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."

43 of 446 comments (clear)

  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.

  2. 1984 by tritonman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok I guess Orwell was about 25 years off

    1. 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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?
    4. 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!
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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
  3. 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 neokushan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "And we still have our guns ;)"

      Yeah, how's that working out for you?

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    2. 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.

  4. 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 Calmaveth · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.
             

  8. 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?

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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 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 :(

  16. 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?

  17. 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!)

  18. 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."
  19. 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.
  20. 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?

  21. 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 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
    2. Re:Technology works for everyone by Shark · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Webcam, lava lamp.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
  22. 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?

  23. 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!
  24. 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.
  25. 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.