+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 159
General Chat Thread, Another rushed law, another death knell for privacy in General; Originally Posted by tmcd35 I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous reply... And I didn't argue it we're on ...
  1. #16

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    5,372
    Thank Post
    955
    Thanked 1,627 Times in 1,102 Posts
    Blog Entries
    47
    Rep Power
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous reply...
    And I didn't argue it we're on the same hymn sheet with that one. If the European Court ruled in April, though - three full months ago - why is the law only being rushed through now? Call my a cynic, but I reckon it's because they're sneaking something through that only becomes apparent after proper consideration of the bill.

    @Alkaline - either you're being sarcastic, or you didn't read the end of my first post. And "being done" and "being done legally" are different things - if it is being done, and we know it is thanks to Snowden, we can kick up a fuss and try to do something about it. Once it's rubberstamped and legalised and all neat and tidy, though, it becomes much harder.

    People shouldn't fear their government. Governments should fear their people. (And no I'm not advocating V for Vendetta and bloody revolution, just lamenting that our government no longer acts in our interests or as an expression of our communal will.)

  2. #17

    Theblacksheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In a house.
    Posts
    1,964
    Thank Post
    139
    Thanked 291 Times in 211 Posts
    Rep Power
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkaline View Post
    Nothing to fear, nothing to hide.

    There is nothing new, only making legal what was already being done.
    Its making legal what has rightly been made illegal by Europe.

    People have everything to fear from a state that has too much power. The Steven Lawrence family had nothing to hide yet they faced surveillance, intimidation and propaganda from state tools. I find the nothing to fear comments bordering on the retarded, unless sarcastic.
    Last edited by Theblacksheep; 10th July 2014 at 02:31 PM.

  3. 5 Thanks to Theblacksheep:

    BassTech (10th July 2014), Hokalus (10th July 2014), Martin (14th July 2014), sonofsanta (10th July 2014), sparkeh (10th July 2014)

  4. #18
    CAM
    CAM is offline

    CAM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Reigate Area, Surrey
    Posts
    4,411
    Thank Post
    880
    Thanked 416 Times in 316 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61
    Rep Power
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    We aren't a democracy, we're a constitutional monarchy. The only true concept of a democracy is one where there isn't a monarch that can dissolve parliament (ie. ignore the will of the people).

    Someone described the type of society we live in very well the other day. They called it "neo-feudal", which I feel fits very nicely. The only real outcome is that everyone will get so sick of the corruption and erosion of rights that they will revolt. It might be a while, but it'll most likely happen I reckon.
    The London riots were but a taste of such disorder. That was organised electronically, now there are extreme policies being put in place to monitor and clamp down on electronic communication. Makes you wonder what the true purpose of these restrictions is for...

  5. #19
    SovietRussia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Powys, Wales
    Posts
    707
    Thank Post
    77
    Thanked 159 Times in 124 Posts
    Rep Power
    49
    Remember though, this isnt the physical content of the communication its the metadata from the communication (date, time, location etc)

    Perhaps there is something be said for the way this has been rushed through, but if our very fragmented constitution allows for emergency legislation, then all you can do is contact your local MP and find out what he is voting and try and sway his opinion, but with all 3 major political parties behind this, I am sure their minds are already made up. This is how our country is ran and we just have to accept that.

    Also a central database of all our web history is just stupid, because they will give the contract to an outsourced company, if they did it in house (We pay our taxes for the Government Digital Service the people behind GOV.UK) it would be a step in the right direction.
    Last edited by SovietRussia; 10th July 2014 at 02:36 PM.

  6. #20

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,218
    Thank Post
    1,438
    Thanked 1,858 Times in 1,251 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by SovietRussia View Post
    This is how our country is ran and we just have to accept that.
    No we don't, see above comments about riots and revolution.

  7. #21

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    6,053
    Thank Post
    896
    Thanked 1,008 Times in 821 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by Theblacksheep View Post
    Its making legal what has rightly been made illegal by Europe.

