| Non-motoring > Communications Bill | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Crankcase | Replies: 75 |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 16:33
Communications Bill - Crankcase
|
|
What do you think about this bill ( www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20676284 )? I rather think our views will be polarised. I'm a very private person by inclination, and feel that info about me is my business and nobody else's, possibly to paranoia levels. Already a social media refusenik, a bill enacted as the Government apparently want would make me think seriously hard about the extent of my internet usage. This feeling, I hope we all realise, does not make me one of the "bad guys" of whatever flavour that this Bill is (in my opinion hopelessly) intended to thwart. There will be others here who won't care a jot if lots of data about them are collected and stored. Where do you fall in that spectrum? |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 16:35
Communications Bill - Robin O'Reliant
|
| I'm with you. I have a basic distrust of the state and it's agencies. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 16:43
Communications Bill - Old Navy
|
|
>> I'm with you. I have a basic distrust of the state and it's agencies. >> A wise attitude, knowledge is power, and the government has too much of that already. It is anyone's guess what GCHQ really gets up to, and we will certainly never find out. Councils using anti terrorist laws to spy on rubbish bins, who would have predicted that one? Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 11 Dec 12 at 16:46
|
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 16:48
Communications Bill - R.P.
|
| How many millions of internet users in the UK vs How many internet users that are "risky" usual sledge hammer approach to stuff. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 16:58
Communications Bill - oilburner
|
|
>> >> Where do you fall in that spectrum? >> I like to keep the government out of my business at all times. For my part, I don't do anything criminal towards anyone else (not intentionally at least!) and therefore expect to be left alone, and that includes "them" not looking at my private life. The clue being the word private! :) However, it's fairly plain that criminals of various persuasions can and do use the internet to advance their malevolent schemes, so something is required to allow the police to get at any data as required to find and convict such miscreants. Regardless of that, I do find the current Communications Bill goes much further than required in getting at that data for reasonable purposes. There needs to be very clear limitations on its powers and checks in place to prevent abuses of any kind by anyone, up to and including the Home Secretary. I don't think they're in there at present. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 17:58
Communications Bill - Zero
|
|
There is this general feeling, that this bill means that all our thoughts are going to be sifted through GCHQ, and they have this mystical power to read all our thought all the time. people think that if you type the words Koran and Bomb, you will automatically be flagged up. Thats crap. GCHQ cant, because basically because they are poorly equipped and pretty rubbish at it. They don't have the resources to make intelligence assessments from all the stuff they currently do get, let alone this belief that they will be able to act on loads more. It would snow them. Hwoever - they work on connections. Who is connected to whom, who is communicating with who, and who is currently connecting to xxx domain sites. What it means is that they need to track back, and the bill means that these connections (not content but the who to who info is kept for a while, so it can be traced backwards in time. Then they can start to monitor you real time. I dont see a problem with that. But then I am not paranoid like most. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 18:06
Communications Bill - Roger.
|
|
I am for "small government". This includes, amongst many things, an aversion to the State's snooping, by any means, on the citizens of the United Kingdom. I therefore oppose not only surveillance on private communication, but also the concept of identity cards. In any event, any "baddies" will these days hardly be likely to be unaware of measures which can be taken to evade official notice. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 18:11
Communications Bill - Meldrew
|
|
That's a relief, I was afraid that my frequent visits to the highly stimulating www.bigandbouncy.co.uk might also stimulate the interest of GCHQ. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 18:26
Communications Bill - Zero
|
|
>> That's a relief, I was afraid that my frequent visits to the highly stimulating www.bigandbouncy.co.uk >> might also stimulate the interest of GCHQ. To be honest, its probably of more interest to them than UKIP-are-gods.com. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 18:44
Communications Bill - Meldrew
|
|
big and bouncy is a real site though! Do you dare to look and risk everything to the snoopers? |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 18:54
Communications Bill - Zero
|
|
>> big and bouncy is a real site though! Do you dare to look and risk >> everything to the snoopers? No I am not worried because i am not paranoid, as i said, like most on here appear to be. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 18:12
Communications Bill - Old Navy
|
|
>> I therefore oppose not only surveillance on private communication, but also the concept of identity >> cards. You already have a wallet full of them, use any plastic card and you leave a record, so you and your movement can be checked. Even my geriatric bus pass has my name and photo on it. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 18:13
Communications Bill - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
I see a very real problem with it. For the most of us it won't matter, but what if you become an active nuisance to the government of the day? To give one example questioning the truth of their statements when you think they've been lying (WMD for example) and causing them embarrassment. A trawl through someone's internet history that discovers a clandestine affair or closet homosexual inclinations would be a handy lever to shut them up for good. We often fool ourselves into believing we exist under a benign establishment, but our lot are just as ruthless and corrupt as anyone elses and given the chance they'll do what it takes to stamp on those who get in their way.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Tue 11 Dec 12 at 18:14
|
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 18:22
Communications Bill - NortonES2
|
|
I'm more worried that the connection data will be sold on, or leaky. As RR says: there will be a market for the info. GCHQ sponsored by Amazon take your fancy? Or the ruskis/mafia/drug gangs taking a crack at it?
