Slashdot Mirror
Sir Tim Berners-Lee Accuses UK Government of "Draconian Internet Snooping"
An anonymous reader writes "According to British daily The Telegraph, Sir Tim Berners-Lee has warned that plans to monitor individuals' use of the internet would result in Britain losing its reputation as an upholder of web freedom. The plans, by Home Secretary Theresa May, would force British ISPs and other service providers to keep records of every phone call, email and website visit in Britain. Sir Tim has told the Times: 'In Britain, like in the US, there has been a series of Bills that would give government very strong powers to, for example, collect data. I am worried about that.' Sir Tim has also warned that the UK may wind up slipping down the list of countries with the most Internet freedom, if the proposed data-snooping laws pass parliament. The draft bill extends the type of data that internet service providers must store for at least 12 months. Providers would also be required to keep details of a much wider set of data, including use of social network sites, webmail and voice calls over the internet." Jimmy Wales doesn't seem to be a very big fan of the UK snooping either.
Google already collects all this data and much more. They have analytics and various scripts like jquery embedded on around 99.9% sites. Facebook handles the rest. With Google closely working with NSA and other agencies, who cares? They already have the data right there. Google is officially the internets big brother, already!
Right to privacy? Nope. Freedom of Speech? Nope.
Although I think all the conspiracy theorists are crazy, the new world order is the eventual coalescence of the violation of inalienable rights and it's frequency of occurence across all nations.
Data collection/mining/snooping/browser profiling is so commonplace that pointing the finger in one direction seems almost wrong.
Your data is already being sold to advertisers by your phone company, by any form you filled in your details, by any "free!" email account etc. So many different companies and bodies are collecting data and personally identifiable information that we're becoming apathetic to it.
We need strong legislation and standards to make sure data collection is kept to a necessary minimum without infringing any further on privacy.
Some think an alternative to missing legislation is obfuscation of data. This requires a bit of an effort to give deliberate misleading details, temporary emails, use proxy IPs. This is not feasible for the vast majority.
We, the people, must strongly voice our discontent about such matters. Let's remind government officials that although the MAFIAA buys them lunch, it has a price.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Which "reputation as an upholder of web freedom" would that be? The one based on them censoring Wikipedia for showing an album cover? Or the one where you have to hand over encryption keys or be thrown in jail?
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
Even if you're not happy running an exit node, you can help speed up the Tor network by running a relay. All traffic through a relay is encrypted and kept within the Tor network, so you remain unidentifiable. It also helps obscure when you yourself are using Tor.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
There are also a large number of Irish people, a significant fraction of which used to sympathise with the the IRA..... .and we managed to resolve that issue without panopticon surveillance and giving up our human rights.
no taxation without representation!
Timothy McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik, both terrorists and both Christians, so by your "logic" we should watch Christians as well.
Timothy McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik, both terrorists and both Christians, so by your "logic" we should watch Christians as well.
.... and what percentage of Christians though that their actions were fully justified? If you can show that a reasonable number do then obviously the Christians should be monitored too, but I doubt if this is the case.
"Muzzies" - Seriously? At the very least, you need to cite reliable sources if you are going to post racist inflammatory comments.
The only significant terrorist attacks in the UK have been carried out by white Christians, generally Irish. Since these attacks were largely funded by US Republicans eager to help "the folks back home", maybe we should be watching Americans too, since they think it's okay to commit terrorist acts.
We've never had any bother from the Muslims here, at all.
Good luck with logging social network use. Facebook and Twitter at least seem to use https by default for me. Unless ISPs can force people to download trusted certificates for a proxy that decrypts, logs, then re-encrypts their facebook usage, they won't be seeing much.
Incidentally, I run my own mail server. I relay my mail through it using TLS, and it too uses opportunistic encryption when contacting other SMTP servers. My ISP sees nothing but encrypted data going past. Many public SMTP servers now are supporting opportunistic encryption and supports 256 bit encryption (in fact, if you want to pass a PCI-DSS ASV scan, then if your mail server supports encryption it must disable all weak ciphers).
(Disclaimer: I don't live in the UK, but I do live in a British crown territory - whether a similar law is passed here is not guaranteed, for example we don't have anything like the RIP Act)
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
"According to British daily The Telegraph, Sir Tim Berners-Lee has warned that plans to monitor individuals' use of the internet would result in Britain losing its reputation as an upholder of web freedom."
...
I assumed there was someone monitoring my use of the Internet, which is why I've always been cautious, at least with my home usage
AccountKiller
We've never had any bother from the Muslims here, at all.
Apart from the 77 bombings, the Glasgow Airport attack, the Exetrer bomb attack, shoe bomber and dozens of failed attempts and arrests.
There may be lots of companies TRYING to gather data, but that doesn't mean they get anymore than newbies give them. My ISP cycles IP numbers to prevent IP address tracking, and of course I turn off cookies and flash local storage. I don't use Facebook or any other service that datamines private info, and I ask friends and family to never post about me if they insists on using FB.
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I'm monitored to prevent me saying things about the military here in ..., you know what, lets not go there.
That's the effect of monitoring, it makes you less free to speak out about the police or military state you live in. UK is definitely a police state, this policy is driven by the police, and Theresa May, well she's just the current scared politicians being driven by the need to keep the police happy.
The last one, Jacqui Smith even started out with a central big database of all the transactions to be searched by the secret police at will. Then it morphed into a distributed database, still a database, held by the ISPs, that could be remotely queried. She thought that simply moving the database somehow stopped it being a database.
I wonder if the secret police will want VoIP recorded next, they're already reputed to be using voice recognition over mobile phones to perform mass surveillance the population. You know what, I was going to look up the link, but I didn't fancy typing [gchq voice surveillance] into Google lest it flags me as suspicious.
Lots of rozzers, all thinking they're making Britain better, when actually they are the biggest threat to freedom the UK faces now.
The Australian Government is doing the same thing:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/04/1825205/australian-attorney-general-pushes-ahead-with-govt-web-snooping
For the first time in history people can communicate freely en masse and it scares them.
Where are mod points when you need them?
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
The source of this junk law is the European Union. It just so happens that the UK has implemented this directive. Others will follow suit if they haven't already!
"On 15 March 2006 the European Union adopted the Data Retention Directive, on "the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC".[1][2] The Directive requires Member States to ensure that communications providers retain, for a period of between 6 months and 2 years, necessary data as specified in the Directive"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention#European_Union
The Glasgow airport "attack" wasn't terrorism, it was two drunk Asian kids crashing a car. It happens all the time in Renfrew, it's a rough area.
Only takes one...
The Glasgow airport "attack" wasn't terrorism, it was two drunk Asian kids crashing a car. It happens all the time in Renfrew, it's a rough area.
I suppose they all plant car bombs in London before-hand, fill their cars with petrol and propane tanks, and that if they survive are Jailed for life for planned mass murder?
Hell, I bet if you were honest, you would say that you sympathize with his actions (without condoning them).
Don't be ridiculous, for one thing I cannot comprehend why he attacked a labour party camp, apparently all non-Muslims. Secondly even if he had attacked Muslims, this would be descending to their level. As I said, many Muslims disobey the Qur'an and Hadith by living peacefully with non-Muslims and treating them as equal. The security services should be ruthless in dealing with those supporting terror, people certainly shouldn't attack a mass group for the actions and belief of 6% of them.
Benign world controllers dealing with dissent by setting up island colonies where highly intelligent people can go and build their own societies, while running a strict hierarchical society which manages to keep almost all its citizens healthy and happy? I wish! My feeling at the end of reading BNW for the first time was "Helmholtz Watson, lucky bugger. How do we make this happen?".
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The only significant terrorist attacks in the UK have been carried out by white Christians .. We've never had any bother from the Muslims here, at all.
Talk about selective memory.. have you missed the last 10 years or so?
Does this not count as significant in your books?!
"The 7 July 2005 London bombings conducted by four separate Islamist extremist suicide bombers, killing 56 people and injuring 700."
Maybe a HTTP over BitTorrent maybe.
Something that is not tcp, and encrypted (not just byte for byte ,but with -bogus bytes- mixed in to round up the size of traffic, so all files under 128 bytes will be all the same size, 128 bytes so LEOs cannot even use file sizes to narrow down your access).
Something that talks to many servers to get the content.
This would require a whole new server design, or proxy wrapper to existing http servers, but yeah bittorrent http would work.
A) bittorrent server can server all the http files
B) your browser can re-server cached content to other browsers in your LAN or ISP subnet, or B class.
Anyone?
Start coding, make it truly difficult and so expensive for the govt, it would cost billions to achieve.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Oh that? Hardly significant. Give me a shout when they get to multiple thousands, like the American-funded Irish terrorists.
What *you* have to realise that apart from the 77 bombings which were reasonably effective they were all pretty pitiful. The IRA terrorists really knew how to do terrorism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Park_and_Regent's_Park_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing
But even those were nothing. You have to remember that our grandparents and parents lived through this. Nothing since has been comparable in anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz
The whole point of terrorism is to instil terror. *NOT* to kill people. That's a side effect. While you react to them they're winning. So don't react. As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
When the records (public records by the way) of the expense claims by MPs were FORCIBLY revealed, even in that case they redacted the address of second homes owned by the MPs.
