Slashdot Mirror
Privacy Groups Attack UK ISPs 'Collusion' With Government Snooping
judgecorp writes "Privacy groups have accused British ISPs of a 'conspiracy of silence' over the impact of the UK government;s proposed Communications Data Bill or 'Snooper's Charter.' The letter accuses the SPs of allowing themselves to be 'co-opted as an arm of the state' — and of not telling their customers what they are up to. Under the bill, ISPs can be ordered to store their users' communications data (the who when and where but not the content of emails etc) for police to search through."
What will they do when their snooping forces a large percentage of the people to use Tor or a VPN?
They can already lock you up for 2 years for failing to divulge encryption keys or passwords.
When I look at the definition of terrorists and then at my government I really dont see much difference these days.
We voted Cameron in on the basis that they would end the police/spooks driven surveillance culture. He put Theresa May in the home office, she then tried to implement the reforms, end ASBOs, separate police and spies, curb police secret comments on background checks etc. The things we elected him for.
The police PR division turned on her and started campaigning against her. Police officers were on TV arguing that by curbing background checks, "pedos will kill your children" and other scaremongering, and there's such a fear in the UK, that nobody denounced what they said. Each time an attempt to curb their powers comes along, they went on the attack, citing undisclosed terrorists plots, was another common tactic.
So now she's pretty much tamed, they want more snooping, she's too afraid to go against them, so she's become just another Home Secretary implementing mass surveillance.
So now we have the situation where the police are driving full speed towards a police state, and they are too naive to think of it as a police state.
Who you talk to is none of the govermments business. Tracking everyone as though they're criminals needs evidence that they are a criminal, what the government is doing is hypothesizing that EVERYONE is a future criminal and this EVERYONE should be tracked, and it's ok because we promise not to look at the data unless we think you are a criminal.... but yet EVERYONE is being treated as a criminal and monitored.
Be afraid of criticising the government, because you're being watched.
The British already live in a society where public surveillance, paid for by the state, is pervasive with an inward focused intelligence agency to watch everyone and pry into their private affairs. Consider also the long history of state monitoring and nanny state paternalism and it would seem that the privacy horse has long since left the barn in the UK, yes?
Do the ISP's simply get together and say 'get stuffed'?
Isn't it about time for corporations that support open communications to stand up to a government behaving like a 6 year old wanting a new toy? If the top 10 major ISP's got together and said 'screw you, shut us down!' do you think the government would push their luck?
Why is it always the little guy who has to stand up to the overzealous government hoping to get a 'new toy' to frighten the public into reaction? Aren't corporations moral entities upholding personal responsibility?
... and of not telling their customers what they are up to.
Well yeah. Their customers don't show up at their doorstep with shotguns and take whatever they feel like when they aren't told certain things. The government does. And every government I'm aware of tells businesses not to tell their customers when they show up that they showed up. That whole "ongoing investigation" business.
So let the privacy groups whine until the cows come home, that will never change no matter where you live. On the other hand, if you want to go after dragnets and mass-storage of everyone's data, which is then trolled through by law enforcement without a warrant or similar, well then I'm all ears and then some. The mere storage of data that can then be searched, in the future, with a properly-executed warrant, is a non-issue. The transitory nature of the internet means that without audit logs such as this, you'd never catch anyone. For anything. "Well, I'm sorry Mr. President, but we weren't able to catch that terrorist who gave us a specific and credible threat, because we didn't know ahead of time he was going to do it. Sorry about all those dead civilians, but you know, we gotta respect people's privacy and all that," said no law enforcement officer ever.
Privacy groups making unreasonable demands like this I put in the same category as scumbag politicians who want to remove judicial protections like probable cause before invading someone's privacy. It doesn't matter which you are to me, you're both extremists.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Only since about 2004, when Blair defined 'future crimes' as justification for surveillance today.
I remember a speech in which Blair argued that the database would be used to 'eliminate' people from an investigation, thus it was in their benefit!?! Flipping the whole innocent until proven guilty into guilty until proven innocent thing.
It was quite recent this culture ramped up, as technology permitted it, and it's not too late to fix, but Cameron clearly isn't tough enough to stand up to it.
We need a hard-nosed leader with a purer-than-the-driven-snow history, to fix this. That's a difficult combination to find. If there's any blemishes in his/her past, the security forces will 'leak' that part of their massive surveillance database to protect their 'good' deeds and eject the leader they don't like. That's the nature of police states, they're full of people thinking they're doing 'good'.
Of course if we add internet history to that data pool, it just gives them more ammo to pick a leader.
You delete the spam but the ISP records the who where. Then someone in your organization does something illegal and you are among a pool of suspects. They must investigate you to clear you. They immediately find you have an association with a Russian criminal gang. Suddenly you are Prime Suspect! That's what's wrong with it. Stupider things have happened, to me!
They immediately find you have an association with a Russian criminal gang. Suddenly you are Prime Suspect! That's what's wrong with it. Stupider things have happened, to me!
Well, were you associated with a Russian criminal gang? Because if you were, and that criminal gang had a history of (or a direct link to!) the crime they were investigating, then you have some explaining to do. If you don't, well then, you've met the criterion for "reasonable suspicion", which merits someone interviewing you, but doesn't ordinarily rise to the standard of being sufficient for a search warrant.
