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."
It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of civil society :)
... at least until they legalize mass-less surveillance too.
Governments have the power to get root certificates in which case they can man-in-the-middle anything that relies on this, which is a hell of a lot of software. Browsers being the most prominent but tons of software depends on X509 certs with globally trusted roots.
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?
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
We'll make great pets
Would it then be illegal to utilize an encryption protocol that you invented yourself? How would they even know, particularly if your encryption protocol has a layer of steganography?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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
Who cares what you send, they know how you think because an algorithm looks at the web sites you visit and decides which box you belong in. It must be a right pain switching all the Russian site readers out of the terrorist box and moving all the Arab news site readers in to replace them to align with Trump. Expect Tor and VPN to be made illegal shortly.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
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.
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 has advertisement free web viewing ?
And their websites don't occasionally have a script that pegs the cpu and makes the browser a sluggish mess ?
Really, 'broadband experience' has little do with connection speed once you pass 5mbit unless the website is horribly bloated.
To keep slightly on topic, if surveillance and logging is noticeable to the common citizen, then they are doing it wrong.
Talking about putting people in boxes. If you use Tor, expect the government to be looking at you a little closer. Surely you must have something to hide if you have Tor.
It's like putting a box in the break room with a note saying "do not peak" written on it. Everyone is going to open the box. Use Tor and the government is going to want to see what you're doing.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
That has always been the case, for hundreds of years
You and I don't need to invent anything. We can create our own encryption keys, exchange them, and securely communicate.
The problem is the HTTPS infrastructure is broken by design, which is what the original poster was talking about.
The absolute irony is that visiting a site with a self-signed certificate shows the user a warning error (I understand why, don't worry) yet the resulting HTTPS exchange is actually immune to any and all eavesdropping. When visiting a site with a cert authority signed certificate, no error is displayed, yet this connection is vulnerable to anyone who has broken/intercepted the chain of trust. This includes state actors, but also businesses, and anyone that can get their certs onto your system, or can influence the signing authorities to give them the keys.
At this point some rabid net admin for a large corporation will chime in with "it's my network" etc... but the point is that we have been training users for years to interpret HTTPS as being "secure" and "safe" when it actually isn't. Just like we have been encouraging users to update Windows, yet now Microsoft have broken that trust with their forced updates and broken/mislabeled updates. The internet is currently broken and indeed has been broken maliciously by state actors. Are we going to just accept that as "good enough" and live with it? What exactly was so terrible about the internet in 1990 or 2000, before the NSA got their hooks in and started fucking everything up?? Can we point to a global reduction in crime, violence, terrorism, or child pornography, due to the valliant efforts of the NSA and similar outfits abroad?
At the **very very least** prior to this bill in the UK passing, anyone with half a mind should take note of the current state of UK society and crime. In ten years time, once the full ramifications of these new laws come to pass, look around again and make a comparison. My prediction, for what it's worth, is everything will be exactly the same (in which case what was the point?) or it will be much much worse.
It starts Thursday in the US: (From Techdirt)
the DOJ wants permission to break into "compromised" computers and poke around inside them without the permission or knowledge of the owners of these computers. It also wants to treat anything that anonymizes internet users or hides their locations to be presumed acts of a guilty mind.
Everyone has something to hide, whether they use Tor or not. Quite literally, everyone. Having something to hide, however, does not mean that one is doing or has done anything wrong, it only means that they want something to be private,
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You cannot defend someone if they say 'Yes, I did it'. Like any other citizen, you cannot conceal knowledge of crime, or do you think lawyers are above these laws? Clue: they are not
It has been happening apace ever since the end of the cold war. Extremely disappointing to discover all that rhetoric against the evils of communism was just rhetoric now that capitalism can get away with the same behavior.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
The BBC has multiple stories on this. Maybe you should dislodge your head from your ass?
From here:
Blogger Chris Yiu compiled a list of the 48 organisations and departments that will be able to access the browsing records of individuals without a warrant.
They include various police, military, government and NHS departments as well as the Food Standards Agency, the Gambling Commission, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Health and Safety Executive.
I found this article in about 20 seconds.
There are multiple exceptions to attorney-client priviledge in the US as well, but don't let pesky things like "facts" get in your way.
wow, you clearly have never been here. If you have no facts or experience, a blind ignorance helps.
The absolute irony is that visiting a site with a self-signed certificate shows the user a warning error (I understand why, don't worry) yet the resulting HTTPS exchange is actually immune to any and all eavesdropping. When visiting a site with a cert authority signed certificate, no error is displayed, yet this connection is vulnerable to anyone who has broken/intercepted the chain of trust
Not quite. Both connections are entirely safe from passive eavesdropping. Even if I've compromised a root cert that you're using, that doesn't let me decrypt TLS traffic. It does mean that if I am actively performing a man in the middle attack on you, then you won't notice, because during the initial key exchange you'll connect to me and establish a secure connection and I'll connect to the remote server and establish a secure connection. You'll trust me because I'll use a cert signed by one that I trust. The difference between this and a self-signed cert is that when the server uses a self-signed cert, there's no need for me to compromise a root cert that you trust: I can still perform the MITM attack and you won't know the difference.
Certificate pinning protects you from this to a degree: If you connect to a server twice and the certificate changes, then there may be a problem. On the other hand, there might not be, and with a self-signed cert, you can't revoke it if it's compromised and you can't easily advertise the fact that this is a replacement cert from the same person (unless you properly self-sign, rather than simply not signing, and people pin your signing cert).
Certificate transparency protects in both cases, by providing a public log of all of the certificates that have been seen by people connecting to the server. If the server operator sees a cert that they didn't issue, or if you see a cert that's not the same one that other people are seeing, then something is wrong.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Er, that sounds like a good thing to me. If you know of a crime, why would you not report it?
I'm not disagreeing with your statement. I'm just saying, by going out of your way to hide, "the man" is going to want to snoop all that much more- they're going to jump to assumptions. That's what the man does.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I only live here because English food is so darn good.
"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.
it only means that they want something to be private
Yeah I think you're missing the central axiom here. Stanly G-Man doesn't really know if your Tor is "Hey I just want to privately watch my squid fetish" or if it is "Hey here's the blueprints for where to put the bomb." Seeing how they'll tend to look similar at cursory glance. So if you do have something you want to hide, because it's just easier to assume you are the next bin Laden in waiting and then breathe the customary/belittling sigh of relief where you are not, they'll just go ahead and sit in on that tentacle scene with you.
Mass surveillance is a necessary consequence of mass immigration from the Muslim world.
I couldn't directly tell from the page you linked to. How do they define "compromised"?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
Yes, there has. I posted a BBC article from yesterday that even states the very same things the GP claims they are trying to hide. Pesky "facts".
' becomes aware of a crime committed by a client' that was your post, if you become aware of a crime, you have to report it. I am not sure what your point was, it is the same in the USA
You've never watched the BBC, have you?
You are welcome on my lawn.
But you're bringing facts into this. The BBC is clearly trying to hide this story. Oh wait...
'Snoopers' charter' petition hits signatures target
'Snoopers law creates security nightmare'
He has, just from a chair over in the far right of the room.
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.
Most websites are bloated (looks suspiciously at /.), so yeah it will help. Faster the average the speeds get, the more bloated websites become, unless you choose to browse the slimmed down mobile version.
The point of using a box and encouraging others to do so is both privacy and let them know "it's not ok to snoop on me". The larger the "This person is using VPN" box to tick is the less you can assume about it.
How do they define "compromised"?
Windows 10?
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.
Governments have the power to get root certificates in which case they can man-in-the-middle anything that relies on this, which is a hell of a lot of software. Browsers being the most prominent but tons of software depends on X509 certs with globally trusted roots.
Huh??? a certificate signed by a CA contains only the public key so unless your certificate authority generated your private key for you and stored it the root certificate won't do the NSA a damn bit of good.
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.
They just rely on root certificates for authentication of public web pages. People rely on them when they don't have any other way of exchanging keys. They don't make the cryptographic protocols or keys themselves insecure.
I feel so sorry for this person.
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.
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.
...an alarm bell went off at GCHQ... By commenting on this story, it was listened to...
The whole idea that this has anything to do with combating terrorism is just the Big Lie. It is about power. Terrorism and children are just the justification for the feeble minded and ignorant.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
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.
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.
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.
The trick is to make the oppressed actually want the oppression. Do this, and you can very easily have the people oppress themselves, and cheer as it happens.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The US is legalising weed and all the bloody UK gets is free surveillance. Welcome to the UKSSR.
And with all this HTTPS everywhere malarkey
I call bullshit on you. The EFF's HTTPS-Everywhere is not "malarkey".
I don't know if you're trying to imply that HTTPS-Everywhere forces people to use HTTPS (it doesn't) and that therefor more people are self-signing certs which is would somehow be bad (it isn't)... I can only guess, because your post reads like buzzword bingo, and seems quite intent on undermining confidence in encrypting.
bull SHIT, brother.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Hey, wank-stain, that's not the UK site. Perhaps if you weren't so far up your own shitter, you'd know the difference. Fucking moronic yank. Furthermore, fcuktard, it's also hidden deep in the "tech" section, where no one but dweebs would look - not on the front page where the nation would find it, twat. Add to that you had to find it, you knew about it first, smeg for breath.
Just a general remark: it is a sad time when we are even have to discuss this. I agree, if you use Tor you must be doing something wrong: that is the default position and also, expect our governments to be monitoring it.
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.
-
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.
Hey, wank-stain, that's not the UK site.
UK site version. Thanks for playing.
Perhaps if you weren't so far up your own shitter, you'd know the difference.
Both sites have the exact same article. So what is supposed to be the difference?
Furthermore, fcuktard, it's also hidden deep in the "tech" section, where no one but dweebs would look - not on the front page where the nation would find it, twat. Add to that you had to find it, you knew about it first, smeg for breath.
Those goalposts sure are flying down the pitch. Keep flailing though.
While they may be womanizers, they do so with consenting adults (alt-right lies about Clinton notwithstanding)
So the idea that Bill Clinton lost his license to practice law for obstructing justice and perjuring himself during a sexual harassment lawsuit is just a lie?
Not that I think that gives Trump a pass, FWIW. "Everybody is doing it" isn't a valid excuse for wrongdoing.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
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! --
I call bullshit on you. The EFF's HTTPS-Everywhere is not "malarkey".
I don't know if you're trying to imply that HTTPS-Everywhere forces people to use HTTPS (it doesn't) and that therefor more people are self-signing certs which is would somehow be bad (it isn't)... I can only guess, because your post reads like buzzword bingo, and seems quite intent on undermining confidence in encrypting.
bull SHIT, brother.
Honestly I fundamentally don't get any of this. It makes no logical sense to me.
Let's encrypt (LE) runs some kind of agent that does some voodoo to automatically renew certs on a quarterly basis.
Commercial cert providers that cost what $10/yr allow you to put something in a folder on your unsecured website to verify possession. LE does essentially the same thing programmatically depending on responses from *unsecured* protocols.
All of these systems depend on totally unsecured communications channels to build trust which on it's face makes about as much sense as asking a liar if they are being truthful. Nothing about the current system makes sense to me.
If certs want to be free why not just let them be free without requiring these weird agents and piecemeal expiry periods? What's the point in that?
What EFF and others should have done was work to build consensus to move CA function to the domain registrars / make DANE usable and put an end to this senseless, redundant, counterproductive and dangerous system of CA's we have today.
What they did instead was make CA's even more dangerous by forcing them to compete with free.
Also, I given to understand that the entire thing can by bypassed by using a VPN. Not that the vast majority of people affected by this will use a VPN, simply because they don't have the requisite knowledge.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
i agree
now please send me your credit card number, its expiry date and ccd code.
plus the login details to your bank.
or just maybe.
the only ones with nothing to hide are those with nothing to lose. Aka the terrorista.
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.
Jenny Tutone
8675309 8675309
09/2019
125
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
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.
I don't see the point in installing cameras in Catholic churches. Church of Elvis maybe...
Think of the children! How many alter boys would benefit from have mass surveillance?
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.
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.
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.
Which part of his statement was incorrect? I recall the Guardian being forced to destroy data by GCHQ. With the snoopers charter you are the one who should be supplying a substantiated refutation of his comment. Before you go and make a flippant remark about how I've obviously never been to England, realize you don't know what you are talking about and you're making shit up to fit into your own narrative.
in a similar vein: why do only the UK and Australia have sausage rolls and meat pies? They're perfect when you're only "kindof" hungry. Best we can get are Jamaican food and Taquitos, which aren't nearly half as satisfying.
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.
What a completely ------ thing to say to someone like -------! I can't figure out why people like you always ---- and ----- when you could be ---ing. Seriously, do you even ---- it? I for one trust out ----- over----s completely. Rule Brit------!!!
(and now I have to write a bunch of other useless prose to get by Slashdot's junk filters. Which is a really useless filter. I mean just because goatse ASCII is a thing doesn't mean no one ever had any legitimate uses for copious punctuation. My word, are we really reduced to such silliness? How much more of this do you think will be required before the filter finally lets this past? Probably a little more still. Hang on, let me preview.... Nope. still not enough. If this doesn't improve soon, I'm just going to load up a Tolstoy eBook and start pasting in sections of Anna Karenina, but then again that would probably just set off the plagiarism filter. Heathens have no appreciation for satire, I tell you.)