    People have everything to fear from a state that has too much power. The Steven Lawrence family had nothing to hide yet they faced surveillance, intimidation and propaganda from state tools.
    Here in is my problem, what I don't understand. What exactly has been made illegal by the EU? What exactly is too much power?

    Is it wrong to expect ISP's to maintain logs for a predetermined length of time? How many of us run Internet filters that keep just these kinds of logs? I do. Is that an invasion of our users privacy?

    The question isn't the logs, it's the access to the logs. Who can gain access, how and why? Do they need evidence or reasonable suspicion to gain a court order for a named suspect? Or can they go on random fishing expeditions? Given my meagre (in comparison) 30 day logs and 800 users - fishing expeditions are long, laborious, often fruitless and man power intensive.

    I'd be more worried about forcing all outgoing traffic through a great firewall of the UK were packet sniffing gets a lot easier than this - even with this needles and haystacks come to mind.
    Last edited by tmcd35; 10th July 2014 at 02:59 PM.

  8. #22

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,496
    Thank Post
    526
    Thanked 2,638 Times in 2,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    895
    I believe the EU have struck down a law which basically told all ISPs and telecoms companies to store all comms data for up to 24 months (depending on the local government implementation). The court ruled it was too wideranging - as it wasn't targeted at a specific person or group, and retention was too long for 'general' data capture. So, if the law was 3 months data retention, then that would've been acceptable I believe. Or if the law said that a specific group was targetted, a longer time was acceptable. Or if a judge gave a warrant etc...

    The issue was that it conflicted with the pre-existing privacy laws that disallow this sort of thing.

  9. #23

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,218
    Thank Post
    1,438
    Thanked 1,858 Times in 1,251 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    559
    Open Rights Group Executive Director Jim Killock:
    "Not only will the proposed legislation infringe our right to privacy, it will also set a dangerous precedent where the government simply re-legislates every time it disagrees with a decision by the CJEU. The ruling still stands and these new plans may actually increase the amount of our personal data that is retained by ISPs, further infringing on our right to privacy.
    Blanket surveillance needs to end. That is what the court has said."

  10. Thanks to sparkeh from:

    sonofsanta (10th July 2014)

  11. #24

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    6,053
    Thank Post
    896
    Thanked 1,008 Times in 821 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    349
    "Not only will the proposed legislation infringe our right to privacy, it will also set a dangerous precedent where the government simply re-legislates every time it disagrees with a decision by the CJEU. The ruling still stands and these new plans may actually increase the amount of our personal data that is retained by ISPs, further infringing on our right to privacy.
    Blanket surveillance needs to end. That is what the court has said."
    Yeah, I saw that. Doesn't say how our right to privacy is being infringed, or how exactly this is blanket surveillance. Are ISP just required to keep the logs, or are they required to do nightly uploads to GCHQ?

    I believe the EU have struck down a law which basically told all ISPs and telecoms companies to store all comms data for up to 24 months (depending on the local government implementation)
    If this is what the emergency legislation is reinstating, and nothing else, I fail to see the problem. The problem isn't with this legislation, it's potentially with other pre-existing legislation that gives relevant authorities access to that data.

  12. #25

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,496
    Thank Post
    526
    Thanked 2,638 Times in 2,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Yeah, I saw that. Doesn't say how our right to privacy is being infringed, or how exactly this is blanket surveillance. Are ISP just required to keep the logs, or are they required to do nightly uploads to GCHQ?
    They're required to keep them, and a list of different organisations can access them without any warrant or oversight.

  13. #26

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    6,053
    Thank Post
    896
    Thanked 1,008 Times in 821 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    349
    The Beeb have updates with a more detailed sub-articled linked: BBC News - What emergency data law means for you

    Of particular interest:

    Only certain authorities are able to gain information this way, as covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa). As part of this new law, the number of organisations that are allowed to intercept calls is to be reduced.
    also:

    It outlines their legal obligation to retain "communications data" on its customers. This metadata includes things like logs of when calls were made, what numbers were dialled, and other information that can be used, the government says, in investigations. It does not include the content of the communications.
    and

    A transparency report will, each year, list the number and type of requests made to communication firms under the new law - similar to the way in which Google, Facebook and other technology firms publicise their actions relating to user privacy
    I'm still drawing parallels with my own Smoothwall installation and wondering what the fuss is about?...