A lot of times, what the police do is inconvenient, but it isn't "stupid". Investigators focus on people with a criminal past or criminal connections because those are the people that, statistically, are the most likely in a pool of suspects to be the actual criminal. And if you're going to be a successful investigator, you'd better play by the numbers.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
So now we have the situation where the police are driving full speed towards a police state
Been hearing that since the 60's. All I can say it is must be a long drive to a police state, either that or they're stuck at one of those enormous roundabouts you have over there..
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It's our version, an original and unchanged since the "consultation" (a public one would take a year and then be uncomfortably close to the 2015 election so that's not going to happen) and ISPs only have to store details of all communications for a year at their expense. You know, just in case.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Plus there's over 30 distinct bodies who have requested access to this data. Really important ones involved with "national security", like the Charity Commission, Ambulance Service and the Welsh Tourist Board. This then means that rather than a select few whose job is to safeguard the nation / populace over 250000 people who are prone to gossip like any member of the public well have access to *everything* you do. That snotty bitch in the chemist who is good friends with a friend of your SO? She knows how much porn (and what type and when) you look at.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/council-spending/9991351/Town-halls-join-rush-to-use-the-snoopers-charter.html ... to snoop into the private lives of ordinary citizens"
Many years ago if you where political a national task force would track you - telephone, car, protests, work, friends...
Years ago you faced the Forward Intelligence Teams (FITs) - maybe local but much more active with facial recognition.
What I find very chilling about this new vision for data collection and sharing is the low level of gov getting GCHQ like data powers e.g.. "council
Write too much about rates, parking costs, talking about a chauffeur-driven Mercedes expenses claim - the UK has few real whistleblowers laws.
Anyone with this new clearance been exposed e.g.. in an expenses claim story could go on a search deep into the private lives of staff until they 'find' something or a press contact.
With what your average isp keeps, anyone could rewind any digital life in the UK for a day, week, month based on working for a local gov?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
When people hated Jacqui Smith for mass surveillance, they released her husbands hotel porn viewing on expenses and it ultimately kicked her out of power. Imagine what power you have if you can see every politicians internet history.
INFORMATION IS POWER, IS CONTROL!
And before anyone pretends to be holier than thou, with nothing to hide, I'd like to remind you of the Vatican and its users who watch BDSM porn and pirated DVDs:
http://torrentfreak.com/priests-watch-dvd-screeners-while-pirates-download-filth-in-the-vatican-130407
You could basically pick the government using their internet comms history. That's extraordinarily dangerous. And yes they are proposing to capture and log everyone's URL data and yes we have a right to privacy, its fundamental and its based on the idea that we can't be free if we're watched.
My point is, even if it was restricted to just the police, policemen have been found to be paid by News Corp for info. Prosecutions for that were only brought long after they were caught tapping telephones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation_scandal
The right to privacy protects us from them, and sometimes them wear uniforms and think they're the good guys.
The people who voted for Cameron voted for less surveillance, Lib dems had the same policy. He may not have gotten enough seats to hold power on his own, but its clear what the voters wanted.
Who votes for more surveillance in the UK FFS! One of the most watched societies ever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance
Here's Cameron circa 2009:
"Conservatives unveil plans to reduce the surveillance state"
http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/4020/conservatives-unveil-plans-to-reduce-the-surveillance-state/
Here's Theresa May now in full toerag mass surveillance marketing mode:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4235581/Terrorism-debate-Are-GCHQ-set-to-spy-on-you.html
"Only suspected terrorists, paedophiles or serious criminals will be investigated."
So which are you? A terrorist, pedo or serious criminal? The law requires your data logged, so you're one of them.
Reminds me of RIPA, now they have half a million warrantless secret data requests a year. And the police proposed fix for that is to make the count of RIPA requests a secret.
You can argue that people didn't vote for Cameron to be in charge, but nobody voted for the police to run the country!
There's a petition against this policy for UK residents. It's proving rather popular.
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/stop-government-snooping
Yeah, accountability and excessively broad access are the issues. The law pitched in Parliament as bring anti-terrorist/pedo is invariably used for fishing and for more mundane offences. The power is bound to be abused. It's like issuing AR-15s for fighting terrorists, and finding out that done local council twonk has ordered a bunch for their benefits fraud department.
Laws of this kind must be very narrowly defined in terms of reasons for requests and the people who can make them. There should be regular disclosure of who is making these requests and the crimes for which requests are being made. Individuals should be able to know if they've been snooped upon, the types of data obtained and the reasons for this.
Fine to set a time limit here, that can be extended by the judiciary (if it would jeopardize an active investigation that is reasonably expected to lead to charges), but not complete secrecy or unreasonably long periods of secrecy.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
I guess you are not from the UK because that isn't how it works here.
When you become a suspect the police will take away all your computers, phones, discs, memory cards, games consoles, basically anything with a processor or memory in it. You won't get them back for at least a few months, but typically a year or two is common. When you get them back they will likely have been broken and any storage formatted or returned to factory settings.
A friend of mine was accused of sending death threats to some crazy person, so they interviewed him and took his phone for a month to check for the text messages he was alleged to have sent. When he finally got the phone back his messages had all been wiped. Massive disruption to his life, no compensation, no action against the accuser who was clearly lying. They also took his fingerprints and DNA which will be stored forever.
Basically the police want an easy life and don't care how much it screws up yours. There is no protection for the accused, if your life is destroyed and business fails... well, too bad, can't inconvenience the police with, you know, police work and investigations.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC