Slashdot Mirror
Warehouse or No, UK's Expensive Net Spying Plan Proceeds
Vincent West writes with this excerpt from The Register: "Spy chiefs are already spending hundreds of millions of pounds on a mass internet surveillance system, despite Jacqui Smith's announcement earlier this week that proposals for a central warehouse of communications data had been dumped on privacy grounds. The system — uncovered today by The Register and The Sunday Times — is being installed under a GCHQ project called Mastering the Internet (MTI). It will include thousands of deep packet inspection probes inside communications providers' networks, as well as massive computing power at the intelligence agency's Cheltenham base, 'the concrete doughnut.'"
With those specs, once it's compromised, it'll be the spambot to end all spambots!
Caveat Utilitor
Because really, that's what this boils down to - bureaucrats circle jerking to the "oh look at how great we are now with this latest shiny project." Never mind that it violates people's privacy on a wholesale basis.
I think the best way we can fight the intrusion of governments into the privacy of our communications will be to flood the system with false positives.
car bomb
Maybe someone could develop an @home project that sends random packets filled with keywords to other computers running the client.
attack at noon
The only way we are going to be able to keep governments in check is by fighting for our rights.
kill the president
I mean, if we don't fight the powers that be, who will fight for us?
sarin gas
Man-in-the-middle-intercepting-your-keys-and-certificates!
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
I suppose it gives them something to do and something important in their own delusional little world. However, when the shit hits the fan over the next few years over the state of our public finances, tax revenues decline, our astronomical national debt interest payments kick in, as well as repayments to dodgy Public Finance Initiative schemes, then these sorts of little projects will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes. The notions of democracy and liberty all started with the English Civil War and we're not exactly the nicest bunch of people on the planet when we feel we need to start defending them.
I'm not sure how they plan on doing this, but it seems a little dangerous to have a system with so much power. What exactly is going to happen if someone manages to turn this into a botnet? Something that big could probably knock out the root servers. Does anyone have more information on the structure of the system? Who came up with this idea? How many experienced opinions were brought into the discussion? From what I've seen in my own local government, a lot of politicians have warped visions of how the internet actually works, and what the dangers are (see: A Series Of Tubes.) Really, this seems like a radical case of the client who has grand visions of his super awesome website idea, but actually has no idea what he ~really~ needs. It just seems dangerous to have non-experts on the subject mandating what we do with the net.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
Do I miss something or you can completely bypass all of the surveillance by using VPN & SSH connection to a remote country.
Considering that TPB is planing to offer VPN for 4â, getting anonymous on the web will be very easy for people who wants to do so.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Someone has WAY too much time on their hands. As a /.er I can spend a lot time writing comments but, this is ridiculus.
Ok, so they build this massive surveillance cluster. It can listen in and decrypt all information passing through all the major ISP players. Now that they have this information, it goes... where? These machines sit in between routers and the ISP's backbone (they'd have to). This means that they are connected to the internet and/or they have remote administration capabilities (I'm assuming dedicated machines). They can't keep the information local, that would be asinine. It would only take one leak (and there will be one, because there are people in the government who will not agree with this. A secretary somewhere will get a memo that gets put on the Internet) of either a password, username, or even a hint that there is remote admin possibilities and it will launch the fury of the Internet at large. Machines will be hacked (eventually) and data will be leaked. Some of it will be embarrassing to the people, while all of it will be to the government. Or maybe they have some secure server that the machines VPN into and transmit the databases that way. Who knows how they could 'securely' transfer this information they are getting, but VPN seems an obvious answer at the moment. That means they will need to deploy the VPN server IPs to the IT's in the field; it also means the server configuration is in a manual. If the government employee thinks they can get away with it or if they are an ex-employee... there will be a whistle-blower. Wikileaks, I guess it's UK's turn ^^
"The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec^2" -Marcus Dolengo
Don't forget CC All Your E-mail to Jacqui Smith Day.
If they want to read my spam, they can just ask me.
You'd think stuff like this would be illegal -- oh, wait.
What is it with democracies these days that they feel the need to snoop on citizens?
