Slashdot Mirror


UK Government To Demand Data On Every Call, Email, and Tweet

judgecorp writes "The UK government is proposing a law that would require phone and Internet companies to store information on all communications, and hand it to the security services when required. The Communications Capabilities Development Programme (CCDP) abandoned by the last government is back on the table, proposed as a means to increase security, and likely to be pushed through before the Olympics in London, according to reports."

199 comments

  1. Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thank you Tory Government for proving you're just as big a bunch of cunts as the others.

    1. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish all the old WWII guys would get in their wheel chairs, walkers, and slippers and hobble down to Parliament and scream:

      Bloody hell! What the fuck! It looks like we wasted our time and our buddies' lives fighting the Germans!

      And then flog all the PMs with their canes.

    2. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Implying they'd care to do that any more than others.

    3. Re:Thank you by justforgetme · · Score: 2

      The solution is only one:
      Flood them! Create that much data that they simply won't be able to keep it all.
      Only thing that is needed is some background service that logs on to fake
      facebook, email and twitter accounts and corresponds with other (also fake)
      accounts while your laptop is idle.

      Have fun sorting through the yottabytes UK gov...

      --
      -- no sig today
    4. Re:Thank you by digitig · · Score: 0

      I wish all the old WWII guys would get in their wheel chairs, walkers, and slippers and hobble down to Parliament and scream:

      Bloody hell! What the fuck! It looks like we wasted our time and our buddies' lives fighting the Germans!

      And then flog all the PMs with their canes.

      Yes, because the UK is famous for its death camps. Oh ... wait ... no it isn't.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    5. Re:Thank you by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 3, Funny

      reaction from UK government: We need a very advanced AI to sort through all that data. Let's call it Skynet.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    6. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've already had one called Skynet since 2003 -- see: SKYNET

    7. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      How will you know that you've succeeded in overwhelming them?

      How will you stop the bastards from stealing an ever-increasing portion of your income in order to upgrade their surveillance infrastructure to cope with the traffic?

      How will this deter unscrupulous, complicit telecomms vendors from creating increasingly efficient and intrusive forms of spy gear to meet the demand?

      Technological workarounds -- Tor, PGP, and all the rest -- are important, but they're only stopgaps. This needs to be stopped at its source.

      Not to distract you from implementing and deploying your clever flooding plan or anything, but please at least sign the petition too.

    8. Re:Thank you by ocularsinister · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, we invented them during the Boar war

    9. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they should change the name from CCDP to CCCP, seems more fitting.

    10. Re:Thank you by asdf7890 · · Score: 2

      At that point they find something in your fake data that could be construed as incriminating in some small way, start an investigation that does nothing more than point out all the fake data you have created, then they can charge your with falsifying evidence, wasting police time, and possibly a few other odds and ends.

    11. Re:Thank you by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      We need a very advanced AI to sort through all that data. Let's call it Skynet.

      Replace 'Skynet' with 'G.C.H.Q.' and replace 'advanced AI' with 'tonnes of data entry work', and you're not too far off.....

    12. Re:Thank you by forkfail · · Score: 2

      They'd all be wrong - there was no such war. We're at war with Eastasia, and we're friends with Eurasia. It's always been this way. You need to be reeducated.

      --
      Check your premises.
    13. Re:Thank you by forkfail · · Score: 2

      Coming next: The National Bandwidth Preservation Act, making it a terrorist crime to use more than X gigs per month, and for intentionally adding noise to the national security logs.

      --
      Check your premises.
    14. Re:Thank you by Blue+Stone · · Score: 2

      George Orwell - Animal Farm. Tells you a great deal about human nature and its response to power. All power corrupts, and unless you have functional reins and limits on those who are given power, it becomes, over time, ever more of a tyranny. Alas.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    15. Re:Thank you by gknoy · · Score: 1

      How is it falsifying evidence? You're not generating false data ... about the data you generate. You're just generating useless data that no one in their right mind would care about. "Your honor, I am part of BardTweets, a non profit organization of Shalespeare Fans. We tweet all Shakespeare, all the time."

    16. Re:Thank you by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      So all those people who annoy me with their senseless conversations in the train are actually doing a good thing?

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    17. Re:Thank you by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      10-Step Plan to Cure Cancer in UK and US

      1. Nationalize our communication systems. Telephony, cable TV, and data transmission need to become the people's. If we stopped sending a great deal of our money into the coffers of a few corporations that have so much cash that they continue to expand their control, we would have more money for other things like education. If France can offer the big three communication needs (phone, internet, and television) for a fee roughly 1/3 of what we are paying, we should follow their example.

      2. Immediately institute regulations on the amount of interest that can be charged on credit accounts. Make it the prime rate plus 10-20% - enough to make them money but not so much as to continue to fleece the population.

      3. Regulate severely or nationalize the use of debit cards and force businesses to discount for cash commensurate with the fees that they are paying for using these electronic transfers.

      4. Separate the banks from speculation and traditional banking. By allowing our banks to become addicted to gambling they are no longer serving the public's interest but theirs.

      5. Immediately institute a transaction tax of less than 1% on each transaction. The only effect that people would ever see is when they sell a stock and have to pay this fee out of their proceeds. What this would do is stop the manipulation that major players in the market can perform to bleed money out of the system.

      6. Immediately cease the speculative trading of commodities. As I have often stated if you want to buy oil or grains then you must have the facilities to actually accept delivery of such commodities. If you cannot then you have no business in this market.

      7. Immediately treat all income the same whether from salaries or capital gains: treat everyone the same as far as the taxes in our society are concern. Let them contribute to the social security and medicare systems as well pay their fair share of the burdens we all should share for living in a modern society.

      8. Break up the media conglomerates. There is no reason that all of our news should be filtered through corporations like Disney or Rupert Murdoch's Media Empire.

      9. Treat our trading partners in exactly the way we are treated. Japan can export as many automobiles as we can sell in Japan. China the same. As is stands now all this type of trade is doing is stealing bread off our tables.

      10 Stop the damned revolving door that spins riches to those who worked in government service regulating the same industries that enrich them. Forbid anyone working in a senior position in government from working for a private firm in the same area for a period of time no less than five years and have this same restriction apply to family members.

      http://sideshow.me.uk/sfeb12.htm#1202200100

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    18. Re:Thank you by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      Simpler reaction: make this illegal. If you do this you're with the terrorists/child molesters. Case closed.

    19. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said!

    20. Re:Thank you by Domini+Canes · · Score: 1

      Mod points! mod points! Half of my karma for mod points.....

    21. Re:Thank you by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Lying to cops is a crime. If they're investigating you, your false data will be considered lying to the cops. Three or four test cases by J Random Eagerbeaver Prosecutor will establish this, just like half the 'laws' get established. It's called precidence, and it makes up a humongous amount of English and American common law.

      Everything not forbidden is manditory. Welcome to Utopia.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    22. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, we invented them during the Boar war

      I think you meant to say the "Boer War" (i.e: the war against the Boers - farmers).

      The Boar War was probably most famously fought by Robin Hood in Nottingham Forest to feed the peasants. Mostly, I doubt they kept the boars in concentration camps - they would have just eaten them, usually roasted. Concentration camps for boars would have come later when farmers caught them and put them into pens.

    23. Re:Thank you by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      No thats up here in Canada. We are taking our lead from the UK and US mind you, the Harper Regime is all about removing personal privacy these days.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    24. Re:Thank you by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      Not bad.
      Problem with number 1 though is that if all of our telecommunications had been run solely by the government we would have less and have it be more expensive than when getting ripped off by private corps.

      Problem with number 3 is the government has no business forcing anyone to give discounts for anything. Sounds good on the face of it but really I want my government fucking shit up less. Power is something government should have very little of.

      Problem with number 10 is I will be god damned if you can prevent me getting a job because my uncle decided to run for office.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    25. Re:Thank you by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      btw, its been tested in court (in the US) and its PERFECTLY LEGAL and FINE for cops to lie to citizens.

      but don't dare lie TO a cop.

      we have such a nice balanced world, don't we?

      (cries a little)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    26. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thank you Tory Government for proving you're just as big a bunch of cunts as the others.

      Time to Encrypt everything text messages voice coms emails the whole shebang and screw them .. Decryption keys read my lips go fuck yourself

    27. Re:Thank you by nstlgc · · Score: 1

      1. Nationalize our communication systems.
      Nice try, UK Government.

      --
      I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
    28. Re:Thank you by 19061969 · · Score: 2

      Actually the US had concentration camps when they invaded the Philippines many years before. It could also be argued that the Indian Reservations were an early prototype.

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
    29. Re:Thank you by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      grep huge_database mp3

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    30. Re:Thank you by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Actually they are doing you a favor!
      Next time you see them don't forget to thank them.
      As for the annoyance just invest in some decent noise canceling headphones and you will be fine.

      --
      -- no sig today
    31. Re:Thank you by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      I actually wonder why they didn't lead with that?

      --
      -- no sig today
    32. Re:Thank you by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Fuck privacy, this inches towards a freedom of speech restriction!

