Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17580906

A sudden U-Turn from the Liberal/Conservative coalition, who so far have been pro-civil-liberties in comparison to the former Labour government, now they're planning to adopt Nineteen-Eighty-Four-esque policy similar to what the previous government was planning.

The Home Office says the plan is key to tackling crime and terrorism.

They would say this wouldn't they.

Although it is not clear what exactly is being proposed, Downing Street insisted it would not include the content of communications.

... I don't honestly believe them when they say this, it seems hard to get any substance without it?

How much is all of that going to cost?

It doesnt concern me that much to be honest.. They arent going to be bothered about reading my emails to Amazon are they?

But if you live in Leeds and your regularly emailing a mate called KILLDAFAGZ in Helmand province, frankly I think they should be checking into your gak.

As always, I retort how I do to some of our more parnoid American cousins. Nobody is really free. As long as I can continue to do the things I actually enjoy in life (I can) I don't give a gak what the government get up to. Will they be bothered about me playing wow, using dakka and occasionally pulling myself into a furious foam filled frenzy via google on the rare occasion that the missus is visiting her mother?

People will soon stop whinging if as a result of said legislation they manage to halt a group of suicide bombers in Leeds from boarding a bus and filling everyones kids with rat poison and bone shrapnel.

As always, when its a furore in the news I barely get excited by it. This wont affect my life negatively, so I really don't give a fig.

I often wonder how many people who cite George Orwell's novel in relation to things like this have actually read it...

Albatross wrote:I often wonder how many people who cite George Orwell's novel in relation to things like this have actually read it...

Too true.

I read it when I got a compliation in charity box mailed out to Afghanistan. It was either that or Peter Kays autobiography.

To be fair, I wasnt that big a fan because the plot was an old one by the time I was 26 years old. I much preferred animal farm!

Well.. until Boxer died.

mattyrm wrote:People will soon stop whinging if as a result of said legislation they manage to halt a group of suicide bombers in Leeds from boarding a bus and filling everyones kids with rat poison and bone shrapnel.

Not everyone agrees that the ends justifies the means.

Especially while there's still a large amount of prejudice in the world, yes, even in the UK.

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote:People will soon stop whinging if as a result of said legislation they manage to halt a group of suicide bombers in Leeds from boarding a bus and filling everyones kids with rat poison and bone shrapnel.

Not everyone agrees that the ends justifies the means.

Especially while there's still a large amount of prejudice in the world, yes, even in the UK.

Oh of course Im smart enough to be aware of the debate, its a hot topic.

But I do agree that the ends justify the means, I always have done, and I still don't give a gak about CCTV either!

All im saying is, the slippery slope argument is clearly an awful one (if they do this next thing they will be killing babies! etc etc etc) and the only other one is that it will somehow affect law abiding people, but how will it? If you are going about your normal life, using your pc to talk to friends, buy gak, play games, use dakka, how can this affect you negatively? Even somewhat dodgy things (Internet porn) aren't going to bother MI5, so why bother worrying about it?

I'm not arguing the slippery slope argument, more like I'm making the "humans are bastards and WILL abuse this law" argument.

The latter is well proven and acknowledged to be true, the former is hard to argue and potentially fallacious.

Melissia wrote:I'm not arguing the slippery slope argument, more like I'm making the "humans are bastards and WILL abuse this law" argument.

The latter is well proven and acknowledged to be true, the former is hard to argue and potentially fallacious.

Oh yeah I didnt say you were, thats just the common one. I guess the awful ones are always the most common eh?

You are correct of course, some fether will no doubt abuse the law but, that's life isn't it? gak, we feth almost everything up when the government gets its hands onto it. It all boils down to what your comfortable with or not. As I said, I am happy that the ends justifies the means and that's almost always my opinion. If having a much higher chance that domestic terrorists emailing Pakistani training cells will be caught means that an occasional email Matty writes to the missus gets passed around an intelligence office and sniggered about even though I will never know about it and It wont be published in any newspapers or public forums.. I reckon I can deal with it.

Maybe its just cos I'm not easily upset. I don't mind if a CCTV operator is trying to peep into my bedroom window to see my being intimate with my missus during a slow shift as long as he keeps an eye out for the gakker that smashed my car windscreen while he is at it!

But he isn't keeping an eye out for that gakker, he's watching you.

The impact on our daily lives would be negligable Matty I agree, but even so, I suppose I'm just not a huge fan of knowing that someone out there, likely lots of people, who I've never met and never will, know almost everything about my personal life. Another thing that is kinda related is in advertising; where phone numbers, email addresses and names get passed around. Spam emails and phonecalls follow. They're easy to ignore I know, but it's the principle that your details; given in confidence to a seller/shop/what-have-you that gets passed to a third party that you have not had dealings with.

Ultimately this seems similar, with even more sensitive information that people maybe would not want to be shared.


I'll admit I haven't read 1984, but I do have a copy somewhere... I just can't really get into it, which is a shame

Tibbsy wrote:The impact on our daily lives would be negligable Matty I agree, but even so, I suppose I'm just not a huge fan of knowing that someone out there, likely lots of people, who I've never met and never will, know almost everything about my personal life. Another thing that is kinda related is in advertising; where phone numbers, email addresses and names get passed around. Spam emails and phonecalls follow. They're easy to ignore I know, but it's the principle that your details; given in confidence to a seller/shop/what-have-you that gets passed to a third party that you have not had dealings with.

Ultimately this seems similar, with even more sensitive information that people maybe would not want to be shared.

I'll admit I haven't read 1984, but I do have a copy somewhere... I just can't really get into it, which is a shame

Aye as I said, I can see both sides the argument obviously.. It just boils down to what bothers you or not.

For me, ignorance is bliss. If some suits are scimming over my boring ass email and I don't know about it, I couldn't care less. There's a war on!

Is ignorance bliss when that ignorance gets you blown up by a suicide bomber because tehy'er too busy reading your emails instead of tracking down the suicide bomber?

Melissia wrote:Is ignorance bliss when that ignorance gets you blown up by a suicide bomber because tehy'er too busy reading your emails instead of tracking down the suicide bomber?

And In real life, why on earth would they be wasting time reading mine and not a fighting age male's with a suspect background?

See the "humans are bastards" argument, and raise it to "bastards who will slack off and read your personal information for fun instead of doing their jobs" as proven by the numerous times where people get in trouble for looking at facebook and twitter at work.

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:Is ignorance bliss when that ignorance gets you blown up by a suicide bomber because tehy'er too busy reading your emails instead of tracking down the suicide bomber?

And In real life, why on earth would they be wasting time reading mine and not a fighting age male's with a suspect background?

Incompetence, boredom and/or laziness.

Melissia wrote:
See the "humans are bastards" argument, and raise it to "bastards who will slack off and read your personal information for fun instead of doing their jobs" as proven by the numerous times where people get in trouble for looking at facebook and twitter at work.

Also this.

Speaking of incompetence, I can't spell incompetence correctly

I oppose this for three reasons.

1. Privacy is one of those human rights that actually matters. Too much gak is stopped because of human rights dogmas, however basic privacy counts.

2. It doesn't make a blindest bit of difference. If spooks suspect you of something they already have their ability to read your mail and tap your phone. they also have the right to demand passwords of you. Best leave this underhand as unofficial information is used unofficially and thus more securedly.

3. The UK leaks like a sieve, so if they have the right to collect data they have the right to maintain 'open' databases.
Unofficially held information from the security services doesnt disappear often, if at all. it is very rarely that leaked wiretaps hit the press. However if there is a state database held openly and legally of everyone/anyone it will end up in the care of useless civil servants who will not care if the data is unsecured.

My National Insurance number got plucked from a database somewhere, and used by scammers, twice. I wouldn't like my phone records to go the same way. The Data Protection act is no protection. If there is an official database there will be leaks and bribes and indiscretions.

National personal records visited openly by police will not be used discretely. At least at this moment if spooks were tapping anyones mail and phone the info will be held by spooks and held tightly because while legal for them to act it is outside of societies norms.
However to police it will just be regular legally held information and therefore will be distributed 'normally'.
Should we expect professionalism from our police and civil service. Frankly no. This law will open legally held gossip files that will be the talk of whichever official gets hold of them, and will end up in the hands of organised crime and/or the press.

I would much rather we carried on as before. Its a hopeless dream to suggest that MI5 cannot already do all the things this bill is asking for the state to do openly. There is no change really. However automated surveillance can and will be abused due to the petty corruption, indiscretion and incompetence that is rife in the civil service.

What I find laughable is that it wont make a point of detail to the security services, if they want to tap they tap. what it will help are foreign intelligence agencies the security services are part mandated to stop. Instead of having to mount a (detectable) intelligence operation if a foreign spook wants to gather info on someone in the UK all they need do is bribe an official to get the info from the database, and if the recording are automatic even backdate the query.
Due to the large numbers of unchecked foreign nationals within the civil service this might be laughably easy.

mattyrm wrote: It doesnt concern me that much to be honest.. They arent going to be bothered about reading my emails to Amazon are they?

But if you live in Leeds and your regularly emailing a mate called KILLDAFAGZ in Helmand province, frankly I think they should be checking into your gak.

