone), and where they do, they are situated on roads with the heaviest traffic noise and are therefore useless for holding a conversation.

      And traditional mail? HaHaHaHaHa.... Maybe, if it ever gets to its destination.

    13. Re:Counterproductive by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      You get graded on looking like you are finding the bad guys.

      No, you are graded on whether you are doing "something". And running around in circles, tearing your hair out and yelling "OhMyGodOhMyGodWhatAboutTheChildrenWe'reAllGoingToDie!" is just fine as far as the large moronic section of the electorate is concerned.

    14. Re:Counterproductive by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      The General Public deserve slightly more credit here.

      Is he related to General Failure? And is he also interested in my hard drive?

    15. Re:Counterproductive by mpe · · Score: 1

      When will governments figure out that pushing big brother tactics on their constituents doesnt help them find the badguys

      Generally the people who make up governments are not interested in finding "bad guys". Especially since many cases all they need do is look in the mirror...

      in fact all it does is make the law abiding masses paranoid and pushes the ones they are after further underground into darknets, and other more nefarious methods.

      Including joining the police force/security services/etc.

    16. Re:Counterproductive by mpe · · Score: 1

      Organized Criminals and terrorists will just start using payphones and traditional mail (post).

      Assuming they are not doing so already. As well as other "low tech" methods of communication.

    17. Re:Counterproductive by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      If big brother tactics weren't pragmatically useful

      Useful, but at what cost? Is it mere coincidence that the U.S. government tended towards fewer civil liberties in the second term of G.W. Bush and we are now in a recession?

      When a person is afraid to speak their minds and say no to a stupid decision, stupid decisions start ruling the day.

    18. Re:Counterproductive by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Organized Criminals and terrorists will just start using payphones

      That's where operation stink off piss, comes into play, police sniffer dogs will easily be able to catch the guy that has spent more than a few minutes using any payphone.

      traditional mail (post).

      and shutting down the post offices in villages means all terrorists will have to migrate to the big cities.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    19. Re:Counterproductive by DerekLyons · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Organized Criminals and terrorists will just start using payphones and traditional mail (post).

      Good! Traditional mail is slower and has lower bandwidth than the 'net, and payphones (unless the UK is very different from the US) are becoming scarcer are cell phones become common. Even when there are payphones available, they're great for sending messages but suck badly for receiving them. Not to mention payphones are generally in public places, so someone repeatedly hanging about has an increased chance of being noticed by a witness.
       
      So forcing them to use these services makes their communications slower, asynchronous, and raises the chance of them making a mistake. From the POV of law enforcement these are all Good Things.
       
      Seriously, many Slashdotters don't seem to realize that many security measures aren't meant to catch bad guys - they aren't traps. They're meant to make the bad guys lives more difficult and to increase the chance they'll make (and hopefully repeat) a noticeable mistake.

    20. Re:Counterproductive by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Is it mere coincidence that the U.S. government tended towards fewer civil liberties in the second term of G.W. Bush and we are now in a recession?

      Yes. It is mere coincidence.

      Note that Clinton didn't especially erode civil liberties in his second term, yet we had a recession at the end of his Presidency (and the beginning of Bush's).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    21. Re:Counterproductive by StrategicIrony · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh pffft.

      In national surveys in the US, MORE THAN 50% of people subscribe to the "If I'm not doing anything illegal, what do I have to hide?" theory.

      Did you know that in a recent survey, only 22% of British people surveyed could properly name the 3 countries that makes up Great Britain.

      On an unmarked map, almost 90% of Americans could not identify any of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. 51% could not find New York State. 68% could not find Japan and 20% could not actually find the Pacific Ocean.

      Sure, the number of people who are actively opposed to database surveillance has risen from 5% to 20%, but that doesn't mean the "general public" deserves anything.

      I do notice the western countries with the strongest privacy laws happen to also be the countries with the highest test scores amongst kids.

      Places like Finland, Belgium, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada.... They aren't known for government surveillance or overbearing police forces.

      I don't know, is this ironic? Or a result of the "liberal agenda" in these places? :-)

      sorry to turn that into a political rant, but... It's just too easy.

    22. Re:Counterproductive by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they make my life more difficult too.

    23. Re:Counterproductive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever wonder why all mail boxes are now outside buildings in Canada and the US? To prevent people sticking bombs on the mail slots that went directly into mail offices, homes and businesses.

      Some places still have drop slots (like banks, libraries and video rental places), but not for mail.

    24. Re:Counterproductive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gov't figured this out a long time ago, that's the problem.

    25. Re:Counterproductive by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      So facts are modded -1 troll now? (Shakes head.) Slashdot, where anti government FUD is more important than facts.

    26. Re:Counterproductive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Rome the emperor and the ruling classes used the oracle, actual leaders have data mining. information databases mass psychology studies and marketing.

    27. Re:Counterproductive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In national surveys in the US, MORE THAN 50% of people subscribe to the "If I'm not doing anything illegal, what do I have to hide?" theory.

      Which is bullshit when you think about it. If you don't have anything to hide, why dump all your noise into the search for the criminals?

    28. Re:Counterproductive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *citation needed*

      Canada and NZ might not be known for government surveillance, but god knows they both have enough problems with the appropriate treatment of intellectual property rights and free speech on a digital platform. To each his own, my good sir.

    29. Re:Counterproductive by mrsaggy · · Score: 1

      Great Britain : England, Scotland, Wales ..... does Nth Ireland count ? damn thats 4 S

    30. Re:Counterproductive by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Everyone has things to hide. You don't expect your bank statements on the back of a postcard, you want them hidden in an envelope. In fact, it's the law to hide parts of your body when in public.

      Oh, but it's okay if the only people looking at your private stuff are the police, who naturally you can trust 100% not to abuse that power.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re: counterproductive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What this is really about is understanding the way information flows on the internet, how many people visit which forums, etc. That way, the state can use propaganda strategically to mitigate threats, specially the threat of having people thinking in ways the state doesn't approve of. Also, the originators of negative ideas can be identified and secretly harassed. This is about keeping us docile.

    32. Re:Counterproductive by franki.macha · · Score: 1

      yeah, that's why gun deaths in the uk are equal to that of the united states :>

    33. Re:Counterproductive by averner · · Score: 1

      Places like Finland, Belgium, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada.... They aren't known for government surveillance or overbearing police forces.

      Some of those countries are also known for a lack of a second amendment to their constitution.

      --
      Member of the 7 Digit UID Club
    34. Re:Counterproductive by sjames · · Score: 1

      Who says they're not already well aware of that? They can't just come out and say they want to consider you their personal property and plaything, they need a more palatable party line sio you won't just feed them into a tree chipper. So, officially, this is to protect you against THEM.

      THEM is whoever is not well liked and convenient at the time. In more overtly racist times, THEM was racial minorities. These days, THEM is pedophiles and terrorists. Tomorrow, who knows. The only constant is that there will be a THEM.

      There are a few constraints. First, THEM must be a class of people that most of the population has never knowingly met. That is necessary because if people see THEM for what they are, they will realize how little harm they can really do to society as a whole and how few there actually are. That leads to point 2, it must be a group whose numbers and power can be vastly inflated in the minds of the populace. That's why we see things like people peeing behind a dumpster at 2 A.M. while drunk branded as "sex offenders". Gotta get those numbers up!

      That is not to say that every person in government is in on "the conspiracy". There may not even be a formal "conspiracy". Just a bunch of people who see similar benefits for similar actions, and so act similarly without formally conspiring to do so. They are surrounded by a bunch of better intentioned people who fell for the party line and ACTUALLY think it's good.

      All of that surrounded by people who gain psychological validation from being treated deferentially because of their position even though they would be just another jackass otherwise.

      You need look no further than the Milgram experiment to see what happens when people are arbitrarily granted power to command others.

    35. Re:Counterproductive by _2Karl · · Score: 1

      Well technically, England, Scotland and Wales makes up Great Britain. Adding Northern Ireland makes the United Kingdom (or to give its full name, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

      I still prefer "Hyperborea" though.

    36. Re:Counterproductive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to site your sources fool...

    37. Re:Counterproductive by Calmaveth · · Score: 1

      It could explain why there are rarely stories about successful hi-tech counterterrorist operations.

  9. Encryption by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Problem ( mostly ) solved.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem ( mostly ) solved.

      Problem NOT solved since stance of UK government is : Anonymity online masks criminal identities

      source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8020039.stm

    2. Re:Encryption by AndrewNeo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they're telling the truth, and not monitoring the data itself, just the endpoints.. then what good does encrypting do?

    3. Re:Encryption by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Which part of "We're not looking inside the packets*, just where they're going to" escaped you...?

      [*] Yet.

      If you want safety, add a bit of extra information to the JPG files on your innocent-looking blog.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know they could decrypt encrypted traffic after it had been sent.

    5. Re:Encryption by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      They can't but they can log it and beat the keys out of you later.

    6. Re:Encryption by onedotzero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they're doing what? I'm not sure I follow...

    7. Re:Encryption by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Did you read TFS even? They don't care about content. They just care about from, to, and how long. And a few other things. Encryption wouldn't solve any of that. The only thing that would would be using proxies for on the Internet, and then VoIP for calling. Does Skype on the iPod Touch work, with a proxy? Hmm....

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    8. Re:Encryption by Lord+Pillage · · Score: 1

      If they're telling the truth...

      There's your problem, right there.

      --
      try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
    9. Re:Encryption by mdsharpe · · Score: 1

      Sure, but if your traffic is encrypted then all anyone can know is that some communication occurred between machine A and machine B. Nobody can discern the nature of the traffic. Surely this is an improvement over the current situation.

    10. Re:Encryption by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It hides the endpoints. If you are using SMTP with TLS, for example, then all the ISP knows is that you sent an email to someone at hotmail.com, or someone at gmail.com (for example), they don't know the bit before the @, which is the important bit.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:Encryption by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Not particularly. Even encrypted, they would still know where it was sent from, and where it ended up. However, I'm not particularly against working on improving encryption protocols and spreading their use now, as hedge against the time when infrastructure's in place to actually store the content currently only being monitored.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    12. Re:Encryption by vertinox · · Score: 1

      If they're telling the truth, and not monitoring the data itself, just the endpoints.. then what good does encrypting do?

      If you are encrypting everything by default and then route it through an anonymity network in onion layers (say Tor), then the destination and at some point the origination is encrypted from a man in the middle attack.

      They can see that you sent something encrypted to a node and they could see that you received something from a node, but they would not be able to see where you sent it to, nor who sent it back.

      Of course if they comprised an exit node, then all bets are off at least for the anonymity part...

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    13. Re:Encryption by vertinox · · Score: 1

      They can't but they can log it and beat the keys out of you later.

      Which is why you have a self-destruct decrypt key that you feed your torturers which destroys the data and makes it unrecoverable.

      Of course they'll probably keep beating you after they suspect what you did, but its what they have on most nuclear weapons systems. If you put in the wrong code, it immediately mechanically locks the system permanently rendering it useless. After they keep torturing you, I'm sure you'll give them the real password but at that point it doesn't do them any good because the self destruct key destroyed the real encryption key.

      As far as stuff that the public can use hasn't really been invented yet (I surprised true crypt doesn't have a self destruct option) but you could in theory have OS profile that keeps an encrypted copy of your key's key and when you automatically logs into that profile it immediately starts writing zeros over that file over and over again till the person who logs in become wise to what you just did. (To make them wait you could have a dialog box to pop up that says "Decrypting... Please wait... 60 minutes to go"

      Of course if you captors were smart they would have imaged the drive before attempting to follow your instructions in which case you need something more complex such as an on board device that prevents I/O if you attempt to remove the drive or wipes itself if they attempt to remove the platters if they valued your data that much. I guess you could re-rewrite the firmware on the drive to have encryption key and another chip on your MB had the check for it so if it powers on and can't read the key it attempts to wipe the remaining encryption key on itself.

      Though, chances are you are going to lose your own data which such a system trying to repair your computer when you swap out the hard drive.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    14. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using SSL to a (trusted) third-country SMTP server means they can't monitor the TO and FROM addresses in emails, which is one of the key things the database is recording. Similarly with VOIP, although again you need a trusted third party that does all the forwarding. Obviously using TOR or other anonymizers/proxies/VPNs will work better but encryption does help.

    15. Re:Encryption by rdebath · · Score: 1

      But there's a problem, there's no certificate, or if there is can you trust the certificate authority?

      Without a reliable certificate you are only protected against eavesdropping, not against MITM.

    16. Re:Encryption by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Encryption won't help. They are recording the from and to addresses of emails (plus time stamp, IP address of the sender and so on). The only way to avoid this is to run your own SMTP/POP server, but that's difficult to do since many servers block email from ISP dynamic IP blocks to cut down on spam from botnets.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:Encryption by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      The 'yet' part is the key.