Last edited by: NIL on Tue 11 Dec 12 at 18:25
|
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 19:13
Communications Bill - Westpig
|
|
Our State has not got the capacity to snoop on us all...they do not employ enough people to do it. They will have to concentrate their efforts on certain individuals. It isn't going to be me. If anyone flags up 'big and bouncy' and I happen to look at it and someone notices...so what? It's not illegal. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 19:20
Communications Bill - Westpig
|
|
>> Our State has not got the capacity to snoop on us all As an example, way lower down the scale. In the 90's a large, busy North London Borough put an ANPR camera on a busy junction and a terminal in the police control room...joint funded by the police and council....so that anyone up to no good could be dealt with. Within 2 weeks, it was turned off in the control room...because it kept going off and there was never anyone available to deal with it. Nothing has changed. Imagine the logistics of trying to monitor 40 odd million* people's internet habits (rough guess after eliminating the very young and the old who don't use it). Must go, i'm off to have a look at Jihad Assassinate The President I've Got A Bomb.com...;-) |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 19:26
Communications Bill - No FM2R
|
|
If you are relying on the lack of State capacity or ability to keep you safe, then one day you're going to be sad. There are numerous things possible today which were not possible 20 years ago, simply because of increased capacity, capability and functionality. So you do need to decide whether or not you object, with the knowledge that if it is not possible now, it will most certainly become so. Now if you still aren't bothered, good luck to you. However, even though I come from the other end of the [privacy & paranoia] spectrum to Crankcase, this seems to be going too far for me, in particular the fact that a warrant is not required for the first level of investigation. If it is so harmless, and if it will only ever be done with a good reason, then it can use the law of the land and get a damn warrant. And if their process isn't good enough to justify a warrant, then its not good enough to look at private details either. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 19:35
Communications Bill - Westpig
|
|
>> If it is so harmless, and if it will only ever be done with a >> good reason, then it can use the law of the land and get a damn >> warrant. And if their process isn't good enough to justify a warrant, then its not >> good enough to look at private details either. >> If I never do anything illegal (apart from minor traffic offences), what would I ever have to worry about? They could have some super computer monitor my internet usage 24/7...and I'd still not have anything to worry about. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 19:38
Communications Bill - Dog
|
|
>>If I never do anything illegal (apart from minor traffic offences), what would I ever have to worry about? They could have some super computer monitor my internet usage 24/7...and I'd still not have anything to worry about<< ^ I'm with this geezer |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 20:05
Communications Bill - No FM2R
|
|
>>If I never do anything illegal (apart from minor traffic offences), what would I ever have to worry about? They could have some super computer monitor my internet usage 24/7...and I'd still not have anything to worry about. Until someone decides that something you already do is going to become illegal. And you can't continue to do it, or even fight against it, because this law has already been passed. Or someone, such as UKIP, is fighting some government bill or other and so various organisations decide to look at a list of everybody UKIP have emailed. Then to have a look at who those people have emailed. And then looked at what their interests are. And in any case, you missed my point. What they track and record is not my greatest concern. I care that someone can simply access those records without having to go through the process of authorisation, i.e. a warrant. There is a reason we have a process which requires warrants to be obtained for various things, and I can see no reason why this process should not equally abide by it. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 20:22
Communications Bill - Zero
|
|
>> There is a reason we have a process which requires warrants to be obtained for >> various things, and I can see no reason why this process should not equally abide >> by it. Do you really think that even today when they don't have those powers and currently need a warrant, that they actually bother with one? The security services were even monitoring a Prime Minister at one point. The secret services wont allow intercept data to be used in court proceedings in case it compromises sources, so they dont give a fig about a warrant granted to obtain it. These are the reasons we couldn't lock up Abul hookeye and his co-horts. Unwillingness to reveal the intelligence. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 20:25
Communications Bill - Old Navy
|
|
>> These are the reasons we couldn't lock up Abul hookeye and his co-horts. Unwillingness to >> reveal the intelligence. >> Which proves the capability is there. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 20:26
Communications Bill - Zero
|
| Of course its there, when you know who to target. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 20:34
Communications Bill - Old Navy
|
|
>> Of course its there, when you know who to target. >> There can't be more than a few thousands (or even tens of) of people of interest. An easy number to monitor. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 20:37
Communications Bill - Zero
|
| Yup. Exactly. Its none of us. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 20:40
Communications Bill - Old Navy
|
|
>> Yup. Exactly. Its none of us. >> So why do they need even more powers. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 19:42
Communications Bill - Old Navy
|
|
>> If you are relying on the lack of State capacity or ability to keep you >> safe, then one day you're going to be sad. There are numerous things possible today >> which were not possible 20 years ago, simply because of increased capacity, capability and functionality. >> I know little about IT but did see 20 years of the initial development of computerised data processing and display. My knowledge is 20 years out of date but even then the capabilities were amazing. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 20:08
Communications Bill - No FM2R
|
| I fitted WAS to Submarines in the 80s. It was pretty impressive then. It'd run on a telephone now. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 20:16
Communications Bill - Zero
|
|