GCHQ has two important missions: Signals Intelligence and Information Assurance. Our Signals Intelligence work provides vital information to support Government in the fields of national security, military operations, law enforcement and economic well being. The intelligence we provide is at the heart of the struggle against terrorism and also contributes to the prevention and detection of serious crime. GGHQ supplies intelligence to the UK armed forces, wherever they may be deployed in the world. Information Assurance is about protecting Government data - communications and information systems - from hackers and other threats. GCHQ is heavily dependent on technology in order to execute our global missions. An increasingly rapidly changing digital world demands speedy innovation in our technical systems, allowing us to operate at internet pace, as the information age allows our targets to. One of our greatest challenges is maintaining our capability in the face of the growth in internet-based communications and voice over internet telephony. We must reinvest continuously to keep up with the methods that are used by those who threaten the UK and its interests. Just as our predecessors at Bletchley Park mastered the use of the first computers, today, partnering with industry, we need to master the use of internet technologies and skills that will enable us to keep one step ahead of the threats. This is what mastering the internet is about. GCHQ is not developing technology to enable the monitoring of all internet use and phone calls in Britain, or to target everyone in the UK. Similarly, GCHQ has no ambitions, expectations or plans for a database or databases to store centrally all communications data in Britain. Because we rely upon maintaining an advantage over those that would damage UK interests, it is usually the case that we will not disclose information about our operations and methods. People sometimes assume that secrecy comes at the price of accountability but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, GCHQ is subject to rigorous parliamentary and judicial oversight (the Intelligence and Security Committee of parliamentarians, and two senior members of the judiciary: the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Interception of Communications Commissioner) and works entirely within a legal framework that complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. The new technology that GCHQ is developing is designed to work under the existing legal framework. It is an evolution of current capability within current accountability and oversight arrangements The Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 underpin activities at GCHQ - both existing systems and those we are planning and building at the moment. The purposes for which interception may be permitted are set out explicitly in the legislation: national security, safeguarding our economic well being and the prevention and detection of serious crime. Interception for other purposes is not lawful and we do not do it. GCHQ does not target anyone indiscriminately - all our activities are proportionate to the threats against which we seek to guard and are subject to tests on those grounds by the Commissioners. The legislation also sets out the procedures for Ministers to authorise interception; GCHQ follows these meticulously. GCHQ only acts when it is necessary and proportionate to do so; GCHQ does not spy at will. 03 May 2009
via http://www.gchq.gov.uk/prelease.html
(U//FOUO) Domestic Extremism Lexicon
(U) Definitions
(U) aboveground (U//FOUO) A term used to describe extremist groups or individuals who operate overtly and portray themselves as law-abiding.
(U) alternative media (U//FOUO) A term used to describe various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets.
(U) hacktivism (U//FOUO) (A portmanteau of "hacking" and "activism.") The use of cyber technologies to achieve a political end, or technology-enabled political or social activism. Hacktivism might include website defacements, denial-of-service attacks, hacking into the target's network to introduce malicious software (malware), or information theft.
davecb5620@gmail.com
Thought I would just put this in perspective for non UK readers:
This is quite ironic because the politician Jacqui Smith who was backing this crazy plan. Justified the plan with logic such as if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Well.... last month she found out that this was true. Somebody leaked her expenses claims to the nation press it turned out that she had claimed for two porn films along with a load of other essentials for her house such as flat screen TVs which were of course essential for here to carry out her job. Oops.
Secondly, the last few months and in especially the last week has been very bad for the government. It is generally agreed in both the left and right wing press that the government has totally lost the plot and is also losing control of its MPs. (there is talk of the ruling party splitting in two and senior ministers defecting) Add to this that the UK is in massive debt, and I mean massive. This means that after the next election (in 12 months time) the ruling party will most probably be out. The incoming party will HAVE to cut expenditure and things such as this mad project will be cut and all the employees fired. I can not wait!
"GCHQ is not developing technology to enable the monitoring of all internet use and phone calls in Britain .. GCHQ is subject to rigorous parliamentary and judicial oversight .. GCHQ only acts when it is necessary and proportionate to do so; GCHQ does not spy at will
'the ECHELON system was designed by NSA to interconnect all these computers and allow the stations to function as components of an integrated whole. The NSA and GCSB are bound together under the five-nation UKUSA signals intelligence agreement. The other three partners all with equally obscure names are the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in Britain'
davecb5620@gmail.com
Hurry up and fuck off then. This is just another tired meme used on every story like this.
Some of us have already 'fucked off' precisely because of crap like this. 'If you don't like it then leave' is just another tired meme used by closet fascists on every story like this.
Anyone who chooses not to leave the UK when the government's police state ambitions are so blatant will hardly be able to complain when, if Labour win the next election, they're unable to leave because they're denied a passport or an exit visa.
You're missing the real trick here. The EU law has typically been proposed and pushed through by UK representatives and their allies. Nobody from the press is watching, since events in Brussels are boring and mostly involve foreign people. Then once the EU law has been passed, the government implement in the UK what they'd wanted to do all along, and when called on it by the media they say 'Nothing to do with us: European law, we're obliged by treaty to implement it. Blame Brussels. Their fault.' Then the reactionary tabloids go away and whine once more about how these foreigners are trampling ancient British liberties.
And people wonder why the British are so ambivalent about the whole European project.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
So someone tell me why they don't use this "massive computing power" to run scientific simulations that will benefit humanity instead of enslaving it?
The problem with running away instead of fighting something like this is what happens when other countries do this? Are you suggesting that people flee those countries as well?
What happens when there is nowhere left to flee to?
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
It's a scare tactics strategy aimed at the general population (not the outlaws), for the following reasons:
1) civil unrest is growing by the minute. People start to realize that politicians are in bed with the filthy rich oil & media tycoons, so there is a need to scare them back to their caves.
2) the politicians want the donations of their rich oil & media owning friends in order to get re-elected. The media tycoons push for elimination of piracy, because they think their profits will skyrocket without piracy, and push the politicians to do something. The politicians don't have any means other than scaring the Average Joe that he is going to prison for a long time because he illegally downloaded songs and movies. The government has to persuade the Average Joe that they know what A.J. does...
3) political groups are largely coordinated via the internet these days.
In other words, what we have here is the same ol' battle of the classes, like Marx described. The means are different though this time.
Ever heard that phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics"? Your are basing your argument on one poll, and worse than that a poll in a newspaper.
On the Andrew Marr show in the BBC yesterday, in a poll of polls Labour were still ahead and an election would likely either keep them in or create a hung parliament. You can find a poll to say whatever you like.
One thing is for sure though. No matter what poll you look at, even if not in the lead Labour are not that far behind the Torys. All governments are at their lowest point mid-term, so to have a realistic chance the Torys need to be way ahead at this point.
Unfortunately idiots like you who spout off about "NuLab" and "ElGordo" and have been whipped up into a frenzy of hatred by the likes of the Daily Mail are unable to look at things rationally or apparently even remember what things were like in the 80s and early 90s. I'm no fan of Labour but I can remember what the alternative is like.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The second part is just nonsense though, the kind of tripe put out by the Daily Mail.
Presumably you are referring to this Mail article which is in fact referring to a Daily Telegraph interview with Lord Ashdown the former leader of the Liberal Democrats? This has also been reported by the Times and the Independent, making your comment somewhat disingenuous.
The Labour Party won't split into two, no one (except Daily Mail writers) is even suggesting that.
According to the Telegraph article Lord Ashdown is suggesting just that. Of course no one knows just yet how many Labour MP's have discussed this yet, but a huge election defeat may make this happen.
The UK does not have massive debt, it's actually still a lot lower than most other developed counties (including France, Germany and Japan). It's big by our standards but put in perspective it's not particularly unusual, in fact our previous low levels of government borrowing were unusual.
The Labour government has been spending like a drunken sailor in port. This has been widely reported both in the UK and abroad. While the UK may have less government debt than other nations the next UK government is going to have to cut back on spending on a large scale.
At the moment a poll of polls suggests that the Labour party would remain in power were an election called tomorrow
Please provide a link to the poll you refer to.
I'm no fan of labour, and Jacqui Smith is a particularly nasty, authoritarian powermonger, but I try not to delude myself by believing everything I read in the right wing press.
I go further and view all press reports with scepticism.
This is about one of a large number of measures of surveillance, and its part of a program of control of the population with other limitations of civil liberties which used to be taken for granted. The justification given by the present government is usually the threat of terrorism.
The underlying motivation is something quite different. It is a certain cast of mind, and its quite unconscious. It is an unexamined concept of society and what it is for a country to be a community, and how people live in association with each other. The upper ranks of the Labour Party have an instinctive assumption that it is right and appropriate for there to be a surprisingly high degree of social control over individuals by others, in the cause of producing a kind of society that they feel good about. Its hard to put one's finger on it exactly, but it becomes clear in conversations with committed Party members, that they think individuals have or should have a greater say in how other people behave than those on the other parts of the political spectrum. In short, there really is for them such a thing as society, and we have much greater real interest in how others live and relate to each other than most of the general public think.
Once you understand this, you start to realize that many of the very puzzling aspects of recent UK legislation on civil liberties follow from it. Take ASBOS for instance. This is a means whereby a local government organization can get a court order forbidding people to engage in otherwise legal behaviour, because it is deemed 'anti social'. Recently a woman was forbidden by such an order from engaging in noisy sex. It probably disturbed her neighbors. People have been banned from entering or living in certain parts of the country. One young man was forbidden from being sarcastic. Take local government surveillance. People have been subjected to systematic surveillance to prevent them from putting out garbage in the wrong containers. Monitoring devices have been placed in those garbage containers. People have been put under surveillance to verify that they lived in a certain address and so had the right to send their child to a certain school. Just about all journeys in the UK are now recorded by license plate cameras - or on the London public transport system, by records of what trips a given card holder makes. Any public place will be filmed 24/7.
The latest bizarre episode of this sort was the arrest of an opposition MP on the charge that he incited a civil servant to commit misconduct in public office, by accepting information from him that the government wanted to keep confidential. The MP was arrested, actually in his Parliamentary office, then had his computers seized. Guess what was of interest to the arresting officers? His email files, and in particular his correspondence with the head of Liberty, a civil rights organization.
This looks to many people like the former East Germany, in which the country spent half its time spying on each other, but its not how it looks to the leadership of the Labour Party. It looks like East Germany, but it also looks normal. What is normal to them is not a society in which there are well defined legal standards, and you can do what you like as long as you do not violate them. What feels normal to them is a society in which anything you do may be restrained or condemned if it turns out to be undesirable. To who? Well, pretty much to anyone, including anyone in government or the civil services.
Take for instance the question of gender and class. We know that there are over and under representations of men and women, and people from different class backgrounds, in various companies and professions. These may have occurred through unlawful discrimination (though so far, discrimination on grounds of social class has not been made unlawful). The latest initiative from the government seeks to remedy this. Its not simply about equality of opportunity any more. It is about equality of pay levels, and its not just