They cited that this information would lead to a greater need for security at these addresses.
Problem:this information is publicly available too, in the electoral register (which even if you're not published, merely means you have to go to the local council to find the information).
When it comes to THEIR information, even if it's ENTIRELY public information, they refuse.
Hell, I bet if you were honest, you would say that you sympathize with his actions (without condoning them).
Don't be ridiculous, for one thing I cannot comprehend why he attacked a labour party camp, apparently all non-Muslims. Secondly even if he had attacked Muslims, this would be descending to their level. As I said, many Muslims disobey the Qur'an and Hadith by living peacefully with non-Muslims and treating them as equal. The security services should be ruthless in dealing with those supporting terror, people certainly shouldn't attack a mass group for the actions and belief of 6% of them.
Emphasis mine. And, you shouldn't attack a group of people for any percentage of them doing something you object to. Apart from being racist you're willingly giving up YOUR rights because of a false belief that because x% of people involved with religion/belief y that censorship and snooping is fine. You are wrong.
As I said, many Muslims disobey the Qur'an and Hadith by living peacefully with non-Muslims and treating them as equal.
How big of you to point out that not all Muslims are evil, and that the ones who reject their own religion can live in the civilized world.
The thing is, everyone picks and chooses from their sacred books. The Christians, for example, don't exactly follow these rules:
(I could cite more, these are just the shortest ones).
Breivik believes himself to be a patriot and his actions were in defence of his country.
It seems he hasn't managed to qualify as a madman either.
You see that is part of the problem. If we take the case of an earlier poster talking about the Muslim population in being a threat to England. Arguably that same poster might just see it as his patriotic duty to defend his country against the Muslim threat. Maybe he could become Englands Breivik. How do we know? Chances are someone liable to take action will listen to argument post argument and have the ego to believe that they should be the one to do something about it. The smart ones may not comment at all but just read, The really smart ones will ignore this topic completely.
So really if you believe watching everybody will give advance warning of an attack then that pretty much is what you are going to do. What is the alternative?
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
The current government do not care about Internet Freedom.
What they do care about is Competitiveness .
You can still remain silent but they can hold it against you as if it were some kind of admission of guilt to refuse to speak to the police.
(possibly paraphrasing) "You have the right to remain silent, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention now something which you later rely on in court."
So staying silent itself shouldn't be held against you - suddenly remembering an alibi six months down the line might, though.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The Glasgow airport "attack" wasn't terrorism, it was two drunk Asian kids crashing a car loaded with propane canisters. It happens all the time in Renfrew, it's a rough area.
FTFY. Maybe you were trying to be funny, but, eh...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
For it to be "terrorism", it would have to be in some way terrifying. It wasn't.
And, you shouldn't attack a group of people for any percentage of them doing something you object to.
So you're a 100% pacifist as far as war is concerned then.
Wow. Your source of information is 8 years old. Way to quote a random survey that backs up your point.
Taken shortly after the attack, so people knew exactly what they were answering to.
And, you shouldn't attack a group of people for any percentage of them doing something you object to.
So you're a 100% pacifist as far as war is concerned then.
On reflection this is a simplistic answer. War where a non-conscripted army, or where there is conscription with conscientious objection allowed, is different from attacking people who are not at war. I think I agree with you about not attacking the group whatever percentage - though in some extreme hypothetical cases I might go the other way (like what if there were 100 terrorists who would go free in a plane, and one man who may or may not support them. If you could stop it by shooting it down would you?). Even here it would be a difficult thing for me to do - my beliefs and way of life all support peace, which is why I hate Islam and its teachings.
The 77 bomings were marginally effective. They killed people, but not very many (sucks for those people and their relatives, bit it's small compared to almost anything else) and certainly less than the IRA could muster. It also killed off the few compentent ones.
The other attacks proved utterly worthless. At best, the terrorists managed to hurt themselves, or get beaten up by passengers (with some considerable relish, I might add).
Otherwise, they served to demonstrate that London has truly effective traffic wardens: you put as car bomb in a no parking zone, then it will get towed waway ASAP.
Oh yeah and they managed to kill a man by the name of Jean Charles De Menizes.
Oh no wait, that was the police. Then they lied about it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Mustn't forget this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Bishopsgate_bombing
Watch those corners
Vote the bastards out, power to the people!!!