>> If you are relying on the lack of State capacity or ability to keep you >> safe, then one day you're going to be sad. There are numerous things possible today >> which were not possible 20 years ago, simply because of increased capacity, capability and functionality. Except, all the data to be captured all the time will exponentially increase ahead of the states ability to read and digest and act on it >> So you do need to decide whether or not you object, with the knowledge that >> if it is not possible now, it will most certainly become so. >> See above. Intelligence is not about Data, or sifting it, its about making sense of it. You need to keep increasing the resource to do that, the state dont have it now, and wont be able to catch up. Its all about targeting. Now I don't know about you lot but I don't have this over inflated idea that I am of interest. Last edited by: Zero on Tue 11 Dec 12 at 20:16
|
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 20:18
Communications Bill - No FM2R
|
|
>> I don't have this over inflated idea that I am of interest. Actually I completely agree, I don't have an over inflated idea that you are of interest. However, I am fascinating. Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 11 Dec 12 at 20:19
|
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 20:25
Communications Bill - Zero
|
|
>> >> I don't have this over inflated idea that I am of interest. >> >> Actually I completely agree, I don't have an over inflated idea that you are of >> interest. >> >> However, I am fascinating. You let me down, you let your mother down, and most of all...... |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 20:39
Communications Bill - -
|
|
The danger here is that under the anti terrorist umbrella lies the capability of making it even easier for the status quo to crush any legitimate democratic resistance to derailing their course for their vision of utopia. We have a current (unelected) PM who regards UKIP members as closet racists as well as other endearing labels, the three cheeks of same backside party which he currently leads will stop at nothing to keep themselves in power, Bills like this just make it easier for then to monitor legitimate alternative movements. Would you trust a politician as far as far as you could throw one? |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 20:40
Communications Bill - Manatee
|
|
The argument that the innocent have nothing to fear is naive. How far are you going to take that? Stalin would have been capturing all our phone and internet connections for sure. And his machine would have misused it to prove whatever he wanted it to prove should he ever have had it in for you, or a category to which you belonged. And when the data pipes and storage were big enough and fast enough, which in due time they will be, he'd have had a camera in every room of your house. Would the "nothing to hide" lobby be happy to tell us about their sexual proclivities or personal finances? Or gambling habits? Or health problems? Would they be happy for prospective or current employers to have detailed knowledge of how they live their lives? That may not be what is proposed now, but it suggests to me that just about everybody is concerned about privacy when it comes down to it. I certainly don't want the local gauleiter or his minions crawling over my life just because they don't like the cut of my jib. They can go and ask a judge at the least if they want to do that. I fully take the point about the state's ability to keep up; and I am not suggesting it can listen to everybody all the time. There's a virtually infinite archive of all sorts online and accessible to all of us already, but that doesn't stop anybody who can use google zooming in on the most arcane bits whenever they want to. I don't think I am of the slightest interest to the parish council, let alone MI5. But I don't want to be wondering whether someone is speculatively or maliciously watching what I'm doing all the time either. Slippery slope job. The data are already being captured and have been for years with phones and card payments. The discussion now is about the basis of access to it. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 20:45
Communications Bill - Zero
|
|
This place cracks me up. According to this we are living in a corrupt stalinist regime intent to put the peasants down, Amazon and employers having access to the gory details of our sexual deviances, some local parking warden blackmailing us. You lot need to get a grip, seriously. Now wonder half of you are clinically depressed. |
|
New Tue 11 Dec 12 20:47
Communications Bill - Manatee
|
| Go and tell your handler we aren't buying it ;-) |
|
New Wed 12 Dec 12 01:13
Communications Bill - Armel Coussine
|
|
If the security or other authorities are interested in you they probably have an informant slightly known to you anyway (but not as an informant of course). All electronic communications should be seen as public. In my louche youth there were people given to suddenly claiming that the fuzz had everyone's phone number. Well, of course they did. But why should they be listening to the boring conversations of a lot of ratty middle-class teaheads and property-is-theft fun revolutionaries? They obviously had better things to do. Only if you rub shoulders with the real thing, people with armed subversive agendas, real revolutionaries of whatever sort, will the Services want a quiet word. And they can tell after a couple of minutes that you just aren't serious enough to bother with. So long as you aren't, that is, like nearly everyone. |
|
New Wed 12 Dec 12 01:46
Communications Bill - No FM2R
|
|
>>Except, all the data to be captured all the time will exponentially increase ahead of the states ability to read and digest and act on it You're coming at this from the wrong end. If someone has the idea that this 'Big Brother' thing will be going on where a machine determines who to suspect and pick them from the crowd, then you're correct - the sheer weight of information will always outweigh the ability to assess and react to it. And who gives a crap anyway, I don't do anything important enough to attract attention. But that's not where the intrusion will occur. What will happen is that you will be separated from the masses by some spurious association; perhaps you received an e-mail from a UKIP MP. Having now been separated from the masses, you now feature as one amongst a few of interest, not one amongst a population of millions. Having attracted this attention, someone can of their own volition now investigate to whom you speak, when you speak to them, from where you speak and where they are when they listen, and thus to anyone associated with you. The point is not that this will enable them to pick you from a crowd; the point is that having picked you from a crowd for some spurious reason, they can now investigate your private information without overview or authorization. Now you [Zero] are certainly smart enough to understand that. If that does not bother you, then so be it and perhaps you're correct in your valuation, but it is disingenuous to imply that the conflict is not there. |
|
New Wed 12 Dec 12 01:56
Communications Bill - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> they can now investigate your private information without overview or authorization. They always could. They can now. They do. Yet we are all still at large. It's a miracle! |
|
New Wed 12 Dec 12 08:19
Communications Bill - Roger.