As always, I retort how I do to some of our more parnoid American cousins. Nobody is really free. As long as I can continue to do the things I actually enjoy in life (I can) I don't give a gak what the government get up to. Will they be bothered about me playing wow, using dakka and occasionally pulling myself into a furious foam filled frenzy via google on the rare occasion that the missus is visiting her mother?

People will soon stop whinging if as a result of said legislation they manage to halt a group of suicide bombers in Leeds from boarding a bus and filling everyones kids with rat poison and bone shrapnel.

As always, when its a furore in the news I barely get excited by it. This wont affect my life negatively, so I really don't give a fig.

In principle, I agree entirely - the one problem which arises is HM government's oft-demonstrated incompetence in keeping to itself the information it possesses, rather than - for instance - leaving it lying around in pubs.

Orlanth wrote:I oppose this for three reasons.

1. Privacy is one of those human rights that actually matters. Too much gak is stopped because of human rights dogmas, however basic privacy counts.

2. It doesn't make a blindest bit of difference. If spooks suspect you of something they already have their ability to read your mail and tap your phone. they also have the right to demand passwords of you. Best leave this underhand as unofficial information is used unofficially and thus more securedly.

3. The UK leaks like a sieve, so if they have the right to collect data they have the right to maintain 'open' databases.
Unofficially held information from the security services doesnt disappear often, if at all. it is very rarely that leaked wiretaps hit the press. However if there is a state database held openly and legally of everyone/anyone it will end up in the care of useless civil servants who will not care if the data is unsecured.

My National Insurance number got plucked from a database somewhere, and used by scammers, twice. I wouldn't like my phone records to go the same way. The Data Protection act is no protection. If there is an official database there will be leaks and bribes and indiscretions.

National personal records visited openly by police will not be used discretely. At least at this moment if spooks were tapping anyones mail and phone the info will be held by spooks and held tightly because while legal for them to act it is outside of societies norms.
However to police it will just be regular legally held information and therefore will be distributed 'normally'.
Should we expect professionalism from our police and civil service. Frankly no. This law will open legally held gossip files that will be the talk of whichever official gets hold of them, and will end up in the hands of organised crime and/or the press.

I would much rather we carried on as before. Its a hopeless dream to suggest that MI5 cannot already do all the things this bill is asking for the state to do openly. There is no change really. However automated surveillance can and will be abused due to the petty corruption, indiscretion and incompetence that is rife in the civil service.

What I find laughable is that it wont make a point of detail to the security services, if they want to tap they tap. what it will help are foreign intelligence agencies the security services are part mandated to stop. Instead of having to mount a (detectable) intelligence operation if a foreign spook wants to gather info on someone in the UK all they need do is bribe an official to get the info from the database, and if the recording are automatic even backdate the query.
Due to the large numbers of unchecked foreign nationals within the civil service this might be laughably easy.

Cant argue with that like.. especially

Due to the large numbers of unchecked foreign nationals within the civil service this might be laughably easy

Muslims many times have shown far more loyalty to their Religion than the nation of their birth. Who is going to be doing the checking?

feth it Ive changed my mind.

Nobody blows people up in Middlesbrough anyway!

People seem to be under the impression that this can not be done already.
If you read between the lines this plan isn't so much about introducing something new; it's more about moving the responsibility and cost away from GCHQ.
The data is already there anyway in the form of telephone billing records and e-mail headers (although they are in the person's mailbox at the ISP or POP provider). Text and Voice messages are stored UNENCRYPTED on servers at your phone provider's data center.
If you think that this proposal makes one jot of difference to the powers MI5, Special Branch, HMRC, the police and your local council have to surveil you then you are sorely mistaken.

Personally I think this is a political spin screen to hide something from the headlines.

^^ What he said.

For years the police have been able to access your phone records to see which numbers you have been calling or texting and this kind of evidence has been important in a number of criminal cases.

As Sonophos points out, the phone companies have to keep such info in order to compile proper accounts.

Getting into the actual content of such communications is a different matter.

However, if GHQ or the police were granted powers to scan for significant words it would fail for a number of reasons.

If TPTB really were planning to enslave us all with mind control they would hardly announce the plan in advance, would they.

Sonophos wrote:
If you think that this proposal makes one jot of difference to the powers MI5, Special Branch, HMRC, the police and your local council have to surveil you then you are sorely mistaken.

Personally I think this is a political spin screen to hide something from the headlines.

It does make a small difference.

At the moment the security services will need to 'actively' tap and generally sift data.

With this all data will be fed into a database and can be cross referenced in hindsight. So the advantage is that rather than having someone come to their attention and then checking their media the check can be backdated.

However:

1. This is cicumventable by terrorists. One well known technique is to rely on pay as you go mobile phones bought anonymously and disgarded regularly. There are probably other ways I wouldnt know.