      I always thought that Canadians had an open minded government...

      --
      -- no sig today
    33. Re:Thank you by muuh-gnu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Power is something government should have very little of.

      Power is something both goverment _and_ private conglomerates should have very little off. If you have a too weak goverment, private special interests can grab too much power and become de facto goverments piggybacking on weak official goverments, so you get the same negative results for the population. The key is to cut power everywhere before it starts reaching critical, self-sustaining thresholds. And this only works if the people are powerful enough to cut both the goverment and special interests. It works only with a more direct democracy.

    34. Re:Thank you by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      You have consonantal ambiguity. I can't figure if you are nostalgic or nasty logic....

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    35. Re:Thank you by hjf · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're describing the situation in Argentina. Our government is doing many of the points you mention (8: war on grupo clarin, 1: nation-wide HDTV and fiber optics internet, 9: forcing importers to export in a 1:1 ratio)

      they also closed down all private retirement funds overnight. it's all state-owned now.

      it's not going so well... a lot of stuff is already missing. brazil (our main trading partner) is getting upset. you need authorization to import anything.

      we're doing some other things too, like compulsive re-issue of all national documents (with biometrics like fingerprint and photo stored online). "electronic" receipts with an copy going in real-time to the tax collecting agency (AFIP), which also has access to all bank accounts...

    36. Re:Thank you by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Why are you so surprised? Didn't you know that THE COPS are the single incorruptible, law abiding species in the whole universe?

      Take this Terrorist into prison now!

      --
      -- no sig today
    37. Re:Thank you by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      OK, solution might be a wrong term. Does retaliation sound better?

      --
      -- no sig today
    38. Re:Thank you by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      I'll be goddamned if you are guaranteed a job, because your uncle decided to run for office. ;-)

      BTW: I find your response most effective, when I imagine it narrated by Stephen Fry. In fact, it becomes almost deightful to read! I should try the same thought-experiment with the Linux LVM HOWTO.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    39. Re:Thank you by Skapare · · Score: 1

      They were not fighting the Germans. They were fighting the Nazis. It just happened to be Germans who were the largest group under Nazi control at the time. The Nazis, had they been allowed to stay in power, would be a LOT WORSE than what the UK, USA, and some other countries are currently doing to rip off people's rights. Not that it is impossible for UK and USA to get as bad as the Nazis as this certainly could happen, and is the current direction of movement. But this proposal, while a big step in the direction of Nazism, is not there, yet. This kind of thing needs to be stopped as far from being Nazism as possible. Just replace "Germans" with "Nazis" and that will fix what you posted.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    40. Re:Thank you by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      They found evidence that there was need for an investigation. That evidence turn out to not be true, i.e. the evidence was false (they don't recognise truth as a tristate (true-evidence/false-evidence/not-real-so-not-evidence-either-way), so if it isn't true it is false). You created that false evidence. Therefore you created false evidence, that the authorities then acted on either because it was brought to their attention for some reason or it was spotted as part of a search for something else (or just random surveillance).

      You might call that bullshit, and I'd be with you. But you might have to make that call in court (in which case chose a word other than bullshit, otherwise they'll add contempt to your rap sheet) and that might not be easy to "win" depending on the particular circumstances and the imagination of the prosecution.

    41. Re:Thank you by compro01 · · Score: 1

      We did. Then the country's collection of social conservatives, conned fiscal conservatives, single-issue voters, and gullible people managed to get the Conservative party (formerly the Reform party) into a majority government.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    42. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Japan can export as many automobiles as we can sell in Japan.

      Why would the Japanese buy British cars? The economic concept is comparative advantage. All the anti-globalisation rhetoric such as trade quotas, saving jobs, military capacity is wrong. These practices make a country poorer. There two problems though: ownership (and control) of intellectual property. This is a bug-bear that is being abused by the small players like RIAA. The other is development of a suitable export industry in poorer countries.

    43. Re:Thank you by rmdashrf · · Score: 1

      Believe that would be a very good start...

      Just a brain storm, but I believe lots of side issues can be resolved by ensuring that companies are allowed a maximum staff of 1000 people (or a similarly fairly low limit) and can't own other companies. This will take care of issue 8 in your list as well and might be a resolution to issue 1 not providing enough diversity.

      Having such a restriction will ensure:

      - Real competition; companies can't now just grow market share by absorbing other companies.

      - Increase in productivity through efficiency; since corporations can't just throw more people at a problem, this means that the only way to gain a competitive edge is to train staff and to become more efficient. This will also mean that corporations will become specialists in only a limited number of areas, since they can't have enough staff to be a specialist in all areas.

      - Standardisation; some products may need more than 1000 staff to produce, which will decrease the number of companies that have complete end to end production lines (with only small components delivered by other companies). This means these companies need to start even more relying on parts produced by other companies, which increases the need for standardisation to be able to compete. The companies sourcing parts are not able to monopolise one complete part supply line, due the the restricted size in staff.

      - Economic growth; because of the limit in the number of staff, there is more money flowing between different corporations, since more companies will need the services and products of other companies to be able to operate. The size of an economy is the amount of money in an economy multiplied by the rate at which the money flows through an economy.

      This will also reduce issues like corruption and buying votes somewhat, since corporations will have a limited size and lobbying capability.

      Maybe 1000 staff is even a too high a number...

      Any thoughts?

      --
      Nihil in publicum sputa.
    44. Re:Thank you by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Mostly when I here this the poster goes on to show how strong private corporations fuck over the little guy.
      Usually they fail to see that the big corp used its money to buy government which then fuck you over.
      Strong federal government is a major problem.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    45. Re:Thank you by MoaDweeb · · Score: 1

      9. Treat our trading partners in exactly the way we are treated. Japan can export as many automobiles as we can sell in Japan. China the same. As is stands now all this type of trade is doing is stealing bread off our tables.

      >

      In NZ we produce Meat, dairy products etc far cheaper than the UK even when taking into account shipping costs. That's shipping by sea BTW, save your food-miles for when you are getting flowers air-freighted from Kenya. All this would do is make food more expensive for everybody involved.

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    46. Re:Thank you by wintywashere · · Score: 2

      And just as stupid. I'm pretty sure real terrorists don't transfer information that is not encrypted to military levels.

      Sure....your low end terrorist wannabees will chat on facebook believing they're safe...but they're the types that will probably find something more interesting to do in a matter of days. At worst, they'll blow off their own fingers accidentally while trying to get it right.

      Meanwhile, uk.gov will force ISPs to up prices to afford recording data for them - recording this data is hideously expensive. Consider the cost of storage on .gov IT projects from their suppliers. It's slightly cheaper than that, but still hellishly expensive....

      And of course...how long will it be before they start requesting this stored data to investigate lesser crimes than terrorism? RIAA?

      --
      Warcraft main?!? Are you serious?
    47. Re:Thank you by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      A government of the people, by the people and for the people can actually exist. In that case a strong government is everything the people want. When private entities reach sufficient power to control the government, they either subvert the government and control it or the destroy the government and become the government.

      Weak government is one easily controlled by private entities, strong government gets it's strength from the people.

      Anarchistic nonsense only survives in micro economies, the village or nomadic tribes. With cities comes the requirement for strong government in order to ensure equitable access to resources and control of pollutants in concentrated populations. Anarchism ceases to function with increased total and density of population ignoring this is nothing more than childish I want, I want, I want ranting.

      Anarchism can be seen as the toddler stage of political evolution and yes, many democracy are actually anarchistic at the very top, especially the US.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    48. Re:Thank you by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Drop that number to 500 - which is the one of the higher "monkey sphere" amounts.

      They would probably be wonderfully efficient, though I do worry about building "tribe-sized" companies since a good deal of modern problems stem from people lazily using the tribe-based mentality rather then critical reasoning.

    49. Re:Thank you by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Wow. You really got me there. The way you used my calling out for anarchy and showing how stupid I was for childishly wanting it.
      Problem here is in truth you are just another ill equipped wannabe defeating nothing but your own strawman.
      Have fun with that.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    50. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they were fighting the Germans. Some of those Germans, a minority, were members of the NSDAP but most were not. The Wehrmacht took an oath of allegiance to Hitler and not the NSDAP. Germany started WWII with its invasion of Poland. The Wehrmacht, not the NDSAP, entered the Poland. The UK declared war on Germany, not the NSDAP, because they had a pact with Poland. They also fought the Japanese. In WWI the UK fought the Austro-Hungarians, Turks and Germany.

    51. Re:Thank you by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Yes, because the UK is famous for its death camps. Oh ... wait ... no it isn't.

      Actually, we invented them during the Boar war

      Actual death camps tend to not leave any survivors. They fill up, kill everybody, and are filled up again to repeat. At least 75% survived the badly run, cruel camps that the British Army ran in the Boer War.

      Africa Imperialism in the dock - the Boer War

      The farms of Boers and Africans were destroyed and the Boer inhabitants of the countryside were rounded up and held in concentration camps.

      The plight of the Boer women and children in these camps became an international outrage - more than 20,000 died in the carelessly run, unhygienic camps.