|
|
I think the sticking point is not that they cannot process all possible information, but that they are allowed to snoop so comprehensively at all. The argument "If you are not a wrongdoer you need not worry", is specious and naive. You should all worry at the latest intrusion coming unbidden into the country. It is the mere fact that in Great Britain (the most comprehensively spied upon country in the West, by number of CCTV cameras of all types) citizens may have their private communications examined by the State, which is abhorrent. Big Brother HAS come true. |
|
New Wed 12 Dec 12 18:15
Communications Bill - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> we are all still at large. >> It's a miracle! But although the worries of some here seem fanciful to me, new laws that duplicate existing laws and 'legalize' existing practices can only exacerbate what is already a recalcitrant mass of petty regulation. They can only cost us inconvenience and money. Have recent governments shown a growing tendency to pass large numbers of poorly-framed laws without considering the consequences, or is this just an impression? |
|
New Wed 12 Dec 12 09:14
Communications Bill - Zero
|
|
There is always conflict between state and some the citizenry. The state will pry upon some of those who oppose it, and if they are allowed to so, so be it, if they are not allowed to, they will do it anyway. Its disingenuous to suggest this will change anything in any way for anyone who is not of interest. Last edited by: Zero on Wed 12 Dec 12 at 09:14
|
|
New Wed 12 Dec 12 10:25
Communications Bill - oilburner
|
|
The trouble with your reasoning Zero, is that you feel that you have nothing to fear, therefore no other law abiding citizens should worry. Let's say I do have a thing about bigandbouncy.com. Except that this week, the over-sized mammaries aren't doing it for me. So, I type a few choice phrases into Google and spot a site that captures my interest and looks reasonable. Maybe bigandupforit.com. Only when I click on it, I discover that it actually features paedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia and whatever other degraded things you can think of. Pictures of said activities have already been downloaded into my browser by the simple act of navigating to that site. Instantly, I've risked flagging myself on the "dirty old sod" database. Once that association is there, it will stick. Worse yet, maybe *I* didn't even do that surfing, maybe my neighbour hacked into my wireless connection and they did it... Now imagine I want to become a Scout leader, join the Police or enter parliament as an MP, you can see what might happen next... I've made myself of interest and once people start taking a closer look... Or imagine I join a political party considered non-mainstream and rise to prominence. How easy it would be to destroy my reputation should I become a nuisance to the powers that be? Paranoia it may be, but don't underestimate what can be done with software. Already IT has made it possible to punish people for non-crimes like wandering accidentally into a bus lane, or forgetting to renew your tax disc on time. And as you well know, progress increases exponentially at an exponential rate. Just because the amount of data is also increasing massively, doesn't mean tools to index and search that activity won't keep up. Don't forget, there once was a time when there was no Google and everybody had to write down URLs (fiddly strings of chars they were too) or follow links from home pages. The idea of indexing the whole internet and searching it seemed preposterous. Yet now, not only is the internet indexed and searchable, its cached several times over. All this despite massive growth in the number of websites and the amount of content, current and historical. Times change quickly. |
|
New Wed 12 Dec 12 11:02
Communications Bill - Crankcase
|
|
A concern that hasn't been mentioned is that the data sets, or subsets, whatever they might contain, will (perhaps? probably?) leak from the "owner". See this story, (linked below) just today, for example, and we all know of many others. www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20677851 Effectively the gathering of the data results in a target, of whatever value, for someone, who are not the government but a random bunch of "bad guys", who can/will use that data for purposes undefined and unknown, almost certainly to turn a profit somehow. That potential makes me uncomfortable. I'm already uncomfortable with what's out there NOW, never mind if this thing comes into force. Last edited by: Crankcase on Wed 12 Dec 12 at 11:03
|
|
New Wed 12 Dec 12 18:33
Communications Bill - Zero
|
|
>> A concern that hasn't been mentioned is that the data sets, or subsets, whatever they >> might contain, will (perhaps? probably?) leak from the "owner". See this story, (linked below) just >> today, for example, and we all know of many others. >> >> www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20677851 Cant see any connection between this event and the subject of this thread. |
|
New Wed 12 Dec 12 18:36
Communications Bill - Crankcase
|
|
>> >> Cant see any connection between this event and the subject of this thread. >> How strange. |
|
New Wed 12 Dec 12 19:23
Communications Bill - Zero
|
| Can you explain the link between malicious criminal hackers, the communication bill, and how it affects your civil liberties for me then please? |
|
New Wed 12 Dec 12 19:41
Communications Bill - Crankcase
|
|
Again? |
|
New Wed 12 Dec 12 20:30
Communications Bill - Zero
|
|
>> Again? >> Nah, dont bother. I will be dragged off to see the next LoTR film soon, dont want to overdose on fanciful SFC |
|
New Wed 12 Dec 12 18:31
Communications Bill - Zero
|
|