      Start encrypting now, before you have unencrypted data sitting out there waiting to be mined for when they changed their tune.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  10. V for Vendetta? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, yeah. I've heard the movie and book don't mesh but the overall theme is still the same: Complete access to what anyone and everyone is doing, thinking or writing.

    On a related note, the following quote from Sneakers isn't too far off either:

    There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information!

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:V for Vendetta? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information!

      How do you control information without bullets? "Hmm, I see you have some information there.... [cocks gun]" ;) Even in the movie the bad guys used guns....

      That's probably my favorite geek movie :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:V for Vendetta? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      In my copy of the book, Alan Moore laments the state of England in the foreward, and talks about taking his family and getting the hell out. That was dated in the 1980s I think. I thought he had to be overreacting, but now I see he wasn't.

  11. At least its for the Children!!! by hemp · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, I am not going to feel safe until *everyone* is in jail. That is the only way to make sure there is not a criminal free somewheres.

    --
    Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
    1. Re:At least its for the Children!!! by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I am not going to feel safe until *everyone* is in jail.

      I agree. Let's start with every member of the British Parliament and American Congress. I could even make a think of the children argument to justify it.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:At least its for the Children!!! by u4ya · · Score: 1

      Of course, the jail they are creating is open-air, and will be as large as the UK itself.

    3. Re:At least its for the Children!!! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Of course, the jail they are creating is open-air, and will be as large as the UK itself.

      As long as they keep the weather, the food and the women.

      It's prison, no matter how you look at it...

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:At least its for the Children!!! by averner · · Score: 1

      You mean like North Korea? The only way you can fit everyone into jail is to make the whole country into a prison.

      --
      Member of the 7 Digit UID Club
  12. What stops the ISPs ignoring the government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's not clear if the government is planning to legislate to force ISPs and phone companies to keep this data, or if they just 'advise'.

    If the latter, then I imagine there'll be the few ISPs that stand up and say "no" and market themselves on that very fact.

    1. Re:What stops the ISPs ignoring the government? by Teun · · Score: 4, Informative
      Don't worry, the UK government has strong-armed, scared and bullied the EU into traffic data retention legislation.

      That EU regulation is now used as an 'excuse' by the same British government to tell the ISP's and Telco's to retain the data.

      As usual the tabloids will blame Europe.

      The EU regulation does only specify some minimum requirements like 6 months retention but the UK government will no doubt go for the maximum of 24 months, that was the minimum they wanted of Europe with unlimited as an option.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    2. Re:What stops the ISPs ignoring the government? by tomtomtom · · Score: 1

      This process is distressingly common. But don't be fooled - noone was strong-armed; many/most EU countries use the EU to get domestically unpopular legislation passed and it's now become a case of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".

      There's usually sufficient flexibility in the EU regulations that the national governments still get a choice as to whether to implement these laws or not, they just get to effectively bypass their legislatures. The whole process is often called Policy laundering.

  13. So they want to be Big Brother by jayhawk88 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But in the most incompetent way possible. Letting the ISP's store the data? So you're telling me that tracking the communications of the worlds most dangerous terrorists is so incredibly important that it can potentially be left in the hands of a 20 year old intern charged with swapping the backups tapes? Hyperbole of course, but come on, if you (the UK gov) aren't storing the data, do you really know it will be available when you need it?

    1. Re:So they want to be Big Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, we need jobs too you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:So they want to be Big Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you (the UK gov) aren't storing the data, do you really know it will be available when you need it?

      No, but we know that if it's not available the ISP has to pay us a fine for not following the law.
      -The Government

    3. Re:So they want to be Big Brother by psnyder · · Score: 1
      Policing is only easy in a police state.

      If they retained all information at one source it would be more reliable, but more susceptible to corruption by whomever controlled the data. Plus there would be no privacy.

      If they had no access to information there'd be complete privacy but it would be near impossible to stop harmful people.

      The security services would then have to apply to the ISP or telecoms company to have the data released.

      Meaning there's still some power left to the people, and hopefully there will be privacy laws in which the ISPs and/or telecoms can turn down the application if there isn't some form of viable warrant.

      It means they had to partially compromise with privacy advocates and give up some accuracy, for the sake of more privacy.

    4. Re:So they want to be Big Brother by CXI · · Score: 1

      No, what they suddenly realized is that they want to make someone else pay for the massive cost to implement the plan. "Create a database of all communication transactions" sounds great on a todo list but starts to fall apart when you get to the details.

    5. Re:So they want to be Big Brother by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not at all clear how the system is going to work either. For example, if I send an email using an overseas SMTP server, will it be intercepted by my ISP? What if I use a secure SSL connection?

      The sad fact is that this kind of data is only useful for catching idiots who join the "Jihad against the UK" group on Facebook and spend all day watching Americans getting shot on YouTube. Security via things like Tor and anonymous email/IM is so easy now you can bet it's on page 1 of the Terrorist's/Paedophile's/Protestor's/Whistleblower's Handbook.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:So they want to be Big Brother by mpe · · Score: 1

      But in the most incompetent way possible. Letting the ISP's store the data? So you're telling me that tracking the communications of the worlds most dangerous terrorists is so incredibly important that it can potentially be left in the hands of a 20 year old intern charged with swapping the backups tapes? Hyperbole of course, but come on, if you (the UK gov) aren't storing the data, do you really know it will be available when you need it?

      What's to say that the "20 year old intern" wouldn't be just as involved if "government" were handling such a database. Especially since it would probably just be outsourced to some contractor...
      Also a government's definition of "dangerous terrorist" and that of the average member of the public probably arn't the same in the first place.

    7. Re:So they want to be Big Brother by SatiricComet · · Score: 1

      Well all that doesn't matter if they're never really intending to use the data to catch bad guys

      This isn't really about security at all, it's all just a security theatre, a show for the crowd. It wont help them catch bad guys.

    8. Re:So they want to be Big Brother by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      One thing we can be sure of is that the ISP will be better at storing it than the secret service, who would store it on USB sticks left in pubs, or the police, who would display it where news reporters can photograph it.

      Personally, I think write-only tapes on the floor of a back room at the ISP _are_ the best way.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  14. Easy to spot by T+Murphy · · Score: 1, Funny

    Example of an intercepted IM conversation:
    AC1: I'm thinking to get a new car next week
    AC2: Sweet, what colour are you getting?
    AC1: Dude? "colour"?
    AC2: I didn't put that 'u' there...

  15. Great by Tx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm honestly sure who I trust less to securely maintain a database containing large amounts my of private data. The government have consistently proven themselves incapable of managing large scale IT projects, or of taking privacy seriously. On the other hand, I don't trust my ISP either - will they be prevented from outsourcing any part of the chain involved in collecting and storing this data, for example, or is my data going to be available for $1 in Delhi anytime soon? It's a lose-lose situation.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
    1. Re:Great by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I imagine the only way to end up with some privacy is to buy your MP's or PM's browsing history, and have The Daily Mail run it on page 1.

    2. Re:Great by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I don't trust my ISP either...is my data going to be available for $1 in Delhi anytime soon?

      Why not, your job is ;-P
           

    3. Re:Great by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I love how they phrase it that the law will "let" ISPs store the data, too. They're passing a law that's going to make extensive long-term data storage mandatory, and it's the companies who get to pay for it. Isn't the government generous?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:Great by Celc · · Score: 1

      When the databases leak (and they all leak, who are we kidding here) at least with the government I'm more convinced it's due to incompetence rather than mallice.

      At least I've got the power to try and replace the people in charge of government every now and again. My only option with the ISP would be using a gun.

      I get your point though, worlds a messed up place. :(

    5. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government [...] outsourcing any part of the chain involved in collecting and storing this data, for example, or is my data going to be available for $1 in Delhi anytime soon?

      Yes, either way.
      If the govt does it, it goes through a dozen contractors who all outsource it.
      If the ISPs do it, it goes through a dozen service agencies who all outsource it.

    6. Re:Great by iiiears · · Score: 1

      Only the powerful are to be trusted and everyone else is suspect?

      --
      15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
    7. Re:Great by ZekeSpeak · · Score: 1

      They're passing a law that's going to make extensive long-term data storage mandatory, and it's the companies who get to pay for it. Isn't the government generous?

      It won't be the companies who pay for data retention. It will be the poor customers. We'll pay for our own surveillance. Isn't the government generous?

    8. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily, that is prevented by the data protection act: it cannot legally be outsourced outside Europe without proper protection.

  16. McLuhan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the medium is the message, then we're screwed!

  17. Re:Alternate solution by Gerafix · · Score: 1

    That wouldn't be profitable enough. Unless some company came up with a proprietary way to ship tonnes of people off the island and win a governmental contract so they can bribe I mean contribute to the politicians coffers.

  18. In other news.... by wjh31 · · Score: 1

    Tor recently recieved an accidental DDos

    1. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a decent proportion of folk using a Tor client also ran Tor as a forwarding node, then there would be no DoS. Even better if folk are willing to run exit nodes.

      It's easy using Vidalia, just tick the box to "run tor as a server" and choose a nickname for the server.

      The more folk that use Tor, i2p, freenet, GNUnet etc, the safer we all are.

  19. You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by seeker_1us · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I no longer have any hope for Great Britain.

    The country that spawned the magna carta is on an irreversible spiral into a police state.

    They will continue to erode the rights of people in the name of "terrorism" and "child pornography."

    And the general populace seems happy to let it happen.

    1. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the Labour Party seems happy to let it happen.

      Fixed that for you. I know lots of people in the UK that are aghast at what's happening.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every government expands in power and revenue over time. Some expand more quickly than others, but in the end, no amount of power and revenue is enough for the business of government. At the top of the power pyramid, it doesn't even matter whether you "succeed" or "fail"; what matters is that the money passes through your hands, and the power falls under your control. As long as the money keeps flowing, the business of government will enjoy success.

      Am I implying that all the spying, all the blatant attacks on privacy, all the surveillance is all just an excuse to tax, borrow, and spend? You're damn right I am, and if you look at the financial history of just about any government, you will understand that money is the objective.

    3. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by Reziac · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Then how does the Labour party stay in power??

      Yeah, we have the same problem here, only we call them Democrats... and the problem really is the socialist entitlement system which keeps people voting against their own best interests. "He who robs Peter to pay Paul is assured of Paul's vote."

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Then how does the Labour party stay in power??

      Because more than 50% of the population either work for the government or collect benefits of some kind, and they only need 22% of the votes to get a majority in parliament.

    5. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      I don't think the British government is doing anything in the name of terrorism and child pornography. Well, okay, maybe terrorism...

    6. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I agree. Loads of people in the UK are quietly sitting there agahast. Stiff upper lip and put up with it, its the British way.
      Not since the poll tax riots in the 80's has anyone actually got off their asses and done anything about even the worst atrocities by the gov on the people.
      I seriously can't imagine the people of absolutely any other country putting up with this crap.
      The real problem is not the government, who are politicians therefore by nature are all a bunch of powergrabbing self-serving sleezy bastards.
      The real problem is the stupid amount of liberal "dont cause trouble" mentality and the inability of most people to unite and actually do something effective that is whats really killing the UK.
      Its also why I emigrated. At least I did something.

    7. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by aj50 · · Score: 1

      We only get a general election every five years. In the last two elections, the main opposition party have behaved like idiots. (Who the hell came up with "It's not racist to restrict immigration" - no one said it was and they made themselves look like pricks.)

      Additionally, while this has been going on a while, the worst of it has been in the last few years. ID cards have fallen by the wayside as has extending the length of time someone can be held as a terrorist suspect without charge to 42 days.

      --
      I wish to remain anomalous
    8. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Ah. Same problem the U.S. has now fallen into. :(

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    9. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      It's not the Labour Party that regularly categorises members of Liberty as traitors who should be strung up. The right-wing press who to a person are normally life-long enemies of Fake Labour are completely in favour of all their fascism in the name of "national security" and "protecting the kids".

    10. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by squarooticus · · Score: 1

      And the Labour Party seems happy to let it happen.

      Fixed that for you. I know lots of people in the UK that are aghast at what's happening.

      The people get the government they deserve.

      --
      [ home ]
    11. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by onedotzero · · Score: 1

      Indeed; the 'Great British Apethy'. I'm not far behind you..!

    12. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      the general populace seems happy to let it happen.

      The general populace either doesn't understand or misunderstands computers and the Internet in general and does not perceive them (wrongly as we on Slashdot know) as impacting their lives in a negative way OR if even if they do feel that omnipresent surveillance is bad; they are too busy scrambling to pay their underwater mortgage and worrying about whether or not they will be the next one in their office to receive a pink slip. The crisis is being exploited by some in power to push through rapid and radical changes while the attention of the people is distracted by the lousy economy and the general uncertainty of the times.

    13. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by kungfugleek · · Score: 1

      Haven't read all the responses, so this might be redundant, but I'm guessing the general populace will continue to let it happen as long as they are more or less comfortable and constantly entertained.