      The commandos continued their attacks, many of them deep into the Cape Colony, General Jan Smuts leading his forces to within 80km (50 miles) of Cape Town.

      But Kitchener's drastic and brutal methods slowly paid off. The Boers had unsuccessfully sued for peace in March 1901; finally, they accepted the loss of their independence by the Peace of Vereeniging.

      While certain Afrikaners are calling for an apology from the Queen, Sussex University lecturer Dr Saul Dubow, an expert in modern South African history, told BBC News Online that their demands were "specious".

      He said: "Overall, the British were the aggressors, but the primary blame for the deaths in the concentration camps has much more to do with incompetence and lack of medical care than a deliberate attempt to kill.

      That is the difference - death camps are intended to kill the occupants, all of them. (Put the citizens of a town on a train, move them to the death camp, kill them. Put the citizens of another town on the train, move them to the camp, kill them. Repeat.) Concentration camps are meant to hold. That doesn't mean that the circumstances of the concentration camp won't result in many deaths due to privation, cruelty, incompetence, and even calculation. The camps were internationally condemned, and rightly so. But nobody should confuse the British concentration camps in South Africa that 75% survived with the extermination / death camps of the Germans in Poland and other places that killed nearly everyone that entered them to the tune of hundreds of thousands of people each.

      Extermination camps

      The extermination camp Belzec was established in May 1942 and continued to function until August 1943. 600,000 Jews fell victim to the merciless efficiency of the gas chambers at Belzec.

      Sobibor also began its terrible business of mass murder in May 1942. The killings continued through October 1943, when an uprising among the prisoners put and end to the activities of the camp. 250,000 lost their lives in Sobibor’s gas chambers.

      The extermination camp Treblinka was working from July 1942 to November 1943. In August 1943 an uprising destroyed many of the facilities. 900,000 Jews lost their lives in the terribly efficient extermination camp at Treblinka.

      Canadian Boer War veterans look back

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    52. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      17 words that encapsulate British politics. Thank you.

    53. Re:Thank you by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      the problem with #1 is pretty much what Dishevel said.

      the problem with #2 is that it's already defeated by inflation. the prime rate will continue to change in order to eliminate the middle class. the fleecing will continue.

      the problem with #3 is that you can't force other countries to do the same, so people will just do their banking overseas. we have the internet, ya know.

      the problem with #4 is that it doesn't address the root problems of banks -- their corporate charters aka "personhood" and their ability to charge interest on the same amount of money it is being given to hold, many times over to many different people. it makes no sense that a currency that represents trust decreases that trust the more it is multiplied. banks have never ever served the public interest over their own. ever. doesn't happen. you'll end up crucified next to two thieves if you try to change it. the game of money is rigged by those who have the most of it, to enslave you. end of line.

      the problem with #5 is that you're saying, go ahead and play mafia and everything will work itself out. they call it "skimming." you also failed to explain where that < 1% goes and who spends it on what, and when.

      the problem with #6 is that there can be no ethical speculative trading of diminishing resources like oil. it's a rigged game. it's not a question of will oil go up or down, it's a question of how much will oil go up? you could argue that any time we have a war or open up reserves that oil will go down, but that's really more akin to finding $20 in your pants pocket and spending it on going to the movies, and then claiming that you got a raise. and then claiming that you can determine what your next raise will be based on how much money you may or may not find in your pants pockets. (actually, i'm being nice. it's really less like finding money in your pants pocket and more like robbing a liquor store or spending your savings to get that extra.)

      the problem with #7 is that those kinds of things should be left up to the states, and not the feds. i'm going to avoid a discussion on the IRS vs the 16th amendment and move on to

      the problem with #8: despite our best efforts at limiting monopoly, the market and technology combined did this to our media. there used to be hundreds of independent newspapers and radio/tv stations. now there are about 6. if we split them all up, entropy will just take over and the media universe will again approach absolute zero. #8 reads like this: step 1: break up media conglomerates. step 2: ???? step 3: media diversity!

      the problem with #9 is that it's blinded by revenge. the solution is not to stoop to the level of our competitors, but to raise the bar instead. how do we do that, instead of coddle our own sense of powerlessness and strike out in frustration?

      the problem with #10 is once again it fails to address the real problem. it can be quite valuable to have someone in a government office with commercial experience in that field. it's a problem when that person is corrupt(ed). remove corporate personhood, abolish the job title of lobbyist by making it a 25-life offense for giving any amount of money to any politician or party or law advocacy group or any kind of political advertisement on behalf of a corporation. ceos and stakeholders would also be forbidden from personally donating more than an insignificant amount over a given period of time, to get around the potential loophole of ceos siphoning company money to a private account from which to make bribes.

      all of my ideas have serious flaws too. we could talk about it until we go extinct and we probably will.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    54. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the first use of the words "Concentration Camp" where used between Pres. Andrew Jackson and Gen. Winfield Scott about what to do with the South Eastern Tribes in order round them up to remove them to the West. The first Concentration Camps were is the state of Georgia. The Hitler was a big fan of Andrew Jackson and got a lot of his ideas from how he handled the "Savages". A lot of my family died in those places. I am Cherokee.

      Think about this. The US started out really as a penal colony of Europe. Europe sent over all their Thugs and Thieves. They started their own government of Thugs and Thieves with a Thug's attitude of "Manifest Destiny" and have continued this beyond the conquering of Native America to now the whole world. "If you have something we want and you want sell it to us we will just take it by force."

      Sadly they came for us. Now they are coming for you.

    55. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you meant compulsory but somehow compulsive feels appropriate too.

  2. That'll be the scheme opposed by the CURRENT lot? by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When they were in opposition?

    I guess whether it looks like a good idea or not largely depends on whether you're the one choosing the "preferred bidders". And thinking about your post-political career.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  3. Dupe! by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 0

    This is even on the same front page! Well, I guess we haven't had a dupe story in a little while - they used to be thick like files around here!

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  4. Oh noes! by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Doubleplusungood!!!!!!

  5. like your goverment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i wonder what could go wrong if this where voluntary opt-in for every citizen?

  6. The UK is dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What remains is a pathetic pretender which occupies the same position on the globe,
    but which deserves no respect from its citizens or anyone else in the world.

    This IS where the USA is heading, in case anyone was wondering. And before
    you jump to conclusions with some xenophobic diatribe, allow me to
    mention that I am American.

    1. Re:The UK is dead. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      in a past job, I used to travel to the UK several times a year for a few weeks at a time. I got to know the UK fairly well (for a yank). I liked the place and the people.

      I will not travel back there, though. its been over 10 years since I was there last and its only gotton more spy-happy, not less. just not the kind of place I want to willingly go.

      sad thing is: the US is not far behind. I've read the same exact thing by non-americans said of the US. they refuse to travel here and I actually don't blame them. if I did not live here, I would think twice about flying here or thru the US.

      WHAT ARE WE DOING TO OUR WORLD??

      why are we so hell-bent on destroying all the progress we made over the past 50 or so years?

      have we witnessed the peak of man's civilization? I really wonder. the general trend is downward. is life getting better for you? is it? I don't see life getting at all better, in the general sense. we are more afraid of ourselves than ever before. even mccarthy days we were not THIS afraid of our shadows.

      the once strong giants are falling. and we did it to ourselves, which is really the worst part of it!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:The UK is dead. by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      why are we so hell-bent on destroying all the progress we made over the past 50 or so years?

      'We' aren't. Governments are.

      Fortunately most of them are bankrupt and can't sustain a war against their people for long. The EU is collapsing, the USA is reliant on China buying their bonds to keep them afloat, and most Western nations have only sustained their economy over the last decade by printing money to fund non-jobs.

      The great thing about economics is that you can only ignore reality for so long before it comes back and bites you.

    3. Re:The UK is dead. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      WHAT ARE WE DOING TO OUR WORLD??

      Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
      Most UK Muslims will vote Labour
      British Muslims recruited to fight for 'al-Qaeda' in Somalia
      Hate preacher: One day we will stone adulterers
      Sharia: a law unto itself?
      'Record rise' in UK anti-Semitism
      Assimilation’s Failure, Terrorism’s Rise
      U.K. Cuts to Military Will Curb Influence
      Iran cuts oil exports to UK and France

      Much of Europe is in deep trouble.

      The US might avoid the worst of it.... if it can prevent Iran from tossing a nuke at it and the EMP sends life back to 1901. The major European powers were supposed to put a lid on the problem - it didn't work out that way.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  7. 1984 by ericestate · · Score: 1

    I always thought Big Brother would start in the US.

    --
    I'm a Real Estate Blogger
    1. Re:1984 by CimmerianX · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nope... it starts in England. Didn't you see 'V'?

    2. Re:1984 by DaMattster · · Score: 2

      I always thought Big Brother would start in the US.

      The funny thing is so did I. But, come to think of it the D.C. Comics guys also thought it would start in the U.K. with their V for Vendetta movie. And, in actuality, the whole surveillance camera moves began in London.

    3. Re:1984 by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      Didn't Nineteen Eighty-Four also take place in England? Right in London as I recall.

    4. Re:1984 by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Was 1984 itself being in England not enough of a clue?

    5. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      V for Vendetta was written by Alan Moore during the 1980s. As a lefty anarchist wizard type the Thatcher government scared the shit out of him & thats why it was set here. Also November 5th has been a part of our culture for centuries so the Guy Fawkes imagery wouldn't exactly work so well in the US. As for the security cameras we have the last Tory government to thank for that. In the 90s they dished out grants for CCTV systems to councils as it was seen as cheaper than hiring more police. TV programmes showing various CCTV criminal happenings (like Police! Camera! Action!) convinced people this was somehow a good way to cut crime & the Blair government kept up the nonsense. Now we have the Tories back in they'll be like they were in the 80s - all for privacy IF you're rich. Otherwise fuck you, the government will try to watch your every move and control everything you do.

    6. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly... only then it was called Airstrip One.

    7. Re:1984 by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You know it kinda makes me wonder how much more the average Brit will take before they simply riot the hell out of the place. Then again, there might not be that many actual brits left, in the last 3 years I've had 104 families move into my neighborhood that came from there to Canadaland.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:1984 by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      The world in 1984 is a global symmetric system.

      You have some of the prerequisites for that system in place:
      Perpetual war on X
      A vast military-industrial complex to destroy the excess of human production.
      Choice between two indistinguishable political ideals.

      However the 1984 world is also in equilibrium. Once big brother exists, he will always have existed.
      You're discounting the possibility of being conquered from without.

    9. Re:1984 by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 3, Funny

      We tried that last year.. everyone just nicked sportswear from Soccer World :(

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    10. Re:1984 by forkfail · · Score: 1

      No, it starts where the power is concentrated. And the greatest power in the world right now is corporate; which is still somewhat decentrailzied, but does spread all over the Western hemisphere.

      --
      Check your premises.
  8. Not a dupe! by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you're referring to this, it's not in fact a dupe, because the other story is about the Canadians trying to do exactly the same thing as the UK is doing here,

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Not a dupe! by Dupple · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Watch those corners
    2. Re:Not a dupe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he's referring to this.

    3. Re:Not a dupe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All those stories (and the past ones regarding US doing the same in the past) should be unified to "english speaking countries ban privacy worldwide" and no more dupes.

  9. For the sake of the Olympics... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But I'm afraid they won't remove that law after the Olympics.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:For the sake of the Olympics... by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The threat of terrorism is a lame excuse for mass surveillance.
      Copyright protection is a lame excuse for mass surveillance.
      Child porn is a lame excuse for mass surveillance.

      The Olympics!? They're not even trying any more.

    2. Re:For the sake of the Olympics... by forkfail · · Score: 1

      If you don't support this surveillance, you stand with the terrorists and child pornographers who want to keep the children from watching the Olympics!

      --
      Check your premises.
    3. Re:For the sake of the Olympics... by equex · · Score: 1

      Do not underestimate the value of a sports program on TV to Joe Sixpack. It's what, 2 weeks of 24/7 sports? Most people I know would sign away their worldly possessions (except TV and fridge) to see that.

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
    4. Re:For the sake of the Olympics... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      My fear is that it will have to get really, really bad before it can be fixed. In pre-WW2 Germany similar arguments were used and it wasn't until millions where dead that it finally ended. Although death on such a scale is unlikely here I have an uneasy feeling that it will take a huge and very damaging event with millions of innocent victims before we can recover.

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

    Somebody out there probably never heard of Twitter switching to https.

    1. Re:https by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are MPs you're talking about. Most of them have never heard of Twitter.

    2. Re:https by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So when does Slashdot go https?

  11. Re:That'll be the scheme opposed by the CURRENT lo by Grumbleduke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's a side effect of two-party/adversarial politics. The party in power only opposes stuff because they see it as their job to. If the current government proposed a law outlawing the mistreatment of kittens Labour would probably find an angle to argue against it. It's because party politics isn't about serving the people any more (if it ever was), it's about beating the other party at the next election, and that means scoring points wherever possible.

    The only thing more depressing than a situation where one side opposes the exact same thing they supported when on the other side of the chamber, is when both sides agree on something, and it gets rushed through without any of the issues being examined.

  12. If you don't support this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    ... then you are a pedo terrorist who hurts animals, or something like that.

    I, for one, welcome our new CCDP overlords, in my back end... and front-end... and side-end.

    WHEN WILL IT EVER END?!

  13. Inevitable by concealment · · Score: 0, Troll

    We can talk about how this might be 1984 or not, but the inevitable path of technology is such that soon all information will be easily available and stored whenever possible.

    The reason for this is simple. If your child is kidnapped by an insane pedophile, you want the Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) to use everything they can to find that guy. If a record of tweets, blogs, phone calls and IMs helps them do that, it could save your child.

    I'm not enough of a hypocrite to say that I'm going to stand around talking about privacy issues if my kid has been stolen away by someone who is probably busy raping that kid in a panel van. I think my opinion at the time will be "Do whatever you want and get the kid back."

    This is the eternal tension in law. Privacy is a great idea, but there are a lot of bad guys out there and we want to keep tabs on them. I think a better solution is to find a government we can trust.

    1. Re:Inevitable by _8553454222834292266 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you serious or just trolling?

      The reason for this is simple. If your child is kidnapped by an insane pedophile, you want the Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) to use everything they can to find that guy.

      Sure, within the limits of the law and, in the US at least, the Constitution.

      If a record of tweets, blogs, phone calls and IMs helps them do that, it could save your child.

      So could putting cameras in all our houses. Where do we draw the line? I'd rather not live in a police state for the few times it may be convenient.

      Privacy is a great idea, but there are a lot of bad guys out there and we want to keep tabs on them. I think a better solution is to find a government we can trust.

      Good luck with that.

    2. Re:Inevitable by Znork · · Score: 2

      So, what's your plan in the much more likely event that the LEO sticks your child in the same cell as that psycho because they consider him a terrorist after reading his tweets, blogs and IM's?

      See, if it's just the insane guy you have a chance. If it's the government, you're going to join the suspect list for complaining. Heck, we've already heard here that you're of the opinion that doing whatever it takes to get him back is ok, so maybe you're planning violence.

    3. Re:Inevitable by dogganos · · Score: 1

      Of course he is trolling, consciously or unconsciously.

      You can't bring as an argument in favor of the proposed law the opinion of someone who's kid has been abducted! He's too biased to think rational, and you can't build a law on top of such a bias.

      And needless to say, as has been proven multiple times, child abuse has been an ideal means to build consensus on limiting free speech which threatens Their Democracy.

    4. Re:Inevitable by peppepz · · Score: 1
      I don't think that any kidnapper would give hints of his whereabouts on Twitter.

      This is not about increasing police presence, hardening penalties for criminals, adding more cameras in public places - this is about tracking every single life on the internet at the highest possible level of detail, and without a warrant from any judicial authority. As someone else said, "Stalin's dream".

    5. Re:Inevitable by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1
      I think it is close to inevitable that government agencies will collect all data. What counts is the restrictions we place upon its use. There is an important distinction between storage and usage. I'm NOT saying that I'm in favor of this - only that I see that storage of all data will be the logical compromise with law enforcement requiri a court order to use said data. But, I fear, the data will be collected and stored unitl "needed."

      We all see the horror that this can bring, the misuse, etc...

      Pretty soon, in the US, the 4th A will become as much of a rallying cry as the 1st and 2nd Amendments are currently.

      • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ...

      I don't think we can prevent the data from being stored. We may be able to make so that private companies cannot keep this data - that the data must be collected and stored by the government - but I don't see how that is a significant improvement. I think we must focus our attention on limiting the power of government in general. We must not let ourselves become terrified of our governments and our politicians.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    6. Re:Inevitable by Shark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think a better solution is to find a government we can trust.

      The only answer to that is: A government that doesn't have such powers. Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it... You either accept that your rights are in someone else's hands to be abused, or yours to defend. The middle ground situation you're looking for is never stable enough to last more than a generation, if that.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    7. Re:Inevitable by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Amen to that.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    8. Re:Inevitable by Johann+Lau · · Score: 0

      Sure, because that stuff is not ever used to cause harm, only to prevent it.

      I'm going to stand around talking about privacy issues if my kid has been stolen away by someone who is probably busy raping that kid in a panel van

      No, you're standing around talking about it while none of that has even happened. Why don't you just lube it up and present it as a gift to your local Gauleiter? That would be way more tasteful than parading the potential rape of a child around like this.

    9. Re:Inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is not "a lot of bad guys" out there. Most of them are in your imagination.

      Second, even if there were, there are other solutions to the problem than spying on everyone. Like making sure people don't become bad guys in the first place.

    10. Re:Inevitable by equex · · Score: 1

      Either he's trolling or just stupid. /fry meme

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
    11. Re:Inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens when it is the government the one who kidnaps your son?

      E.g. Cuba, North Korea, old Cambodia, and the socialist soviet republics. I have family members(18, 20 years old) that disappeared in South America under the military not long ago. Nobody had seen them again. They used to fly over the ocean without parachute.

      Ooopss!, you gave them all the power, you trust them because you felt "secure", and now they abuse it.

    12. Re:Inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya because that happens all the time, right? Or, perhaps, its a figment of the publics imagination fueled by the media to get you to WANT to give up your rights. I mean, come on, everybody wants to fuck your kid right?

      The instances of this happening are a pretty fixed, very low number. 99% of the time by family members. Kids getting kidnapped, raped and murdered by strangers in vans has happened a HANDFUL of times over the past 30 years or so. You've heard about all of them. They were big news.

      More kids died drowning in pools. A VASTLY larger number. 10's of thousands of times more.

      Its a false fear, just like terrorism.

  14. UK is no different than the rest of the world by ACK!! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember a conversation between my wife a naturalized US citizen and her kin from the UK about security and who cares how much they know as long as you have nothing to hide. It is amazing and sad but a vision into our future. There is a whole series of reports and exposes in the British press a few months ago about how the presence of all the cameras and surveillance tactics have done nothing to make the country any safer. It is basically a giant scam to sell products to the UK government but .... now it is entrenched. Oh well this is how freedom ends right ? With thunderous applause?

    --
    ACK /ak/ interj. 2. [from the comic strip "Bloom County"] An exclamation of surprised disgust, esp. i
    1. Re:UK is no different than the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is neither amazing nor sad that the typical citizen is less paranoid than the typical Slashdotter. Perhaps the opposite is true, in fact. Cameras are a huge civil liberties issue? Not yet. We'll see. The conceit that this is somehow a uniquely British problem is hilarious, too. Go look in a Sears and tell me how many CCTV cameras you see. Multiply with the number of similarly-sized stores in the US. You're probably already pretty close to the total number of CCTV cameras in the UK.

    2. Re:UK is no different than the rest of the world by peppepz · · Score: 1

      and who cares how much they know as long as you have nothing to hide

      (as if there weren't plenty of things that people don't want everyone else to see, even though there's nothing wrong with them)

    3. Re:UK is no different than the rest of the world by Johann+Lau · · Score: 2

      did you just compare CCTV inside of stores to CCTV in public spaces... seriously?

    4. Re:UK is no different than the rest of the world by julesh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      did you just compare CCTV inside of stores to CCTV in public spaces... seriously?

      You know all those statistics you hear about how many cameras there are in the UK -- originally they said 4.2 million, but more recently that figure has been debunked and replaced with one around 1.5 million -- you do realise they include store cameras, right? In fact, that almost all of them are store cameras.

      There are only around 60,000 public cameras in the UK. The largest deployment is London's (10,000 cameras - similar to the size of the deployment in Chicago, with a population less than a quarter the size of London's). The remaining 50,000 are scattered across around 800 smaller deployments. Most towns don't have any.

      It's harder to find information on US deployments. Chicago, as mentioned, has about 10,000, with the mayor expressing a desire to "put one on every street corner". New York also has a large deployment (3,000 - larger than any in the UK outside of London). Beyond these, figures become scarce. A number of cities published figures for trial installation sizes in the region of 30-50 cameras, but it isn't clear whether these deployments were increased in size beyond this. It seems likely that there are similar numbers of public cameras in the US versus UK (although probably not on a per-capita basis).

    5. Re:UK is no different than the rest of the world by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      thanks! I had no idea store cameras were included in those figures, that's kinda silly.

    6. Re:UK is no different than the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if it sells papers it isn't. So long as there is just enough truth to print a sensationalist article about something tabloid journalists will stop investigating because they know they if they find out more it the full story will be less interesting. And if a major paper prints it (even if they have a poor reputation) many people will repeat it as incontrovertible fact, even if the original source was rather spurious.

  15. Re:That'll be the scheme opposed by the CURRENT lo by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    Sad thing is you can argue against pretty much any good idea by saying there's not enough money to fund enforcement of it.

    At least you can use the same argument against bad ideas fairly effectively too. But this is the main reason even good ideas rarely make it into law.

  16. Unprecedented level of security by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    "The project appears to have been resurrected over fears of a terrorist attack at this summer’s Olympic Games in London and security services’ inability to track terrorist’s communication over the internet. The government has already pledged ‘unprecedented levels’ of cyber security for the event."

    And they're right! Once the Anonymous take down their systems, they will be completely secure. A malfunctioning web site has never exploited anyone's browser.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Unprecedented level of security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if a system has potential flaw it is worthless? You can also blind a CCTV camera with a towel or a brick, doesn't mean it is will be unable to do its work in other cases.

    2. Re:Unprecedented level of security by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      You can also blind a CCTV camera with a towel or a brick...

      Clearly, towels and bricks are tools used by terrorists and pedophiles everywhere. Therefore, we must outlaw all towels and bricks! You don't want to enable the terrorists and pedophiles, do you?

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  17. Re:welcome to the NWO by dave420 · · Score: 1

    You're more likely to get "flamed" because you don't know what "totalitarianism" means, yet seem to think beyond all doubt that you do. The rest of your abject nonsense is just laughable.

  18. Re:That'll be the scheme opposed by the CURRENT lo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yep, same as the Canadian ruckus. The Conservative government is pushing C-30 -- which is largely the same as bill C-74 tabled by the Liberals, back in 2005. It seems by the time a political party is large enough to play a meaningful role in parliament, it's already large enough for widespread corruption to be a statistical certainty.

  19. Re:welcome to the NWO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dude I think the right-wing with their obsession with big-business, concentrating wealth in the hands of a few and assuming people are worthless unless they have money has kind of helped. As for this libertarian bollocks about people fending for themselves, well I wonder how many of you lot work for the government in some manner or other (military, security, university researchers, politics, military contractors - jeez even computer companies probably sell half of their shit to the public sector). Remember throughout the entire of human history since the discovery of agriculture there existed a parasitic ruling class that sucked up the surplus production from the masses in order to build its castles/temples & live a life of luxury. This goes on for thousands of years in different forms - nobility, emperors, bankers.... and when someone suggests a century or so ago 'Hey, lets take some of this wealth and give it back to the people' the supposed freedom-loving right-wing scream "SOCIALISM!!!"

    As for this law, well thats being pushed by a Tory government. The last Labour government were also quite right-wing & like most of your US politicians in the pockets of big business. So if you're remotely bothered about this then perhaps you'll start fighting against the global corps who control your life instead of sounding like an Alex Jones wannabe. You lot are going to keep screaming about socialism until every last fucking right you have has been taken by the rich at which point it'll be too late to do anything at all...

  20. increase security by dogganos · · Score: 1

    for whom?

  21. CCDP? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

    Hmm, only one letter away from CCCP...

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    1. Re:CCDP? by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      AKA the Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik AKA the Soviet Union.

      (CCCP is the acronym for the Cyrillic spelling. My attempt to copy/paste that failed)

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    2. Re:CCDP? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Overexplained the joke.

      My steampunk styled nixie die uses chips of a design so old, the datasheet has the CCCP symbol on. I like to brag that it is made with genuine Soviet engineering. This is half-true: The chips are actually manufactured more recently, but the mask was designed by Soviet engineers.

  22. Re:welcome to the NWO by Shark · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Name-calling aside, I think Parent has a point. I'm pretty sure it's the responsibility of the people to keep government power limited and we definitely have been slacking off lately in favour of all the wonderful handouts. We ask that it runs everything then we complain that it does so for its own sake rather than ours. We kid ourselves if we think government any less selfish than those evil corporations. We're too lazy to vote with our dollar against the latter and too lazy to change the former and keep it in check. Bottom line is that we get what we deserve.

    I see this as a natural reaction: The Internet has caused a little surge of activism lately and we can very well see how that has the government running scared.

    --
    Mind the frickin' laser...
  23. to THE KLOUD, Alice! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Nahh, they need to bill this as the "data preservation act", free backups for everybody. They can spin it as a job-creator in the hard drive industry!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:to THE KLOUD, Alice! by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Well why do you think there is so much talk and push to store your data in "the cloud"? Once all your data is backed up in the cloud they can just cut off your access to it and then scan it at their leisure :P

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  24. Why not just get the NSA to send them a copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would be more efficient than duplicating efforts.

  25. decentralized communication needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Governments will never stop seeking more and more power over individuals. Corporations will always serve the will of their plutocrat masters.

    Anonymity is the ONLY effective defense against power, that is why powerful interests do everything they can to eliminate it.

    "The People" who aren't in either of those camps need a means of anonymous, distributed, communication that is outside of anyone's control.

    Imagine a box anyone with a little electrical knowledge can wire into a hot outlet. Or a solar powered "wifi grenade" that can be thrown on a roof to make a node in the mesh and last until someone finds it. Set these up to connect to existing hotspots to piggyback on the "plutocrat" internet. Configure them to be low noise enough that they are difficult to distinguish from regular traffic. Add a little onboard storage and files can be "cloud stored" and impossible to remove.

    We are coming to a crossroads. The future will be either the one of the boot stomping on the face like 1984, or one where the evil men who seek power are constantly frustrated by freedom loving individuals who have a greater understanding of technology.

    1. Re:decentralized communication needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Corporations will always serve the will of their plutocrat masters."

      Uhm, the owners/investors of large corporations -are- the plutocrat masters; they are a lot more wealthy than politicians, and plutocracy is all about wealth.
      It's politicians who will always serve their plutocrat masters.

  26. time to start encrypting everything by Khashishi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    encrypt your phone calls, email, everything

    1. Re:time to start encrypting everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That will soon become illegal too and we will get you anyway, pedo.

    2. Re:time to start encrypting everything by Tuan121 · · Score: 1

      jfij2oijf93j(*J#*(@(#*&$@#*(&JIEWJFiofjeoiwjifojio

    3. Re:time to start encrypting everything by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      The thing about encryption is that you have to convince the other party that it's a good idea too.

      Some people (your friends, family) may decide it's easier to just not talk to you any more.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:time to start encrypting everything by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Informative

      jfij2oijf93j(*J#*(@(#*&$@#*(&JIEWJFiofjeoiwjifojio

      The prevalence of *, (, o, i, and j indicate that you are right handed. The proximity of £, @, and #' indicate and American keyboard setup.

      Either way, this isn't encrypted text, and can be rejected as worthy of analysis.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    5. Re:time to start encrypting everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      encrypt your phone calls, email, everything

      No. Everyone must spam; 60k emails/day * 63M people = way too much data to process.

    6. Re:time to start encrypting everything by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Can only help so much if your government does not recognize individual rights. If the government went around raping dogs you could devise a sort of chastity belt for yours, but that's not really addressing the problem.

    7. Re:time to start encrypting everything by TBerben · · Score: 1

      Except that you are already legally obliged to hand over your decryption keys to law enforcement.

    8. Re:time to start encrypting everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was a joke. I laughed. Open your brain and feel the k8B\~KjwkWNBA

    9. Re:time to start encrypting everything by Tuan121 · · Score: 1

      jfij2oijf93j(*J#*(@(#*&$@#*(&JIEWJFiofjeoiwjifojio + 1

    10. Re:time to start encrypting everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Except that you are already legally obliged to hand over your decryption keys"

      Nope.

      Death is just the beginning. Tape over mouth and a cozy cell until the transformation begins after death into a new and eternal life.

    11. Re:time to start encrypting everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encrypt yo wife!
      Encrypt yo kids!

      sorry

    12. Re:time to start encrypting everything by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Sensible idea, but in the UK you can be forced to tell the court your password. So if you were ever accused of something they could get the private keys of everybody in your address book and decode all your past traffic.

      Anyway, they can't store that much data, and they are not actually proposing to: "databases would not record the content of the customerâ(TM)s communications but would store the numbers and email addresses of the sender and the recipient and [...] Facebook communications".

      So really the encryption does nothing in this case. If they don't have the content, they can't decrypt it either. Even if it's encrypted they would still have your contact lists. Encryption wouldn't even be an option for Facebook messages, I would think. You could simply switch to Google+, or use "https" for Facebook. However these social networks would obviously still have all the messages stored, and a court could mandate that you hand over the password to the account.

  27. Is UK taking hints from India now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds very close to Indias IT act 2011, and proposed changes in 2012 (for which 22 companies have been taken to court)

  28. If they snoop the Queen, is it treason? by davecb · · Score: 2

    ... or perhaps just mutiny?

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
    1. Re:If they snoop the Queen, is it treason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine the outcry if some rather nasty messages were posted about the Royal family doing bad things behind the back of the Great British Public... oh, wait.

    2. Re:If they snoop the Queen, is it treason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've already got somebody onto that:

      http://de.acidcow.com/pics/20091005/people_at_work_02.jpg

  29. So the conent of every phone call, email and tweet by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    should be "Dump your Member of Parliament."

    Don't just complain about it. Run for Parliament and throw the corrupt government out. Shut down the program.

    Unfortunately you won't be able to penalize companies for cooperating with the law. But you may be able to prove corruption of your current MPs and lock them the hell up for taking or soliciting bribes.

  30. They hate us for our freedoms... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    oh wait... tw@ts...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:They hate us for our freedoms... by forkfail · · Score: 1

      Like most such spin, it makes much more sense if you turn it around. In this case, a neocon saying, "We hate our own people for their freedoms" makes a heck of a lot more sense.

      --
      Check your premises.
  31. Re:That'll be the scheme opposed by the CURRENT lo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    That's a side effect of two-party/adversarial politics. The party in power only opposes stuff because they see it as their job to. If the current government proposed a law outlawing the mistreatment of kittens Labour would probably find an angle to argue against it. It's because party politics isn't about serving the people any more (if it ever was), it's about beating the other party at the next election, and that means scoring points wherever possible.

    The only thing more depressing than a situation where one side opposes the exact same thing they supported when on the other side of the chamber, is when both sides agree on something, and it gets rushed through without any of the issues being examined.

    Close, but not quite. It's an effect of both parties really being the same party behind the scenes. They only pretend to be fighting each other to give the silly voters the illusion that voting for the other set of scum might change something.

    Things will only change when the citizens march on the legislative bodies and kill the legislators. Which means it will never happen, because we've all lost the killer's edge that our ancestors had. Oh well, it was such a nice civilization while it lasted.

  32. We do things better than China and Iran by dataxtream · · Score: 1

    Do China and Iran have this much control?

  33. Wow, just one digit off by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    CCDP vs CCCP. So close. (CCCP was better known in the west as the USSR, you can see it on aircraft and cosmonauts)

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  34. Re:welcome to the NWO by lorenlal · · Score: 1

    Anon parent and grandparent - Although I'm sure you both feel like your side is less to blame than the other, I think that the anger shouldn't be against the ideas of the opposing side. I believe it should focus on the execution by the corrupt few who chose to implement the policies. Honestly, conservatism, libertarianism, liberalism, and even socialism all have advantages and could probably work if it weren't for asshats. That's the rub, there's always going to be some asshats. Anymore, I think policy should be directed to controlling the damage by asshats.

  35. Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The biggest fear for me is how they can take things out of context.....and even then at their own discretion. Like that bloke off on his holidays who said he was gonna "destroy America" only to be greeted with a rubber glove at LAX.

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/01/2-british-tourists-deported-at-lax-over-twitter-jokes/1

  36. 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do i need to continue

  37. Right to be forgotten by LtGordon · · Score: 1

    When the topic was related to Facebook's storage of user information, there was all this talk about the EU's "right to be forgotten" and how Facebook was violating this "right". Apparently this protection doesn't extend to the government.

  38. Governments working in unison by m_number4 · · Score: 1

    I've noticed that various western governents (australia, UK, Canada,) seem to working almost in unison with these orwellian type laws. There have been 3 or 4 major laws or decisions raised by each countries government in succession over the last year or two, I'd read about it in the Canadian papers then not a week later find out both Australia and the UK are trying to pull the same nonsense.

    1. Re:Governments working in unison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd guess the use of social networking in the Arab Springs has got them shit scared.

      Odd they wouldn't think that they could keep people happy by better serving them than coming up with this draconian shit.

    2. Re:Governments working in unison by forkfail · · Score: 1

      Look to where the real power is; that is, who pays off the politicians in those governments. Look to where the politician's loyalties lie (hint: for the majority, it's not to the people who elect them.)

      --
      Check your premises.
    3. Re:Governments working in unison by botFeeder · · Score: 1

      I bet they're working in tandem so they can reference each other as examples of 'good, stable governments, free societies' that are considering comparable laws. But I'd like to see them list examples of governments with this sort of access implemented. Maybe they can spin Qaddafi's Libya as a success story -- with Euro-made security software too.

      --
      J/\/
    4. Re:Governments working in unison by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      What the Arab Spring is doing is, seriously fucking up their computer models to keep things at status quo. Nobody predicted it, and there's been fallout over that lil factoid. It's change, and change in the wrong direction, from their point of view. Anything that gets in the way of the management and control of the people (or sheeple, if that's your prefered term) is evil and must be destroyed. Change is scary, change is bad, especially if it sweeps your bastards out of office and the oppositions bastards in.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    5. Re:Governments working in unison by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Keep on rockin' in the free world! (with apologies to Neil Young)

      sigh...

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  39. What a relief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Olympics are coming to Britain. They will do just as much for the economy as they did in Greece.

  40. just use OTR and Tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Off-the-Record (OTR) gives you "perfect forward security", which means even if they know both your and your friends secret keys, they can't decipher the conversation they've captured. Keys are used to authenticate each other together with random values. The authentication generates a one-time key for that connection. When session is closed, key is forgotten and only way to decipher the captured data is to bruteforce AES.

    The onion router (Tor) gives you anonymity so that even if government knows every single connection your network connection makes, they can't be sure it was you and who you connected to.

    Unfortunately, it's only feasible for chatting. For voice communications it has too poor quality (latency, jitter).

  41. How are you preparing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the psychotic behavior of many Western governments growing more pronounced, what are you doing to prepare for the upcoming revolutions?

    1. Re:How are you preparing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A revolution is fairly easy to organize.
      Stock up on spray paint. It's ideal to blind cameras, (cop) car windshields, and it can be more effective than pepper-spray if you aim for the face. This is the weapon of the modern revolutionary.

      Smoke grenades are awesome against riot police. You can also use pressurized containers hooked to a heavy firecracker to cause havoc in their ranks.
      And take kravmaga courses. When they come at you with batons, this will be helpful.

      Finally, some protection can help. Helmets to avoid the *accidental* tear gas grenade shot directly at the head. Body armor, hoping it stops tasers and in case the riot police decides to use their guns. Gas mask to protect yourself against tear gas.

      In the USA, they even have guns. Like 3 guns per person. A revolution over there would be easily won.

      Then there's tactics.
      The police will never be able to take down an angry population. Once the revolution starts, cops can't go anywhere to arrest anyone or else neighbors will ambush them. In fact during a revolution, cops could be ambushed anytime, anywhere, and nobody would help them or come forward as eye witness. If the entire population is really angry, the police can be defeated in a single day. This isn't Syria, the police can't just shoot suspects randomly.

      Here's what might happen during a revolution:
      Two cops walk into a shopping mall. 6 People jump on them, beat them up, break a few bones so they can't fight again for another few months or in the worse case scenario, kill them. Either way, these cops are done for. They won't be able to fight the revolution.
      A cop leaves his cruiser parked on the side of the road while he goes and gets himself some donuts or a coffee. When he comes back, all the windows have been spray-painted and the tires slashed. Maybe there's more damage. Either way, it's going to require time and logistics to make this cruiser operational again.

      Little equipment is needed. And the police, the only defense line between the corrupt government and the population, can be taken out very easily.

    2. Re:How are you preparing by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      In the USA, they even have guns. Like 3 guns per person. A revolution over there would be easily won.

      Handguns and hunting rifles are pretty much useless against tanks and even armored cars. A .22 Long Rifle is pretty much useless against body armor. You'll also need something against the drones the cops are buying up.

      You'll need explosives, EMP weapons for the drones, communications gear for when they cut the phones and internet off, all kindsa stuff. A lotta this stuff is not just laying around.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  42. Re:welcome to the NWO by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    As for this law, well thats being pushed by a Tory government. The last Labour government were also quite right-wing & like most of your US politicians in the pockets of big business.

    The suggestion that either Blair's Labour or Cameron's Tories are 'right wing' makes me laugh. They're only right wing when compared to Stalin and Mao, and not by much.

  43. A little Internet aikido perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They want everything stored? Give them a lot to store. Send a bunch of quasi-random, but important seeming, documents to the email accounts of UK officials until it becomes cost prohibitive to store all of them. The less compressable the messages, the better.

  44. Re:welcome to the NWO by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    Name-calling aside, I think Parent has a point. I'm pretty sure it's the responsibility of the people to keep government power limited

    And how do you plan to do that? Labour were authoritarian scum, and they were replaced by Tories who are authoritarian scum.

    There is no electable party which is not full of authoritarian scum, which is why so few Britons bother to vote any more.

  45. Just think of all the jobs! by RickyG · · Score: 1

    While there will be the inconvience of the government knowing all that you are talking, texiting and complaining about, think of all the jobs this will provide for those that will have to sort and determine who to check out as a terrotist! Why, with all the unemployment in the Muslim community, there is a "willing" body of people that would just love to sit at a computer reading all your mail! And of course, since you all have to be "PC", just because they are not "true" English people, you can't deny them the jobs! Can't wait for it to expand to the US! End of privacy, and Unemployment at the same time!

  46. Scared or scary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either they are real scared about some Morons who cant even blow up their own underwear.

    Or UK tries to become more scary Dystopian then the USA.

    I just cant decide....

    1. Re:Scared or scary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either they are real scared about some Morons who cant even blow up their own underwear.

      Give it a little while. Americans will soon get their chance to vote in to office a man who, like the Muslim underpants bomber, believes that his underpants will get him closer to God.

      We're all fucked.

  47. Terrorist Factories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The more they take away the greater the sense of oppression the more we push back; this green and pleasant land, this terrorist factory of those who had and lost and cried "No more!" With nothing to hide yet all to fear, of prying eyes that see me bare when cast away that right to share, a mind made up by proxy where free will lay trampled underfoot, in a terrorist factory that my brother born on me.

  48. At least they're up front about it by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

    I think (because I'm cynical and a little paranoid like this) most governments do similar surveillance, but they just keep it on the down-low. At least the UK has the cojones to say it.

  49. Upward Progess is Inevitable. Dystopia is not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it is close to inevitable

    I heartily disagree. If anything is inevitable, it is government failure.

    The people now have a lot of power. In every country. This people power is based on the idea that everyone has certain unailable rights. That there are no such things as Lords and Kings, Privilege and Divine Right.

    Leaders are just regular people.

    Everyone is equal before the law. Everyone.

    There is no rule by Fiat or Whim.

    There is rule by law. A law, where the laws are written down, then tested and retested in courts. Checks and Balances. The right to know what the charges are. Warrants signed by a judge. No search and seizure without a good reason. Right to a speedy trial. Right to a jury of your Peers. Right to an open trial. Right to face your accuser.

    Every creature on the planet knows the list and can point out what I have missed. History teaches us the people have become more and more free of the tyranny of the rich and powerful as time progresses.

    What the Canadian, Australian and UK governments want to do is clearly illegal. Everybody knows this.

    So what purpose does the Dystopian Meme serve?

    When Men are so educated and enlightened, how can the clock of progress in ideas and freedom be reversed to where the Rich and the Powerful again rule by fiat?

    Enter the Dystopian. The Devolution. The Crises. The War Time Emergency. Where People Power has crumbled and Lords Rule by Fiat, Fear and the Sword.

    Of course they do not want you to fight it. Of course they are going to tell you resistance is hopeless, dangerous and inevitable.

    1. Re:Upward Progess is Inevitable. Dystopia is not by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      And of course they're going to legislate into existence anything they can to continue consolidating and increasing their powers over the citizens. If it means invalidating the Bill of Rights, they'll do it. If it means controlling information flow except in cases where it props up the government, they're there. If it means making everybody into a criminal who can be swept up at random and locked away without recourse, well, they're getting there.

      In the long run, you're probably right. In the short run, things are bad and they'll get worse. Buckle up, this ride's gonna be a motherfucker.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  50. Re:welcome to the NWO by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

    Traditionally, what the Right has always done is try to maintain the satus quo. There's a reason they're called 'conservatives', ya know. What that traditionally meant in the US was, smaller governments, less taxes, fewer restrictions on businesses, you know, the guys who kick into their campaign warchests. The 'liberals' have always been about 'uplifting the poor', 'creating better working conditions', that kind of thing, basically, 'cut into everybody's pocket cause we have a social program we just can't resist'. In my experience, there's never been a social program the Left didn't like.

    The problem comes when these groups get the 'nanny state' idea locked in their genes. Government must now control the population for their own good no matter what. If they need to jail or shoot 10% of the population as 'dissidents', they'll do it & point to the 90% that's been 'saved'. No matter your party affiliation, these days, the answer is always more government control, more draconian laws, more cops, more troops, more interventions. Governments get so much experience in crisis management that they lose their marbles when there are no crises to manage, thus, they'll invent one to manage. Bonus points if the 'solution' to the crisis is yet more government, more government control, more management of the 'sheeple'. The neocons have been theorising since the 50's that in order to 'save' America, they need to remake the myths. Who cares if these myths are actually contraproductive or outright lies, they're necessary to 'keep America strong'. We'll always need an enemy, and if nobody steps up to the plate, we'll make one. If nobody hates America, there's zero justification for a pre-WWI style military, where all the citizens went into the reserves and a core military was retained to train and lead them in time of war.

    The downside of the 'nanny state' government is, it becomes important to remove any possibility of revolution against the government. They monitor large scale sales of nitrated fertilizer these days, somebody could mix it with kerosene and make a drum barrel bomb. There are always new gun control laws coming up through various governments here in the US, designed to take away any citizen's right to self defense. Leave it to the cops, they're supposed to be trained for this. Well, all the cops do anymore is clean up the mess in violent crimes, and knock doors in for nonviolent crimes.

    It's possible to build a homebrew cruise missile using off the shelf parts for the guidance and control circuits. How long til rc model airplanes are licensed even stricter than guns?

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  51. Additional steps... by bodhisattva · · Score: 1

    Every limey will be required to insert a camera into his rectum to monitor for internal hanky-panky. Reportedly it is so accurate that it can read lips from the other end.

  52. Sieg Heil! - Fascism for Britain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sieg Heil! as one similarly minded individual once said. Fascism is on its way to the UK, courtesy of the one party government of the conservative/newlabour/liberal party.
    Nasty ring wing nazis.
    It likes like we'll all have to start using Tor in the United Kingdom.

  53. Good luck by mcavic · · Score: 1

    The only way you'll get any info on my emails is by packet sniffing. Even then, some of them are TLS-encrypted.

  54. I got a better idea by 3seas · · Score: 2

    how about we make all communications of public funded government, public....

  55. Tor-ification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess it's useful in the west too (Chinese blocked it anyway).

  56. EU too? by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 1

    Is it related to this?

  57. It's everywhere now by DeadTOm · · Score: 1

    It's really frightening how many "free" countries are proposing similar legislation now. The US has been doing similar things since the Bush administration and is still trying to legalize it. The Canadian government has something similar in the works and now the UK. What is the deal with this trend?

  58. Re:welcome to the NWO by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 1

    This. I don't care what the governmental system is, I don't care what the religion is. There will always be corruption because of one or two asshats. In the US, we have some honest and good republicans, just as we have some honest and goodness democrats, green party, socialists, communists, fascists, KKK, Black Panthers, etc.

    The problem is that the good ones, of any group are always overshadowed by the asshats. Always.

    I'm voting NO ASSHAT 2012

  59. German assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were not fighting the Germans. They were fighting the Nazis. It just happened to be Germans who were the largest group under Nazi control at the time. The Nazis, had they been allowed to stay in power, would be a LOT WORSE than what the UK, USA, and some other countries are currently doing to rip off people's rights. Not that it is impossible for UK and USA to get as bad as the Nazis as this certainly could happen, and is the current direction of movement. But this proposal, while a big step in the direction of Nazism, is not there, yet. This kind of thing needs to be stopped as far from being Nazism as possible. Just replace "Germans" with "Nazis" and that will fix what you posted.

    Yadda yaddda yada ...

    It was the Germans. They started all the European wars from the mid 19th century to 1939.

    As an American, I hide my German ancestry because of that. We Germans are war mongering assholes - when we are aren't making great turbines.

  60. Re:welcome to the NWO by Shark · · Score: 1

    Form your own party? Become active in one of the smaller ones that might actually be better? Fight tooth and nail for whatever little issue you consider most important? Activism?

    By lazy, I meant in the broadest sense... Both the people as a whole and the individuals. The majority of people are still too comfortable to take real political action and such is the wonder of incremental encroachment. The new 'normal' gets shifted further and further into oppressive, but too slowly for people to notice... or really care enough to risk their semblance of comfort once they do notice.

    There's only so much complaining on the Internet you can do. At some point, you're going to have to take real action yourself if you want things to change. Or you can do exactly what put you in this situation in the first place and wait for other people to fix it for you... That doesn't seem to be working too well however.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not pretending that you can change everything all on your own, chances are you won't. But you're in this crap because nobody wants to get involved, resist and drive significant change... Yet you're not doing just that yourself. It may seem entirely futile to you but it's not. If you're not genuinely fighting for what you believe in, then you don't really believe in it.

    As a disclaimer, you might be the most politically involved person in your neighborhood and already doing everything you could possibly do. In such a case, my answer is: Keep fighting, brother, and never give up. You are not alone.

    --
    Mind the frickin' laser...
  61. Isn't the UK deserted now? by scurvyj · · Score: 0

    Haven't you all left the UK by now?

  62. Is the US government behind this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the US government behind this? I know there are draconian laws like this in the US, the Canadian government is pushing a law like this (and its getting a *LOT* of pushback, although I don't know if it is getting *ENOUGH*, and the government might just ignore the petition, even though it already has over 100,000 signatures), and I suspect the US government is behind it. I suspect it might be likewise in the UK. After all, if they already have Carnivore and Omnivore running, they can just pass on information they are already collecting.

  63. Re:The Internet, RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The British are your ancestors, you daft cunt.

    And it's not like the US isn't trying it's best to dryrape the internet. You're gonna wreck that glass house if you're not careful.

  64. does not go far enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if they could only monitor and store everyone's thoughts....

  65. Re:That'll be the scheme opposed by the CURRENT lo by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    and that means scoring points wherever possible.

    Does it actually work though? When you see them spewing trite pre-prepared lines, starting every sentence with "I think", shaking their head as their opposite number speaks, making lame jokes, setting their own questions, refusing to debate with members of the opposite party on Newsnight etc. do you think "ha ha they are winning so hard" or do you just get slightly more disillusioned?

    Come election time most people seem to vote for either who the papers tell them to vote for (and papers take no notice of what politicians actually say, except to twist it to their own point of view) or who they think will fuck up the economy the least.

    I think both sides have realised this which is why the Torys when they were in opposition and now Labour are staying fairly quiet. They think that if they can just keep quiet and not actually put forward any specific policies then by virtue of simply not cocking things up they will look better than their opponents. The government is forced to act so can't avoid getting it wrong due to the incompetence inherent in the system. Everyone knows that manifestos are actually just a list of things they definitely won't do when in power anyway. "We won't do that" just means "we will do something with the same effect but worded slightly differently if we feel like it".

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

    Is it just me or does this sound like the back story that leads to the regime present in V for Vendetta?

  67. Re:That'll be the scheme opposed by the CURRENT lo by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

    I think the Tories were keeping quiet when in opposition because they knew Labour were screwing up at every turn. And now Labour are keeping quiet because they don't have anything to say...

    But yes, most people will vote based on what they think the parties stand for, not on actual performance. But in terms of the internal politics of parties, press coverage and point scoring seems to be very much the way to advance, or assert status within the parties.

    As far as the general public go, iirc most people typically vote for the same party no matter what. If you look at general election election results since the 60s, neither the Tories nor Labour have dropped below 29% of the vote, so no matter how badly they do, they still get nearly a third of the population to support them. Then, with around 20% for the Liberals (+/- 3%, since the 1980s), that leaves about 20% of the vote left with which to win the election; i.e. 80% of the vote is pretty much fixed. You see a similar result with changes in the number of seats; the biggest swing in recent history was 200 seats to Labour in 1997, but the average is around 90 (something like 1 in 7, or 15% of seats).

  68. CC everything to 10 Downing by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Everything you've ever touched online, every file, every object every email. All of it. I think a billion petabytes should do the trick.

  69. Oh Canada by alexo · · Score: 1

    Good thing that I live in Canada where something like that could never happen...

  70. fear not (or at least not so much) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A fundamental principle of intelligence is "if you're looking for a needle in a haystack, don't make the haystack bigger" and terrorism clues are always needles in haystacks, because, despite the hype, terrorism is an extremely rare event. That's primarily what makes it so difficult to combat when it does occasionally surface.

    This programme is doomed to be abortive in the long run. With all that data to sift through (but remember, it's only connection data, not the content of communications, so it's a bit less scary than it might seem) there will be little hope it's going to be useful to anyone. And just estmate the storage capacity that's going to be needed by each ISP and the time it will take to collate such volumes of data from multiple ISPs - not to mention the error rate.

    False negatives will abound, just because someone missed a clue by not looking in the right place at the right time - and how could you, with such huge volumes of stuff to look through? False positives will also occur in direct proportion to the enthusiasm with which the "new source of intelligence" is embraced, and if they happen too often the ensuing outcry will eventually embarrass the porgramme into oblivion having wasted bazillions of quid - i.e. a typical government IT project biting the dust yet again.

    So this is just another knee? (yes, let's say "knee" out of courtesy) jerk response intended to "show we take" X or Y "seriously". The plain truth, which seems to have eluded our security services, was clearly demonstrated by R. V. Jones during WW2, is that the best results are achieved by directed intelligence - a process of building a picture out of carefully filtered information gathered purposefully. Not by burying the analysts in piles of irrelevant junk. Oh, but I forgot - we can use computers now, and that solves everything. Except, garbage in - garbage out maybe.

  71. Re:welcome to the NWO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy fuck! How did this get modded up? A sensible thought out comment that calls out idiot right wing trolls for what they are and does not immediately get slapped down?

    What is this? Opposite day? If not, the universe is about to implode. That is all I can conclude.

  72. Keyword:"Proposed" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't pay to get upset about proposed legislation unless it has a very good chance to pass.

    The vast majority of legislation never gets anywhere--much of it is put forth solely to appease some campaign contributor.

    Fact is, the UK is in all likely-hood already intercepting such data, just as the USA and many other governments.

    Under the old laws in the US, nothing sent by EMF was considered 'private.' Em ail & tweets have been declared non-confidential for legal purposes for years--one of the reasons law firms are keeping the fax companies alive.

    You want secure? Then encrypt everything. Neither government nor industry can be assumed to be ignoring your traffic, and computers make it possible to listen to ALL the traffic.

    Fact of the matter is, the electronic & data world is not even close to being a 'safe & secure' place.

    Given that the US government is prepared, willing, and experienced at kidnapping people anywhere in the world and holding them in secret indefinitely, being listened to is paltry.

    So far as I know, there has NEVER been a government which paid more than lip-service to the law. In fact, there are darn few large organizations, if any, which obey laws. So you can safely assume that at least one government agency is listening, and it's probably safe to assume that there is at least one private concern listening--law, or no law.