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Ivana gave a sworn deposition in which she stated that he ripped out her hair and violently raped her after a botched hair job by a doctor she recommended.
Post divorce settlement, and just prior to the publication of an unauthorized Trump biography, she suddenly explained that "rape" meant a lack of emotional closeness and shouldn't be taken literally.
Googleis plainly your enemy.
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.
Who knows. It certainly could be the foundations of something really quite sinister. On the other hand it could be just what it claims to be: aid to prevent and track down evildoers [sic]. We've been here before in the UK with CCTV. It's become something of a cliche to say it's Orwellian. But you know, the world is changing. Absolutely everybody and their mum has an HD video camera permanently on their person. What can I do about that to protect my privacy? Seemingly nothing.
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."
The implication is that an actor with ill-intent (like the NSA) obtains the CA's private key and uses it to generate certificates of their own for MITM attacks. Any browser that trusts the CA will automatically trust the new certificates, and the user will be none-the-wiser.
This has already happened several times, resulting in browser vendors pushing out updates that removes compromised CAs from their trusted lists.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
men who simply cheated on their spouses.
It was considerably worse than this. Bill Clinton held one of the most power positions in the world and had sex with an intern. Many teachers, professors, and military personnel have been fired and in some cases jailed for abusing considerably less power than that. Having sex with a low level subordinate is probably as close to non-consensual sex as you can get and is the reason it's highly against the rule in the military, in education, and in almost all companies.
But then you know this, don't you, you piece of utter alt-right shit.
I'm definitely not alt-right. I didn't even vote for Trump. I find it strange though how the main problem that anti-trump people have with Trump is that he is a bully and he spews hate and then these same anti-trump people bully Trump supporters and spew their own hate. I was curious where I stood on positions so I tried isidewith. Both Trump and Hillary were at the bottom with all three third parties at the top. I find both main parties disgusting mirrors of each other and find the mock outrage of the opposing side laughable when honestly these days it's hard to tell them apart. Hillary was the most Republican candidate in history and Trump the most liberal candidate. There was a reason that former republican presidents crossed over to vote for Hillary because they knew she would keep up the charade.
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?
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...
Luther.
Eat the rich.
Yup, they exist. They do require that you install their root cert on the client device though - I'm not aware of any vendors that have a pre-compromised one (though you can install your own, and I'm sure that intelligence services do). Certificate Transparency would protect you here, because you'd be seeing different certs to anyone else (except people behind the same proxy). Similarly, certificate pinning will work if you've connected to the site from a different location first. Self-signed certs won't help without certificate pinning, because you will just see a self-signed cert in both cases (unless the box signs even unsigned certs, in which case you might notice that you're not prompted that the encrypted connection is untrusted when it's been MITM'd).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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
You can defend them, you just can't pretend they didn't do what they told you they did.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Two thoughts/questions:
What's to stop people from going full on proxy/Tor ? The only IP addresses recorded are worthless.
Is there any limit to how much information each ISP must record? The articles talk about 'A Year'. Can someone write a small app to simply run through a list of a couple of dozen websites - all with extremely long URLs - for a couple of hours after you finish browsing, racking up a Gig or two of storage? Just a thought for something that would make this technically unfeasible.
if everyone is doing it. Maybe it is not wrong.
That's a reasonable position, and quite true in many cases (our recent push for marijuana legalization is a good example). However, I'm not sure "grab them by the pussy" rises to that level of moral ambiguity. "Rape the girl while your state trooper bodyguard makes sure no one disturbs you" probably has issues, as well.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
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
...except for me and my monkey....
I hope you are kidding, otherwise I'll need to question your mental sanity. English food is garbage and I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.
Have the English people been so cowed that they are letting this happen while they have unrepentant Sharia Jihadi Muslims living among them?
Just to be clear: I was responding to a comment about HTTPS-Everywhere, which -- although stewarded by EFF the way Lets Encrypt is -- is a totally different thing. The first is a browser plugin that attemps HTTPS by default, the second is a cert-issuing program.
I don't have a position on LE, and indeed your post suggests you may have researched it more than I as I'm not acquainted with the description of its inner workings that you give. I'm not saying that I therefor condone thinking LE is confusing or wrong-headed, just that I don't have a position on it at the moment.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Let's encrypt (LE) runs some kind of agent that does some voodoo to automatically renew certs on a quarterly basis.... If certs want to be free why not just let them be free without requiring these weird agents and piecemeal expiry periods? What's the point in that?
Stray thought: if they renew every 3 months as you describe, I wonder if that's intended to be a substitute for the cert-revocation abilities that come with CAs?
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.