    14. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      The real problem is the stupid amount of liberal "dont cause trouble" mentality and the inability of most people to unite and actually do something effective that is whats really killing the UK.

      It happened once...
      ...it's called the USA.

    15. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by o'reor · · Score: 1

      You mean, "shooting Brazilian subway passengers in the back" ?

      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
    16. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by vivaelamor · · Score: 1

      The people get the government they deserve.

      I hate that phrasing with a vehemence.
      If you are going to use short and single sentencing in an effort to sound pithy then you could at least be unambiguous.
      Any more ambiguous and you would be implying that pets aren't making enough effort politically.

    17. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know lots of people in the UK that are aghast at what's happening.

      Then when are they going to do something about it and take back their lost freedoms? Over a 1000 years of blood and struggle, England created so much of what the world now regards as fundamental rights in the Common Law. Now it's un-creating them in favor of ever-increasing State power over the individual. And I don't think it is just Labor, but the Tories would do well to seize the civil libertarian agenda - they don't really have an agenda anymore since Labor turned into right wing neoliberals.

      Someone says something in the House of Lords a few weeks ago, but that's about it.

      Oh and Jacqui Smith is a dangerous idiot like that fool in Australia.

    18. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by mpe · · Score: 1

      Then how does the Labour party stay in power??

      This is New Labour who got into power in the first place by being more "Tory" than the Conservative party.

    19. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's right though, in the case of Western democracies.

    20. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by Xest · · Score: 1

      No, in recent months the majority of the population has woken up.

      Labour have zero support now, we're not in an irreversible spiral but we are in a spiral, people aren't happy letting it happen.

      The question is what do we do? The election is less than a year away and then Labour will be banished from power likely for at least a decade, but they'll be banished from power for a while at least, that's certain now.

      At the last local elections last year Labour got obliterated, they lost countless councils, people did vote to make a point.

      Groups and prominent people are making their opinions known, NO2ID, the original creator of the DNA database, the previous head of MI5, Tim Berners-Lee and so on. The problem is Labour just ignore it.

      The fact is the only option we have other than resorting to violence is to just wait until the next elections, and if you feel violence is a suitable option then feel free to go and be the first to attack Jacqui Smith or whoever but for most rational people, waiting for the elections is the only option. It's also worth pointing out that Labour almost certainly wont be able to implement this sort of thing and get the ID cards scheme or their new copyright quango properly in place by the next elections anyway and any remnants will be abolished by the Tories or the Lib Dems.

      Right now the Tories are showing a lot more respect to civil liberties stating publicly they'll do away with the ID card scheme and wouldn't implement this sort of monitoring. A lot of people still hate the Tories, but at least on a civil liberties front they state they have more respect. If you don't like the Tories, vote Lib Dem and further decrease any power Labour and the Tories have to create a better balance- as we know, the Lib Dems are even more pro-freedom than the Tories so strengthening their power is good too.

      Only when democracy fails, and if we find the Tories just as bad should other options be considered, with less than a year to go to get rid of Labour democracy seems the best option worth waiting for in the face of a government that will not listen to anyone whether it's the citizens, their allies or their opponents.

    21. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by computational+super · · Score: 1

      Ah, you've been modded "-1, accurate", I see.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    22. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      And the Labour & Conservatives Parties seems happy to let it happen.

      Fixed that for you. I know lots of people in the UK that are aghast at what's happening.

      A lot of the anti-terror legislation gets through on Torry votes, because some Labour backbenchers have balls.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    23. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I no longer have any hope for Great Britain. The country that spawned the magna carta is on an irreversible spiral into a police state.

      Well, those who've studied history know two things: First, the Magna Carta was meant to protect the rights of the upper classes, not the common man. Second, Great Britain has bordered on being a police state for decades. People are just now getting around to noticing.

    24. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Kinda predictable when you call a spade a spade...

      It's no wonder people get, as someone once put it, the government they deserve :/

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    25. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by vivaelamor · · Score: 1

      He's right about what though? I say that conversely, there are significant cases that you can argue his statement is plainly false.

      For example, people who directly benefit from government through undue influence surely do not deserve what they get (eg. recording industry and other money orientated lobbyists).

      As well, children are in many ways prevented from participating in the political process and can be hard to blame for the failings of government.

      That's significant groups of people who either influenced government and got what they didn't deserve or could not influence government and thus cannot be held accountable. Add to that every damn person who puts more effort into improving society through politics than they see a return on from government and I have an issue with what he's right about.

      Maybe you could just add one word, like 'generally', to qualify the statement. Still about as useful as saying 'the sky looks blue' but at least it'd be as accurate.

      P.S. 'if it looks like a rant and sounds like a rant..'

    26. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by Pichu0102 · · Score: 1

      I no longer have any hope for the world.

      All countries, regardless of their previous merit, are on an irreversible spiral into a police state.

      They will continue to erode the rights of people in the name of "terrorism" and "child pornography."

      And the general populace seems happy to let it happen.

      And those who disagree will have nowhere to run when they come for them for disagreeing.

      Fixed that for you.

    27. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by gringofrijolero · · Score: 1

      And the general populace seems happy to let it happen.

      Not merely letting it happen. The general populace has been scared into demanding it.

      --
      Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    28. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by Goodgerster · · Score: 1

      Those "lots of people" don't count, the government counts. Let's not kid ourselves here --- democracy in the UK means choosing between a discredited Thatcherite party (red logo) and an undirected Thatcherite party (blue logo) as our preferred autocratic rulers for the next five years.

    29. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by unauthorized · · Score: 1

      The Labor Party is the one who proposes and accept the laws, but it's John Doe's duty to go out there and tell them to fuck off when they cross the line.

      I don't see any protests on the British streets, so why should I assume the populace disagrees with it's government?

      Let's face it - people don't care. Humans act pretty much like a huge herd of sheep. Democracy would be a great form of government if everyone was idealist like the people who wrote our constitutions, but the truth is that most people would rather not go out of their comfort zone to make any significant impact on their lives, even if it means to give up some things.

      It's ironic but if the government were to ban some form of entertainment... say nicotine drugs and alcohol, it would cause mass riots. But when the government installs cameras everywhere to look for uhh.... terrorists John thinks to himself "why should I care? I'm not terrorist". If shutting down your critical thinking to blend in the crowd doesn't qualify as "letting it happen", then I don't know what is. Politicians have shown us time after time that elections != exercising your will.

    30. Re:You know, these stories don't shock me anymore. by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      Yes, it's great to see that at least one person realizes that it wasn't Bush and the GOP but the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy that raped the constitution and tortured their way through the last 8 years.

      Keep up the good work Patriots, I'm off watching a Foxnews docu on how Clinton planned 9/11 and the financial crisis.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
  20. How does it even work? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let's talk about IM. I run an XMPP server which a few of my friends use. Everyone that connects to it used TLS. If they did enough traffic analysis, they might just about be able to tell who I was talking to, but are they really expecting ISPs to correlate every packet anyone sends to that machine (which is not located on their network) and communicate this data to all other UK ISPs so that they can try to work out who I am talking to? And what happens when I talk to someone using a busy server like jabber.org or gmail.com? They see some encrypted packets going from my machine to that server (well, they don't, because my server is outside the UK, but let's pretend that they do). Then, a second or so later, they see a few million packets going out to various other people. Are they just expecting Google to turn over their logs, or do they expect the ISPs to magically work out who I am talking to be analysing every packet going everywhere?

    The same applies to email. My mail server is set up to use TLS, and so most of the time they can't do deep packet inspection to learn the destination, all they know is that my machine has delivered a mail to the recipient's mail server, and that a lot of people later on have checked their mail on that machine.

    It seems that this will only stop terrorists who are stupid enough to use their ISP's mail servers, which surely isn't a huge number.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    1. Re:How does it even work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The next step for the politicians must therefore be to outlaw TLS and the use of non-government sanctioned servers for communications by UK citizens. OK maybe that's a bit extreme but you see where I'm going with this.

  21. This warms my heart in a dark way by MikeRT · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The next time some self-righteous, left-winger from Britain attacks the US as Fascist, this can be thrown in their face. The USA PATRIOT Act was a fucking joke compared to the possibilities that this opens up.

    1. Re:This warms my heart in a dark way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You,sir, are correct. Your comment definitely puts things into perspective.

    2. Re:This warms my heart in a dark way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The next time some self-righteous, left-winger from Britain attacks the US as Fascist, this can be thrown in their face. The USA PATRIOT Act was a fucking joke compared to the possibilities that this opens up.

      W00t for being slightly less fascist. Like the Diet Coke of fascism - just 1 calorie, not fascist enough?

    3. Re:This warms my heart in a dark way by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You're funny. ECHELON, much? Warrantless wiretapping? A country that suspended habeas corpus? A country that had no problem opening Gitmo? Seriously, this isn't even a database (like ECHELON). Get over yourself, emo.

  22. Communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this like the worst part of the Russian Communist regime? Everyone under the watchful eye of everyone else.

    Are bombs worse? I don't know. I do know that I'll think twice about going somewhere where the wire-taping is the norm.

  23. We all love SPAM! by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they keep a database of ALL email sent, it'll be interesting to see how many days it takes until their backup servers are overrun with billions of nigerian prince scams, fake virus alerts and phony offers to get free cash from Microsoft.

    1. Re:We all love SPAM! by hey · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they only need to keep one copy of each mail and a list of who it went to.

    2. Re:We all love SPAM! by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      on the sender side maybe, but it still lands on the inbox of every recipient, and all ISPs will be required to keep their own logs. I'm thinking here of the ISP IT guys having a discussion about their mail log server that will ressemble the Ghostbusters twinkie metaphor.

    3. Re:We all love SPAM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>and phony offers to get free cash from Microsoft

      You mean they are phonY???

      Oh shit. ;-)

    4. Re:We all love SPAM! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Since they like to keep so much, do they have an email address where I can send all my spam?

    5. Re:We all love SPAM! by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      If we consider the fact that the database could do stuff to save space,
      you can probably assume less than 2^32 email addresses and compress ever email address to an integer 40bit index, ip addresses are 28bits and dates 16bit(good 180years). at 136b per email (68 extra bits, per extra recipient) you can deal with 56million individual emails per gigabyte (Its hard to estimate how many email recipients revive each spam mail, but ill guess 63) so 4368b per sent spam means they could log 2m sent spams (124m received) per GB. If we take the 2008 figures of 210B/day but assume 72% spam and 4% go to/from uk, 8.4B (6B spam) it would take 43GB/day to store legit records, but ~3TB/day to store all the spam. There is however a huge assumption that when the sources cite numbers for emails sent, they actually mean emails sent, if they are citing emails received then all the spam takes up 'just' 48GB/day and storage is actually feasibly, over a week (9.8 days) per terabyte (spread amongst all the isps)

      All calculations are estimates, i know nothing about real life databases, the index would take up space, etc, feel free to improve my estimates or provide a good source for the estimates i used
      number of emails addresses? (i think a trillion should be the right order of magnitude if you include spammers)
      emails per day? (spams per day)?
      average recipients per email? (i assumed 1 and 63 per spam, but both are probably wildly inaccurate)
      email traffic in the uk? (Seriously my source was a 2005 paper with nothing to do with email use)

      that said i think the estimates probably provide the correct magnitude
      If 210B individual emails are sent per day, each isp will likely have store a Terabytes for every few days.
      However if 210B emails are recived then each isp will likely have to store a Terabyte of data every few weeks.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    6. Re:We all love SPAM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. If you don't want to be caught, just email your terrorist friends giving orders from nigerian prince amanateh to take their v1@gR@

  24. Distributed Database by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it really make a difference [b]who[/b] houses the information if the government can access it anytime it wishes?

    I remember the same thing coming up with REAL-ID. "We're not creating a centralized database of information."

    No, they're just creating a distributed database which they can access as easily as a local one.

  25. Need someone to write a program... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, someone out there needs to write a program that will randomally access web sites. It should contain a list of reprehensable sites, as well as use randomally generating site names. It should do accesses on some randomzed time schedule, not continuously. You don't want it to run often enough to significantly slow down your own browsing.

    This is how you poison their database, fill it full of useless data. Go ahead, and track this!

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Need someone to write a program... by fluffybacon · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Looks like that's already underway

      Paranoid Linux is an operating system that assumes that its operator is under assault from the government (it was intended for use by Chinese and Syrian dissidents), and it does everything it can to keep your communications and documents a secret. It even throws up a bunch of "chaff" communications that are supposed to disguise the fact that you're doing anything covert. So while you're receiving a political message one character at a time, ParanoidLinux is pretending to surf the Web and fill in questionnaires and flirt in chat-rooms. Meanwhile, one in every five hundred characters you receive is your real message, a needle buried in a huge haystack.

