Slashdot Mirror


UK Plans More Spying On Internet Users Under 'Terrorism' Pretext

Wowsers writes "In vogue with other countries cracking down on freedom and democracy on the internet as discussed in Slashdot recently, the UK is joining in with plans to track all phone calls, text messages, email traffic and websites visited online, all to be stored in vast databases under new government anti-terror plans. As reported in The Telegraph, security services will have access to information about who has been communicating with each other on social networking sites such as Facebook, direct messages between subscribers on Twitter would also be stored, as well as communications between players in online video games. The scheme is a revised version of a plan drawn up by the ex-Labour government which would have created a central database of all the information. The idea was later dropped in favor of requiring communications providers to store the details at the taxpayers' expense."

66 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1984 is here! 27 years too late, but it's here.

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

      And ow we even have to pay for the noose they're putting around our necks: "requiring communications providers to store the details at the taxpayers' expense."

    2. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Either the state foots the bill, where you'll pay for it through taxes of the provider has to pay for it and raise the end user prices. Either way, you're the sorry bastard who'll have to pay for it.

    3. Re:Finally! by eneville · · Score: 5, Funny

      1984 was about the Thought Police. I don't see any thought on facebook or twitter.

    4. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's well-policed

    5. Re:Finally! by click2005 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The state doing it is more likely to cost more. Also, they're more likely to have delays, cost overruns and just drop
      the whole idea when they cant get it to work after 5 years and £200million wasted.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    6. Re:Finally! by The+Askylist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Brecht had it about right - it's a pity we still aren't listening.

      After the uprising of the 17th June
      The Secretary of the Writers Union
      Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
      Stating that the people
      Had forfeited the confidence of the government
      And could win it back only
      By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
      In that case for the government
      To dissolve the people
      And elect another?

  2. BB: "Inparty must continuebe goodthink!" by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thinkpol report alarmwise, unveiling doubleplusungood possibility of Inparty ideodeviates. Goldstein connects possibility uneliminated. BB declared speechwise in VicPalace Ingsoc traitors must be detected and rehabed nodelay:

    "Comrades, how will Ingsoc continuelive victorywise? Ingsoc will continuelive victorywise by vaporizing decay within Inparty core. Inparty exampleserve Outparty and prolemass and must causewise continuebe goodthink. Ignorance is strength, Comrades, unforget."

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    1. Re:BB: "Inparty must continuebe goodthink!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Big Brother's regime is not right- or left- wing. That's (part of) the point of the book. It doesn't even matter, it's just a dictatorship.

    2. Re:BB: "Inparty must continuebe goodthink!" by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your phraseology suggests that you have not, in fact read 1984. Don't worry - this is something that you have in common with most people who quote it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:BB: "Inparty must continuebe goodthink!" by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      It's depressing, sure, but I've read it twice and didn't find it particularly hard going either time - the first time was when I was 14, so I probably missed some nuance the first time around. That said, I wouldn't recommend anyone read more than one Orwell per year unless they have access to prescription antidepressants. If you think 1984 is depressing, try Burmese Days or Keep the Aspidistra Flying...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. So..... by anotherzeb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ISPs and mobile phone companies will have to allow various civil servants access to their logs. I didn't notice anything about the access only being at the ISP's premises (some civil servants have been known to do things like leave laptops containing confidential data on trains) or with judicial oversight, both of which are worrying points. I would suggest using encrypted email, but sender and recipient would still be known and you can get 2 years at Her Maj's pleasure for forgetting your password when it's required.

    --
    Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
  4. Well I'm safe... by naota-kun · · Score: 5, Funny

    Good luck chronicling all my drunken ramblings on cocktail napkins. Every scandalous thing I've ever put to form is blotted and smeared with spirits. Even I can't decipher the subversion.

    --
    dull-eyed footstool-temporary octopus
  5. How far do we go to fight terrorism? by riverat1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are we so terrorized by terrorism that we are willing to put up with anything to avoid it? How far do we want to go to prevent terrorism. Should we just accept that sometimes it's going to happen despite our best efforts? It sucks if you happen to be a victim but terrorism can never do enough take down a country unless it overreacts and spends itself to death trying to counter it.

    I'm not saying we should do nothing to fight terrorism but how far should we go?

    1. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are we so terrorized by terrorism that we are willing to put up with anything to avoid it? How far do we want to go to prevent terrorism. Should we just accept that sometimes it's going to happen despite our best efforts? It sucks if you happen to be a victim but terrorism can never do enough take down a country unless it overreacts and spends itself to death trying to counter it.

      I'm not saying we should do nothing to fight terrorism but how far should we go?

      What if terrorism is made to take our human rights away?

    2. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      American here.

      Let's assume they're telling the truth, that it is to fight terrorism and not free speech.
      Let's also ignore the issue that terrorism is a blanket term for crimes committed to incite fear as opposed to simply being crimes.

      The Internet is vast. There is so much information out there that any preventative measures seems utterly impossible. I mean, seriously, I can understand the information could be useful after the fact, but how do they know where to focus before the fact? Do they have a supercomputer to actively monitor every little thing on the Internet? How do they decide what is a red flag and what isn't? Won't those attempting to commit criminal acts just use code? Without knowing who is doing what, how do they know what code for which to look?

      I think it'd be a better idea to look at the socio-economic problems leading to people willing to commit crimes (fear-incited or not) in the first place.

    3. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fighting terrorism is merely an excuse. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that treating the symptoms isn't going to cure the illness.

      Call it for what it is. A ploy to pass undesirable laws in an effort to assimilate even more power in the government institutions. First, the new system is there to fight "terrorists". Then "child molesters". Then "pirates". Then all "criminals". Then "thought criminals".

    4. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If fighting terrorism involves violating people's rights, then I'd rather we not fight terrorism.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    5. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately I think the only thing that will save us is a "privacy 9/11". Something like the census data getting leaked, or maybe an MI5 database being posted as a torrent. Something so epic it can counteract everything else.

      --
      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:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This isn't about fighting terrorism. its about control.

      Orwell was an optimist.

    7. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by Znork · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If fighting terrorism involves violating people's rights I suspect we're going to breed a lot more terrorists.

    8. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by msobkow · · Score: 2

      Well, let's just say that SANE countries like Canada, Australia, and Germany have felt no need to go to the INSANE measures imposed by the UK and US governments on it's people.

      Israel needs the security and surveillance because it literally has bombers and shooters in it's midsts.

      We don't.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    9. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      American here.

      Let's assume they're telling the truth, that it is to fight terrorism and not free speech.
      Let's also ignore the issue that terrorism is a blanket term for crimes committed to incite fear as opposed to simply being crimes.

      The Internet is vast. There is so much information out there that any preventative measures seems utterly impossible. I mean, seriously, I can understand the information could be useful after the fact, but how do they know where to focus before the fact? Do they have a supercomputer to actively monitor every little thing on the Internet? How do they decide what is a red flag and what isn't? Won't those attempting to commit criminal acts just use code? Without knowing who is doing what, how do they know what code for which to look?

      I think it'd be a better idea to look at the socio-economic problems leading to people willing to commit crimes (fear-incited or not) in the first place.

      All your points are logical and right on target. Excellent summation.

      However, none of those things are important or relevant to politicians. Only the possibility to increase their (and therefor the government's) power, and remove power (and wealth, which could be argued is the same thing in many ways) from regular citizens.

      The problem that citizens of Western countries are facing, as they all seem to be headed in the same general direction of reducing citizen's privacy & freedom, is a common one...that of government that's gotten too large, powerful, and centralized...and therefor more corrupt and tyrannical.

      Government is like fire, and should be treated very much the same, and for nearly identical reasons. Both are extremely useful, but at the same time extremely destructive, dangerous, swift-spreading, and hard to control, particularly the larger either grows. Both governments and fire, once either has grown to a certain size, becomes impossible for the ones who started it to control and morphs from a useful force for good and champion for freedom and the Rule of Law, to a force for tyranny, evil, and the capricious rule of men.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    10. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by Computershack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Average Joe isn't frightened at all, certainly not to this extent. Unfortunately there are morons in the civil service who need to justify their jobs and departments at Whitehall that need to protect their budgets so make cleverly worded proposals to members of the Cabinet who then propose such nonsense in the name of the "war on terror". I'm still trying to work out who we have to fear now the Islamic Fundalmentalist Bin Laden is no longer here and the gobshyte clerics such as Abu Hamsa and his mate Qtada are regarded as a bit of a joke by Average Joe.

      --
      I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
    11. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by rikkards · · Score: 2

      No , Canada not at all. Except for that stupid bill that has been pulled back for modification after the upswell of people freaking out about it. Unfortunately it will probably come back the same (if not worse) but with bigger loopholes that aren't as evident.

    12. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't believe it was "made" for it, but it sure as hell is being milked for all its worth by the people in power.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    13. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If fighting terrorism involves violating people's rights, then I'd rather we not fight terrorism.

      Why not fight the actual terrorism, rather than the population oriented one defined by govt? From the beginning of the war on terror, followed by the rise of the surveillance state I wondered about this massive clamp down on everybody when there's likely only a few actual terrorists in the world. It's like trying to shoot a fly with an elephant gun, right? That's actually the point: to deter anyone from the masses from even contemplating challenging authority. It's collective punishment on a massive scale, but that's not really the point. See, it's not terrorism if the govt does it, there are no repercussions or punishment either. If it was politicians wouldn't feel confident about invading other nations, implementing torture policies, or brutalizing it's citizens. Until then they'll never have to take responsibility for their actions whatsoever.

      I thought it interesting Robert Anton Wilson saying the US govt's first response to any crisis situation is to suspend civil liberties.

    14. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by jo42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why are the British, who fought Hitler and the Nazis, and then the red communism menace, so hell bent on emulating and surpassing, the spy on our own people methodologies of both evils? The boogeyman (aka 'terrorist') is winning and he/they don't even have to do a damn thing...

    15. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by joebagodonuts · · Score: 2

      Money.

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    16. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by smellotron · · Score: 2

      Government is like fire, and should be treated very much the same, and for nearly identical reasons.

      Yes, and the stench is terrible if you pee on either of them.

    17. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by orkysoft · · Score: 2

      Does anyone remember the time when the IRA used to regularly perform bombing attacks in Britain? The government didn't react this way back then. They could have gone all DDR, but they didn't. So why now?

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    18. Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? by Brannoncyll · · Score: 2

      Why are the British, who fought Hitler and the Nazis, and then the red communism menace, so hell bent on emulating and surpassing, the spy on our own people methodologies of both evils? The boogeyman (aka 'terrorist') is winning and he/they don't even have to do a damn thing...

      Perhaps it is as my parents say; that Britain lost its soul when Thatcher ripped the country apart and built an Americanised consumer culture in its place.

  6. Re:Trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni, aka Rui Mac by anotherzeb · · Score: 4, Funny

    With this kind of information, are you applying for a job that might be created by the surveillance system described in tfa?

    --
    Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
  7. Bad news for all by Patch86 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The UK government has shown time and time again that this is going to be a bad thing. For one, they've had so many data breaches in the last few years (lost DVLA disks, tax details, NHS disks, god knows what else) that a single monolithic data source is just asking for trouble. Secondly, we've had plenty of cases in recent years of jumped up local officials and magistrates using "anti-terror" laws (which were no-doubt passed in good faith) to track people who put their bins out on the wrong week, or don't keep their allotments tidy, or any number of other petty nonsense.

    And finally, I'd like to point out to any smug-feeling non-Brits reading this that it's bad for you too. If your communications pass through UK -based servers, odds are you're going to be logged and tracked too. And you don't even have the satisfaction of having voted for this rubbish!

  8. Re:Trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni, aka Rui Mac by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 2

    So he likes KDE, Iron Maiden, and Jimi Hendrix? And he tries to weed out astroturfers? Sounds like a pretty awesome dude.

  9. Re:Dont they all do this? by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wonder why the TSA has a /. account

  10. Only works against file sharing by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These plans are great in theory, but in practice, they will never be able to enforce access to all the data they are really after. The terrorists will use intermediates and encryption to make it impossible to yield any practical data out of this ginormous heap of raw information. It will violate privacy, cost an insane amount of money and have no significant positive effect on whatever statistical figure they want to improve upon. A few stupid punters will have their day in court for being so stupid that they get caught for petty crimes, but that's all this enforcement will ever yield. Unless they plan to use it to end file-sharing. Maybe that's the hidden agenda?

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:Only works against file sharing by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Hidden? Ok, they've been trying to hide it but far from well.

      It may not be the immediate interest of the governments, but I'm quite sure these laws and regulations didn't spring from the mind of a politician. At least I'd deem it quite unlikely that they had that idea themselves.

      So cui bono?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Only works against file sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're not after data anymore. Terrorists aren't that stupid and learned about cryptography too. The thing intelligence agencies do theses days is map relationships so they can get a view of terrorist networks and cells.

      After that, it's all down to what you consider to be a terrorist...

  11. Laundering for the GCHQ? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The GCHQ never liked been seen in open court, the press or having its "listening post" ability over every aspect of the UK's telecom infrastructure become too well known.
    So they hope a Communications Capabilities Development Programme can make the links in open court based on info that the GCHQ "found" and then flagged?
    Your interest in politics was not a flaged but your friend had a friend who said something on twitter or downloaded something and they "stumbled" back to you?
    The GCHQ tried "sigint NEW Systems" back in the late 1990's, the Government Telecommunications Advisory Centre, Government Technical Assistance Centre (criminals used codes) ect.
    Strange that all this is now so direct and in the open? Everything you do is now can be tracked if your flagged, months of logs can be "opened" and real time use spied on for a long time with very little legal oversight in the USA, UK, Australia....
    Why would anyone of interest use the web in any way worth logging anymore?
    Back to family, cult, faith, school, tribe, gang, compatriots, business associates - MI6 will be detected long before they can plant a fresh face or bribe their way to something of use.
    Why is the UK is giving away generations of hidden signals intelligence excellence for some short term "communications industry" links and PR that they are doing something?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Laundering for the GCHQ? by Sabriel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My theory? Because corporate sociopaths don't give a crap about national defence. They have no loyalty to king nor country, no sense of patriotism or empathy, and they've accumulated enough power from their corporate divide-and-plunder schemes that they have moved onto their inevitable target: the nations that birthed them.

      Data-mining, open-cut style, benefits corporate profiteering more than anything else. Big business knows your teenage daughter is pregnant before you do (google: Target data mining babies). And I daresay it's a lot easier to fight a foreign terrorist than it is to tackle wealthy "pillars of the community" who have the ear (and dirty laundry) of your civilian leaders - if they're not part of the hierarchy themselves.

  12. News Flash! Britain sinks under server farms by kawabago · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just in from the North Sea. Britain has finally sunk under the weight of the vast server farms storing every malicious keystroke of the beleaguered populace. This was the final stroke as the cost of analysis of the vast data store had finally exceeded GDP. It is expected that any terrorists perished with everyone else.

    1. Re:News Flash! Britain sinks under server farms by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the Telegraph, take the story with a pinch of salt. I don't think that even the UK government is mad enough to try this.

      Parts of it don't make sense anyway. For example why log Twitter private communications when Twitter already logs them anyway. They can just demand Twitter hands the data over, no need to duplicate it at enormous expense.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  13. Theresa May is the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Like Jacqui Smith before her, a weak woman. She's shown the exact same pattern of fear, and the exact same capitulation to MI5/6/SOCA/London Police Chief Constable (who also heads anti-terror) as the person before her.

    They talk all sorts of imaginary scenarios that may 'happen' as a result of failure to monitor everyone, and she can see her career up in smoke if they campaign against her they way the police have campaigned on other issues.

    Similar things happened to the background check reforms, for people who deal with children. The police PR men went out on a PR campaign, and said that if the vetting procedure was removed then pedos would kill your children and it would be the home secretaries fault. So she toned down the changes to the vetting procedure to allow *some* vetting.

    Labour of course will accuse Tories of *.*, they'll join in with any criticism of the Tories because that's all that pillock Milliband ever does. So the police can rely on the support of Labour no matter what they want to do, how outrageous the civil liberties violation or how many human rights are violated. Milliband will be there to join in the chorus of criticism.

    The fix is to remove the police campaign abilities. They shouldn't be able to campaign as to how laws SHOULD be, since they have to enforce them AS THEY ARE. It's too tempting for seniors police and spys to extend their mandate by using their position to campaign for new laws.

    1. Re:Theresa May is the problem by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fix is to remove the police campaign abilities

      100% agree, but Theresa May (alone) isn't "the problem" - she's just Home Secretary. I can't remember in my lifetime ANY Home Secretaries that have given a shit about civil liberties. Either they're weak-willed and cave into ACPO as you said, or they're strong willed and think up the Orwellian ideas themselves (think David Blunkett, Michael Howard). There's no such thing as a good Home Secretary.

  14. Blah-blah-bureaucrats - what fancy ideas.... by Gimbal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The story could be summarized, roughly, as so: Bureaucrats continue a new iteration of an old legacy in developing a further exaggerated sense of state control, in response to a perceived sense of national threat - this time, endeavoring to revoke some of the citizen's newer liberties, in endeavoring to develop (and substitute, therewith) a notion of "State-owned personal privacy" (TM)

    (DNRTA)

    I'd like to believe that the pragmatic arguments against it will be enough. I'm not familiar with the UK's own governmental charters, so I cannot argue more to the principles of the matter. I'm sure that the Open Rights Group might be able to chime in on the matter, though. Cheers to them.

  15. Re:balls to it by the+monolith · · Score: 2

    I left the UK when the government changed the laws against my personal interests some years ago, and was joined in exile by some friends for the same reasons.

    Ended up in Jamaica (a quiet part)
    Where did you settle?

  16. Re:Trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni, aka Rui Mac by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Great as an example why the law is a bad idea.

    Sadly, it also serves as an example against getting irate about it. Yes, you get a ton of information about a person. No, nobody gives half a shit about it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. Re:Dont they all do this? by tsa · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've had this account since 1997 or so, waaaayyyy before the TSA even existed.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  18. The cost to tax payers by Dark$ide · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I don't care if they store all of my email, they're going to get fucking bored reading them.

    What I care more about is the amount of tax pounds my lovely Con-Dem Gov't is going to pay to Crapita or HP/EDS to build some half baked IT system to store this stuff. The record of big IT projects in the UK is piss poor. They've wasted £11bn (£11,000,000,000) on the National Health Service project for IT and currently don't have anything to show for that wastage.

    --

    Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

    1. Re:The cost to tax payers by Issarlk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It sure will cost a lot, but think of it as a good investment for when peop*** terrorists take to the street like in Greece.

  19. 'preventing terrorism' rather than saving lives by danielt998 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems odd to me that the UK's priorities are 'preventing terrorism' rather than saving lives. Not many people die from terrorism a year and this would prevent very few of them.(Let's be generous and say one a year) Are there not other things on which they could spend the money that would save more lives than this. I don't see how deaths from terrorism are any more serious than accidental deaths. Building HS2", for example will probably save more lives than this as a by-product by decreasing the number of car journeys, which are far more dangerous than rail ones. Why do people give terrorism 'special powers'. In what way is a death because of terrorism any more serious than a car death? Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

  20. Re:balls to it by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Funny

    against my personal interests [...] Ended up in Jamaica

    Hm, I wonder what those interests were. ;)

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  21. EU would force them to anyway by j1976 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Even if they didn't do it themselves, they would be bound by the EU Data Retention Directive to do it.

    Sweden has already got threatened with the EU high court for not implementing the directive.

    1. Re:EU would force them to anyway by pieterh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Note that the Data Retention Directive was adopted in 2005 mostly due to pressure from the UK Labour government. Initially it was claimed to be anti-terrorist; those claims were then amended to anti-crime and anti-paedophile.

      It's most probably aimed at quelling the civil disturbances that some authorities see as an inevitable part of our chaotic post-carbon future.

  22. I thought this sounded familiar by Dulcise · · Score: 4, Informative

    "The scheme is a revised version of a plan drawn up by the Labour government which would have created a central database of all the information.
    The idea of a central database was later dropped in favour of a scheme requiring communications providers to store the details at the taxpayers’ expense.
    But the whole idea was cancelled amid severe criticisms of the number of public bodies which could access the data, which as well as the security services, included local councils and quangos, totalling 653 public sector organisations.
    Labour shelved the project - known as the Intercept Modernisation Programme - in November 2009 after a consultation showed it had little public support."

    So it's just the same plan probably being pushed for by the same security service lobbyists for a second time, this time with more success because "the Olympics".

  23. Re:balls to it by the+monolith · · Score: 2

    Competitive target pistol shooting. Now teach scuba diving in clear and warm waters, but used to program realtime embedded systems (nitty gritty stuf, sod database programming!)

  24. Shutting everybody up ... by boorack · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... brought to you by your lovely government. You may think of it as of some kind of conspiracy theory but we are here. Degradation of our freedom of speech is directly linked with degradation of our (western) economic system and in my opinion this is just the beginning as long-term economic deterioration shows no signs of slowing down.

    Governments (and their corporate sponsors) always wanted to shut down or marginalize independent media that show the world as it is, not as government + corporate oligarchy wants us to see. But freedom of speech was too deeply embedded in our culture and social costs associated with such moves tended to be too high compared to potential gains. Everything changed last year. Since Arab Spring and subsequent Occupy protests spreading like a wildfire, traditional media losing credibility caught again and again (thanks to blatant lies & omissions) and deteriorating economy pushing more and more people onto streets, our ruling class realized that time is running out.

    Efforts to shut everybody up went into turbo mode last year - SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, tens of bigger or smaller initiatives in various countries. Sadly, I expect that this year will be even worse. I expect further economic deterioration as most of world economy is dying under crushing debt with no chances of discharging it (thanks to our corrupt politicians and their sponsors), let alone paying it off (we don't have enough natural resources to pay it off!). Ongoing financial "world-war" Jim Rickards writes about in his excelent book makes things even worse. What we desperately need is a round of healthy (if possible - orderly) defaults that will clean up most of this debt (odious or not) and let the economy restart. Iceland took this route and now they have real, healthy recovery with good prospects in the future. Note how silent our corporate media are about Iceland. Greece on the other hand is being fucked the same latin american style used in 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. Once again corporate media blatantly lie about this urgent 'need of austerity' and 'Greeks fault' but when you look at it closer - it's good old, well tested latino scenario which turned up to be fraud long time ago. Thanks to banksters and their stooges (that is, politicians) few years from now Greece will become a regular 3-rd world country.

    My sad feeling is that in order to keep current (broken) system running our ruling elites will block any possibilities to resolve this situation and will cover up all frauds and crimes of themselves and their friends. Economic situation will slowly deteriorate until must of us reach 3-rd world conditions and our ruling elites will treat us with Radio-Yerevan-style propaganda backed by cooked economic numbers to show how wonderfully great our economy is, completely ignoring reality for 99% of citizens. All voices of dissent will be silenced, marginalized, blatantly censored or marked as "terrorists" and held in jail.

    Welcome to 'iron fist' phase every civilization comes through before it dies (yet it's still not too late to overturn this).

  25. WARNING - DAILY TELEGRAPH! by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

    WARNING - This article may contain high levels of sensationalism, speculation and just plain fabrication. The Daily Telegraph is a far-right tabloid aimed at people who think that "darkies and poofs" are destroying the country.

  26. Cameron said he'd wind back Big Brother. Right. by wdef · · Score: 2

    The platform on which Cameron and his coalition were elected included "winding back Big Brother" and the steady reduction of civil liberties under Labor. Predictably, that is now all forgotten.

  27. Re:Dont they all do this? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fortunately for the UK, we have an active resistance group that goes by the initials EDS. Their typical modus operandi for thwarting this kind of attack on our freedoms is to bribe or mislead civil servants to be awarded the contract for delivering the system, and then to delay and delay, while pushing the budget up, until another government takes power. The new government then blames the cost overruns on the previous one and cancels the project.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  28. If they want data... by Pembers · · Score: 2

    ...let's give them data. I foresee a Thunderbird plugin that randomly sends email to random addresses, to give the government more chaff to sort through. Or you could set up a virtual machine and let it become part of a botnet. Last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to allow someone else to use your computer for spamming...

    1. Re:If they want data... by arthurpaliden · · Score: 2

      In Canada they actually did that. They emailed and Twitted everything to the minister. The fate of the bill C-30 is now in question as is the Minister especially after he admitted that he never read the bill C-30 before he tabled it and did not know what was in it.

  29. Re:Dont they all do this? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

    waaaayyyy before the TSA even existed.

    Officially, anyway. :-P

  30. So the terrorists win afterall by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With a minuscule investment of resources, they were able to completely destroy the "free world's" way of life. They could not have ever done it via direct hostilities, but instead used the back door and got us to do it to ourselves. ( with our power hungry governments help.. )

    Social engineering at its best. ( or worst i guess..)

    *sigh*

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  31. Protest Like Canada Just Did by arthurpaliden · · Score: 2

    In Canada when the Canadian Securities Minister Vic Toews tried to get warrantless wire taping legislation passed this week Canadians decided to help out his information gathering process by:

    Sending the minister responsible our web browsing histories every day.
    CC the minister on all our email messages.
    Email the minister what we up to are doing several times a day.
    Updated the ministers Twitter account with what we are doing.

    So much data ran into the Canadian Parliament's servers that they either fell over or were deliberately taken off line. The fate of Bill C-30 is now being reviewed.