General Chat Thread, ConDem Trying to Bait Anonymous Again... in General; Your second link is about updating Data Protection law from 1995 and is nothing to do with Data Retention, except ...
2nd April 2012, 10:32 PM #16
Your second link is about updating Data Protection law from 1995 and is nothing to do with Data Retention, except of course they clash... the proposed regulation likely says retention is permitted where it's required by law e.g. Data Retention.
Would you mind going and reading The Register's take on this and then explain how that fits with your EU-wot-dunnit case. Note how that and lots of other folk, including the briefing paper that's supposed to be calm the lib dem masses, keep invoking the magic acronym RIPA in relation to *this* story and RIPA is not Data Rentention.
Originally Posted by Flatpackhamster
2nd April 2012, 11:04 PM #17
That not been true for RIPA has it? And remember last summer, the tabloid press knowing where news-worthy folk are right now (coz of where their mobiles were)? Oh yes, that clearly was, and this will definitely be used 'proportionately' for serious stuff like organised crime, proper terrorism, active paedophiles and the like ... you bet... absolutely because we're different from our predecessors and successors... there's no shadow of a doubt.
Originally Posted by glennda
Spending half of what's likely billions on lots of things would likely keep us "safer" (I vote for seriously criminalising failure to use your car indicators when you should). You have to **ask questions**, for instance: How much safer is that then and does it justify the expense? Let's say we do spend a few billion on this and maybe catch an really inept Bad Guy or two - would seem like a bit of a waste of money for such a small return you could have gotten for a fraction of the price with other humdrum methods, so they'll inevitably lower the proportionate bar a bit to help justify the massive outlay and by-and-by you're living in a fluffy on the outside totalitarian state whose inhabitants deserved what they got for being so bleeping gullible.
Last edited by PiqueABoo; 2nd April 2012 at 11:05 PM.
2nd April 2012, 11:15 PM #18
But what if the couple of people that billion pounds caught was the ringleaders of 7/7? or caught the next osama bin laden before he could organise another 9/11 thats nearly 4000 people saved. plus the millions/billions it has cost us to go to war and for all those brave service personal who have been killed/maimed in Afghanistan
Originally Posted by PiqueABoo
IMHO saving lives and stopping SOC/terrorism is what this bill is designed for not what Mr MP thinks is the gov trying to trace his habits on the internet (which is probably bad anyway)
With regards to RIPA I * believe* from what I have read, for any agency to gain access to peoples personal email accounts etc a Judy has to sign off a warrant - similarly if they police wanted to come knocking on your door to search your house or physical post
2nd April 2012, 11:36 PM #19
What makes you think serious Bad Guys will be stupid enough to get caught by net monitoring we all know is happening? I said 'inept', because it seems extremely unlikely that anyone planning a major terrorist act, that's been given serious money to undertake it, would start sending e-mail about it, spend every evening browsing the net for the latest anarchist cookbook, routinely visit anti-US facebook pages or whatever.
But what if the couple of people that billion pounds caught was the ringleaders of 7/7?
You reckon? Read this (actually I'll quote the relevant bit): In fact, the whole point of the CCDP is to facilitate the interception of communications streams in order to obtain traffic data, without the requirement of ministerial or judicial warrants.
a Judy has to sign off a warrant
Last edited by PiqueABoo; 2nd April 2012 at 11:40 PM.
3rd April 2012, 11:14 AM #20
By and By? You counted the number of CCTV cameras in your borough lately. It's here already. I hate these itty-bitty, baby-step, one by one corrosions of personal freedom.
Originally Posted by PiqueABoo
All justified by that Old Saw, 'Honest law-abiding citizens have nothing to worry about'......... Oh Yeah?
Just my two-pennorth, after a week off with flu.
3rd April 2012, 11:21 AM #21
This is a very good point. If you have nothing to worry about, then you will accept the erosion of your freedom, in this way. It was the same as the ID cards that were mooted in the '80's. If you weren't a hooligan then why should YOU worry about carrying an ID card?
Originally Posted by Earthling
I point to the fact that at both times, the Cons have been in power.... Make of that what you will
3rd April 2012, 11:27 AM #22
What if, some hypothetical situation where thousands die happens? OMG! Give us all mandatory GHCQ linked cameras implanted in our eyes! It'll cost billions (to you) and have total state surveillance, but think of the children!!!
Originally Posted by glennda
The people involved in the incidents you try to link to were well known to the security services and having realtime access to everyones everything would not have changed a thing.
Following up with PiqueABoo, Judges arent needed for RIPA, it's signed off in secret. Of the 3,000,000 RIPA requests, 5,000 have be under judicial review. Again excused for "security", but ended up being used by councils to spy on people to check they are in the right catchment area (one of the public lighthearted examples, but its hard to find info on the rest).
Anyone that actually believes its about saving lives must have been born yesterday or just be completely indoctrinated with mainstream political PR.
After a nice psi-op by releasing the news on April 1st, this will now be an exercise in how to implement total state surveillance. The Conservatives will publicly stay as quite as possible, playing the Whitehall/HomeOffice/Security card and Labour will put up a girls pillow fight with some 'checks and balances'. The sheep and media will repeat the 'nothing to hide' mantra, a few TV shows about the evil internet and its Job done. Isn't democracy great.
Last edited by Theblacksheep; 3rd April 2012 at 11:59 AM.