Jack of all trades,master of none
For it to be "terrorism", it would have to be in some way terrifying. It wasn't.
Attempted terrorism, if you must - and even if you mustn't, that's still only your opinion. I'm sure plenty of people were terrified at the time.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
For it to be "terrorism", it would have to be in some way terrifying. It wasn't.
Attempted terrorism, if you must - and even if you mustn't, that's still only your opinion. I'm sure plenty of people were terrified at the time.
A burning car full of propane gas canisters crashing through the glass doors of a public building would do it for me.
How unlike, how very unlike, how the Republicans treated Clinton. Now that was a shameful episode.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
It's hardly worth being a technical specialist in the British secret world. The real reason that Thatcher wanted Spycatcher banned was because it revealed just how badly technical experts were treated in comparison with the Old Etonians, and might have dampened recruitment. Here's a hint: If you are any good, you can easily earn more teaching maths in a UK secondary school than you can being a codebreaker for the Secret Services. No, I can't prove it, but I have good reason to believe it.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I suspect the insurance companies didn't argue the toss with the EU because the statistics were trending towards equality anyway.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Most people at the time seemed to be thinking "aw, there's some shit going on outside, let's leave via the international arrivals hall, it's closer to the car park anyway". I'm sure *some* people were freaking out, but most people weren't.
The police are not interested in the truth they are only interested in the conviction.
Not to mention the Catholics and their literal interpretation of "let the children come unto me"...
There are only few Upholders of Web Freedom in the UK. Sir Tim Berners-Lee OM, KBE, FRS, FREng, FRSA isn't one of them, since he's in Mass., USA. The Pirate Party UK is definitely one of them. With enough support it can also actually do something about it, instead of just being a forum of discontent, while tonight we'll just watch footy on the telly with a pint of ale in our hand.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
And I say it's the other way around. Let the battle of the unfounded assertions commence!
Seems to me that uncovering the truth would usually be the quickest route to a conviction, anyway.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
What does this have to do with anything? Because you believe there are terrorists that means we should spy on everyone?
Same justification for the TSA. I'd say freedom is far more important than safety, and anyone who would give it up is extraordinarily credulous.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
So you're a 100% pacifist as far as war is concerned then.
No dumbass. He's 100% smart, because he's not stupid enough to allow the State to drag him into yet another War On Some Group of People for Some Dumb Ass Reason That Won't Matter in 30 Years After We've Senselessly Blown Each Other To Kingdom Come.
Grow a fucking brain.
Probably a depressingly large number. There are plenty of right wing extremist groups in the UK (BNP, NF, EDL, etc.), and I'm sure in the rest of the world, who might not have been entirely comfortable with a massacre of children at a summer camp, but sympathise with his motives. They invariably use their "Christian" identity as one of their defining features.
They'll still be only a tiny fraction of Christians as a whole, but on a simple count are a significant number people.
I'd say that a high death-toll is pretty terrifying, but it's somewhat in relation to the chance of one (or one's relations/friends/etc) being potential victims of a future attack.
There's a combination of visibility and impact
More people harmed = likely more of impact and visibility
Harmed in a cruel/unusual way = Higher visibility (see the recent killings in France)
People die due to violence in big cities all the time. After reading about it in the news you become desensitized to reading about gang violence and bystander harm, etc if it's not in their neighbourhood. However, take a few higher-profile cases like the Canadian greyhound killer or the "bath-salts" attacks, the gruesomeness and randomness makes it a lot more frightening.
Same effect if a lot of people die at once, particularly in a violent/gruesome way.
Dying is scary to most people. A lot of people dying gets attention. Or to quote a similar way of thinking in Firefly:
Mal: [so only Jayne hears him] Now, you only gotta scare 'im.
Jayne: Pain is scary.
Pain is scary. Death is (generally) scary. Lots of death is more scary. Lots of gruesome death is really scary, but it also increases the risk of retaliation or alienation of those that support the terrorists. The IRA wouldn't have gotten much support for targeting large amount of children, etc. Religious battles sometimes get away with this more because they play the "godless heathen" card, but even that doesn't work beyond a certain level (and note I say religious, as *MANY* religions have been involved in atrocities)
"According to British daily The Telegraph, Sir Tim Berners-Lee has warned that plans to monitor individuals' use of the internet would result in Britain losing its reputation as an upholder of web freedom .. The draft bill extends the type of data that internet service providers must store for at least 12 months
-------
Q: How's your driving record?
"Clean. Real clean. (pause, thin smile) As clean as my conscience", Travis Bickle
AccountKiller