Slashdot Mirror
The UK Is About to Legalize Mass Surveillance [Update] (vice.com)
From a report on Motherboard: On Tuesday, the UK is due to pass its controversial new surveillance law, the Investigatory Powers Act, according to the Home Office. The Act, which has received overwhelming support in both the House of Commons and Lords, formally legalizes a number of mass surveillance programs revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013. It also introduces a new power which will force internet service providers to store browsing data on all customers for 12 months. Civil liberties campaigners have described the Act as one of the most extreme surveillance laws in any democracy, while law enforcement agencies believe that the collection of browsing data is vital in an age of ubiquitous internet communications. "The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 will ensure that law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies have the powers they need in a digital age to disrupt terrorist attacks, subject to strict safeguards and world-leading oversight," a statement from the Home Office reads. Much of the Act gives stronger legal footing to the UK's various bulk powers, including "bulk interception," which is, in general terms, the collection of internet and phone communications en masse. In June 2013, using documents provided by Edward Snowden, The Guardian revealed that the GCHQ taps fibre-optic undersea cables in order to intercept emails, internet histories, calls, and a wealth of other data. Update: "Snooper's charter" bill has become the law. The home secretary said:"The Investigatory Powers Act is world-leading legislation, that provides unprecedented transparency and substantial privacy protection. "The government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement and security and intelligence services have the power they need to keep people safe. The internet presents new opportunities for terrorists and we must ensure we have the capabilities to confront this challenge. But it is also right that these powers are subject to strict safeguards and rigorous oversight."
If you're sending anything important in plain text over the Internet these days, you're as good as asking the government to read it.
It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of civil society :)
... at least until they legalize mass-less surveillance too.
The silver lining in all this, is the UK will still have a better broadband experience than Americans.
Folks from the UK better not look at this page as it may contain keywords not approved by their overlords. You from the UK and already got this page open? Too late. So sad. You are now on a list...well, maybe 30+ of them since virtually all bureaucratic groups there can get a sniff of what you are doing now. Maybe it is better this way anyway - the elite absolutely worship the China model so I guess it is only natural to force the rest of civilization back several hundred years of civil progress.
FBI and NSA Poised to Gain New Surveillance Powers Under Trump
All because you sheeple want to feel safe.
"People want to be slaves" - Academy Award nominated director I work out with.
Face it, the people don't want to really be free. They want to feel safe above all else. They are so afraid of terrorism when the fact is they are most likely to die from complications of their obesity or from a car accident because they were distracted while they were updating their facebook page.
Encrypt everything! ... They may be able to crack the encryption in the end but it will make their lives much, much, much more difficult.
...when guns are illegal. They wouldn't dare do mass surveillance in the US because gun owners would overthrow the government. Right? Right?
If there was any company out there that was not convinced that leaving the EU would make Great Britain THE BEST place to operate, this mass surveillance move will surely do the trick. Which company doesn't love government officials having access to its trade secrets?
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
We'll make great pets
Whilst we simultaneously whinge about dictatorships and how evil they are we slowly become one...
but the NHS, Food Standards Agency, and a number of WTFs can access this data.
You will also notice the extreme-left BBC not covering it, nether is the far right; in facts it's merely hidden away wherever you look.
Furthermore, once it's collected, you can be damn sure it will be sold. Anyone doubting this should consider the DVLA, whose data was extremely and would lead to jail terms if you improperly used it, can now be purchased.
They have already banned the displaying of their own flag (Where and when it might offend a Muslim), Imported a 68% rise in crime, allowed a 6000% increase in RAPE, and hired a Muslim Mayor for London. The UK belongs to the Muslim Nation now... Its lost.
They do it with bees.
Look, I know my browsing will be in a huge database that nobody will look at it... for now. But if this year has taught all of us anything it is that things change. If you take these powers, whoever is in power in the future can abuse them. Everyone, no matter how good intentioned, should think about how those powers might be abused in the future.
I think this is something that will ultimately hurt a lot of innocent people in the UK over the coming years.
