#3591697 - 06/14/12 04:53 PM
Plans to monitor internet use in the UK
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 649
Hartford688
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 649
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18434112Now if I still lived in the UK, I would now be feeling much more secure, now the state can look at everything. And no need for a silly court order, if they decide is for "national security" or involves a "crime". And the state employee can decide that themselves.
|
|
|
#3591734 - 06/14/12 06:07 PM
Re: Plans to monitor internet use in the UK
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,882
Meatsheild
Arma3 guy!
|
Arma3 guy!
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,882
Peoples Republic of Yorkshire
|
If you actually read the draft of the bill instead of what the media spins of it, its only the "who sent it and who was it sent to" rather than the actually contents of the message/e-mail. Officers would still require court orders to be able to access that information and extending the time your ISP holds that information. Its hardley like sticking CCTV in every home, they can only access it for case information, and only with a court order, their not gonna be sat around going "err, this lass just sent this bloke a right dirty message, avva read!"
Last edited by Meatsheild; 06/14/12 06:09 PM.
SimHQ Arma3 sessions, weekly semi-serious co-op action for all ages and skills! check the forum sticky for more info!
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3732626/SimHQ_Arma3_Sessions,_who,_wha#Post3732626
All spelling errors are included free of charge and courtesy of a broken spell checker!
|
|
|
#3591747 - 06/14/12 06:30 PM
Re: Plans to monitor internet use in the UK
[Re: Hartford688]
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,474
Biggles07
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,474
Newcastle Upon Tyne, England.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18434112Now if I still lived in the UK, I would now be feeling much more secure, now the state can look at everything. And no need for a silly court order, if they decide is for "national security" or involves a "crime". And the state employee can decide that themselves. No, they can't. Not even close. It is a proposal which has only been published in draft form thus far. As bad as these proposals are, they still do not allow for the dissemination of actual contents of emails, phonecalls, social networking sites etc, just the "data crumb trail". It is nowhere near being law. It will not become law in the form it has been originally proposed without revision, not a chance. A similarly outrageous attempt by Labour was made to diminish peoples civil liberties and was emphatically and comprehensively defeated. This will be no different. Agreed Panzer, this is bad; but one key (and very large) difference is that this is a proposal with no actual reality whilst the Patriot Act is Law passed by Congress. I think it is due for renewal and extension if I'm not mistaken quite soon, be interesting to see what happens there and whether it is modified again. As much as this is grave cause for concern, it is still nowhere near as intrusive and potentially open to abuses as the Patriot Act, neither in scope and sheer magnitude of potential intrusion and infringement of liberties, nor practice. And no need for a silly court orderNot true. Even under the current proposals (which will be roundly defeated in Parliament if they are stupid enough to try it without amendment) a warrant would be required to obtain information content signed by the Home secretary and usual process followed. Heres Tim Berners-Lee on the subject. I agree. Gotta love these 'keep the state out of peoples business' Conservatives though, nothing like standing by your principles eh. Not going to happen anyways in this form, there will be yet another embarrassing U-turn for these bothersome, meddling toffee nosed twonks to climb down on. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17753971Meh....this will go PWEC anyway, think I'll bail out lol.  @Meatshield, you just beat me to a few points mate, was typing at the time. Well observed though and correct. 
Last edited by Biggles07; 06/14/12 06:32 PM.
"I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals".
Sir Winston Churchill
|
|
|
#3591755 - 06/14/12 06:42 PM
Re: Plans to monitor internet use in the UK
[Re: Hartford688]
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 649
Hartford688
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 649
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
|
Of course it isn't law yet. Thick as I am I can read the title with "proposals". I was using a teeny bit of licence to vent - I prefer not too wait until a thing is actually law before I get pissed about it.
Court order - true re content, but they can see who and when without. And while you may be fine with the police being able to see that at will, to be honest I'm not. If you have grounds to be looking at my correspondence - at all - go get a court order, prove your need, then you can look at all of it.
|
|
|
#3591764 - 06/14/12 06:56 PM
Re: Plans to monitor internet use in the UK
[Re: Hartford688]
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,474
Biggles07
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,474
Newcastle Upon Tyne, England.
|
Of course it isn't law yet. Thick as I am I can read the title with "proposals". I was using a teeny bit of licence to vent - I prefer not too wait until a thing is actually law before I get pissed about it.
Court order - true re content, but they can see who and when without. And while you may be fine with the police being able to see that at will, to be honest I'm not. If you have grounds to be looking at my correspondence - at all - go get a court order, prove your need, then you can look at all of it. Fair enough mate, but if you write in the present tense as if something has actually happened already, and make statements which are as of now completely untrue, then you can see why someone might question it. Vent licence noted and granted though, I like a good vent meself.  And while you may be fine with the police being able to see that at will, to be honest I'm not. I'm not fine with it mate, not at all and not without a bloody good reason (and hence court order) and on that we agree absolutely. 
"I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals".