Thanks to Theblacksheep from:
3rd April 2012, 11:46 AM #23
Without wanting to sound too crazy it's only a fine line these days between what's actually a crime and when your opinions are seen being just as bad.
Originally Posted by glennda
The worry with snooping like this is eventually that free speech and thought get stamped down on if you dare to disagree with the powers that be...
3rd April 2012, 11:54 AM #24
But not Black Sheep, presumably.
Originally Posted by Theblacksheep
Thanks to Earthling from:
Theblacksheep (3rd April 2012)
3rd April 2012, 02:18 PM #25
3rd April 2012, 02:35 PM #26
What's this I see?
Originally Posted by PiqueABoo
A press release about the launch of the new EU cybercrime centre? http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc...e%20Centre.pdf
The Register, although it is mostly right, is wrong on this one. This is an EU programme, and an EU directive. Why else would it be that two political parties who had explicitly committed to dismantling Labour's surveillance state in the GE manifestos should suddenly jump on board the whole scheme? I'm prepared to believe many things of the incompetents who run our country in to the ground, but that two political parties with the same policy would both jack it in at the same time?
3rd April 2012, 03:35 PM #27
No, the whole point is to provide real time access without a warrent.
Similar to a bobby/spook turning up on your doorstep and demanding entry to view your book/cd/dvd collection without a warrent, just to see if there is any seditious material there.
Fine if you have nothing to hide since you dont have to answer the door, someone else gives them all the info. Bad if they decide that the political satire site you visited via stumbleupon means you end up on a no-fly list without any recourse/reason/suspicion.
On top of which, look at how wrong the RIAA got things taking little old ladies to court for downloading rap songs they had never heard of. You think the governement can do it with less errors and no oversight?
Last edited by peterp; 3rd April 2012 at 03:37 PM.
3rd April 2012, 05:15 PM #28
May I suggest that we all include the word 'bomb' in all our emails, tweets and texts and Facebook posts. Should make life interesting for those doing the monitoring.....
''Hello Granny, I'll be bringing your shopping tomorrow. Bomb. Love, your Grandson xxxx''
3rd April 2012, 05:18 PM #29
Well hello to anybody at GCHQ who now might be picking this up! lol
Originally Posted by tech_guy
3rd April 2012, 05:54 PM #30
Here is a FAQ written by folk who are in the (non-profit) business of knowing what they're talking about. Coz some folk don't click links, some choice excerpts:
What do we know? Very little. The Communication Capabilities Development Programme (CCDP) is going to be included in the Queen's Speech next month and we still haven't had public confirmation of the details. What we do know is that there have been secret briefings to MPs designed to scare them into compliance, and secret briefings to industry that were originally designed to calm their fears (but in fact have only served to increase their outrage).
Why is this happening now? In the days of the old internet, when we used email addresses provided by ISPs like BT, who tended to have servers in the UK, government authorities were able to grab information on who we were emailing and when with ease. Growth in interactivity and international services has meant that new 'third party providers' are enabling our email. Simply put, we now use Gmail and Hotmail to communicate with other people, not a BT address. Gmail and Hotmail are run by companies outside of the UK (Google and Microsoft respectively) and so don't have to automatically comply with UK government requests....
What about security? There are two security nightmares involved here. Firstly, the security of the black boxes at ISPs is suspect. Analagous capabilities have been abused before
the use of SSL generates significant problems for these black boxes - they know which service provider you are connecting to, but are unable to access your transactional information. This can be circumvented, but such a step on the government's part would be difficult, controversial and potentially illegal.
Will this help prevent terrorism? No. In a terrorism investigation, the police will already have access to all the data they could want. This is about other investigations - it is about the millions of requests made every year by local law enforcement and other authorities in the investigation of serious - and less serious - crime.
What’s the big deal? Once the government is allowed to install these black boxes at ISPs, there’s basically no limit on future actions. Could this data be used to track file-sharing and monitor who is visiting specific websites? Absolutely. Could this system be used to restrict access to services? Absolutely. Once this line is crossed, the government will have enormous scope to monitor and control the internet.
 If they don't address the "significant problem" then these boxes clearly won't be able to fulfil their raison d'etre. Addressing the obvious means SSL MITM type stuff as implemented by Smoothwall and others. In order to get away with the latter they need a sub-CA from a widely recognised CA to spoof normal site certs so they can then grope around in the content to figure out who you put in a To field in a new mail web page etc. "Controversial" is an understatement: PKI has always had woes, but given whats gone on recently it's reputation is in tatters and given some of the subsequent militancy I suspect key browser makers might not find this acceptable i.e. could kick any CA that makes a sub-CA for the gov to do this out of the default set they ship with the browser. Another factor is that there are two parties in an SSL "conversation" - on the server-side some sites may resent UK state interception and refuse to talk to UK clients. See also: Projects like Sovereign Keys which is intended to help fix some of PKI's woes and would drop all MITM'd connections, then there's the rise of several browser add-ons for detecting certificate fiddling etc.
Last edited by PiqueABoo; 3rd April 2012 at 05:56 PM.
By pmassingham in forum Windows
Last Post: 23rd March 2006, 10:20 AM
By MartinDixon in forum Windows
Last Post: 16th February 2006, 12:36 PM
Last Post: 17th January 2006, 04:41 PM
By russdev in forum Other Stuff
Last Post: 15th September 2005, 06:59 AM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)