2. It sets up a bad mentality. Rather than look for suspects to tap the entire media community becomes the 'suspects' to automatically sift though. A nasty way of sleepwalking into an us and them mentality.

3. There will be exceptions purportedly for our own national security. You can be sure that the official tap database will not have any cabinet ministers on it. How far does this immunity extend? Serving intelligence officers, military staff and officials, cronies possibly etc etc. You see the problem with this? At the moment we have an 'opt in' system for want of a better word. If you are scummy enough to be tapped you are tapped. This is an 'opt out system' where those powerful enough are not touched by the system which otherwise blankets everyone else.

I really dont like this bill scratch the surface and you smell crap.

Some good points raised here - I guess we'll have to wait and see how it pans out, in all honesty. I know that I for one have not read this bill, so I'm not 100% sure how i feel about it yet.

I DO know that I have a knee-jerk hatred of the '1984!! MIND CONTROL! Big Brother!!!' crowd. Seriously, just grow up. By the same token, 'the innocent have nothing to fear' is also a load of old pony.

Matty, I just now realized that the "rm" in your user name stands for "royal marine." For the longest time I've been trying to figure out how to pronounce it! I thought it was probably something like, "Matter-rim." Huh.

I find that Internet Privacy is an impossibility.

It is simply too easy to mine data as most people are far too ignorant of the Internet to protect themselves.

Every government monitors the internet, most governments have cyber security departments and most of those departments have very little to do but monitor the teeming millions with technology which those same individuals will scarcely comprehend. Those millions chalking it up to 'maaaa-gic'! Even corporations have similar capabilities. Once created those departments will be VERY ACTIVELY searching if only to give them a reason for being. So don't delude yourself with notions of it being too difficult etc... it really isn't and more often than not they find what they seek. Or notice what need or want to see.

Private individuals can monitor other private individuals for nefarious purposes across continents let alone National governments. The technology is readily available.

Given the fact that all or nearly all forms of communication and the internet are completely intertwined in one way or another means there is nowhere a person can be discrete.

The fact that the UK government has announced such intentions does not mean that they care what their citizens think on the matter. It won't change anything as they are simply giving them a 'heads-up'. Which was rather nice of them I think. Even if the government says they won't do such things after protests you know they will. They just wont tell you again. Especially if they even get a wiff of a breach of National Security.

So, get all up in arms, protest, whine and cry all you want... we already live in defacto digital 'police states' as it is. Everything you are (that matters, anyway), everything you've posted and much that you haven't that pertains to you is searchable to ANYONE with the know how. Whether that'd be medical records, your grades in Elementary school or how many times you've hit certain porn sites in the last 10 minutes. It is there FOREVER.

I personally could care less about such things. Not because I have nothing to hide, but rather because there is very little I can do about it.

As sort of a bright side, there are individuals and small groups of like-minded individuals who can thwart, upset or undermine the activities of National Governments. Only for short periods, however, and more than likely those individuals wont be on the side of personal privacy activism.

Now censorship is another kettle of fish altogether, though I hold little hope of a free internet because of the fear and complete ignorance readily found in our fellow citizens. Most would rather give up real personal freedom for the illusion of personal security.

In truth, fear the ignorance and complacency of your fellow man more than the what the Government may or may not do to your personal freedoms.

rubiksnoob wrote:Matty, I just now realized that the "rm" in your user name stands for "royal marine." For the longest time I've been trying to figure out how to pronounce it! I thought it was probably something like, "Matter-rim." Huh.

Yeah, I couldn't think of a clever internet name, its mattyrm@ for my email address so..

I guess its just pronounced Matty.

The problem with data mining the whole internet is the huge amount of false positives that will be thrown up.

I have in mind things like that Irish boy who had booked a holiday to the US and tweeted that he was going to "destroy" Las Vegas. (Meaning he intended to go out and get drunk.) The Department of Homeland Security sniffed that and banned his visa.

Imagine what a site like DakkaDakka looks like to a text sniffing bot.

Meanwhile any intelligent conspirator will use steganography to cover their communications.

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with data mining the whole internet is the huge amount of false positives that will be thrown up.

I have in mind things like that Irish boy who had booked a holiday to the US and tweeted that he was going to "destroy" Las Vegas. (Meaning he intended to go out and get drunk.) The Department of Homeland Security sniffed that and banned his visa.

Imagine what a site like DakkaDakka looks like to a text sniffing bot.

Meanwhile any intelligent conspirator will use steganography to cover their communications.

Oh yeah I remember that, funny story, I felt sorry for the somewhat silly young fella.

Yes, it's like the two Irish lads who visited London "for the crack" and got arrested.