However, it will also help the Internet mature with new encryption and canary protocols, and more ubiquitous deployment of them, to ensure privacy and protection from all threats.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Apart from the profound consequences of the subtle chilling effect on consumption and generation of information, which is tragic, it seems inevitable that hackers will gain full and ongoing access to all of this data (given how widely within government departments this information will be made available). Individuals motivated by personal interests, operating within government or in business or in criminal organizations, will find this collected information valuable. The establishment of this surveillance mechanism will ironically putting the UK public at great risk from the very kinds of threats it was intended to help prevent, much like putting backdoors to encryption products exposes users to the risk of exploitation from anyone in the world.
You assume that politicians are doing the will of the people. That is incorrect. This is the government increasing the governments powers while spreading FUD to justify their actions to the populace.
What does safety have to do with it? This country was fairly safe before the internet age of mass surveillance and fairly safe after (with the occasional incident of course). Surveillance didn't save Jo Cox from a terrorist act did it?
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions...
The law doesn't change anything. They've already been doing all this stuff for years, and more probably since its not been under any control.
At least now its out in the open and controlled/limited by visible laws. And now that its out in the open people can start viably fighting against it.
The UK government has centuries of paternalism - for the most part, people WANT to be taken care of. They moved from a monarchy to socialism, either way, someone else is making the decisions for the little people, and they're ok with that.
The US government was build because the US was done with paternalism, but age, laziness, and rot have set in, swinging it the other way. In another generation or two, things like universal income, free healthcare and free education will feel like "rights", at which point the citizens of the US will vote away the remainder of their rights just like the people in the UK did.
I think if citizens dropped enough FOI requests on this, would not be long before wheels fall off at various levels.
Freedom of speech was blocked in the UK sometime ago. Now, with this intrusive surveillance in place, freedom of association, perhaps even freedom of thought, is on the way out. Soon, the government will know everything about everyone in the UK. I wouldn't want to live there.
Where's Guy Fawkes when you need him?
It was illegal, they still did it.
Look what they did to Turing, the man won WWII for gods sake, they still couldn't leave him alone.
They will never stop.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Indeed, and you might notice that Franklin was one of the founding fathers of a country specifically established to escape the tyranny of the British ruling class.
The UK has never had an American style democratic system. Despite pretending it does to the outside world, and going around trumpeting its special relationship with the USA like they are brothers in arms, the UK is still well and truly under the control of a pseudo-hereditary ruling class that is closely associated with ancestral land ownership. Until you live here (if you are from another country) it is hard to understand just how insidious it all is. For example, the great leader of the people, Winston Churchill, grew up in the fabulously extravagant Blenheim palace that his ancestors were gifted for their actions at the battle of Waterloo. Was he a great leader? Sure. But don't kid yourself that Britain selected the best man for the job in a sort of American hopes and dreams way. They simple had the ruling elite select the best of their mates at the London smoking club. You only have to look at the last government (the Bullingdon club crew) to see how the Eton system is still alive and well, and remarkably effective at controlling power.
I have lived here for five years now (originally from New Zealand) and it still just amazes me how many British working class people simply do not believe they can do things beyond their 'lot in life'. It is deeply ingrained into them that because, for example, they didn't go to Oxbridge, they are too dumb to understand any of this government stuff, so don't even try and just shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing they can do about it anyway. It is a sort of cultural deference to power that I do not think exists in any other western country.
Which kind? Roman or Anglican?
Mass surveillance is a necessary consequence of mass immigration from the Muslim world.
It's not a matter of IF but WHEN hackers start leaking embarrassing information on the Royals and members of the government, all collected as part of this program, that their tune may change.
Until then, the "Free world" seems to be engaged in a race to Orwell's vision of Big Brother.
I don't know what it is, but it resembles NOTHING like a democracy. It's more like a dictatorship, where those in power have the ability to crush descent as well as the terrorist.
Pray they don't start wanting more power, because you have already relinquished your ability to stop them.
Speaking as a person living in post-soviet country, you British need to step up your game. This is shameful. Organize protests (Madan), challenge public powers. Maybe It's time to start constitutional movement in Britain.
The fact is, islam is incompatible with Western civilization, and they are driven to impose their values (sharia) with violence. If you want mass muslem immigration, you need a surveillance state to keep them from mass murdering you.
They'll just raise your taxes and buy more computing power with your money if they need to. But they probably won't need to.
In the contest between armor and weapons, armor always ends up losing. In this case, you have to recognize that at both ends of the communication, the information is unencrypted. Consequently, if they want you, and you have hardened the communication using encryption, they probably won't even try to compromise the communication. They'll compromise one or more of the computers at the endpoints of the communication. Unless your computer is running your own custom operating system, there isn't anything you can do to stop them short of disconnecting from the communications networks, which kind of puts a damper on your communications capabilities and so is actually a rather obvious form of footgun in that regard.
The right answer is to get the opposition to stop shooting at you.
In this case, the right answer is to get the government out of the business of tracking the citizen's locations, finances, business, and communications.
If that can't be accomplished, then the citizens lose. Period.
The situation here in the USA is dire. The politicians have actually convinced people that it's a good thing that they monitor their banking, their business, their communications, their location, etc. The politicians created and used many forms of hugely-blown-out-of-proportion hysterical narratives to get that accomplished. Today, the average citizen is an Orwellian-class dupe. There's no sign at all that this is going to change.
Security today depends on never sharing anything with anyone. Outside of that, you either are already, or can be at any time, compromised by state agents fully empowered to do so. Not authorized, mind you -- this is exercise of arrogated power I'm describing -- but that no longer matters, which is another severe problem we have been presented with.
And on that cheerful note... :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
On the contrary. Tempest
Those high-energy electron guns... very handy for surveillance of any part of the masses one chooses, as it turned out. Of course there were many other mechanisms in play at the time.
Today, a computer running linux, OS X, or Windows connected to the Internet is far better. It's like DVDA for your data. Leaves your data-legs split open like a thanksgiving turkey. They don't need to compromise you carrying the turkey around, either. They're sitting right at your dinner table with you.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
And they are now taking another little step toward fascism. In lockstep with the US. Welcome to the 30s.
I don't think you understand that what Franklin meant one way, we can mean entirely another -- both can be sincere, and both uses are entirely appropriate. Nothing is lost by attributing the quote, either.
The stance that personal liberty and immunity from government oversight of personal and consensual activities is a good thing, and that trading these off for (generally the illusion of, but very occasionally the actuality of) safety is an act so vile that it renders the trader unworthy of those liberties and immunity, is a very well established one. Franklin's words then fit such an outlook today very well, regardless of what he intended them to mean at the time.
Words are like that. When we aren't talking about law, words are tools to be used as we see fit. As they should be.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
formally legalizes a number of mass surveillance programs revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013.
Ladies and gentlemen, time traveling has been proved! The only other alternative is that the government officials did something illegal. Expect for the officers showing up at your door steps duly as the arrest backlog eases.
They just do it anyway, from secret courts (i.e. kangaroo, rubber stamps that produce only documents and do what they're told).
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199
Some of us are more equal than the rest of us exemptions for MPs, Doctors and Lawyers??
And the most insane and huge list of groups being given access https://yiu.co.uk/blog/who-can-view-my-internet-history/
Everyone in the UK should be fighting this draconian fascist complete invasion into such a huge part of our lives - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199
Captcha - consent
I feel so sorry for this person.
German law before 1933 did not include provisions that allowed a single man, Adolf Hitler, to consolidate military power around himself. This british law reminds me of this enabling act, if history repeats itself - I would start speaking out against UK government.\
The problem is not correctly posed as "nobody will look at it." This isn't a people problem.
What "looks at it" is computer systems, programmed to look at it. What a human would consider "lost in a sea of data", a computer will have no trouble finding, characterizing, and reporting back as "this is the data you were looking for" to any interested inquiry, perfectly formatted for immediate use / subsequent action.
So the day they make your particular fetish or recreational substance / entertainment / political stance / religion / etc. a crime, that data will immediately identify you as a vulnerable citizen. Now it comes down to what use can be made of you. Porn sweep to impress the mommies? A little pressure to get you to do X or Y? Filling the need for unpaid slave labor in prison factories? Soylent green? (I hate that damned movie, but...)
In the US, the constitution explicitly forbids -- both to the federal government and that of the states -- going back in time and making crimes out of actions that were not crimes at the time, or increasing punishment along the same lines. These are the "ex post facto" provisions. In recent decades, a spate of such laws have been crafted and put into broad use, treating the constitutional prohibitions as irrelevant. Generally the mechanism used has been sophistry ("You absolutely will not sell hamburgers" ... "Why, that's not a hamburger! That's a ground beef sandwich!" ... "Okay then, carry on.") and pandering to intentionally crafted, hysteria-induced mommy fear (Terrorists! Drugs! Think of the children!), which is often spiced with not-very-subtle appeals to jingoism, superstition, and classist notions.
Unless the citizens can control the government, a capability US citizens no longer have, this kind of cancerous spreading of unauthorized and forbidden exercise of power is very likely. Your data stashed in some database today renders you vulnerable to any part or parcel of perfidy by any state actor. The only sure way to prevent this is to keep your data out of these databases in the first place. And it looks like you've forfeited that option. Sorry.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Before: GCHQ watches everything you do, and keeps quiet about it.
After: GCHQ watches everything you do, and keeps as quiet as possible about it.
I have always assumed that everything I do on the Internet and, indeed, everything I say on the phone might turn up to haunt me if I bother the Powers that be too much. This sad reality is distasteful. The spooks believe that their job is to watch everyone, all the time, and that is what they do, legally or otherwise.
Because "crime" is not an adequate discriminator for "bad."
Just a few obvious examples over time: Helping a slave escape from slavery was a crime. Using a fountain while being black was a crime. Having various types of wholly consensual and informed sex has been a crime. Using various drugs is a crime. Going naked in public is often a crime. There are many more examples like these.
None of which rise to the level of "bad", except inasmuch as they demonstrate the government is bad.
And that is why if you know of a crime, if you are a decent human being, you would definitely not report it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I don't believe for a second that an individual would deliberately "oppress themselves". Common sense tells me that oppression, in any form, must come from the top down, not the bottom up. Oppression, like any relationship based on coercion, involves an aggressor and a victim, and obviously, they can't possibly be the same person.
...an alarm bell went off at GCHQ... By commenting on this story, it was listened to...
Safety is the excuse sold to the ignorant. They suck it down, just like everything else they're sold in the UK. e.g. "leaving the EU will make the brown people go away".
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
How are ISPs supposed to get browsing history when all of the web traffic is encrypted? The best you can do is domain via SNI/public key transferred in the clear during handshake. Practically speaking you won't really get much more granularity out of that v. netflow.
Just not directly by the government but by corporations. Anyone here use Alexa or Google's "Google Home"? Then you are being spied on and all your internet browsing done through those devices is being recorded and saved. Not at some government data warehouse but at some corporate data warehouse. So the government just needs to ask for this info when ever they want it.
I don't see the point in installing cameras in Catholic churches.
Church of Elvis maybe...
They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
The US is legalising weed and all the bloody UK gets is free surveillance. Welcome to the UKSSR.
As opposed to Bill Clinton, Kennedy, etc... who are actually documented as womanizers?
While they may be womanizers, they do so with consenting adults (alt-right lies about Clinton notwithstanding).
You are engaged in a false dichotomy, equating Donald Trump's sexual assaults, rape, and intimidation of accusers with men who simply cheated on their spouses.
But then you know this, don't you, you piece of utter alt-right shit.
New Internet. Start it now.
The internet has been destroyed. Not by nuclear weapons, but by internal actors.
Pull the important stuff off of here and build a new one that's distributed. It'll be slower, sure, but with the computing power most of us have in our pockets we could probably make a good go of it.
-
"England Prevails"?
I say .. if they want to collect every URL I visit.. let them.. in fact we should ALL help them by making sure we utilise our bandwidth effectively while away from our computers by visiting as much stuff on the internet as possible.. perhaps running our own search engine indexing robots.. eventually the exabytes worth of data we generate will cause someone somewhere some pain...
Zoom out the lens a bit, and the larger problem becomes rather evident, which is trying to convince the masses to give a shit enough about privacy to execute even a single extra click of effort to protect their communications. This also speaks as to how easily something blatantly called the "Snoopers Charter" still passed with arrogant colors, flying in the face of the Snowden revelations. I fully expect the next bill to be simply titled Fuck You, That's Why, with pure ignorance greasing the approval skids.
To encrypt, or not encrypt?
On one hand I would say that Governments have plenty of lemmings to siphon cleartext data from, potentially minimizing your target risk.
On the other hand, a privacy zealot/encryption fan stands out like a sore thumb without raising the give-a-shit factor, potentially painting a target on your back.
What I don't understand is how this is legal, considering that EVERYTHING that occurs on the internet, is the result of private contractual agreements between pairs of parties.
You have a contract with your ISP. There's your network, and there's your ISPs network. Your ISP has an agreement with a number of datacenters and a number of backbone providers. etc etc, all the way to the other side of the internet to the third party your packets are going to/from.
Nowhere on the internet is "public". It only FEELS like it is, because all these contracts allow both you and me to get to Slashdot, despite the two of us having a completely unrelated maze of private contracts and services connecting us together.
Technially, underneath it all, the internet is no different than the first two private entities that decided to lease a phone line between them. What right does anyone have to intercede in that without any specific claimed wrongdoing on either entities part?
( Plebs have no idea how everything works, and it feels like they're standing in a crowd on a public park or city street ... so their rationalization is wrong right from the get go. )
Mass mind control propaganda networks create the environment you speak of (CNN, MSNBC, Foxnews, ABC, CBS)
Would it help here?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"The Investigatory Powers Act is world-leading legislation"
If by that you mean "Leading the world into totalitarianism and a perpetual police state"
They specifically disallowed GCHQ email tracking for all Commons Lords and PMO originating electronic traffic.
So, yes, you live in a Dictatorship, Lesser Britain
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
FOI would not be answered anymore. You can't fight the State.
While it may sound pedantic, there is no such thing as a British/UK citizen. The correct definition is a British subject.
The police should be fighting against this.
This bill along with the actions of other western governments has hurried the use of strong competent encryption in our daily lives. Soon all my traffic will be over TLS, everyone's searches will by default all be done on secure servers out of reach of legitimate law enforcement. Now with this law us geeks will not only start using VPNs and onion routing more but we will teach our friends to do it. In a few years any idiotic criminal will be using encryption that will make it impossible for the police to discover their communication.
If "they" want to save browsing history, let's give them a lot to save.
have a browser add on, that generates random searches and picks words from those random searches and continues to search.
after a random number of additional searches, it clears cache and starts again.
with this running in the background, every user will generate 100x times the data.
and your searches will be in this mess..
1) invest in storage companies
2) make program
3) profit when the government has to buy tons more storage.
If there is any chance in hell at fixing what we've gotten ourselves into it's going to take activists coming together to overthrow the shackles that the US, UK, and every other government is putting on us. We need to migrate enough people who care about these issues to overthrow the powers that be. Right now there is still an opportunity to create a bastion of freedom, but the time is running out.
The reason the early Free State Project participants picked New Hampshire was because the state provided the best chance of attracting sufficient people that those who care about these issues will eventually be able to dominate politics in the state. New Hampshire is a bit better than many states already, is situated to be independent of the federal government, is wealthy, cost of living is low, etc. That doesn't mean (especially initially) that those who wish to be free are going to dominate New Hampshire. However are already having an impact on elections in the state and the politics thereof. There is no where you can move in New Hampshire today that there aren't lots of early movers (people who arrived before the kick off of the migration, which started in March of this year).
You don't need a revolution to have a major impact, even if that is ultimately the dream of a majority of people partaking in the moment. The majority of people in prison have been incarcerated by the state and while the federal government can have the most detrimental impact it's the state's doings that impact the most number of people. This is why cannabis legalization has worked. The federal government might have the most sophisticated systems, but the state governments have the most number of officers that actually arrest and incarcerate people.
You can make excuses for why you can't move. From "it's hard" and "I like where I am at" and "I have a good job/kids/etc". You can say "the civil war settled state independence" totally ignoring that 100 years have past and political / revolution can take different forms and be won in different ways. You can say "I just bought a house. I can't move.". Well, so have a lot of other people. I bought a house three years ago and moved last year. I sold a house and bought a new one in New Hampshire. Yes. Moving is hard, but there are lots of people doing it. The more people that move the more impact we'll be able to have and the movement itself has already proven a success- so come and join us. Unless of course you like censorship, mass surveillance, and living under a police state. I don't want to be a slave to the state. I don't think the state should setup wealth redistribution programs (welfare should be charity rather than theft via taxes) or thrust taxes upon people so high that they become dependant on the state to indoctrinate there children through public 'schooling'. I don't think the government should have any authority over whether or not you can work (start a business, become a hair dresser, etc) nor be giving people permission for people to utilize the roads under the guise of 'safety' (drivers licenses, license plates, vehicular registration, car insurance). The world is a dangerous place- but for freedom to really exist you must be willing to accept these risks. New Hampshire doesn't mandate car insurance and the world hasn't fallen apart. We even outlawed cameras and ALPR for a while and the world didn't fall apart (automatic license plate recognition)!
Once it is collected this information will either be too tempting not to be used or will be used to justify the cost of collecting it. Your browsing history will mined to quantify you. So maybe your exact details won't be revealed but information inferred by your habits will be used. The surveillance will reveal your income level, your likelihood to gamble, use a prostitute, voter preference and likelihood to vote, your children's likelihood to succeed in school. Companies will then selectively choose not to offer you products, government might not invest in infrastructure in your area because they might deem your area unlikely to elect their candidate, programs won't be offered at your school because another school has kids with a higher aptitude for those programs.
This is nothing to do with terrorism and all about control! The internet allows the people to communicate, share, learn and oppose. Not something the government generally wants - this is about monitoring the population, detecting trends, silencing opposition and influencing thought.
Leading the world to where?
Soooooo, what would stop a 'coalition' of the US and the UK from abusing this to their hearts content? All the UK as to do is set up a datacenter in the UK embassy in the US, and the US to ask telcos and ISPs to route traffic through it. Just like that, two democracies that can spy on it's citizens at will and completely 'legal'.
"Powers. I have them."
Does this law prevent people from not using the internet to do whatever? Exactly.
Every major computer processor and SoC your personal information goes through (if bought after LGA77x for Intel, Fam15h/AM4/FM2+ for AMD, or anything with TrustZone for ARM) is already under manufacturer/OEM control. Most of them have DRM provisions that can allow software to trap into 'trusted' mode to verify if you're deemed 'privileged' to use them, and will only work if an unbroken chain of trust exists in the devices. There are also known exploits in at least one implementation from each company which can allow a non-manufacturer/government malicious 3rd party to gain temporary privileged access to the system, giving greater than owner level permissions to the system, including snooping on memory, trusted keys, derandomizing your random number generator, etc.
The internet surveillance is just a small step towards ubiquitous government control of your personal devices, and logging of your personal activities or private information, even information you believed secure from prying eyes, whether mundane or a 'threat to the health and welfare of the country'.
If any of you are not the sort of sheeple you often complain about, now is the time to make a stand and put your money where your mouth is. Stop buying hardware you don't control from chip bootstrap up. If you are buying a piece of hardware with TrustZone style management functions, ensure those functions are not signed by the manufacturer or OEM and have mechanisms in place for you to program keys yourself if desired.
There are many other steps that can be taken, but if the central hardware cannot be trusted, then every other mechanism is inherently compromised and not under your control.
Break free nerdizens before you are marched to the slaughter with all the other sheeple!
Look, it is not good but: it only collects TLDN. Any closer inspection requires two levels of legal agreement. Do not think the judiciary here is passive, it is not. I have heard everything here from the UK is a dictatorship to somehow we are fascists. It is a proposal/law by people that do not understand technology. All they have done is make the haystack bigger and forced people to hide the needle better. It will not do what it claims to: hey, we have all promised that tech will solve all your problems. It does not, and cannot.
It probably amounts to some of these problems:
1. The advisors to high ups in the government see China hacking the west, see terrorists being asses, and are scared. So they scared their bosses and recommend everything they can to monitor this crap.
2. They believe they are doing their job and "not really hurting" the people by monitoring everything. They think they can somehow catch the badguys... maybe sometimes they do, though I don't know if it makes a big enough difference.