    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    They're required to keep them, and a list of different organisations can access them without any warrant or oversight.
    This is worrying but as little to do with this act. It's the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act that allows access without warrant or oversight. Maybe we should have paid more notice when that was being passed?

    Although glancing at Wikipedia's RIPA entry, the authorities legally allowed to access the data can't go on a fishing expedition and needs authorisation from a senior person. I assume by that there is some accountability if a search was authorised without reasonable probable cause.
    Last edited by tmcd35; 10th July 2014 at 04:18 PM.

  14. #27
    SovietRussia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Powys, Wales
    Posts
    707
    Thank Post
    77
    Thanked 159 Times in 124 Posts
    Rep Power
    49
    Here is the bill if nobody has seen it:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ry-powers-bill

  15. 2 Thanks to SovietRussia:

    sonofsanta (10th July 2014), tmcd35 (10th July 2014)

  16. #28

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    5,372
    Thank Post
    955
    Thanked 1,627 Times in 1,102 Posts
    Blog Entries
    47
    Rep Power
    711
    I still don't get why they need to rush it through when they've had three months notice. The party line is that they've been pressured into providing this guidance by the telecoms companies asking for legal clarification; when the ECJ ruling went through, did they expect them to continue to hold the data illegally (in contravention of DPA) out of good manners? They knew it needed clarifying whether or not they were being asked for that clarification, so why have they waited then claimed they need to rush it through?

    @tmcd35 - we saw with the Snowden relevations on the NSA how lax that oversight often was. Not directly applicable to the UK bodies affected by this, but certainly indicative of human nature.

    On a tangentially related note: anyone else amused by the overly florid introduction to Bills?
    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows
    Lords Temporal? Is the government advised by Time Lords now?

  17. #29

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,496
    Thank Post
    526
    Thanked 2,638 Times in 2,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    This is worrying but as little to do with this act. It's the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act that allows access without warrant or oversight. Maybe we should have paid more notice when that was being passed?
    We did pay attention. There were protests. And "slippery slope" was brought up. Now confirmed.

    Although glancing at Wikipedia's RIPA entry, the authorities legally allowed to access the data can't go on a fishing expedition and needs authorisation from a senior person. I assume by that there is some accountability if a search was authorised without reasonable probable cause.
    Its already been shown that RIPA has been abused all over the place...

  18. Thanks to localzuk from:

    Theblacksheep (10th July 2014)

  19. #30
    SovietRussia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Powys, Wales
    Posts
    707
    Thank Post
    77
    Thanked 159 Times in 124 Posts
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    We did pay attention. There were protests. And "slippery slope" was brought up. Now confirmed.



    Its already been shown that RIPA has been abused all over the place...
    RIPA is supposed to be authorised by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of Secretary of State for Justice along with these outlined in RIPA:

    (a)the Director-General of the Security Service;
    (b)the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service;
    (c)the Director of GCHQ;
    (d)the Director General of the [F1Serious Organised Crime Agency]F1 ;
    [F2(da)the Director General of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency;]
    F2(e)the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis;
    (f)the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary;
    (g)the chief constable of any police force maintained under or by virtue of section 1 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;
    (h) the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs;
    (i)the Chief of Defence Intelligence;



SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Facebook 'to seek consent for privacy changes'
    By elsiegee40 in forum e-Safety
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14th November 2011, 05:40 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 6th July 2011, 06:28 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 29th April 2010, 11:45 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20th December 2009, 03:16 PM
  5. Compiling for another machine
    By Ric_ in forum *nix
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 13th March 2007, 04:34 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •