Slashdot Mirror
British Government To Grant Warrantless Trawl of Communications Data
First time accepted submitter cardpuncher writes "Having opposed the previous government's attempts to introduce mass surveillance of Internet communications, the Conservatives are planning to introduce the very same policy they previously described as a 'culture of surveillance which goes far beyond counter terrorism and serious crime.' The plan is essentially to allow stored communication data to be trawled without the inconvenience of needing a warrant or even any reasonable suspicion."
I hope.
Gun, bomb, assassinate, olympics, jihad if not ;^)
They can introduce all the warrantless tapping statutes they like but there's no obligation or wish on my part to hand over my decryption keys. When there's information I do not want to fall into the hands of my enemy I am NOT about to just giftwrap it for them.
They can suck the bark off my fat veiny purple-headed fuckstick.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I hope.
Gun, bomb, assassinate, rifle, olympics, jihad if not ;^)
Regards, Phil
It beats me that anyone thinks that this is not already going on. What I want is the practise regulated by law, Why do you think we are resorting to locking up people without trial?
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
If it's not an April Fool, it's not funny.
Whatever it is this Gov't won't be my Gov't after the next election.
Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
The Thailand factories flooding and HDD allocation is what they *want* you to believe. In reality, those HDD were to be shipped off to various governments around the world for their implementations of "1984". That can certainly explain the timings.
I fear it may be real... Sure the BBC wrote it up today, but http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/ is real, and they had just stopped cameras being installed in all cabs. There is a "lot" of increasing this year of the survelience society, because the Olympics are coming. Because if nothing happens then, the government can say that the open destruction of privacy was worth it. And if something does happen, the government will say that we had not done enough, and we must be willing to sacrifice a little liberty and privacy for our protection. Pretty good con, all things.
We need Her Majesty to save her subjects and overthrow this government.
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
!april1st
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/01/government-email-social-network-surveillance
GB read "1984" as an instruction manual.
And I quote: "A new law - which may be announced in the forthcoming Queen's Speech in May - would not allow GCHQ to access the content of emails, calls or messages without a warrant."
Yes, it is still worrysome, but can we please try and keep things accurate?
Than the omnipresent "a careful balance must be struck" fellow that just has to get his two cents (pence? whatever) in when another shovel of dirt's getting dumped on us.
And this one's a Lib Dem? Sounds like the U.K. has gone down the same road we have, where the Left is content to be a half-strength Right. Here's a better idea: as long as you're borrowing from conservatives, learn to Just Say No sometimes.
... welcome my government agency overlords. I feel safer already.
I'm glad our taxes are so well spent.
What the hell do you think pays for all this kind of crap?
Every time you vote for a politician who wants to raise taxes - for WHATEVER REASON, you're giving the government more resources and more power THAT IT WILL ABUSE.
And every damn time it happens, you'll rail against the abuse of power, but will ignore the source of that power:
YOU
For giving the government that power.
Go ahead, mod this down. Put your head up your ass and hide from where and how governments get the resources and power to do things like this.
And when it happens again and again and again, you'll be surprised. Again and again and again.
They're not doing it this year....?
That sucks...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This is about real time access with a warrant. I suggest that everyone RTFA for once. The summary and title are WRONG. That is not to say that it is not still troubling but let's be real here.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Do you really think there not already doing it, .. publishing it would only mean there not afraid to hide it any more and are willing to admit it openly. This also probably means they will use it in courts soon.
I find your faux bravado quite humorous. If you do not comply, you will end up being somebody's whiny little bitch in a very small jail cell. So please, STFU. You're not impressing anyone.
Not really news this matter. It's been done long time already, now they just apply law to make it legal. If you expect national intelligence gathering organizations following any kind of rules set upon them keeping hands off some data they want you should get your head inspected, sooner the better.
They can introduce all the warrantless tapping statutes they like but there's no obligation or wish on my part to hand over my decryption keys
Incorrect. The UK has the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which lets them demand encryption keys/passwords. If you do not comply, you can face jail time
Fuck you and April 1st.
Are you going to say this in every article?
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Firstly this law is the same as Jacqui Smith was going to sign, it makes the ISPs index the data into a database ready for search. All tracking data, not just data for which a warrant has been made on the off-chance that a warrant *may* be made in future. That you should be tracked *you in case* its needed in future.
The warrant is then made later, or perhaps that requirement will simply disappear as it has so often. Once you have the data all ready tracked and ready to search, you've effectively made a surveillance system. It then becomes extremely difficult to argue that the ISP should have access, but not the spooks, then the police, then the tax man, then the local council, then, private companies. They give open access to the license plate database now. Parking companies use it to send threatening letters demanding money to anyone who parks for more than 2 hours. They put a little plaque on the wall saying you agree to pay a fee if you park here, then the government gives them access to your home details based on the license plate.
It's the same pattern, they put a weak willed woman in the Home Secretary's post. The spooks scare her with all kinds of attack scenarios and claims they really need it OR YOUR CHILDREN WILL ALL DIE, and they do the same thing, sign off on indefensible intrusive mass surveillance.
With Jacqui Smith she first of all tried to create a centralized database, but later 'backed down' and created a distributed database, as if where the data is indexed is relevant! This is that same thing, it requires ISPs index all data in a way that can be formed into a distributed database. The man in charge is the same Oracle consultant, so he knows that once its indexed it's searchable, regardless of whether its its physically a cluster of machines in GCHQ or a distributed cluster of machines.
So all your internet traffic is tracked and recorded without a warrant, and when warrants are issued, they will then be based on 'who visited with website', it will be blanket trawls of the kind China would be proud of.
Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, access to communications data without a warrant is already permitted. However, the legislation is particularly difficult to read (at least, I think it is...), so here's my approach to interpreting it:
"Communications data" is defined (s21(4)) widely:
(a) any traffic data comprised in or attached to a communication (whether by the sender or otherwise) for the purposes of any postal service or telecommunication system by means of which it is being or may be transmitted;
(b) any information which includes none of the contents of a communication (apart from any information falling within paragraph (a)) and is about the use made by any person— (i)of any postal service or telecommunications service; or (ii)in connection with the provision to or use by any person of any telecommunications service, of any part of a telecommunication system;
(c) any information not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) that is held or obtained, in relation to persons to whom he provides the service, by a person providing a postal service or telecommunications service.
(my emphasis — and see s21(6) for the definition of "traffic data")
Where a "designated person" (quite a long list of people are "designated") "believes that it is necessary" (s22(1)) to obtain any communications data for one of the grounds set out in s22(2) (quite a long list of grounds are set out), where it appears to the designated person that a postal or telecommunications operator is or may be in possession of, or be capable of obtaining, any communications data, the designated person may, by notice (which must be in writing (s23(2))) to the postal or telecommunications operator, require the operator (a) if the operator is not already in possession of the data, to obtain the data; and (b) in any case, to disclose all of the data in his possession or subsequently obtained by him. (s22(4)).
As well as requiring that the designated person believes that obtaining the data are necessary, no notice may be issued unless the designated person "believes that obtaining the data in question by the conduct authorised or required by the authorisation or notice is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by so obtaining the data." (s22(5)) The notice can last up to one month (s23(4)).
As such, no warrant is required, as long as the designated person believes that obtaining the data is necessary for one of the stated grounds, and is proportionate to the outcome sought to be achieved.
It's worth noting that the operator has no say in the matter at all — it is the operator's statutory duty to comply (s22(6)), unless complying is "not reasonably practicable" (s22(7)) and the requirement can be enforced via an injunction, or as a specific performance of statutory duty (basically, an injunction...). (s22(8))
Given that the Secretary of State can order (by written notice) a communications provider to retain data for up to 12 months (see Reg. 10, Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009), there's potentially a lot of data to get hold of. See Schedule 3 of the regulations for what an operator can be ordered to retain.
The new legislation sounds — although we wait to see it — as if the scope is broadened, but access to communications data without a warrant is already in place, and has been for many years now.
As far as I can tell all this law does is enable GCHQ to compel network providers to give them real time access to data, when supplied with a warrant. I'm pretty sure GCHQ was allowed to intercept and decrypt data as required anyway - it's why they exist.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
They can introduce all the warrantless tapping statutes they like but there's no obligation or wish on my part to hand over my decryption keys. When there's information I do not want to fall into the hands of my enemy I am NOT about to just giftwrap it for them.
They can suck the bark off my fat veiny purple-headed fuckstick.
You are compelled to hand over your keys by the RIP act. Or you could take the prison time (13 months I believe)
"I cannot remember."
let them bruteforce the fucker. I am under no lawful obligation to simply hand over information that they will use to incriminate me in $trumped-up-charge.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I am under no lawful obligation to ...
Willful ignorance or believing that you're in the US are not excuses that a UK court will accept. The comment you were replying to pointed you to the exact law that you're trying to deny exists.
It seems that strategy is meeting with limited success.
Why does the leadership of the US and UK keep changing, then?
All the kooks who said things like this also were absolutely convinced that Bush was going to declare martial law and suspend elections — so why is Obama president? And why will we have a different president perhaps with the 2012 election, and definitely with the 2016 election?
Wait, let me guess — "they're all the same anyway", and there's some grand cabal doing these things to keep the "Republicrats" or "Dempublicans" in power. *Sigh*. Okay, great. And this is different from 10, 20, 50, or 70 years ago in any substantive, meaningful way, how, again?
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill (1874-1965), Speech in the House of Commons, November 11, 1947
now they are doing it themselves.
The creatures outside looked from ConDem to Labour, and from Labour to ConDem, and from ConDem to Labour again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
"the Conservatives are planning to introduce the very same policy they previously described as a 'culture of surveillance which goes far beyond counter terrorism and serious crime"
Actually, in order to protect the homeland, it's the US gov that instructed our gov to introduce such mass surveillance. Besides, us out here on the rim don't count as a real country and the DHS wouldn't get away with such surveillance in the US.
Oh, wait, that's the Evil Empire... Maybe it's time the UK adopts the Bill of Rights into its "Constitution"?
And the fact that in another Slashdot story recently, people at a hard drive manufacturer in Thailand were said to be scratching their heads and going, "What floods? Those floods weren't that big a deal, and they've already been cleaned up."
"Maybe this £3 wrench will loosen yer gulliver, eh mate?"
It's not the body of the communications that can be trawled, but the headers. The government want to be able to see who is communicating with who, and when. The plan was written about in The Telegraph last monthbut the plans are much older than that. The last Labour government, lover of all things authoritarian, came up with the Interception Modernisation Programme which in its original form would have had details of all electronic communications sent to a central government database. When the government eventually realised that this would be completely impractical they shifted the work to the service providers, who would all have to keep the details of the communications travelling through their networks and give the government access to their database at all times. The service providers realised just how much this would cost and so the government committed £2 billion to cover those costs over ten years. The plan was heavily criticised by the Conservatives, who published a paper titled Reversing the rise of the surveillance state. (Which is still on their website.) It was also criticised backthen by the London School of Economics.The plan was shelved in 2009 after opposition from communications service providers and a realisation that it would not be popular with the public.
After the election, though, the Conservatives decided to resurrect the plan, giving it a new name, theCommunications Capabilities Development Programme. (CCDP) Questions were raised in 2010 bythe Information Commissioner's Officeand it was mentioned in The New Statesman. Now the government are pushing ahead with the CCDP and the queen's speech will say that they intend to introduce legislation to implement the programme as soon as possible.
There are many things wrong with this programme of spying. It is impractical, expensive, a huge violation of our privacy, it places too much power in the hands of government, a government who we cannot trust. Making the full details of who talks to who available will allow security personnel to trawl through our data on fishing trips instead of requiring some basis for suspicion. Combined with the database for Universal Credit, which will be almost as comprehensive as the National IdentityRegisterthat was criticised so much by the Conservatives, and the centralisation of medical records, this provides private information about us all to the government on anunprecedentedscale with huge scope for abuse and for life-destroying mistakes.
If these plans scare you, please write to your MP to tell them your objection to the Communications Capabilities Development Programme. You can use WriteToThem.com to send it if you don't have their details. Pleasesign theOpen Rights Group's petition against government snooping and maybe consider joining the group too.
A latent existence
Gulliver? 'A clockwork orange' is not a documentary.
Gulliver? 'A clockwork orange' is not a documentary.
Not in 1971 when the landmark film was made, but now....
Shows like 24 and the USA acceptance of the use of torture for counter-terrorist means have proved the grandparent post correct.
I didn't deny the existence of anything. I said they are not getting the fucking encryption keys.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
No, I'm not. I have the right under common law to not disclose information which can then be used to incriminate me. That includes talking to police, period. I do not even have to give them my name.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Leave the UK. Get out of there before you need to be declared a Valid Citizen to travel. Seriously, just run.
Three men are sharing a hotel room in Russia. While one is trying to sleep the other two are chatting noisily so he decides to play a little practical joke on them. He calls down to the front desk and asks for some sandwiches to be sent up, then calmly walks into the room where the other two men are talking. Upon a coffee table sits a small plant-pot, which he taps three times and speaks: "Comrade Major, please send up some sandwiches and coffee."
A deathly silence falls upon the room and the prankster finally gets some sleep.
When morning comes he is woken by the maid, who is carrying a tray of sandwiches and a pot of coffee. His erstwhile companions are nowhere to be seen; their beds have been neatly made and their luggage is gone. As panic grips him he asks the maid "where have they gone?", to which she replies - not unkindly - that the two men are probably in the gulag by now. The maid starts to leave, but as she reaches the door she turns and sees the pallor on the remaining guest's face...
"Don't worry, Comrade Major thought it was hilarious."
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
"But, Officer, I cannot hand over my encryption key as you demand as the file you claim is encrypted is not encrypted at all, and is merely a file full of random bytes. No such encryption key exists!" :)
Not in the UK
I think that, as concerned citizens, we should not wait for the intermidable ruminations of parliament to bring forward this important security measure. Surely, it would be better to comply forthwith. I would be perfectly happy to forward all of my emails, by bcc, to any minister or agency responsible for this. Does anyone have the relevant email addresses?
Korma: Good
I didn't deny the existence of anything. I said they are not getting the fucking encryption keys.
This would make sense if the sentence you would expect to receive for witholding the keys is less than the sentence you would expect for giving access to the data (or if handing the keys over would endanger compatriots for instance). Otherwise it's a way to go to to stick by your principles.
Of course it would make sense to use an encryption system which gives you plausible deniability in the first place, or hide incriminating data within a load of legal stuff which you might reasonably want encrypted (accounts or somesuch).
No, I'm not. I have the right under common law to not disclose information which can then be used to incriminate me. That includes talking to police, period. I do not even have to give them my name.
Of course you're not physically compelled, by some supernatural force, to give them any information. Just as you're not physically compelled to pay your taxes, to drive at the speed limit or not to murder your mum.
Err, yes you do. Under UK law you are required to give them your name and address (and under rather vague conditions - at least vague in the sense of when you can refuse - your date of birth). If you don't, you can be held INDEFINITELY in police detention until you do. You will almost certainly be charged with "obstruction" or some similar offence, just for their amusement. And if you chose to remain silent thereafter, that may be noted and used as evidence against you in court.
To be fair this specific law you're referring too does get blown a bit out of proportion though.
To be jailed for claiming you don't know what the encryption key is on request the police have to have some proof that you do know what it is. They cannot simply ask what it is, then jail you for claiming ignorance, which is what many people imply the law states.
Here are the relevant parts:
(2) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it.
(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time ifâ"
(a)sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Note particularly on point 3b - the police have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are in possession of the key.
Part the reason these laws keep getting through is because there's no rational debate on them from either side. The arguments for this time of thing are FUD, and the arguments against - like yours, are simply wrong. When the people arguing against it are full of shit, the government just ignore them and do what they want regardless because you're simply demonstrating to them you haven't even bothered to read their proposals.
The fact is that claiming you don't know the key WILL get you off of a section 49 notice, unless the police can somehow prove beyond reasonable doubt that you do in fact have the key.
So in fact, the law clearly states that the assumption is that the person does NOT have the encryption key, and the burden is entirely on the police to prove they do*. Only then, if they prove that they do* and they continue to refuse to disclose, does it become an offence.
RIPA is still pretty bad - especially the parts that for too long allowed councils to stalk people etc., but it's not the law people on Slashdot, The Register etc. pretend it is with regard to encryption keys.
* With the usual beyond reasonable doubt caveat - the same one used when judging whether someone is guilty of murder etc., i.e. a pretty fucking high standard of evidence.
citation needed.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Surely, you could classify that as a human rights violation.
Failure to hand over keys = jail.
Now, if we just say that...
Jail = torture as a method of extracting the keys...
Write a message in notepad, save, then zip/rar/7z the document. (We'll say zip.)
Then do:
Start -> Run -> cmd -> copy /b image_of_your_choice.jpg+text_document_you_saved.zip C:\output.jpg