GCHQ Tried To Track Web Visits of "Every Visible User On Internet"
An anonymous reader writes with Ars Technica's story on the relevations reported today by The Intercept that the UK's GCHQ has been tracking World Wide Web users since 2007, with an operation called "Karma Police" -- "a program that tracked Web browsing habits of people around the globe in what the agency itself billed as the 'world's biggest' Internet data-mining operation, intended to eventually track 'every visible user on the Internet.'"
Well, at least they have good taste!
Considering the next lyrics in that song after "Karma Police" are... ..."Arrest this man".
I *totally* feel safer and more free already, and I don't even live under that regime.
Not that they couldn't just make one phone call across the pond and have whatever they want done to me in the dead of night with no trace. Yay freedom.
For all the snorting over Windows 10 and privacy... it is nothing compared to this nonsense...
And some people think, "oh, but I run Linux, so I'm safe!"
Yep, sure you are... :)
That sounds ridiculous. They should have used something with more of a verbal punch, perhaps recalling banditry and tracking on a live document.
All puns aside, the name is no more ridiculous than any bullshit justification for tracking "every visible user on the internet".
Yeah, go ahead three/four-letter agencies, I'd love to see what reasons you'll pull out of your ass for this one.
You know its getting a lot harder the tell the good guys from the bad guys, so much so I am not sure there is any meaningful difference.
Article suggests "does". The sequence will go as follows, or similar, looking at web site visits, search queries, benefitting from LE access to Facebook etc to see instant messages:
- genuine national security threats
- interest in Islamism
- anti-establishment politicians and their most powerful supporters
- all remaining politicians, to keep them in line
- high stakes economic criminals
- campaigners against government policy or government-friendly business
- the most dangerous suspects of crime, e.g. murderers
- people involved in distributing child pornography
- users of anonymising services
- people who view any pornography that doesn't pass regulations
- posters to prominent or troublesome political forums
- pirates, yarhh!
- posts to Grauniad CIF or BBC HYS
Eventually nearly everyone is either under suspicion of committing at least one crime or has said something which taken out of context looks dangerous enough to warrant further investigation should anyone want to make their lives miserable in the future. The rest have said or viewed something embarrassing enough that (you were depressed once and looked for help? Furry porno watched one curious weekend? A racist rant... oh, you were just trolling?), should they ever become relevant in any way, the media will somehow find out.
show under one roof. sucker born every minute.
You cannot accuse much less convict people for something they haven't done yet. Once you do that, we're at despotism and there's nothing stopping them from convicting you or me for whatever reason. The laws have already been pushed too far. Why do you think it's time to abandon them? How likely are you to die in a "terror" event?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
You cannot accuse much less convict people for something they haven't done yet. Once you do that, we're at despotism and there's nothing stopping them from convicting you or me for whatever reason. The laws have already been pushed too far. Why do you think it's time to abandon them? How likely are you to die in a "terror" event?
The whole point of the law is to ensure that everyone is guilty of something. That way, whenever you want to get some particular individual there is always something to catch him on.
You don't have to convict people for something they haven't done yet; theres always something they've done.
Why do you think there are so many laws and no one can be sure they aren't breaking one?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Just think of the possibilities if they had used all those resources for something useful instead of poking their noses into things that were none of their business in the first place!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
You cannot accuse much less convict people for something they haven't done yet. Once you do that, we're at despotism and there's nothing stopping them from convicting you or me for whatever reason.
Allow me to introduce you to "conspiracy to commit ____."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/se...
Yeah, go ahead three/four-letter agencies, I'd love to see what reasons you'll pull out of your ass for this one.
Advertising. Google tracks and profiles every visible user on the Internet. Do you use Google products or services?
Google is a corporation in the land of capitalism, with profit to create and manage, otherwise they no longer exist as a corporation. And for the intelligent computer user, they are already well aware that they are the product when they use Google.
Tell me again the bullshit reason any government agency needs to attempt to do the same thing, especially when that expense is paid for by the taxpayer.
The UK thinking on "would be far less far reaching than they are now and intelligence gathering could be much more targeted and effective." has evolved from the Ireland issues of small groups of people meeting without cell or set locations in the 1970-80's.
The solution was to track small groups of people down the the cell level and then offer each member a personal option: work for the UK intelligence services or not.
Over the years people where successfully advance up the cell structure exposing all existing and new cells they had command and control over.
Thats why the UK likes to watch everything and connect everything as it cannot be sure of how, where and when people of interest will meet and if they can even be observed without sat or other very costly and advanced platforms per person.
The "without further authorization" shows not much has changed from the 1920's or the classic Home Office Warrant (HOW) days. The pipes are fast, wide, always expanded as domestic and international data grows and collecting it all over every generation of optical upgrade.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I mean, if they've been watching since 2007 they've definitely seen me torrenting, but eventually they'd figure out I was just grabbing various Linux distros. That's gotta be a letdown.
Maybe we should all just keep seeding old and new versions of all the distros so GCHQ has something to keep themselves busy - they're obviously not interested in actually going out and tracking down terrorists.
#DeleteChrome
They only have issues with the government spying on them for some brainwashed libertarian reason.
Corporations spying, that's fine.. they've bought into the koolaid advertising and marketing that these corps can do no evil.
I'm sure if the government had the same marketing capabilities as say, Apple, people would be signing up to hand over their data, and would even wear some device that gave permission for the government to track them 24/7. Now think about that iWatch on their wrists.
saying bad things about the poofs is not terrorism. Its just bulling at worst, trolling at best. There's a difference between discussion and actively trying to physically damage people.
Maybe that's the line to draw, in which case we'd never arrest anyone until after they'd killed a load of people, but maybe that's the price we pay for your attitude towards theses criminal's liberties.
For me terrorism is telling people what they should do, bullying them into submission with constant attacks on their views. All the time ignoring the tricky question of what we can do to protect innocent citizens from terror attacks while still respecting civil liberties.
The word "terrorist" has a clear-cut and unambiguous definition. A terrorist is someone who deliberately and intentionally targets and attacks non-combatant civilians to further his political goals.