>> The trouble with your reasoning Zero, is that you feel that you have nothing to >> fear, therefore no other law abiding citizens should worry. >> >> Let's say I do have a thing about bigandbouncy.com. Except that this week, the over-sized >> mammaries aren't doing it for me. So, I type a few choice phrases into Google >> and spot a site that captures my interest and looks reasonable. Maybe bigandupforit.com. Only when >> I click on it, I discover that it actually features paedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia and whatever >> other degraded things you can think of. >> >> Pictures of said activities have already been downloaded into my browser by the simple act >> of navigating to that site. Instantly, I've risked flagging myself on the "dirty old sod" >> database. Once that association is there, it will stick. You missed the point completely, dont worry you are not alone. They can't and wont be monitoring this activity, this bill does not provide that facility If you dont believe me the ask how the paedophiles got caught who access these site? from their credit card records, thats how. >> >> Worse yet, maybe *I* didn't even do that surfing, maybe my neighbour hacked into my >> wireless connection and they did it... >> >> Now imagine I want to become a Scout leader, join the Police or enter parliament >> as an MP, you can see what might happen next... I've made myself of interest >> and once people start taking a closer look... >> >> Or imagine I join a political party considered non-mainstream and rise to prominence. How easy >> it would be to destroy my reputation should I become a nuisance to the powers >> that be? >> >> Paranoia it may be, but don't underestimate what can be done with software. I dont, I was in in IT. Software has nothing to do with it, we are talking resources, public resources, cash strapped public resources not be able to do it. Now or in the future. >> Already IT >> has made it possible to punish people for non-crimes like wandering accidentally into a bus >> lane, or forgetting to renew your tax disc on time. And as you well know, Its a minute drop in the ocean compared to IT traffic. >> progress increases exponentially at an exponential rate. Just because the amount of data is also >> increasing massively, doesn't mean tools to index and search that activity won't keep up. Yes it does, they are not UP now they are not going to get UPPER faster than the amount of traffic. >> Don't forget, there once was a time when there was no Google and everybody had >> to write down URLs (fiddly strings of chars they were too) or follow links from >> home pages. The idea of indexing the whole internet and searching it seemed preposterous. Yet >> now, not only is the internet indexed and searchable, its cached several times over. All >> this despite massive growth in the number of websites and the amount of content, current >> and historical. Times change quickly. Herrings, red, nothing to do with what we are talking about. >> |
|
New Wed 12 Dec 12 19:17
Communications Bill - Dutchie
|
| Why then starting a communications Bill if it can't be enforced? Still feels like Big Brother to me leave us alone we are nobody's. |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 10:12
Communications Bill - oilburner
|
|
>> >> You missed the point completely, dont worry you are not alone. They can't and >> wont be monitoring this activity, this bill does not provide that facility If >> you dont believe me the ask how the paedophiles got caught who access these site? >> from their credit card records, thats how. Really? I quote from the actual bill: " amongst other things, impose requirements on operators to: generate all necessary communications data for the services or systems they provide; collect necessary communications data, where such data is available but not retained; retain the data safely and securely; process the retained data to facilitate the efficient and effective obtaining of the data by public authorities; undertake testing of their internal systems; and co-operate with the Secretary of State or other specified persons to ensure the availability of communications data. " That to me sounds a lot like forcing ISPs, search engines, etc to keep data for services such as blogs, search queries, hosted data in the cloud, etc, etc and pass it over to the police whenever they're told. Therefore, the government will have the ability to query that data whenever they choose. That is not the same as actively monitoring, true, but it allows them to look at individuals whenever they like and draw whatever conclusions they like based on what may be an incomplete or erroneous view of online activities. >> I dont, I was in in IT. Software has nothing to do with it, we >> are talking resources, public resources, cash strapped public resources not be able to do it. >> Now or in the future. >> Wrong, read the bill. Public resources will not be used to make this happen. It is being forced on the private companies that provide IT services, primarily ISPs. Software has everything to do with it when you claim that it won't be possible. Not only is it possible, but it is already being done to some extent by the likes of Google. This bill formalises that, making the storage of that information both mandatory and available to government without warrant. >> >> Yes it does, they are not UP now they are not going to get UPPER >> faster than the amount of traffic. >> Disagree. There is no need to play catch up all the time. It's just a matter of applying storage and retrieval strategies with existing data and you're there. The volume is basically irrelevant. >> Herrings, red, nothing to do with what we are talking about. >> Not at all, just countering your arguments about feasibility. If the government were attempting this using public cash, with a project designed to build their own database of activity, brought in from the vast flow of information around the web and developed by an outside consultancy, I agree, this couldn't possibly work. But that is not what they're proposing at all. You say that this is not about monitoring. Ostensibly, you're correct. Of course the government is not openly proposing monitoring our individual internet usage and using it against us. But if you believe that couldn't happen later on, then you're being rather naive. This bill allows that eventually, it is the first step, the thin end of the wedge. Should it pass, the data will be there, and the government will have the potential to snoop without any transparency. This will inevitably lead to situations of innocent individuals being hounded by the state due to poor data, or poor interpretation of data. And as Crankcase points out, once that data is there it is also available for hackers to target and abuse in countless ways. As an example, consider credit checking. A similar process of data storage and interpretation based on financial transactions. How easy it is for someone else in your family to get a CCJ for absconding with unpaid debt and contaminate your credit history even though you didn't live with them at the time they did a runner? Or even, you might move house and a later resident of your former address (not even sharing your surname) is convicted of fraud and that also affects your credit record? Sound unlikely? Both have happened to me in the last 15 years. Once the data is there, it's anyone's guess how it may be misused and misunderstood. |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 13:19
Communications Bill - Zero
|
|
>> Really? I quote from the actual bill: >> >> " amongst other things, impose requirements on operators to: generate all necessary communications data for >> the services or systems they provide; collect necessary communications data, where such data is available >> but not retained; retain the data safely and securely; process the retained data to facilitate >> the efficient and effective obtaining of the data by public authorities; undertake testing of their >> internal systems; and co-operate with the Secretary of State or other specified persons to ensure >> the availability of communications data. " >> >> That to me sounds a lot like forcing ISPs, search engines, etc to keep data >> for services such as blogs, search queries, hosted data in the cloud, etc, etc and >> pass it over to the police whenever they're told. Well you are wrong IT IS NOT blog data, search engine searches, hosted data in the cloud, ITS NOT DATA. It a matter off email headers, what you connoected to and when, NOT THE DATA ITSELF. Therefore, the government will have the >> ability to query that data whenever they choose. That is not the same as actively >> monitoring, true, but it allows them to look at individuals whenever they like and draw >> whatever conclusions they like based on what may be an incomplete or erroneous view of >> online activities. > See above - It doesent. >> >> I dont, I was in in IT. Software has nothing to do with it, >> we >> >> are talking resources, public resources, cash strapped public resources not be able to do >> it. >> >> Now or in the future. >> >> >> >> Wrong, read the bill. Public resources will not be used to make this happen. It >> is being forced on the private companies that provide IT services, primarily ISPs. I AM RIGHT. The connection links is collected by ISPS, for later checking by HMG, if you become of interest, BUT, it will not be wholesale passed onto the authorities for them to peruse because they do not have the ability to sieve through it all. IT ONLY GETS CHECKED IF YOU BECOME OF INTEREST Software has >> everything to do with it when you claim that it won't be possible. Not only >> is it possible, but it is already being done to some extent by the likes >> of Google. This bill formalises that, making the storage of that information both mandatory and >> available to government without warrant. You are still blathering on about DATA - DATA is not being collected, it is nothing at all like the data collection done by Google, who by the way store most fo the stuff they need to know about you on YOUR COMPUTER >> >> >> >> Yes it does, they are not UP now they are not going to get >> UPPER >> >> faster than the amount of traffic. >> >> >> >> Disagree. There is no need to play catch up all the time. It's just a >> matter of applying storage and retrieval strategies with existing data and you're there. The volume >> is basically irrelevant. The Volume is basically irrelevant? You what? You clearly have no grasp at all of whats involved. Either that or you have come up with a service or tool that has escaped all the bright brains in IT. >> >> >> Herrings, red, nothing to do with what we are talking about. >> >> >> Not at all, just countering your arguments about feasibility. >> >> If the government were attempting this using public cash, with a project designed to build >> their own database of activity, brought in from the vast flow of information around the >> web and developed by an outside consultancy, I agree, this couldn't possibly work. But that >> is not what they're proposing at all. >> >> As an example, consider credit checking. A similar process of data storage and interpretation based >> on financial transactions. How easy it is for someone else in your family to get >> a CCJ for absconding with unpaid debt and contaminate your credit history even though you >> didn't live with them at the time they did a runner? Or even, you might >> move house and a later resident of your former address (not even sharing your surname) >> is convicted of fraud and that also affects your credit record? >> Sound unlikely? Both have happened to me in the last 15 years. It happens now, but do you realise how small that actual data is? compared to EVERYTHING flying around the net that you seem to think the gov is going to catch and monitor? You are spreading wilful alarmist claptrap based on your own paranoiac tendencies, and its all based on your lack of knowledge about the fact, and fanciful supposition. You havent even understood what the bill says. |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 14:08
Communications Bill - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> You havent even understood what the bill says. When did that wee fact ever stop anyone? Everone thinks RIPA is a piece of anti-terrorist legislation. While, no doubt, Ministers were keen to refer to the terror threat in the house it was no such thing. Rather it was an act to regulate the use of intelligence and data gathering including definition of the processes required to authorise such activities. Now it seems to me quite reasonable, if people are breaking laws, including those of a regulatory nature, that technology can be used to bring them to book. And that includes people who lie about their address to steal another, properly entitled, child's school place. |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 14:26
Communications Bill - Manatee
|
|
You don't need to go to that level of detail in the argument. 1. The proposals require that ISPs and similar keep information that will who who you have been communicating with, when and where, and what websites you have been looking at. 2. They also require that easy means are provided for police, security services and HMRC (the last being well known for being judge and jury) to access that information when they want to and without the say so of a judge. 3. The idea that the innocent have nothing to fear from the state routinely prying into their lives is utterly contradicted by history, I won't list the countries that have spied on their citizens to control them and the millions of innocent people who, as it turned out, had plenty to fear. 4. It's a ratchet. It will only go one way, and every step makes the next one look more reasonable. So the default position should be to resist it, democratically of course. The people whose job it is to protect us need access to this stuff, when they need it. It's the absence of evidence of proper controls that is the problem, that and the inevitable mission creep. |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 15:09
Communications Bill - DP
|
|
It's laughable to think "they" don't snoop, record and monitor communications today. It would never be made public because as soon as the methods became known about, they would cease to be effective. One of those things, like climate change, that there is absolutely no point worrying about, because we can't do anything about it. |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 15:16
Communications Bill - Zero
|
|
>> It's laughable to think "they" don't snoop, record and monitor communications today. It would never >> be made public because as soon as the methods became known about, they would cease >> to be effective. The laughable thing is, it cant be used, because they dont want it know in court. |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 17:25
Communications Bill - DP
|
|
>> >> The laughable thing is, it cant be used, because they dont want it know in >> court. >> It can't be used to prosecute people. It can be used to prevent them doing something they can be prosecuted for, or to catch them in the act. |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 15:21
Communications Bill - oilburner
|
|
>> Well you are wrong IT IS NOT blog data, search engine searches, hosted data in >> the cloud, ITS NOT DATA. It a matter off email headers, what you connoected to >> and when, NOT THE DATA ITSELF. >> We may be arguing over semantics here! :) Email headers, records about what you connect to and when, etc *is* data. It's data that can be used to draw conclusions about people, right or wrong. I'm very much not talking about specific content of files held on computers or mobile devices. I think you know that. >> I AM RIGHT. The connection links is collected by ISPS, for later checking by HMG, >> if you become of interest, BUT, it will not be wholesale passed onto the authorities >> for them to peruse because they do not have the ability to sieve through it >> all. IT ONLY GETS CHECKED IF YOU BECOME OF INTEREST I'm perfectly aware it only gets checked if you become of interest. For now, at least. But can you be sure that will always be so? And then you have to ask the next question: what does it take to become someone of "interest"? Probably not much. What if you became a person of interest because of all the wrong reasons? Where is the transparency and the checks against abuses of power? That's what's missing. >> You are still blathering on about DATA - DATA is not being collected, it is >> nothing at all like the data collection done by Google, who by the way store >> most fo the stuff they need to know about you on YOUR COMPUTER I'm aware that what they're proposing is different to what Google is doing. But what's to stop them passing an amendment in future requiring Google to submit their data etc? Once you've breached one principle, you're on the slippery slope. >> The Volume is basically irrelevant? You what? You clearly have no grasp at all of >> whats involved. Either that or you have come up with a service or tool that >> has escaped all the bright brains in IT. Instead of attacking me with ad hominem arguments and my knowledge, perhaps you might prefer to address the point directly? I'm not suggesting the indexing and profiling of every last bit of data that people pass round the internet (although never say never, to one degree or another), but something far more straightforward, which is profiling of individuals based on activity, which is exactly what this bill is about. >> It happens now, but do you realise how small that actual data is? compared to >> EVERYTHING flying around the net that you seem to think the gov is going to >> catch and monitor? >> I never suggested that, or do I believe that to be so. Although I'm openly saying that *may* be possible in the future. What they can do *right* now with what they can collect based on this bill is dangerous enough without needing to speculate on the future. >> >> You are spreading wilful alarmist claptrap based on your own paranoiac tendencies, and its all >> based on your lack of knowledge about the fact, and fanciful supposition. You havent even >> understood what the bill says. On the contrary, I understand exactly what this bill says, and can see exactly how the data can be used and misused. Please refrain from attacking me and deal solely with my arguments. They can't be that alarmist and paranoiac, as I am not the only one with concerns, indeed mainstream politicians are raising very real doubts. Respectfully yours... :) |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 15:27
Communications Bill - Zero
|
| Keep taking the tablets. |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 15:31
Communications Bill - oilburner
|
|
*sigh* I can understand you not wanting to carry on discussing the matter, because we both clearly disagree and life is too short, but at least *try* to be respectful. Anyway, I guess we both should leave it as that. |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 15:35
Communications Bill - Zero
|
|
I cant be bothered to respond in a respectful manner to such single minded paranoid thinking thats not backed up by the facts. Sorry. I can sell you some tin foil? |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 15:39
Communications Bill - Old Navy
|
| Zero, unless you have inside knowledge of the security services which you would not be able to disclose here anyway, you are talking through your hat, (or a downward facing orifice). |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 15:43
Communications Bill - Zero
|
|
You know, being security cleared and positively vetted, I cant answer that I can tell you I know more than you. Last edited by: Zero on Thu 13 Dec 12 at 15:44
|
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 15:46
Communications Bill - Old Navy
|
|
Snap. +
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 13 Dec 12 at 15:50
|
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 15:54
Communications Bill - Dutchie
|
|
Nice to have someone in the know.I'm fed up hearing about terrorist here and terrorist there. All a smokescreen in my humble opinion.Have your say on the net and if the powers in charge don't like it so be it. |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 16:29
Communications Bill - Manatee
|
|
>> Nice to have someone in the know. Who's that then Dutchie? I obviously wasn't paying attention! |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 16:35
Communications Bill - Old Navy
|
|
Its not me. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 13 Dec 12 at 16:36
|
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 17:38
Communications Bill - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> Its not me. :-) >> I think he might mean me. I became an U.N.C.L.E. agent in the sixties. Got the badge and an invisible ink pen. Last edited by: Robin Regal on Thu 13 Dec 12 at 17:39
|
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 17:45
Communications Bill - Old Navy
|
|
>> >> Its not me. :-) >> >> >> I think he might mean me. I became an U.N.C.L.E. agent in the sixties. Got >> the badge and an invisible ink pen. >> Ah, you are obviously the senior spook here, don't tell Zero he may flounce. :-) |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 17:56
Communications Bill - Zero
|
| Its not me, most of you think you have one under your bed. |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 15:46
Communications Bill - oilburner
|
|
>> I cant be bothered to respond in a respectful manner to such single minded paranoid >> thinking thats not backed up by the facts. >> >> Sorry. >> >> >> I can sell you some tin foil? >> Absolutely not. I'm far from paranoid, I believe that people, even politicians generally try to do the right thing but often fail through incompetence, divided attention or competing interests. However history shows us that there are the small minority who do deliberately abuse the powers they have, sometimes for rather nasty reasons, other times for plain self-aggrandisement, either way - it does happen. The facts are there, the argument is there, you simply refuse to engage with it directly. Fair enough, your choice. We're not going to agree, so we can only go round in circles anyway. But no need to fight dirty eh? |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 17:15
Communications Bill - Armel Coussine
|
|
I haven't been cleared and no one has ever tried to recruit me to the Services. They don't like indiscretion or inefficiency both of which I possess in large measure. I have been looked over, discreetly interrogated and told in no uncertain terms to go forth and multiply on various occasions though. Intelligence personnel (when they don't pass unnoticed as they usually do) vary from personable and agreeable through supercilious to downright rude and nasty. Young ones can even be clumsy and obvious. But one often has the impression that it's the training speaking rather than the person. I must say it has occurred to me once or twice that Zero might be our sleeper informant. But he's a bit too high-profile really (although come to think of it I used to know slightly someone very camp and flamboyant who was almost certainly a spook). Much more likely to be someone low-key who wouldn't dream of contributing to this thread. Take that false nose off at once Rattle! Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 13 Dec 12 at 17:19
|
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 17:16
Communications Bill - Zero
|
|
> >> The facts are there, What facts? you are only providing what ifs? and maybes? fanciful speculation, even suggesting stealing Google data, which you know wont be provided because they are not an ISP so would be done by resorting to "future amendments to the proposed law" You cant argue against a proposed legislation by making up future amendments that don't exist. When you provide accurate facts about what IS being proposed and what they can and cant do I will be open to argument. |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 17:30
Communications Bill - No FM2R
|
|
>>When you provide accurate facts about what IS being proposed and what they can and cant do I will be open to argument. If this Bill is passed, then event recording will be legally required at a level beyond which it is legally required now. A level of that data will be available without warrant to certain organisations, including that well known anti-terrorist group HMRC without warrant. We are assured that access to that data will be regulated and reasonable - I assume that it would therefore justify a warrant. I do not object to the recording. I don't object to it being compulsory. I object to the implied unregulated access caused by there not being a legal requirement to justify that access. Why should it be access without warrant? |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 17:35
Communications Bill - Zero
|
| Customs and Excise have never needed a warrant, they could enter your home and seize stuff at will, including all your electronic data. I think these same powers were retained when they were smashed in with Inland Revenue, |
|
New Thu 13 Dec 12 22:36
Communications Bill - No FM2R
|
|
So, either... ....everybody already has the powers to do this so this bill is pointless and a waste of money. So we shouldn't bother. ....its impossible anyway so this bill is pointless and a waste of money. So we shouldn't bother. Unless you have a 3rd alternative then it doesn't matter whether or not people object to this bill, because we shouldn't bother with it anyway. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