      --
      It's not big, but it's clever!
    2. Re:Need someone to write a program... by fluffybacon · · Score: 1

      Paranoid Linux is an operating system that assumes that its operator is under assault from the government (it was intended for use by Chinese and Syrian dissidents), and it does everything it can to keep your communications and documents a secret. It even throws up a bunch of "chaff" communications that are supposed to disguise the fact that you're doing anything covert. So while you're receiving a political message one character at a time, ParanoidLinux is pretending to surf the Web and fill in questionnaires and flirt in chat-rooms. Meanwhile, one in every five hundred characters you receive is your real message, a needle buried in a huge haystack.

      Looks like that's already underway

      --
      It's not big, but it's clever!
    3. Re:Need someone to write a program... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do we know if they are only using DNS requests? Then you could run it constantly and really fill it up. DNS requests eat up very little bandwidth.

    4. Re:Need someone to write a program... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FireFox + TrackMeNot.

      Already loaded and running ;-)

    5. Re:Need someone to write a program... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      StumbleUpon?

    6. Re:Need someone to write a program... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      It seems the guys who wrote Paranoid Linux are like most Slashdotters - they know shit about security and surveillance. It doesn't matter how much chaff they throw up, because traffic analysis will neatly sort the wheat from the chaff. (And the coolest part? Traffic analysis is easily automated. All the government agents need to do is check their email from time to time to see if the program has generated a result.)

    7. Re:Need someone to write a program... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, someone out there needs to write a program that will randomally access web sites. It should contain a list of reprehensable sites, as well as use randomally generating site names. It should do accesses on some randomzed time schedule, not continuously. You don't want it to run often enough to significantly slow down your own browsing.

      This is how you poison their database, fill it full of useless data. Go ahead, and track this!

      easy, write a script to randomly press the 'Stumble' button...

    8. Re:Need someone to write a program... by mikael · · Score: 1

      Dephormation

      There is also the anti-dephormation league

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  26. Re:Alternate solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If the UK evicted its Muslim immigrants, and gave up trying to occupy Northern Ireland, wouldn't that lower the threat level enough for these measures to be easily repealed?

    Because evicting an ethnic slice of the population is not likely to cause civil unrest...

  27. less serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...just to whom and when and how...
    ...just the dates, duration and location/IP address of messages sent...

    gosh, and I thought they would collect critical data.

    No, honestly, don't use that kind of wording. This suggests ordinary people that this kind of data collection is less problematic than the recording the actual contents of the communication. It is part of the fundamental basic rights and liberties to communicate with other people without being observed. That mentioned, these plans can be regarded as Orwellian/fascist behaviour that the British people need to fight against.

  28. Election Please! by ShedPlant · · Score: 1

    Can we please have an election sometime soon and throw Jacqui Smith out of the Home Office? I'm sure she can get a job working for the Chinese or North Korean governments.

    1. Re:Election Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sign this:
      http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/

    2. Re:Election Please! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately that's just for the Prime Minister to resign, not to call a general election. If he goes then the Parliamentary Labour Party just elects a new one and they move on. If we're really unlucky it could even be Jacqui Smith...

      Actually, a petition to arrest Smith for repeated violations of the ECHR and abuses of parliamentary privilege is one I would definitely sign...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  29. Ask Slashdot by maroberts · · Score: 1

    So what is a secure way to stop this tracking?

    Not using your ISPs mail service seems a start but obviously not a complete answer....

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Ask Slashdot by s7uar7 · · Score: 1

      VPN to a server outside the UK, either to one of the existing services (SwissVPN, Relakks) or just rent a VPS and set it up as a VPN server. All internet traffic goes via the VPN, and all the ISP sees is encrypted traffic over the VPN, and not the end points.

  30. NAMBLA is 2nd biggest criminal group in the world! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In response to the UK Govt's harsh stand against the three biggest groups of criminals in the world, a leading member of NAMBLA was reported to have stated, "Wow, we leap-frogged over the Mob into second place?!" "Al-Qaida!, look out, we are right behind you!"

  31. It is one great big distributed database by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the data is stored, in a known format, and is accessible then it constitutes one great big database.

    It doesn't make it any better that it is distributed.

  32. translucent illusion by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    >> Contrary to previous plans to keep it all in a massive database, it will now let ISPs and telecoms firms store the data themselves, and access it when it feels it needs it."

    Likely the only reason for this decision is that the government have probably just realised how much hardware and infrastructure they would need to buy in order to store, maintain and efficiently search all that info themselves. Consequently they have just pushed it off onto the ISPs/telcos instead.

    It also gives a very translucent illusion that they care about rights to privacy even though there would be nothing stopping them accessing the data 24/7 anyway.

    Of course the obvious pitfall is that the data will now be held by private companies which are (in theory at least) less secure than the government. I can't wait for the first "loss", private sale, or other misuse of data that no doubt the gov. will do everything they can to cover up from the public, yet will get caught out anyway. Its all so predictable.

       

    1. Re:translucent illusion by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Of course the obvious pitfall is that the data will now be held by private companies which are (in theory at least) less secure than the government.

      You're talking about a government that loses records on a weekly basis. I trust my ISP (or indeed most private companies) with my data far more than I do the government.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  33. Illegal to Photograph Cops in Britain by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's recently been made illegal to photograph the police in the UK because the pictures might be useful to terrorists - it doesn't matter if you intend to use such pictures for terrorism, only that a terrorist might possibly want to have one of the pictures.

    This new law has predictably led to such Kafkaesque situations like this story as reported by an actual constable there.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Illegal to Photograph Cops in Britain by Reziac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So now terrorists are following tourists who take pictures of those "bobbies on bicycles, two by two" and stealing the images right out of their cameras? Why bother? Just cut the middleman and pose as a tourist yourself. And since the police presumably wear uniforms and are thus identifiable even without photos, what's the benefit?

      The only benefit I can see is to police who are acting outside the law and don't want any evidence recording that.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Illegal to Photograph Cops in Britain by pisto_grih · · Score: 1

      And since the police presumably wear uniforms and are thus identifiable even without photos

      Yeah, don't count on that. Some members of the Metropolitan police (London) during the G20 protests a few weeks ago had hidden their ID numbers, presumably so they could have an afternoon of hippy-bashing (and worse) without getting in trouble.

    3. Re:Illegal to Photograph Cops in Britain by vittal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, its not illegal to photograph the police - only if its provably of use to terrorists (or whatever is no longer flavour of the month for our esteemed Home Secretary). However, in typical British fashion, nobody is entirely sure of what is allowed/not-allowed, and that includes many officers on the beat.

      The British Journal of Photography (http://www.bjp-online.com/ - just search for police on there) is littered with cases where overzealous officers have declared taking pictures of such-and-such an offence, even to the point of deleting the photos. Needless to say, lots of these cases have follow-ups from the police saying they were wrong.

      The police can not stop you because you are taking a picture - they must have reasonable grounds for suspicion under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/pace-code-a-amended-jan-2009) or under the Terrorism Act 2000 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_5#pt5-pb2-l1g44). If you are stopped at worst case they can confiscate your photography equipment, but they certainly can't get you to delete stuff (arguably, if they did, you could claim it was destruction of evidence).

      Bear in mind IANAL, so the above is at best a summary. http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php has a proper guide to UK photographers' rights written by someone with legal training.

      This is all a classic case of poorly drafted legislation, large amounts of mis-information, the ocassional police officer on a power-kick and the Home Office repeatedly spouting "the terrorists are gonna getcha". Sadly, this is happening all too often in the UK now :(

    4. Re:Illegal to Photograph Cops in Britain by mpe · · Score: 1

      It's recently been made illegal to photograph the police in the UK because the pictures might be useful to terrorists - it doesn't matter if you intend to use such pictures for terrorism, only that a terrorist might possibly want to have one of the pictures.

      It probably dosn't matter even if there is no real (as opposed to fictional) terrorist who would want it. Of course law breaking police officers most likely regard any witnesses as "terrorists".

    5. Re:Illegal to Photograph Cops in Britain by dugeen · · Score: 1

      The point is that the police are judge, jury and executioner in such matters. It may not be illegal to photograph them, but they'll seize your camera anyway, and arrest you if you protest. Getting a ruling 6 months later that they acted illegally is no consolation for the bruises.

    6. Re:Illegal to Photograph Cops in Britain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A funny thing is the police should be much more concerned about violent organized (local) crime than crimes of terrorism since a terrorist is unlikely to bother an officers family after an operation. The terrorist use claim appears to be a politically correct excuse.

    7. Re:Illegal to Photograph Cops in Britain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alright, so just use the police officers that you see on the news. Sheesh :)

    8. Re:Illegal to Photograph Cops in Britain by mpe · · Score: 1

      The point is that the police are judge, jury and executioner in such matters. It may not be illegal to photograph them, but they'll seize your camera anyway, and arrest you if you protest. Getting a ruling 6 months later that they acted illegally is no consolation for the bruises.

      Especially given that this "ruling" is unlikely to result in the police officer concerned facing charges for "assault", "theft", "criminal damage", "false imprisonment", etc. Never mind whatever it was they might have been doing that they didn't want to have been recorded doing in the first place.

  34. Re:Alternate solution by Teun · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I feel you are so deluded that your question is serious.

    First Northern Ireland, a majority of the population wants the be part of the UK a plebiscite could be held and nothing changes.

    Second, why in the world would you think evicting British Muslims would stop religious fanatics to continue spreading their terror in Europe (yes the UK is part of Europe)?

    With such a thought pattern I'm surprised you managed to log on.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  35. Why not just use Phorm data? by Digi421 · · Score: 1

    Since pretty much all major UK ISPs will be using Phorm, all 3-letter Agencies could just use that data. Not like anyone in the UK really gives a damn about their privacy.

    --
    Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia: Fear of long words
    1. Re:Why not just use Phorm data? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      We don't have three letter agencies over here, we have four-letter and two-letter-and-one-number agencies.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  36. So, make it hard by Beached · · Score: 1

    If everyone started connecting to many other random other services on the network all the time, you could effectively hide in the crowds. Just make sure that the connections last long enough to be meaningful. Something like a web spider that constantly probes at a specific data rate. Throw in some sophistication with regards to data transfer, repition of connnections, etc and you may be able to hide. Also, if enough people do it, it will cost the ISP much to store the information and make it irrelivant. The trick is to make your browsing look random, which can be difficult; also you would need to filter for stuff like child porn and other stuff you definitely do not want associated with yourself.

    --
    ---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
  37. Re:Alternate solution by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If the UK evicted its Muslim immigrants, and gave up trying to occupy Northern Ireland, wouldn't that lower the threat level enough for these measures to be easily repealed?

    No. First, the Muslim terrorists we've had problems with mostly weren't immigrants, they were born in Britain. Second, the north of Ireland isn't a significant terrorist threat any more, since most of the terrorists are now in the regional government; a couple of splinter factions have taken to shooting people again lately, but for practical purposes they're almost beneath contempt. Third, if you think for one moment this is really about terrorism then I've got a tower in Paris to sell you.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  38. Re:Alternate solution by gclef · · Score: 4, Informative

    The devil is always in the details.

    1) what do you do with the 1.6 million muslims (most of whom are peaceful & law-abiding) who are presently living in the UK (many of whom are not first-generation)? If you just throw them out, won't that make the previously peaceful ones very angry with you?

    2) what do you do with the 53% of all residents of Northern Ireland who are protestant (and therefore want to stay where they are)? If you just evict them, doesn't that risk starting yet *another* war in that region?

  39. How about another approach by erroneus · · Score: 1

    People have been complaining to England about human rights and liberties for hundreds and hundreds of years and they have a track record that shows they simply don't care.

    Has all of their "big brother" work been effective though?

    If people who wish to argue against these measures want to prevent or change where things are going, perhaps a new argument is in order. "It won't work" and "it doesn't work!"

    1. Re:How about another approach by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Whether it works or not has never, and probably will never, been the issue. The only important thing is they're able to say "It isn't our fault, we are trying, and we will keep trying. Those people who are saying what we're doing is wrong only want the terrorists to win." Remember, to their minds, it isn't a debate. There is no weighing of pros and cons. The politicians want to keep their jobs, so they need to be seen to be doing something, even if that something fails. Because if a project fails, unless there is _massive_ fallout, beyond wasted cash, it's just abandoned, but can still be pointed to as an example of working on the problem.

      In fact, to be a pessimist, it's probably better for a solution to fail than to succeed. If you fail, you can keep working on the same problem. If you actually manage to fix the problem, people are going to expect you to work on a new problem, and have the old one stay fixed, for at least a while.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    2. Re:How about another approach by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a serious change of government is in order for England...

    3. Re:How about another approach by mpe · · Score: 1

      Has all of their "big brother" work been effective though?

      Depends who's definition of "effective" you want to use.

      If people who wish to argue against these measures want to prevent or change where things are going, perhaps a new argument is in order. "It won't work" and "it doesn't work!"

      More specifically "Doing this isn't going to stop criminals and terrorists. At best it is an entirely pointless exercise. However in the real world it's more likely to help these kinds of people".

    4. Re:How about another approach by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      I cannot remember the source of the quote, but there's one along the lines of "Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed often. And usually for the same reasons."

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  40. Reasonable by bvimo · · Score: 1

    Sounds reasonable to me.

    --
    In either case, here at Microsoft, we feel standards are important. And we have fun, too. Doug Mahugh, Microsoft
  41. Re:Alternate solution by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

    But the civil unrest will only last until everyone of group foo is gone. At worst other bleeding hearts groups will only have the public attention for about 6 to 12 months afterwords.

  42. Foolish thought. Not enough space for that. by kdawson+(3715) · · Score: 0

    The government said it's not looking to see what you're saying, just to whom and when and how.

    Not for the time being, at least. Do you have any idea how impossible of a job this is? Not even the Inner Party could take on such a job at this instant in time. This is going to require the concerted efforts of the ENTIRE populace. A terabyte hard disk drive for every man, woman, and child.

    No, comrade, it may be a year or two before the United Kingdom can raise the funds required to bolster foreign economies by spending trillions of pounds to create such datacenters. And imagine all the PhD computer scientists, mathematicians, and programmers needed to organize this data.

    Britain, your heyday will soon arrive.

    1. Re:Foolish thought. Not enough space for that. by Whammy666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree. The only reason they are not storing the content now is technological limitations. Once that barrier is removed, they will certainly take the next step.

      Wholesale surveillance is not limited by good will, it's limited by technology.

      --
      When all else fails, run.
    2. Re:Foolish thought. Not enough space for that. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...it will now let ISPs and telecoms firms store the data themselves, and access it when it feels it needs it.

      Oh, thankyouthankyouthankyou sir, you are too kind, your generosity overwhelms me. Would you like to lash me with that nice whip you have there?

    3. Re:Foolish thought. Not enough space for that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Would you like to lash me with that nice whip you have there?

      Public school boy, are you?

    4. Re:Foolish thought. Not enough space for that. by Whiternoise · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I just find it amusing that they claim they're not interested in what we're looking at, just the start and end points of the connections. If they wanted to know what we were looking at, sounds like it'd be pretty damned simple just to navigate to the logged IP address... Forgive me, but this sounds like them saying "We're going to monitor you using GPS - don't worry, we only store the coordinates, not what you were looking at!".

    5. Re:Foolish thought. Not enough space for that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if he would be a private school boy, he would have said dick instead of whip. Although, often they would come together..

    6. Re:Foolish thought. Not enough space for that. by BarefootClown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Plus they can offload the costs to the ISPs!

      --

      "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
      --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

    7. Re:Foolish thought. Not enough space for that. by rarity · · Score: 1

      Plus they can offload the costs to the ISPs!

      And, more importantly, the security. Given the government's track record with keeping sensitive data safe, I'm actually slightly happier about that (inasmuch as I can be said to be happy about the plan at all, which I'm not), but we're still replacing a single point of failure with multiple single points of failure...

  43. Escaped Nazis rename Third Reich to 'New Labour' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Jacqui 'Jackboots' Smith is definitely a Nazi. This moron is one of the most stupid, ignorant, and illiberal people ever to assume power in the UK (with a feeble minority, it has to be said)
    New Labour have done more to dismantle the fundamental fabric of British society than any previous regime. Even the Tories under Maggie 'Madcap-Psychobitch' Thatcher never did such damage to people's fundamental rights (although she was probably more evil in other ways)

    What does it mean to be British?:
    - The right not to have to carry papers or ID cards
    - The right to privacy, and to know that it is illegal for the state to spy on me.
    - The right to protest anywhere I like, without being confined to a police cordoned area to keep me away from the war criminals and terrorists who are running this country.
    - The right not to be beaten to death by the police.
    - The right to be able to venomously criticise all religions, without them being granted 'special rights', just because certain religions (islam, and judaism) seem to be particularly prone to particularly psychotic levels of violence, and can't accept that their behaviour and beliefs should be scrutinised by sane people.
    - The right to access to good public services, unpolluted by private sector profiteers, greedy lobbyists, and corrupt public private partnerships.

    New Labour have taken all of these rights, and are consequently anti-British Enemies of The People, who have granted victory to terrorists worldwide, by curtailing the rights of our people in the name of 'fighting terrorism'.
    I suspect that their attack on our rights, in reality, has much more to do with protecting the status-quo, as any terrorist can just mow down a busy street in a stolen car, if they really want to kill, without resorting to elaborate bomb plots, or mixing chemicals in the basement.
    Fortunately for us, most terrorists are nearly as stupid as New Labour (they'd have to be, to be infected with religion!)

  44. Re:Alternate solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and gave up trying to occupy Northern Ireland

    You think trying to evict a million people (many of whom are convicted/released terrorists) from their houses where their families have lived (some for centuries) and put them somewhere else will *decrease* terrorism? "Not meant as a troll" indeed...

  45. Re:Alternate solution by Reziac · · Score: 1

    Ya know, I can't find a thing to disagree with there. If you let your country be taken over by foreign interests, the enemies of those foreign interests become YOUR enemies as well, and voila, terrorism.

    Tho considering the death toll is a lot higher from ordinary household and auto accidents, maybe it's time to just ban people. Problem solved! :/

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  46. Smart Change... in a Way by BigDork1001 · · Score: 1

    Contrary to previous plans to keep it all in a massive database, it will now let ISPs and telecoms firms store the data themselves, and access it when it feels it needs it."

    The way I'm reading it is that the Brit govt. realized how expensive keeping all the records would be and decided to make the ISPs and mobile phone companies take the bill. That of course will be passed down to the users.

    --
    "Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
    1. Re:Smart Change... in a Way by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Because the British Government totally would have just had that money laying around in their back pockets, and in no way would have had to get the funds by raising taxes.

      Oh wait.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  47. Let me be the first to say... by s31523 · · Score: 1

    I Love the British government, you guys are awesome.... No, really, I do!

  48. BOsFH Unite! by tkalfigo · · Score: 1

    What an opportune time to be a BOFH at an ISP in Britain!
    /away packing bags to London

  49. Encryption by mdsharpe · · Score: 1

    So perhaps it's time for us to start encrypting all our communications? That would negate this issue, right?

  50. Newspeak lyrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cruel, Britannia! she sank beneath the waves:
    Britons has just been slaves.

  51. Re:Alternate solution by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

    We haven't even got our bins back :(, it's not Islamic terrorists MO to put bombs in bins anyway! Also northern Ireland isn't occupied, so "giving it up" would spark up unionist terrorism, and even without the US funding the IRA got, that's still a lot of trouble.

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  52. No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's going to be logging mail from my TLS enabled server and for what purpose? They're not logging anything from anybody with technical knowledge, it's a disproportionate and authoritarian response that infringes on the privacy of everybody.

    This is the same government that allowed a veto on the release of the minutes of the Iraq war meeting. Public servants have no expectation of privacy with respect to freedom of association, citizens do and that's the end of the matter.

  53. Dear UK Government: Monitor THIS +1, Incendiary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Detain Richard B. Cheney.

    Yours In Communism,
    Kilgore Trout

  54. Re:Alternate solution by cyber-vandal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And you think group foo won't violently resist such a thing? And make the problem far far worse. And won't it make it very dangerous for British tourists to travel just about anywhere where members of group foo may live?

  55. Soca by o'reor · · Score: 1

    "Her views were echoed by Sir Stephen Lander, the chair of the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca). "

    Oh, it must be serious then.

    Why, I thought her views would only be echoed by Mr. William Jones, chairman of the "Disorderly Conducts & Petty Theft Agency"

    Or maybe the "Drunkards Peeing Anywhere Watch Committee".

    Or, who knows, that renowned subcommittee of PETA, the "Vigilante Agency Against Backwards Cat Petting"

    Seriously, now. What's wrong people these days ?
    I think we need a modern version of the Monty Pythons to ridicule the government paranoia and the cop-o-cracy that is invading our lives everyday and without notice.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
    1. Re:Soca by mpe · · Score: 1

      I think we need a modern version of the Monty Pythons to ridicule the government paranoia and the cop-o-cracy that is invading our lives everyday and without notice.

      Instead what we get are real police trying to act like extras from the "Keystone Cops".

  56. Jacqui fucking Smith by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

    The more I read and hear about this woman, the more she appears a corrupt, authoritarian douchebag.

    --
    Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    1. Re:Jacqui fucking Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's because she is.

    2. Re:Jacqui fucking Smith by u38cg · · Score: 1

      I just think she's an idiot. The dearth of intelligent people in government who can stand on their own two feet and put their own opinions forward is pathetic. In the 1980s, the police came crying to Willie Goodall, the then Home Secretary, crying that they needed more powers to deal with the Irish terrorist threat. He told them to naff off and stop being silly. This lot don't seem to realise that's an option.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  57. IRC anyone? by cdn-programmer · · Score: 1

    I often use IRC. Sometimes I talk with people from the UK. Sometimes I don't address the comments. How are they going to track that?

    I can imagine the burden this will create for the ISP's. The large telco's should love it because they can spread these costs over large numbers of customers. In addition when they lose the data or screw it up there are more faceless employees to point fingers at.

    I expect small ISP's will shudder.

    Next, what about TLS and tunneling? What about proxies?

    This creates a burden but as far as a tool to fight terrorism, it comes up way short. It merely shows that the turkeys in Britain think they should be running the farm because they are in the majority. It shows those in charge understand very little about technology and security.

    Any terrorist organization worth its salt will probably be using relatively secure communications.

    I am reminded of Richard Feynman and his issues with security at Los Alamos during the Manhattan project. Anyone interested should read "surely you're joking Mr. Feynman".

    Their attempts at security at many times was as abysmal as it was funny. One example was when some workmen cut a hole in the fence because they found it too time consuming to go back and forth through the front gate. There were guards at the front gate but none at the hole. So Feynman decided to leave through the front gate. Then he walked over to the hole and went over to the front gate again. This went on for quite some time until the sargent at the front gate started to wonder about the man who always went out but never came in.

    The use of safes by the brass was another embarrassment. They often never changed the combinations from what was set at the factory. So Feynman use to take joy in opening the safe and placing his reports in the safe ready for the brass to fetch.

    Maybe 50 years ago Monte Python's successor will make a movie.

  58. Proxy sites are going to get millions of customers by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    VPN services are going to become HUGE in the UK.

    There will likely be marketing campaigns.

    After all, once you get a VPN to another country, the only thing the UK isp sees is one encrypted connection.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  59. Let me guess who foots the bill... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

    Let me guess who foots the bill for this: the end-user. Either the government funds it, and gets the money through increased taxation, or the government forces the ISP to pay for all the data storage, and the ISP has to pass the cost on to the customer to stay in business. Either way, citizens are paying for themselves to be monitored.

  60. Moore's Law by PMuse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The government said it's not looking to see what you're saying, just to whom and when and how.

    There is only one reason that a government who spies on you only spies on you a little: it's not cheap enough yet to spy on you a lot.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  61. Technology works for everyone by mangu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wholesale surveillance is not limited by good will, it's limited by technology.

    While technology is becoming cheaper for them, it's becoming cheaper for us also.

    If this trend of recording everything becomes a nuisance, people could have programs doing random web accesses all the time. Get address lists from spammers and make your system send fake emails at random. With enough broadband, this would create an unmanageable amount of traffic for the surveillance systems.

    Making it worse, the true criminals could use steganography on top of all that. If a machine sends a million emails and browses a million websites, what kind of surveillance would find the few messages that contain hidden information?

    1. Re:Technology works for everyone by Nick+Ives · · Score: 1

      In the absence of a true RNG inside your PC then any such programme will use algorithms that'll have some degree of predictability. The government would have access to the same programmes and would be able to use simulated runs of them in order to calibrate their monitoring software and eliminate such accesses as noise.

      Also, attempting to send a super high volume of traffic would be enough to get you marked out as suspicious. They'd probably just decide to forgo electronic surveillance if they couldn't keep up with you in that regard and just tail you IRL.

      You can't escape Big Brother.

      --
      Nick
    2. Re:Technology works for everyone by iiiears · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why isn't the internet considered another form of speech?

        Regulation slows innovation and usually creates as many problems as it solves.

      --
      15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
    3. Re:Technology works for everyone by mangu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, attempting to send a super high volume of traffic would be enough to get you marked out as suspicious.

      I wish that were true: goodbye spambots...

    4. Re:Technology works for everyone by zwei2stein · · Score: 1

      You are assuming one thing: They they will leave you alone, merrily obfuscating your stuff be if they discover what you are doing.

      They don't have to. And will not sit idly if this becomes widespread enough.

      What kind of fines would you expect?
      Loss of "internet access privileges"?
      Some dirt digged?

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
    5. Re:Technology works for everyone by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, but by taking information from your system, such as mouse movements, cpu usage, memory usage, data from memory, temperature measurements from the chip, along with a bunch of other numbers, you can come up with a RNG that's really hard for them to replicate without having direct access to your computer. All cryptography today relies on the ability to generate random numbers that others can't guess. And they all use open/known algorithms. If what you're saying is true, we shouldn't be trusting any cryptography even SSL, because it relies on our computer generating random numbers.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    6. Re:Technology works for everyone by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This is the uK, not the USA - we have the right to free speach, so long as we don't use it.

      (We would like the right to free beer, but even if we brew it at home for our own use, the government has the right to tax it, and indeed everything else.)

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    7. Re:Technology works for everyone by Nick+Ives · · Score: 1

      Those variables aren't random. All CPUs operate within quite a thin thermal range (mine range from 30 to 55), even things like numbers of disk accesses, amount of data read by the system and other system variables can be predicted to a reasonable enough degree of certainty that they can start guessing within that range. It's just a matter of CPU horsepower their end and good enough models of various computer users - in my case they could build up a profile of what those values are for a linux user who leaves their machine on all the time and start guessing within that range.

      Given how much money is being spent on computer hardware by our government to spy on us I think it's just best to assume that our government has enough power to defeat any such pseudo-random approach for a given person.

      --
      Nick
    8. Re:Technology works for everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It is not at all hard to get true pure randomness into your computer.

      Despite the fact calculating all of the ranges you claim would make it 'easy' would in fact take computers a few million *ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE* more powerful than what exists today to even finish before you die, but there are simple cheap easy ways (Or if you prefer, expensive) to generate true randomness.

      http://inventgeek.com/Projects/alpharad/overview.aspx
      ^- Based on alpha particle decay using materials found in a home smoke detector and a ccd camera

      http://www.uelectronics.info/true-random-number-generator
      ^- Based off using white noise in an area from a specific angle

      http://home.comcast.net/~orb/details.html
      ^- A built it yourself on a PIC version that uses the outside tolerance levels of capacitor charging.

      http://www.lavarnd.org/
      ^- Uses a lava lamp and snapshots to essentially capture the current state of a highly complex chaotic system that would need to be duplicated down to the molecular level to 'run' and get anywhere near the same output (aka, not possible until star trek is no longer fiction)

      Do you mean to say you still aren't using a true hardware random number generator at home?!

      -- Dissy

    9. Re:Technology works for everyone by Shark · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Webcam, lava lamp.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    10. Re:Technology works for everyone by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      A simple search for a known suspect email address would filter all the noise out quite nicely.

      The only real way to prevent government surveillance of your email is to run your own email server with no logging. The problem is that many servers just reject mail from servers running on ISP's dynamic IP ranges to cut down on spam from botnets.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Technology works for everyone by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you realize how many factors cause small random changes in your computer's temperature. Picturing a conspiracy-style government body trying to simulate what the exact temperature of a computer will be at any given time makes me laugh.

      Meanwhile, anyone local to the cpu can disconnect the cpu and secretly input some random data into the algorithm every so often. Good luck.

      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
  62. China is no longer monopoly on this now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sorry, China

  63. Private T1/T3/etc Lines? by chaynlynk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm wondering what the implications are for private T1 lines. My company has a pipe from the US to the UK. Would those communications be logged also, or are they just talking about the usual ISP stuff, like cable, DSL, dial-up, etc? What about satellite based internet service? What about VPN tunneling? Would they require access to that communication level as well?

    1. Re:Private T1/T3/etc Lines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer to your questions (and the underlying problem) is that the government hasn't got a fucking clue. Jaqui Smith would probably say, "You must log information as required by law". She may as well be asking petty criminals to keep a diary of their misdeeds for the benefit of the police. At which point a rational person would say this is a needless intrusion on privacy at disproportionate cost to private industry and public finances.

      Asking businesses to log activity conducted over a private circuit is like asking them to log connections on the internal company network. Even if you can connect to the public internet via a private circuit; it's none of the governments business.

  64. Otherwise known as ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... the Big List of Proxy Servers and Open WiFi APs.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  65. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are the moderators when you need them?

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are the moderators when you need them?

      Grabbing your cock of course

  66. Switch to BT to avoid getting caught... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're a terrorist switch to BT. They couldn't find their own asshole with both hands, let alone anything remotely useful. By the time you've blown up your bomb belt it'll be too late and the government will get the logs in a years time.

  67. If things follow their current progression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease, and"pornography". There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, "{insert dictator here}". He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent... ...More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot."

    . If people give this up, what are they willing to stand for? Will they stand for the curfews? Perhaps, not even that. Perhaps, people will stand against the increased arrests that come without warning or reason? Perhaps not, by then it would be to late. Where is the line drawn? When does it go from protectionism of the governed to protectionism of the government..

    1. Re:If things follow their current progression... by daveime · · Score: 1

      The paragraph is your friend ... oh dear, it appears you only have 1 friend then.

    2. Re:If things follow their current progression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see two. Did I miss something?

    3. Re:If things follow their current progression... by daveime · · Score: 1

      My bad ... After enduring the wall of text, I thought that thing at the bottom was his sig ;-)

  68. Mistaken assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You assume this is about finding the "badguys." It's not. It's all about power and control over "the good guys" (the vast majority of the population). IMO, the last step was when the UK surrendered your firearms. Soon after, then the pervasive CCTV cameras went up, then the taxes increase, all your communications are monitored, the welfare program expands, the borders are cracked wide open for millions of unskilled third-world troublemakers, government becomes less responsive to your demands, etc. In short, it's a death spiral of a civilization.

    These are links in a chain. Freedom, once surrendered, is rarely regained without violence. I do not envy what your future will bring you.

    1. Re:Mistaken assumptions by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      You assume this is about finding the "badguys." It's not. It's all about power and control over "the good guys" (the vast majority of the population). IMO, the last step was when the UK surrendered your firearms. Soon after, then the pervasive CCTV cameras went up, then the taxes increase, all your communications are monitored, the[...]

      I think Americans place far too much importance on whether a private citizen can own a firearm or not. I'm not taking a stand on this issue one way or the other as to whether it's right, but if you got anywhere near to the critical mass it would take to forcibly reform our democracy (100k people storming Parliament), there would be a few deaths with or without a bunch of handguns. The 100k people would win by sheer number, with or without firearms.

    2. Re:Mistaken assumptions by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      The 100k people would win by sheer number, with or without firearms.

      Are you sure about that?

      Small numbers of well-trained, well-armed soldiers can outfight massively larger forces.

    3. Re:Mistaken assumptions by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I think Americans place far too much importance on whether a private citizen can own a firearm or not. I'm not taking a stand on this issue one way or the other as to whether it's right, but if you got anywhere near to the critical mass it would take to forcibly reform our democracy (100k people storming Parliament), there would be a few deaths with or without a bunch of handguns. The 100k people would win by sheer number, with or without firearms.

      Yeah, you can get reform without firearms, if the Government you are attempting to reform respects human rights. India achieved independence largely without firearms. But what happens if the Government doesn't respect human rights? What if they start dropping napalm on your march to Parliament? Ever seen Hotel Rwanda? If you were a Tutsi, would you rather have had a AK-47 or Gandhi by your side?

      Regardless of your thoughts on the effectiveness or lack thereof of firearms, shouldn't we be asking ourselves why the Government wants to take away a right we've had for hundreds of years? If we surrender this right then what will we say when some politician comes along that wants to take away another one? Once you set the precedent that the population is willing to surrender one right, what makes you think that will be the only one that you are asked to surrender?

      I'm skeptical of the militia types that are waiting for the revolution. I do believe in the right of a population to revolt and change it's Government but only after "all other means of redress are ineffectual" (to quote the New Hampshire Bill of Rights). It seems to me that the militia types have forgotten this little nugget and in any case I find the thought of a revolution to be pretty amusing when the vast majority of Americans are fat and happy.

      The militia types don't really scare me though. They aren't harming me or anyone else. The people who scare the hell out of me are the types that think the 2nd amendment is 'obsolete' while using arguments like "Jefferson never had to deal with repeating firearms". Why do they want to render the population powerless and at the mercy of the Government for protection? Governments change, sometimes pretty rapidly. Even if yours is a benevolent one, it can't protect you all the time. It's just not possible. One of my favorite quotes is, "911: When seconds count, help is only minutes away"

      No, there's no reason that I can see to disarm the population. I've yet to hear an argument from the gun control crowd that isn't based on FUD.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Mistaken assumptions by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      I think the modern Battle of Mogidishu (the basis for the movie Blackhawk Down) was a good example.

      16 US soldiers were killed in defense of a position.

      They killed an estimated 1,000 somali and injured between 3,000 and 4,000 in the process.

      There was some air support, a few tanks involved, but the total number of troops involved was only under 200, counting support personnel.

  69. MOD PARENT DOWN by TheRaven64 · · Score: 0, Troll

    This was a troll the first time it was posted. It's a blatant troll the second time.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  70. Government should be as small as possible by mangu · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What I don't get is why mostly conservatives support this kind of thing. They don't trust the gov't to monitor banks, to manage trade, to run healthcare, etc. YET they trust it to snoop fairly?

    It seems to me that the best government should be the smallest *practical* size. Having no government at all wouldn't work, it would be jungle law.

    We don't need the government to monitor banks, manage trade, run healthcare, etc, because those tasks can be performed by private institutions regulated by market forces. What the government needs to do is to set the smallest possible set of rules to ensure that no distortions will arise in the market.

    The question of how this system is working is debatable, I admit. Current regulations today are completely unbalanced. Healthcare in the US, for instance, has been a victim of runaway medical malpractice suits. In order to avoid liability, doctors order so many unneeded tests that healthcare costs have run out of control. Or take the electrical power system. In several places they deregulated the quality of service, but kept prices regulated, guess what happened to the resulting quality?

    Now, OTOH, justice and police work is something that cannot be privatized. You can privatize security services, you can privatize jail administration, but you cannot privatize courts or police investigation. It's not possible to have judges bidding among themselves for presiding lawsuits. It's not possible to have detectives bidding among themselves to investigate murders.

    In conclusion, I think the government is more justified in trying to seek more power to perform criminal investigations than to seek more power to control the market.

    This political position might be called "conservative" in the US and UK and "liberal" everywhere else, but it must be understood that, like any political position, it should be tempered with caution. I do not want to concede absolute power to the government in crime fighting just as I do not want to take away all the power the government has to regulate the private corporations. But I think the main reason for the existence of the government is to make sure justice is applied correctly, not to replace market forces.

    1. Re:Government should be as small as possible by timeOday · · Score: 1

      We don't need the government to monitor banks, manage trade, run healthcare, etc, because those tasks can be performed by private institutions regulated by market forces.

      What are you talking about? The international banking system collapsed just a few months ago. It survives today only due to government intervention. In America, pre-depression economics was a vicious cycle of boom and bust.

    2. Re:Government should be as small as possible by mangu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What are you talking about? The international banking system collapsed just a few months ago.

      That's wrong. The US federal government has not allowed banks to collapse since 1933

      In America, pre-depression economics was a vicious cycle of boom and bust.

      [citation needed]. Have you tried getting some hard data to back this claim?

      I recently gave a course on Python programming to some coworkers and used data from that site in my examples. It's weird how you can plot data of wages vs. cost of living for centuries and see a slow but constant progress, interrupted only by wars, until 1914. The silver and gold standard caused the economy to be *very* stable.

      Then, after WWI, the UK eliminated the gold standard. A big market bubble arose, followed by collapse in 1929 and regulation in the 1930s. Afterwards it's very difficult to plot anything due to inflation, you cannot determine accurately what should be the worth of things. So, that "vicious cycle of boom and bust" that you mention actually was one boom from 1919 to 1929 and one bust from 1930 to mid-30s and was the result of a government trying to regulate away the economic consequences of war.

      You can try every combination of factors you want, plot wages, cost of living, stock prices against GDP, price index, gold prices, whatever. Government intervention in the economy only makes things worse. An interesting plot is wages vs. cost of living in the UK from the 14th to the 19th century. You can see every time when a king changed the amount of silver in a penny in that graph. Do you want an efficient economy? Take away the power of the government to print money. The only regulation needed is a standard defining the mass of one gram, let the market define how much a gram of silver or gold is worth and the rest is consequence.

      I think the only reason why people defend government intervention in the economy is because no one today remembers the age when the market was free. And, unfortunately, when you allow intervention in the economy, intervention in other areas is inevitable. There has never existed a communist government, one that does not allow a free market to exist, that didn't end up as a dictatorship. Allow the government to take over the economy and no one will have the means to start an opposition movement.

    3. Re:Government should be as small as possible by timeOday · · Score: 1

      That's wrong. The US federal government has not allowed banks to collapse since 1933

      But that's just what I meant - without the backing of govt, especially the FDIC but also the bailouts - the banks and insurers would have imploded due to over-leveraging.

      Now, if you are saying that a gold-backed economic system wouldn't have entered a bubble in the first place, that is something to think about.

    4. Re:Government should be as small as possible by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      Have you tried getting some hard data to back this claim?

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

      No, the good old days weren't any better.

      The silver and gold standard caused the economy to be *very* stable

      No, it caused the currency to be relativly stable, which is a completly different thing.

      I am not saying anything about the current system though, because it is just as flawed as the old one. I just don't see any reason to glorify the past, because it was just as bad back then. (except that you starved to death if you were unlucky)

    5. Re:Government should be as small as possible by mangu · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      No, the good old days weren't any better.

      Let's see, from your link, counting from 1797 until 1927, there were ten recessions in 130 years, an average of one recession every 13 years. After 1929, not counting the great depression, there were eight recessions. From 1939 until 2009, there was one recession every 8.75 years.

      13 > 8.75

      If you wish, count the great depression in the old system, making it 14 recessions in 142 years, 10.1 is still more than 8.75. The old days may not have been perfect, but the economy was certainly more stable than in the current system of government regulation.

    6. Re:Government should be as small as possible by u38cg · · Score: 1

      If you're telling me that life as a member of the working class was just as good in 1809 as it is in 2009, I have some bad news for you. There's nothing good about a stagnant economy that provides opportunities for no-one. Sure, if you have nothing, you can't lose it. That's not an argument for not letting people try.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    7. Re:Government should be as small as possible by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      If you wish, count the great depression in the old system, making it 14 recessions in 142 years, 10.1 is still more than 8.75. The old days may not have been perfect, but the economy was certainly more stable than in the current system of government regulation.

      Yeah, right. Go ahead and ignore the duration of all those older recessions. Boom-Bust is exactly the way to describe the old days. It was like living in a rollercoaster. As far from stable as you could get.

      Compare with the late 20th century which had good and bad years, but being far more stable in general and with a higher percentage of the time spent in upswings.

  71. Can you say "decline and fall of an empire" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's with your Brits ? do they remove your spines at birth, so you
    are all wiling to comply with endless shit from your miserable government ?

    This kind of thing makes me wish the US had let the Nazis kick your miserable asses.

  72. Easy to avoid for those who want to by Ponderu · · Score: 1

    As usual, it's only the average person who is going to be caught by this. I run my own mail and web server. A small sum of money later and I have an SSL certificate and my ISP can no longer see a lot of the information they're supposed to be recording. Or did I just become an ISP by hosting my own services? Am I responsible for maintaining logs about my own communications to be handed over to the police?

    The Pirate Bay's VPN system could make a small fortune selling services to the UK populate now.

  73. Security? by Xiver · · Score: 1

    Does the UK actually believe that the ISPs will be more respnosible with the data than the government would? I wonder how long it will be before an ISP is caught selling that information to interested third parties.

    --
    10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
    20: GOTO 10
  74. Orwell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1984 is a fine manual!

  75. There.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The UK government has further detailed plans to track all communications â" mobile phone calls, text messages, email and browser sessions â" in the fight against free speech, activism and filesharing. ...fixed that for you.

  76. Re:Escaped Nazis rename Third Reich to 'New Labour by mpe · · Score: 1

    Jacqui 'Jackboots' Smith is definitely a Nazi. This moron is one of the most stupid, ignorant, and illiberal people ever to assume power in the UK (with a feeble minority, it has to be said)

    IMHO she is in no way a "moron". She's actually a clever (and highly sucessful) con artist. Something which undoubtedly helped her to become an MP in the first place... A stupid person just couldn't fiddle their "expenses" they way she has managed either.

  77. Re:Alternate solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It worked out OK for Hitler - at least for a while.

  78. What a great idea by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

    because when you are looking for a needle in a haystack, the answer is to get more hay.

  79. This is what happens when women get into the gov. by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    Seriously, who was the numb nuts that started off this whole "revolution" of letting women vote and hold office?

    Can't someone find something else for them to mother other than the internet?

  80. Decentralized conformance enforcement by noidentity · · Score: 1

    The government said it's not looking to see what you're saying, just to whom and when and how.

    So this basically means that you won't want to continue talking to or make new friends with anyone who seems at all odd, for fear that he might be someone they've flagged and who would cause you to be flagged if you communicated. Nice way to encourage everyone to start enforcing ostracization for anything out of the ordinary.

  81. We Need A New Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Solution: create a new public (wireless) internet which is not connected in any way with the old one. Sound naive? Probably; but it's the only way out now that media outlets, corporations and governments have taken over this one.

    Otherwise, stop bitching because it's only going to get worse.

  82. Paedophiles by Brian+Ribbon · · Score: 1

    "The UK government has further detailed plans to track all communications -- mobile phone calls, text messages, email and browser sessions -- in the fight against terrorism, pedophiles and organized crime. The government said it's not looking to see what you're saying, just to whom and when and how."

    Like everyone else, paedophiles choose to communicate with like-minded people. This does not mean that we're breaking the law; we discuss sexuality, politics and unrelated topics. We also discuss children (from TV, places of work, etc), but we can have such a discussion without plotting to commit crimes.

    While the UK government claim that they will only target people who are suspected of illegal activity, the UK authorities simply cannot be trusted to differentiate between someone who is attracted to children and someone who actually tries to act on that attraction. Despite having been informed of the difference between paedophiles and sex offenders, the Metropolitan Police have refused to explain the meaning of their plans to engage in "proactive disruption of 130 individuals with a sexual interest in children". In other words, their so-called "Paedophile unit" is happy to knowingly and unashamedly harass innocent people.

    People who aren't even attracted to children are also at risk from the proposed database, as it's very difficult for most people to know whether they're communicating with a paedophile. Studies have indicated that up to 33% of adult men experience sexual arousal to "pedophilic stimuli" (pre-pubescent children). Few people can connect their friends or colleagues to a penile plethysmograph, and very few people will admit to being attracted to chidlren (for obvious reasons), so this database could put anyone at risk of being investigated.

    This extension of the authorities' powers will lead to more innocent people being harassed, as many of the iron tentacles of the UK state cannot be trusted to act in a sane or balanced manner.

    --
    "To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
    1. Re:Paedophiles by vivaelamor · · Score: 1

      I once put the issue of the etymology of the word paedophile to someone after noticing it's frequent usage on the news in relation to crime stories. The response I got was one of 'well it's the accepted usage, I don't think you can expect people to differentiate'.

      It is one of the most bizarre ironies of our time that a word coined from a positive adjective ends up synonymous with 'child abuse'.

      I think it has a lot in common with attitudes towards other perversions. Those who regard 'deviant' thought as harmful are often the same people who have their moral boundaries set out for them by their peers. Again, some irony, that those who believe themselves least capable of making their own judgements are those most likely to have others judged.

    2. Re:Paedophiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having erotic fantasties about molesting a child is only a small step away from acting out those fantasies. You are by your very sexual nature a malicious predator, as a young child does not have the emotional or intellectual maturity to consent to such acts.

      In a similar way to how the police monitor other suspicious activity to prevent crime, it is completely correct that they monitor known paedophiles.

      I can see that you don't like this, but obviously, you are biased.

    3. Re:Paedophiles by Brian+Ribbon · · Score: 1

      "Having erotic fantasties about molesting a child is only a small step away from acting out those fantasies."

      Are you also one of those people who believes that a man who is attracted to a woman is a "small step" from raping her if she doesn't want to have sex with him? Or do you understand the concept of self-control? It's not difficult.

      "a young child does not have the emotional or intellectual maturity to consent to such acts."

      I've never argued that a child does. You're setting up a straw man argument here (and showing the ridiculous, presumptious nature of your arguments).

      "In a similar way to how the police monitor other suspicious activity to prevent crime, it is completely correct that they monitor known paedophiles."

      No. They have no right to harass someone on the basis of their sexuality (which is not an activity); it is unethical, discriminatory, and in some countries (such as the UK) it is also illegal.

      "I can see that you don't like this, but obviously, you are biased."

      Whereas you are not? I think you're one of the "I was molested by a paedophile so all paedophiles must be child molesters" trolls. You can't apply the behaviour of one "paedophile" (note that most child molesters are not paedophiles) to every other paedophile, especially when 33% of men experience significant sexual arousal to pre-pubescent children.

      As for me not liking the popular myths which you rehash, I feel a little more strongly than that. I am going to make my point very publicly, by creating a website which encourages non-offending paedophiles to work with children. The website will include a selection of job/volunteer adverts from other websites, advice on how to avoid having one's sexuality discovered in interviews, and an explanation of why most paedophiles are safe to work around children. No matter how much the misinformed masses will hate me, the controversy should at least attract attention to my arguments.

      --
      "To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
    4. Re:Paedophiles by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

      Yep, the old slippery slope argument takes some beating.

      http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#slope

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
    5. Re:Paedophiles by Brian+Ribbon · · Score: 1

      "I once put the issue of the etymology of the word paedophile to someone after noticing it's frequent usage on the news in relation to crime stories. The response I got was one of 'well it's the accepted usage, I don't think you can expect people to differentiate'."

      Well, many people are lazy and will not "waste" their energy by thinking about issues which they don't feel they have a responsibility to think about. They currently feel that they don't have a responsibility to consider the difference between paedophiles and child molesters because they assume that all paedophiles abuse children and so aren't deserving of their time, but it's difficult to persuade people that most paedophiles don't abuse children because of the existing conflation of terms. It's a vicious cycle.

      "I think it has a lot in common with attitudes towards other perversions. Those who regard 'deviant' thought as harmful are often the same people who have their moral boundaries set out for them by their peers."

      Ignoring the obvious reasons for anti-paedophile attitudes (such as sensationalist media, governments looking for easy, emotional issues to exploit, etc), I think the issue is also a result of laziness (people don't want to think about everything themselves), as well as a desire to fit in and to be above the bottom of the social tree. People who beat their wives, take advantage of drunk women, or engage in any other unethical behaviour can all say "I may have done x, but at least I'm not y". At the moment, y happens to be "a paedophile". It's somewhat comforting for x to believe that y abuses children (as x can believe that he is even further above the "lowest" members of society), and so the conflation of terms benefits x. People can also fit in with other members of society by uniting with others over a common interest (think about how people support professional sports clubs and hate local rivals). Paedophiles are easy to demonise because we are incredibly difficult to identify, which means that attacking paedophiles has become an easy and "acceptable" way of uniting and fitting in with others. It's no coincidence that the worst bigots have some serious issues of their own.

      So yes, the hatred of paedophiles probably does have a lot in common with attitudes towards other "perversions", as everyone needs a group over which they can confirm moral and social superiority.

      --
      "To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
    6. Re:Paedophiles by vivaelamor · · Score: 1

      but it's difficult to persuade people that most paedophiles don't abuse children because of the existing conflation of terms.

      Wikipedia manages to quote an article stating "We were unable to find any published reports indicating the prevalence of pedophilia among those who were either arrested for or convicted of child sexual abuse or the prevalence of pedophilia in the general population." for citation of the statement "The disorder is common among people who commit child sexual abuse."

      It is a shame that most campaigners for other deviant opinions seem to either ignore or go out of their way to distance themselves from your own problems. On the surface that would seem to be a prudent move of self-interest.. but if you consider the bigger picture you realise that the war against ignorance is better fought on all fronts rather than picking and choosing battles. As long as people can justify the concept of thought crime in any form then they will be content to let governments run riot over other peoples rights.

      Perhaps you could write a book, 'life at the thin end of the wedge'.

  83. Cost? by legirons · · Score: 1

    So how many billions of money that we don't have is the government going to spend on this (or force ISPs to spend on it) before they're left with a useless system as everyone moves to I2P?

  84. Re:Alternate solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be accurate, it worked out fantastically for Hitler until he started invading the rest of Europe for shits and giggles.

  85. Re:Escaped Nazis rename Third Reich to 'New Labour by d0mokun · · Score: 1

    Lord Northcliffe, is that you?

  86. Re:Alternate solution by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

    What's your asking price?

  87. But what *are* they doing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To stop car accidents!

  88. Would it be possible to tamper with this? by StarTux · · Score: 1

    Whats to stop someone affiliated in some way with a security service from planting information into one of these databases to frame an innocent person?

    1. Re:Would it be possible to tamper with this? by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Same thing that stops the prosecution from manufacturing evidence, or people being held without trial, etc. etc. Absolutely nothing except people who are able to prove it happened.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    2. Re:Would it be possible to tamper with this? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Whats to stop someone affiliated in some way with a security service from planting information into one of these databases to frame an innocent person?

      If something stopped that, the whole exercise would be rather pointless, wouldn't it?

      The British government IS the terrorists.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  89. and swords.... by fantomas · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm pretty sure quite a lot of the British elite is still due to being good at killing other people and invading their land, as much as market forces.

    David Cameron is a direct descendant of William IV for example and his family got to be kings by either invading England or being invited to rule by the nobility, depending on your reading of history. "Down with the kids and the people" Dave might come over as chummy and merely rich through his ancestors financial dealings and connections to the Rothschilds but that's just him playing up his urban street cred..

    An awful lot of the upper class elite in the UK got to be upper class elite a long time back through land grants from the king or doing a bit of land grabbing, killing and invading sometime between the Saxons and now (still quite a few Norman names there today, eh?). Pretty sure that "new money" still means your great great grand dad made money through cotton or the Empire as far as a lot of the Eton set is concerned ;-)

    1. Re:and swords.... by u38cg · · Score: 1

      It's a small island. I can count the whole of the British monarchy in my ancestry, from George III backwards, right down to Aethelred, King Fergus, not to mention Charlemagne and the entire Roman Empire back to their age of kings. It doesn't mean very much. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go invade Ireland now.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:and swords.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's quite interesting. Ancestor count follows geometric progression (you came from two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, etc.) If you go back through generations to the time of Charlemagne, that count is significantly higher than the number of people in Europe at the time.... so you may be partially right, Sire?

  90. Re:Alternate solution by vivaelamor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1b) What do you do with the 57.2 million non muslims who may take exception to ethnic cleansing?

    Ditto for the Northern Ireland residents. Often uses of such stats ignore the fact that not everyone believes in forced segregation.

  91. When asked for comment, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the U.K. said "We're just doing what the U.S. has been doing for years, the only difference is that we have the stones to admit it!"

  92. Tor by dugeen · · Score: 1

    If any of your visited sites are Tor nodes, then no doubt the security goons will use that as prima facie evidence that you were up to no good. Privacy means nothing to these people. On the other hand, plenty of Tor nodes are already run by the police or the secret police, so it won't make a great deal of difference.

  93. You take that only partway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your PRNG will be using a different seed from anyone else's. And a different one each time you start again.

    And if 1,000,000 people are doing this, how will they pay for the 5-6,000,000 police to tail them IRL? You need several tails to ensure that you don't get noticed.

    1. Re:You take that only partway by Nick+Ives · · Score: 1

      There is already a massive surveillance system in place in the UK. I'm not even talking about the police or intelligence services, all sorts of central and local government bodies have the power to undertake surveillance for such a wide variety of reasons, it's actually quite scary.

      Often the reasons given are things like benefit fraud or failure to pay council tax but the point is that surveillance has already, to a large extend, been delegated from the police and secret intelligence services to other bodies. Of course the police and SIS also have access to that information.

      The point is that most people won't take the effort to obfusticate their activity in such a manner and so simply doing that would be suspicious.

      --
      Nick
  94. Blue helmets? by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

    And you'll need to pray NATO/UN allies... etc, etc doesn't send additional forces to bolster the state side.

    Given how wishy-washy most NATO allies are about staying in Afghanistan, I doubt they'd have the political fortitude to dig in for a long term occupation of the U.S. Consider that there are millions of Americans who have been arming themselves for decades just waiting for their chance to shoot at a blue helmet. It's one of the signature tenets of our homegrown conspiracy theories.

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  95. Only when they are "fuzzie-wuzzies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And by that, I mean, not your countrymen, not "black and wearing wicker armour".

    100,000 people could not be repelled by the police.

    Calling in armed response units to stop the march by wholesale slaughter would be political suicide.

    Calling in the armed forces to stop a march even if they do nothing would be political suicide.

    And this, unlike the Boer War, is NOT A WAR.

    You can get away with a lot in a war.

    But you can't get away with that sort of shit just to stop protestors.

  96. Step by step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the actual content of the phone calls and messages won't be recorded,"

    yet.

  97. Re:Alternate solution by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    If you let your country be taken over by foreign interests, the enemies of those foreign interests become YOUR enemies as well, and voila, terrorism.

    So, what, you reckon that if we declare independence from the USA and start making our own foreign policy again, then the Muslim terrorists will leave us alone? Well, I suppose it might work. Has something of an air of cowardice about it, mind. Leaving because we're sick to death of going off to pointless wars just so the Prime Minister can get applauded in Washington and the President can use the word 'coalition' and not sound like quite such a unilateral warmonger, that would be reasonable. Leaving because we're scared of oh no the terrorists!, that's pretty feeble.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  98. I submit... by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

    I submit that only a terrorist would build such a surveillance society.

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
  99. If you dont have terrorists, make some... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    If this continues along the same path without change, at some point, a section of Brittan's population will become alienated enough from the government's activities that they will be willing to take up arms (IUDs?) against their oppressors. Enough strong arm tactics by the government trying to ferret out terrorists will create terrorists.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:If you dont have terrorists, make some... by Wonderkid · · Score: 1
      --

      O'WONDERWe're working on it.

  100. re: last 8 years and gun rights by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't be so quick to make that assumption.

    For starters, the Supreme Court decision that supposedly "upheld the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms" was disturbing, because it just *barely* even passed!

    Justice Stephen Breyer, for example, said:

    "About 80,000 to 100,000 people every year in the United States are either killed or wounded in gun-related homicides or crimes or accidents or suicides," he said. "In the District, I guess the number is somewhere around 200 to 300 dead and maybe 1,500 to 2,000 wounded. Now, in light of that, why isn't a ban on handguns, while allowing the use of rifles and muskets, a reasonable or proportionate response on behalf of the District of Columbia?"

  101. Bullshit Wagon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay for riding the bullshit bandwagon.

    We shall eventually reach a point where we realize the absurdity of government policy based from the supposed "threat" of terrorists, pedophiles and global warming. Yes, maybe century from now people will look back and laugh, there will be documentaries detailing the gross exaggerations and politicians who constructed, rode and popularized bullshit bandwagons to accumulate and consolidate power. And few will stop and think: What bullshit bandwagon are we riding in now?

  102. If you exist, you are breaking the law. by Yogiz · · Score: 1

    "Cogito ergo sum terrorist"

    Rene Descartes

  103. We could all be communicating with terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that they say they WILL NOT monitor the content is in itself very worrying.

    For example, if I just happen to be in the same Half Life game as Bin laden, will they just match ip addresses and assume the worst????

    Dont think for a minute they will not intend to monitor games servers, anyone can chat on those pretty much like IRC.

  104. Re:Alternate solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It worked for the England as it evicted Jewish people not allowing to have their property with them. Even the Spanish Inquisition did not do such a thing as it evicted any non converted Jewish and Muslims out of Spain. This is, of course, distant history for all but the Al-Qaeda.

  105. Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please tell me again how this isn't an invasion of privacy? Sounds like the beginning of V for Vendetta to me. Voraciously Vying for Virtual Vagabonds

  106. Re:Proxy sites are going to get millions of custom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Encrypted VPN services outlawed in 3, 2, 1...

  107. A new Stalinist state by bradbury · · Score: 1

    Although I have visited the U.K. I would give serious thought before going there again. With the observation of internet usasge, the cameras on the street everywhere, etc. it looks like it is turning into a "police state". It would be interesting to know what percentage of the public/private budgets are going into monitoring what everyone else is doing and what fraction of the GDP of the UK that is and whether there is any debate on where it will end? IMO, when you have a camera in my bathroom watching me take a #2, and you have someone watching that in real time you have a real productivity problem for the economy.

    1. Re:A new Stalinist state by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      With the observation of internet usasge, the cameras on the street everywhere, etc. it looks like it is turning into a "police state".

      Is that it? That's all you have?

      You know what, I've lived in different countries and I recognise a police state when I'm in one. Internet monitoring and cameras does not equal a police state.

      IMO, when you have a camera in my bathroom watching me take a #2, and you have someone watching that in real time you have a real productivity problem for the economy.

      WTF are you talking about?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:A new Stalinist state by bradbury · · Score: 1

      Ok, I will grant that internet tracking and cameras all over the public streets may not equal a "police state". (And having spent a great deal of time in Russia, I have some experience in these areas.)

      The crux of the problem is "Does the government have a right to know every thing I am doing and when I am doing it?" (which was the point of my aside regarding cameras watching me in the bathroom).

      It would appear that in the UK they have adopted the answer "yes". That they can monitor or track your every behavior.

      The productivy argument gets into the fact that when one has large numbers of individuals watching the watched, they are not really doing anything to promote economic productivity. As a result the entire system is a net drag on economic growth. In the UK it appears to be a growing problem in that it is becoming institutionalized.

  108. Vinge Saw This Coming, Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Larsen Localisers, anyone?

    http://novel.kehuan.net/200809/20080913161539.shtml

  109. Am I missing something...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...or are these sets of "stored information" (not in any way to be confused with "Databases"), just going to show that millions of computers in the UK regularly send miscellaneous encrypted data to a mysterious server called "mail.google.com"...?

    Or do the world's criminal masterminds really use their Virgin Media e-mail account and pay for it with their own credit card?

  110. Re:Escaped Nazis rename Third Reich to 'New Labour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    question is, WHY ARE YOU ALL LETTING THIS HAPPEN?
    why is there no equiv of ACLU etc fighting crap like this?
    And why do your teenagers like stabbing each other so much?

  111. Re:This is what happens when women get into the go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My instincts are against sexism and I have worked with and for some great women and loved at least one.

    That said - I can think of an extreme change to the operation of law that was as I recall entirely driven by one or two women crusading in parliament - and that was the introduction of extraterritorial sex tourism law (and with it much of the pedophile hysteria) in Australia. Extraterritorial criminal law did not exist for Australia before then: there is no "universal" jurisdiction in common law countries. So now Australians can go overseas, kill and torture someone, and after returning home would have to be extradited to face prosecution. But if an Australian goes overseas and gets a hand job from a 15yo, they can be prosecuted on their return with double the prison term they would have got had the deed been done on home soil in the first place.

    ie. A simple sexual act for these women >> murder

  112. that's nothing ! by rnash · · Score: 1

    As would say Topper in a Dilbert strip : "That's nothing".

    Here in France, to protect the Artists, with the HADOPI law, some people like mediasentry will give IP addresses of people suspected to have done P2P to the HADOPI (Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des oeuvres et la protection des droits sur Internet).
    Then the HADOPI will ask ISPs to send you an email, it happends again, a "real" mail, and if it happens again your connection will be suspended (but it you have an 12 month contract with your ISP, you'll continue to pay).

    You will be guilty by default.

    The only way out is to put a spying software that forbids you some sites (list not published) that has to be continuously running and communicating with the HADOPI servers to prove it's running.

    Software editors will publish these programs that will have an HADOPI agreement, but will not be forced to be open source, or even be interoperating. We won't know what they'll do...

    With theses programs, there will be no need to ask the ISPs which website we have visited.

  113. Re:Alternate solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, because no one remember other examples of ethnic cleansing in history...

  114. UK SAN Backup? by tmjva · · Score: 1

    If our data line passes through the U.K., does this mean we can depend on them as a backup medium do a restore of lost data?

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  115. Re:Escaped Nazis rename Third Reich to 'New Labour by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    Fortunately for us, most terrorists are nearly as stupid as New Labour (they'd have to be, to be infected with religion!)

    Are you saying that all religious persons are as stupid as you've indicated New Labor is? I don't see how that holds up.

    First, there are these people, who I think pretty clearly weren't stupid:

    Or perhaps you consider religion to have been tenable in pre-Darwinian days, but not now? Then you'd have to account for these people:

    Do you really hold that all of those people are incredibly stupid, as evidenced by their holding religious beliefs?

  116. Swweden won this already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sweden wins hands-down for having a government that monitors all electronic data. It actually stores all data for indefinite periods. The 'watchdogs' overseeing this is also a government institution, which is secret and they dispense your info to any government wing without reason, search warrant, or telling you that they have done so.

  117. Changing the election system by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

    The big problem is that anyone in power to change the election system will most likely end up with less power if they do. As you say, the best chance is to start small, and hope people see the benefits.

    Ontario had a very dispiriting referendum (of sorts) on the subject. Well, sort of. It wasn't for SRV or similar, but it was for giving more power to the popular vote by having a set of seats designed to make up for discrepancies between the popular vote and # of county seats won.

    People voted roughly 2 to 1 in favor of the old way. No doubt the confusion played a part; it wasn't really advertised until a couple weeks before the election, and not explained well. I think most people were scared with having two different votes to make (once for your county's seat, once for the popular vote seats, in practice you would probably vote the same for both) and didn't see the benefits.

    --
    "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    1. Re:Changing the election system by ppanon · · Score: 1

      During the last BC provincial election, we missed switching to STV by 2% (58% voted in favour). We get another shot at it in a few weeks.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  118. Re: last 8 years and gun rights by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

    Although I'm not huge on gun rights personally, Breyer's words come too close to sacrificing liberty for security. Also, the idea of allowing handguns is for self defense... you can't arm yourself with a rifle wherever you go, so until stun guns are perfected, there's an obvious legitimate reason for owning a pistol.

    --
    "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"