Sir Winston Churchill
|
|
|
#3591767 - 06/14/12 07:03 PM
Re: Plans to monitor internet use in the UK
[Re: Hartford688]
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,572
Kontakt5
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,572
|
Patriot Act really just obscures the extent of surveillance that goes on- it's just a part of it, but gets all the press. Quite simply, most government agencies aren't conducting counter-espionage, they operate under existing statutes to obtain subscriber information, I think the word 'monitor' in the article headline makes it sound as though real time surveillance is being considered. In the UK, you already have that in the form of the most closed circuit television cameras per capita in the free world, supposedly.
What's in this article is routine in the US, if they aren't doing it already, they are just catching up to all the existing authorities in the US.
18 USC 2703(f) requires that a company preserve certain records upon request from a government agency, in the event that they come back with legal process to obtain that information before spoilage of the records occur. The obligation is for 90 days, but an agency can request to renew the preservation for another 90 days, however there is a concern here that repeated preservation requests before a follow up search warrant in effect operates a wiretap without the appropriate intercept order. The difference is that a warrant is for historical records, something meatier like a Title III order (which is still difficult to obtain in a normal criminal scheme) intercepts communications in real time.
Generally, if you have an online presence, the wave of the future is that government always seeks to expand the tools it has to obtain more information. In the US, generally there are 4th Amendment issues barring simple court order for the contents of communications. However, tracking users by metadata, by IP login data, that's 'normal' in today's world.
News articles trying to alert people to the growing surveillance state ironically miss the point, in my opinion- they only discuss the aspects which require legal process- whether you agree with the intention of these laws to keep you safe vs. weighing the privacy of everyone is certainly a debate, but that actually obscures the fact that government agencies don't necessarily need to do anything official to say, set up an account under an assumed identity on Facebook or a message board and interact with other users or just watch. You don't need a subpoena to create a 'fake' or 'mole' account and interact with other users or just monitor what they're doing, or go fishing for criminal activity in order to obtain information from them.
It's up to the citizens to decide if this is what they want- basically the service providers turned into a giant interconnected database on everyone, obtainable with the proper credentials. Lawmakers seeking to expand those credentials to more and more agencies, while technically legal raise the question about what sort of society we want to become- the issue of safety and security is what lawmakers say they are concerned with and are protecting you from online predators. Some certainly make a career out of this- the motivation is certainly not lost, for the politician who is protecting you can run a positive spin on his or her record. You might want to consider with today's budget deficits what the priority should be- does the government need another 10,000 agents churning out subpoenas for records, certainly all that costs money. Is it worth the cost?
No one gets out of here alive.
|
|
|
#3591812 - 06/14/12 08:31 PM
Re: Plans to monitor internet use in the UK
[Re: Kontakt5]
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,474
Biggles07
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,474
Newcastle Upon Tyne, England.
|
Patriot Act really just obscures the extent of surveillance that goes on- it's just a part of it, but gets all the press. Quite simply, most government agencies aren't conducting counter-espionage, they operate under existing statutes to obtain subscriber information, I think the word 'monitor' in the article headline makes it sound as though real time surveillance is being considered. In the UK, you already have that in the form of the most closed circuit television cameras per capita in the free world, supposedly.
What's in this article is routine in the US, if they aren't doing it already, they are just catching up to all the existing authorities in the US.
18 USC 2703(f) requires that a company preserve certain records upon request from a government agency, in the event that they come back with legal process to obtain that information before spoilage of the records occur. The obligation is for 90 days, but an agency can request to renew the preservation for another 90 days, however there is a concern here that repeated preservation requests before a follow up search warrant in effect operates a wiretap without the appropriate intercept order. The difference is that a warrant is for historical records, something meatier like a Title III order (which is still difficult to obtain in a normal criminal scheme) intercepts communications in real time.
Generally, if you have an online presence, the wave of the future is that government always seeks to expand the tools it has to obtain more information. In the US, generally there are 4th Amendment issues barring simple court order for the contents of communications. However, tracking users by metadata, by IP login data, that's 'normal' in today's world.
News articles trying to alert people to the growing surveillance state ironically miss the point, in my opinion- they only discuss the aspects which require legal process- whether you agree with the intention of these laws to keep you safe vs. weighing the privacy of everyone is certainly a debate, but that actually obscures the fact that government agencies don't necessarily need to do anything official to say, set up an account under an assumed identity on Facebook or a message board and interact with other users or just watch. You don't need a subpoena to create a 'fake' or 'mole' account and interact with other users or just monitor what they're doing, or go fishing for criminal activity in order to obtain information from them.
It's up to the citizens to decide if this is what they want- basically the service providers turned into a giant interconnected database on everyone, obtainable with the proper credentials. Lawmakers seeking to expand those credentials to more and more agencies, while technically legal raise the question about what sort of society we want to become- the issue of safety and security is what lawmakers say they are concerned with and are protecting you from online predators. Some certainly make a career out of this- the motivation is certainly not lost, for the politician who is protecting you can run a positive spin on his or her record. You might want to consider with today's budget deficits what the priority should be- does the government need another 10,000 agents churning out subpoenas for records, certainly all that costs money. Is it worth the cost? Some very goods points Kontakt and I largely agree, there is no doubt in my mind that many of these methods of surveillance are common practice already (particularly the set up and maintenance of mole accounts etc and its probable that substantial time and resources are devoted to this). Bottom line is.....if they really want to watch you, then you are getting watched. Some people I'm sure we'll all agree on however really do need to be watched, national security should always be paramount first and foremost without doubt; the issues that matter to me are that of balance, appropriate process and proportion. On the issue of CCTV in the UK, yes this is apparently true; however I have never been one to jump on that particular 'OMG Orwellian State' mass hysteria bandwagon, because it was initially borne of necessity. From the mid 70's there was almost constant threat of IRA UK mainland terrorist attack, and accordingly the first large scale networks were centered in areas of high population density (obvious targets for a bombing campaign) as well as other key areas of infrastructure. I am also generally convinced of its overall efficacy and benefit in crime detection (though hardly infallible), and possibly in some cases (though to a lesser extent) deterrence. Cost effectiveness is another issue, would have to look into that in more depth. Simply put however, some of the figures being put out are highly suspect in their methodology ('14 cameras per person' in particular....BS), which might give the exaggerated and erroneous impression that there is a camera on every lamp post or door. It reeks of alarmism really, for little to no cause. I have to be honest, I don't particularly care if a camera is watching me in a business district when I am doing nothing wrong and committing no crime. As Judge Dredd might have said....."Only the Guilty need fear". I have yet to hear of anyone in the UK suddenly made to "disappear" on the basis of CCTV evidence by shadowy State forces for wearing the wrong colour socks or silly pants etc, so I'm not too worried. Though there is arguably a case to be made for the latter in the cause of public decency. The next teenager I see with their combat pants/jeans hanging around their ankles-arse doing that preposterous 'lopey slope' walk is getting wedgied, I don't care if its classed as 'assault' either. They are assaulting my aesthetic sensibilities, public decency and must be dealt with accordingly. Wedgie em all.....and let God sort em out! 
"I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals".
Sir Winston Churchill
|
|
|
#3591821 - 06/14/12 08:51 PM
Re: Plans to monitor internet use in the UK
[Re: Hartford688]
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 4,803
Lewis-A2A
Tom Thumb
|
Tom Thumb
Senior Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 4,803
Lowestoft - UK
|
Modern Media >> Inventor; Dr Joeseph Goebbels (circa late 1930's) 
|
|
|
#3591823 - 06/14/12 09:01 PM
Re: Plans to monitor internet use in the UK
[Re: Hartford688]
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,572
Kontakt5
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,572
|
Far from terrorism or national security related surveillance there are far more financial crimes occurring every single day- illegal trafficking, gambling, racketeering, someone placing a phoney ad on Craigslist, wire fraud.
A specific scheme might go something like this: Using stolen credit card data to set up an account, person 1 contacts person 2 on a social networking or dating site, through a bit of introductions and online conversation, person 2 becomes attracted and interested in person 1. Person 1 at some point then asks for money because of financial problems, or something to that effect, and person 2 wires them money. Person 1- you guessed it- at some point disappears, never to be heard from again. Person 2 eventually realizes the scheme, contacts police, which opens an investigation. Sounds stupid? It happens all the time, otherwise the Nigerian scams wouldn't be operating if people didn't fall for them- and they aren't the only ones doing it. Multiply this scenario hundreds or thousands of times everywhere, in the UK, in the US, in Canada, wherever.
Oddly, if I were dating someone and burned them, took their money and then just walked out on them, there would probably be no investigation, that's just the perils of being in a relationship with people you don't necessarily know. However, the above qualifies special attention by its nature of being an online relationship. Multiply these incidents hundreds or thousands of times, like the War on Drugs, these crimes will never go away, therefore, the resources allocated by governments to fight them won't diminish but only increase. At the risk of sounding like blaming the victim, it's usually the case that people react differently if it were just a normal dysfunctional relationship rather than an online one- usually it's, 'well, going forward you know better next time.' The balance that people should ask is whether the costs fighting it is greater than the financial damage actually caused, or whether the government isn't solving anything but simply creating in the first place the problems that they solve. The War on Drugs is a classic example- the US government spends billions fighting the nation's drug 'epidemic,' pointing to the economic damage that drugs cause. There's some circular logic which assumes in the first place that the War on Drugs is economically sustainable (never mind the moral and humanitarian reasons against it).
Someone makes an online post that's kind of ambiguous, say, "I'm so lonely, but soon all this pain will be over." Should that be the responsibility of the government to monitor and investigate people for it? What makes that the business of law enforcement? I understand it makes me sound cold to ask these questions, but I don't necessarily have the answers, other than to point out there's nowhere for all of this to go but to keep moving forward. Where is the line going to be drawn? Twenty five years ago, all of this would sound very futuristic or surreal, but it's here now.
No one gets out of here alive.
|
|
|
#3591824 - 06/14/12 09:03 PM
Re: Plans to monitor internet use in the UK
[Re: Lewis-A2A]
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,484
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
|
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,484
Miami, FL USA
|
Modern Media >> Inventor; Dr Joeseph Goebbels (circa late 1930's) Great. Now I know who to blame for all of the asinine media coverage of celebrities and for those moronic "human interest stories".
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exodus
by RedOneAlpha. 04/18/24 05:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