3. They also are of course tricking the public into not thinking they are being violated... they say they are protecting. While yeah, I'd love terrorists and illegal porn (I don't even like the mention the type) people be stopped... it seems clear to me that we as a whole people are being violated in a huge way.
Somebody said it before. At least we can count on hackers getting the government's data and exposing them as the asshats they are. It cuts both ways.
In particular Catholic ones. They need surveillance otherwise the altar boys are in danger.
Let them have it.
Let them have it all. there won't be enough people left to buy their oil, products, tv subscriptions, drugs...
they thrive on opposition. Let the masses become poor and starved immediately. Let us turn to our neighbors, in need, and disrupt them from their Pro Sports broadcast and summer home in the mountains.
Let us finally simply give up and let the system exhaust itself. It thrives on suffering, so let us end the suffering with us.
The economy will grind to a screeching halt, hitting them exactly where it hurts. Let us do this before it is too late and too many of their profits come from a China, where they already have an obedient populace.
-
I hope you Brits at least invested heavily in your VPN company, not only the 3£ per month for their service, their business will go through the roof.
From TFA, quoting home secretary Amber Rudd:
The Investigatory Powers Act is world-leading legislation, that provides unprecedented transparency and substantial privacy protection.
She must think all UK residents are complete retards?!
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." -- George Orwell, 1984
1984 is here
and we are going to use all of them.
Use the Firefox Trackmenot extension to dilute your searches with random ones. Or even better have a daemon program performing searches in background all the time. The program could work by fetching a random page from a google query; then parsing the page and making a new query based on somne words found in that page. The longer the search strings the better because that's more storing space for the UK ISPs.
The Investigatory Powers Act is world-leading legislation, that provides unprecedented transparency and substantial privacy protection.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Wont be perfect but it will make their lives more difficult.
So does that mean nsc cia fbi can set up shop in England use the existing draconian laws passed by their Lordships and then go back down the pipe to the USA and use the same amount of spying the Brits do? They could always claim they were obeying British Law couldn't they?
It's real good your watching us. Real Good, Now wish em in the corn field Anthony..
Surveillance and investigation isn't so bad. The problem is the people doing it are corrupt, continuing to lie and deceive the public. The thing missing from the bill is the public can't investigate officials for abuse or crime, only the public are the targets and those working for the government are white listed to conceal the crime they wish and do whatever crime they wish. Its a true license to kill sort of thing.
The other thing is they forgot to disclose they were still secretly using satellites and military radar to scan peoples homes, brains, and bodies for thought and memory extraction. They also forgot to say they have remotely interrogated and tortured the fuck out of some people and even killed people secretly with it.
Those are the deepest secrets of this bill; the bill was passed mostly to cover up all the crime the state has done that they don't want prosecuted for and they don't want the public to ever find out the full truth.
I know the black world and special access programs well. I know they want to hide their surveillance capabilities because they can be used on officials to uncover their conspiracies and crime all of which are being covered up and protected.
Fix these issues then you got a bill.
https://www.obamasweapon.com/
https://www.drrobertduncan.com...
Do I misunderstand or are our own governments subjecting us to worse conditions than the terrorists ?
Feel free to chip in if you're a terrorist - is your every waking act taxed? Are you manipulated and lied-to from birth to death without pause? Leave your comments below.
Requiem for the American Dream
Didn't 007 already destroy this system? http://www.007.com/spectre/
Now only if add the ability to update as well as surveil. (And why does my browser marked surveil as misspelled? It is perfectly fine.)
Maybe I'll stop getting linkedin offers to "connect with "people you may know" that are dead.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
I think they will have one hell of a job on their hands, how many personnel are they going to employ to surveil it all. The amount of texts, phone calls, emails sent in a day is probably in the billions. They will need to target very precisely to get results as regards terrorism. The thing that bothers me is can we trust the surveillers, are they going to be totally trustworthy. For example they will have access to very sensitive material from government agencies, NHS, financial institutions, HMRC, banks, etc, which could be used for nefarious purposes. Insider trading comes to mind, the use of people's medical records, bank details, passwords, the list goes on. What safeguards will be in place to prevent misuse. Who supervises the supervisors?
...except for me and my monkey....
Have the English people been so cowed that they are letting this happen while they have unrepentant Sharia Jihadi Muslims living among them?