Another rushed law, another death knell for privacy

[tmcd35]

Why stop with the internet? Why not log all postal mail items? Why not log all journeys people take by car, bus, train, and on foot etc... Why not track where everyone shops at all times? Schools could benefit know how their pupils are eating, sleeping and behaving outside of school - should they know that too?

 

But the question isn't any of those things, it's Internet data. If we were talking about setting up a government agency with the express purpose of logging all postal mail communications I might have a different attitude.

 

I take a more pragmatic approach. What data is being collected? How much data is being collected? Is the data being collected anyway? The last question is key. It's not as if the ISP's need to do anything other than make sure they don't delete the logs they're already collecting for billing purposes.

 

EDIT: The problem I have with the bill is more to do with the lack of definition on data being collected and the Home Security having sole powers in defining this.

 

Also, you can't really separate out the access issue. Do you really want your browsing information available to your local authority parking or school admissions teams? They have access to the information that is collected now...

 

Of course you can, you just did! You've just sighted two access examples. The question isn't whether it's right or wrong ISP's keeping the data they're collecting anyway a little longer. The question is should the local parking authority have access to it?

Edited July 14, 2014 by tmcd35

[jinnantonnixx]

Interview with Snowden

 

Edward Snowden condemns Britain's emergency surveillance bill | World news | The Guardian

[localzuk]

But the question isn't any of those things, it's Internet data. If we were talking about setting up a government agency with the express purpose of logging all postal mail communications I might have a different attitude.

 

Why does internet data differ to you when compared with the other data types I listed? Its still private information.

[mthomas08]

Not sure if I hit a nerve or something but as always people taking certain things out of context.

 

I guess for me if they want to stick me in prison for life or export me they will do so regardless of how I feel or shout.

 

So... because I like having some semblance of privacy, I'm trying to hide illegal activities?

You're lucky this is a family-friendly forum and I can't say what I really want to.

 

Sorry but where in my post does it accuse you of doing something illegal. I was using a general quote like so many others are right now in this discussion. My attitude towards this law change has no real bearing on my life so why should I care? If they wanted to shoot me over something you think they will hide behind this law? Is it going to change anything if I throw my toys out like some did over the whole blocking of torrent sites and parental filters from service providers? If the government wants to do something they will do it and if its that much of a problem go march up London. And no I am not accusing you of throwing your toys out either before you turn that on me.

 

you've never, not ever, gone over the speed limit on the motorway when it's near midnight, there's no-one else around and you want to get home? You've not crept up to 80, knowing (rightly) that speed itself can do no harm, only the misapplication there of, and an empty motorway can safely sustain that speed and more?

 

If they want to sentence me to something I did which was once legal then again what can I do to stop them?

 

Although if that's the case the stuff I do on the internet is the same browsing as the millions of others. So at the end of the day if millions of us are put behind bars they will be in the already over crowded prisons.

 

Sorry but it may be a view that I don't care but it's half true, every law change is just like the world cup. It all gets forgotten 30 days later because no one cares any more. All we will have is the highlights in 10 Years time which not many people will watch. I don't know why people are getting so worked up over it.

Edited July 14, 2014 by mthomas08

[X-13]

Sorry but where in my post does it accuse you of doing something illegal.

 

"If you've got nothing to hide"

 

That's what that means. If you're not doing anything illegal, you shouldn't be worried about government snooping.

[sted]

Interview with Snowden

 

Edward Snowden condemns Britain's emergency surveillance bill | World news | The Guardian

 

but how much can you take the word of someone like snowden? Whatever you think of what he did he (i have to assume) broke the us equivelent of the official secrets act and if you cant keep your own word why should he be trusted? At the end of the day rightly or wrongly he is a traitor plain and simple he may of had "good" motives but he has proved he cant be trusted.

 

Granted im not happy about the govenment having any more data on me than they actually need (which is imo very limited) but i also cant see any way of stopping this or even making any difference all the main partys i suggest would do roughly the same however much they protest they wouldnt.

 

Part of the problem is that just saying terorism means you can justify almost anything to the point where i sometimes wonder if any of the threats are/ever have been anything other than security services wanting to make it easier to keep tabs on people

[sonofsanta]

The road to hell is paved with apathy.

 

You may not care. It seems you wouldn't care even if they wanted to imprison you for life or shoot you. But those of us who do care and do worry about the creep of power want to kick up a fuss and talk about it. Marching up to London is pointless - we can't campaign within a mile of the Houses now, after a law was passed based on vague fears of "terrorism" etc., even though we'd not bothered with said laws during the decades-long struggle against the IRA - but discussing it and talking to other people about it and trying to raise awareness of it is the way to make a real difference.

 

You ask "what can I do to stop them?" - can't you see that there shouldn't be an us and them? This is democracy, they are meant to be us, representative of us, servants to us! They have no God given right to rule, they are elected to be our representatives, and if they stop representing me then I will damn well complain about them.

[localzuk]

but how much can you take the word of someone like snowden? Whatever you think of what he did he (i have to assume) broke the us equivelent of the official secrets act and if you cant keep your own word why should he be trusted? At the end of the day rightly or wrongly he is a traitor plain and simple he may of had "good" motives but he has proved he cant be trusted.

 

I trust someone who stands up for what is right more than someone who obsessively follows poor laws. A traitor is someone who does something to damage a country. Many don't believe what he did actually did any damage, but instead did good as it meant the tide of surveillance was looked at.

 

Granted im not happy about the govenment having any more data on me than they actually need (which is imo very limited) but i also cant see any way of stopping this or even making any difference all the main partys i suggest would do roughly the same however much they protest they wouldnt.

 

Part of the problem is that just saying terorism means you can justify almost anything to the point where i sometimes wonder if any of the threats are/ever have been anything other than security services wanting to make it easier to keep tabs on people

 

You know, more people die every day from car accidents than die in a year from terrorism in this country. Bees kill more people than terrorism. Why do we obsess so much with terrorism, when there are far more important things to deal with every single day.

 

The amount of money put into the "war on terror" is not to scale with the damage it causes.

[tmcd35]

Why does internet data differ to you when compared with the other data types I listed? Its still private information.

 

It's not the data that differs, it's the method of collection. The government already has plenty of data on me, if my web surfing habits are of that much interest . Collection of data is a meaningless distraction. Application of data, now that's something else entirely. If the government feels its cost effective having someone sit outside my house logging my comings and goings for no other reason than to keep a log, good on them. I only have two questions for them - why do they need to know when I arrive home, and who has access to this information?

 

I got stopped a couple of months bike driving home. Was asked where my journey started and where I was heading to. All drivers on that stretch of road where stopped and asked the same to questions. Did I think invasion of privacy? Or did I think traffic planning?

 

If the law says - "police officer must apply to a judge for a warrant to access ISP held data", no problem. If the law says - "rent officer can randomly access database to see what times I'm at home", I have a problem. I don't have a problem with the data retention, just the data application.

[SYNACK]

Nothing to fear, nothing to hide.

 

Wasn't this attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels, either him or from Orwell's vision of a dystopian future. Neither of these sources make it a very good talking point to just let this kind of law slide.

 

http://forum.quoteland.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/99191541/m/4013910277

[DPrince]

I trust someone who stands up for what is right more than someone who obsessively follows poor laws. A traitor is someone who does something to damage a country. Many don't believe what he did actually did any damage, but instead did good as it meant the tide of surveillance was looked at.

 

Actually, a traitor is someone who "betrays something" or "commits treason". A lot of traitors in the US, who were subsequently executed, didn't necessarily cause any "damage". And whether or not Snowden caused damage to his country is debatable. Many claim he didn't, but those that would be considered "in the know" are of the opinion that he did.

 

Playing Devil's advocate here... when bees develop the capacity to develop nuclear arms, I'm sure our spending on the War on Bees will increase significantly.

[Theblacksheep]

My attitude towards this law change has no real bearing on my life so why should I care?

 

Divide and conquer, it doesn't affect you, so don't stand up for your rights?

 

You're in a union right? Why if issues their petty issues don't affect you? (guessing for your own protection)

 

Unions have power, people have power, until they take up the apathetic selfish attitude of 'if it doesn't affect me'. One day something you care about will affect you and no one will stand with you. Thatcher was annoyingly right, there are only individuals.

 

 

those that would be considered "in the know" are of the opinion that he did.

 

... have an agenda. They are pissed off the cat has been let out of the bag. They are annoyed they have to explain themselves, justify spending, lost jobs and have been caught lying to congress when sworn under oath, they are traitors.

 

Their ILLEGAL exploits of systems have been exposed, companies have reacted and closed loopholes. These loop holes that could be exploited by anyone, not just GHCQ/NSA. They have been pushing and creating illegal malware, infecting anything from DELL FIRMWARE to client browsers, both intercepting hardware en-route or post setup.

 

 

Even infecting Slashdot for the purposes of targeting people like us because we hold the keys to many users.

 

This is about capturing ALL DATA and wont stop at META.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Theblacksheep

[localzuk]

It's not the data that differs, it's the method of collection. The government already has plenty of data on me, if my web surfing habits are of that much interest . Collection of data is a meaningless distraction. Application of data, now that's something else entirely. If the government feels its cost effective having someone sit outside my house logging my comings and goings for no other reason than to keep a log, good on them. I only have two questions for them - why do they need to know when I arrive home, and who has access to this information?

 

ISPs didn't used to collect this information. Back when RIPA came in, ISPs pointed out that to do so would cost them millions to install equipment to do it. Can you imagine how much storage would be needed to track the customers of BT? I have 2.5GB of web data stored for our network, covering 1 month of daytime usage for 600 users. Scale that up to, say, 10 million customers and to 24 months and you've hit a petabyte of data, and that's conservative as it doesn't cover quite a lot of the mandated data they have to keep. The government ended up having to subsidise the cost.

 

You're looking at these laws as if they're individuals when they aren't. Each one is the precursor to the next.

 

I got stopped a couple of months bike driving home. Was asked where my journey started and where I was heading to. All drivers on that stretch of road where stopped and asked the same to questions. Did I think invasion of privacy? Or did I think traffic planning?

 

You don't have to answer those questions. You only have to pull over when ordered to by the police. You can say "I don't wish to answer those questions" and you'll be sent on your way.

 

If the law says - "police officer must apply to a judge for a warrant to access ISP held data", no problem. If the law says - "rent officer can randomly access database to see what times I'm at home", I have a problem. I don't have a problem with the data retention, just the data application.

 

That's what I've said multiple times. The law says the police, councils, DEFRA, dept of education, etc... can access the information without a warrant. That's exactly what these laws, when put together, do.

[mthomas08]

@tcmd35

 

Think your hitting it better on the nail then I am.

 

As always my posts being ripped apart now wonder why some don't discuss properly any more these days.

[localzuk]

As always my posts being ripped apart now wonder why some don't discuss properly any more these days.

 

This is a perennial cry of someone who is unable to present a good argument. I've seen it over and over again. Usually followed shortly by "I'm out"...

 

State your argument, clearly, and people will respond. If your argument is flawed, people will pull it apart. That's a discussion. That's just how it happens on a forum.

 

I have my arguments ripped apart all the time. I'm used to it. Its one of the reasons I'm so blunt.

[DPrince]

... have an agenda. They are pissed off the cat has been let out of the bag. They are annoyed they have to explain themselves, justify spending, lost jobs and have been caught lying to congress when sworn under oath, they are traitors.

 

Their ILLEGAL exploits of systems have been exposed, companies have reacted and closed loopholes. These loop holes that could be exploited by anyone, not just GHCQ/NSA. They have been pushing and creating illegal malware, infecting anything from DELL FIRMWARE to client browsers, both intercepting hardware en-route or post setup.

 

 

Even infecting Slashdot for the purposes of targeting people like us because we hold the keys to many users.

 

Well, there you have me. Obviously I don't know these people as well as you do. All I said is that the people that you would reasonably consider to be best placed to assess the amount of damage that Snowden caused, say that he caused damage. Obviously, your ability to confidently dismiss their motives lets him off the hook somewhat.

 

I can't help but feel that other traitors might have used much the same argument, however.

[mthomas08]

This is a perennial cry of someone who is unable to present a good argument. I've seen it over and over again. Usually followed shortly by "I'm out"...

 

State your argument, clearly, and people will respond. If your argument is flawed, people will pull it apart. That's a discussion. That's just how it happens on a forum.

 

I have my arguments ripped apart all the time. I'm used to it. Its one of the reasons I'm so blunt.

 

And here we go again.

 

Already stated my argument, my points have been made clear. It's more like I am hitting nerves that people don't like. As I stated before people cried during the whole torrent and internet filtering - short time later it got forgotten and no one complains any more. If the Gov want to pick apart my internet history they will do so regardless. If they want to get a warrant to search that or my PC at home what can I do if they get one? Nothing.

 

I can continue to raise up the issue that If you have nothing to hide. At the end of the day if we are talking about something illegal today that yesterday was legal after that it's the Gov can interpret something different. What's the result? the same.

 

Sorry to say but I don't see a single part of my argument that was flawed, if I say I couldn't care less if the Gov monitor my internet access or not what's flawed about that. That's not arguing half lies, fact is half of me won't care at all. That's not your not place to pull apart, that's not your place to accuse of being flawed. That's not just my view that's my feeling behind it. My feelings isn't something that someone can question because its fact. The information I argued was very little because I wasn't arguing information. I am not arguing if the Gov should or should not do it.

 

I am simply stating how I feel about it - sorry but don't see how that can be torn apart. If your view differs on that well, tough luck really because my view on it all and my feelings wont change. No one here has presented any information that has changed it except Tmd who seems to think more along the lines of my self but he seems to be arguing facts too not just his view.

[localzuk]

And here we go again.

 

Already stated my argument, my points have been made clear. It's more like I am hitting nerves that people don't like. As I stated before people cried during the whole torrent and internet filtering - short time later it got forgotten and no one complains any more. If the Gov want to pick apart my internet history they will do so regardless. If they want to get a warrant to search that or my PC at home what can I do if they get one? Nothing.

 

You're confusing a lack of public articles with people still being angry that such things exist. I still dislike the government's filtering nonsense. I wrote letters, I spoke to my MP. My views were roundly ignored and replied to with "won't someone please think of the children". I'm still angry about a long list of laws that infringe on our liberties.

 

I can continue to raise up the issue that If you have nothing to hide. At the end of the day if we are talking about something illegal today that yesterday was legal after that it's the Gov can interpret something different. What's the result? the same.

 

I have nothing to hide, but that didn't stop a politically motivated prosecution against me with police lying about me and my friends, or with police following us around or stopping us every time we went anywhere in a car. It didn't stop the police placing bugs in our meeting place, or stop the police and council doing "sting" operations against us for holding information stalls in public. No laws broken, yet my life was turned upside down by them.

[tmcd35]

That's what I've said multiple times. The law says the police, councils, DEFRA, dept of education, etc... can access the information without a warrant. That's exactly what these laws, when put together, do.

 

I agree, but I (personally) don't have a problem with the data retention. It seems a perfectly sensible thing to do. The fact is if this law is passed or not changes little other than the question of what data and how long. The problems appear to be in a law passed 14 years ago. Laws get updated, repealed, changed, all the time. Maybe it's that law that should be the focus of public ire.

 

All the arguments I've read so far against data retention appear resolve around it's potential use/misuse. Maybe the law should be tightened it that regard? As you say it's petabytes of data. Even GCHQ have better things to do with their time than to fish through the amount of data that is generated each second.

[Theblacksheep]

Well, there you have me. Obviously I don't know these people as well as you do. All I said is that the people that you would reasonably consider to be best placed to assess the amount of damage that Snowden caused, say that he caused damage. Obviously, your ability to confidently dismiss their motives lets him off the hook somewhat.

 

I thought you were playing devils advocate?

 

I've yet to see any tangible evidence for damage, aside from PR and talk, very little specifics.... maybe they have something to hide???? Notice that argument only goes one way?

[sonofsanta]

You can't complain that no-one is discussing your points properly when, by your own admission, you're not discussing any points, you are "simply stating how [you] feel about it". You're not engaging in the conversation - you've just loudly declared "I DON'T CARE!" and then got upset when the people who do care think that it's a rather short-sighted and shallow approach to take to what often devolves into abuse of power.

 

You say no-one discusses the torrent filtering anymore, which is funny, as I was discussing the topic not half an hour ago with our head of curriculum IT in relation to all this. The appropriation of the CleanFeed system to block torrent sites is as fine an example of the slippery slope as I can ever remember seeing - no-one could complain about CleanFeed's original purpose, but within a decade it was being used to block sites without proof on the say so of vested interests with the money & influence to have their voices heard. It's one of the key reasons why I'm so against legislation like the current bill - because no matter how carefully it is presented and limited at the time, if it opens a door that has been closed before, something else will be along before too long to drive the door open.

 

You seem to falsely equate privacy with secrecy, with the idea that people must have an ulterior motive for privacy, and can't seem to comprehend that it can be its own end and we can seek privacy for privacy's sake.

 

And you know what? It's your opinion, and you are wholly entitled to keep it, as I am entitled to voice my opposition to such apathy. We're all entitled to be offended here. That's good. But don't complain that you're offended when you march into a thread of people who obviously care and start shouting about how you don't care and then get pulled apart by that first group. I'd have thought it a fairly obvious outcome. We were hardly going to say "you know what, you're right, not caring about the rules and laws that govern my existence is the right approach!", were we?

[localzuk]

I agree, but I (personally) don't have a problem with the data retention. It seems a perfectly sensible thing to do. The fact is if this law is passed or not changes little other than the question of what data and how long. The problems appear to be in a law passed 14 years ago. Laws get updated, repealed, changed, all the time. Maybe it's that law that should be the focus of public ire.

 

All the arguments I've read so far against data retention appear resolve around it's potential use/misuse. Maybe the law should be tightened it that regard? As you say it's petabytes of data. Even GCHQ have better things to do with their time than to fish through the amount of data that is generated each second.

 

Its not just about access. I simply don't want people to be able to look at what I'm doing. Its my life, I have a right to enjoy it without people looking over my shoulder.

[sonofsanta]

@SYNACK - I liked the article linked from that forum post, Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide' - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education - lots of interesting theory there.

[tmcd35]

Its not just about access. I simply don't want people to be able to look at what I'm doing. Its my life, I have a right to enjoy it without people looking over my shoulder.

 

But that's the point - as you say petabytes. No one cares if you shop online at Tesco's on the third Friday of every month other than Tesco. And they probably have that information already from your club card. Just sitting here looking at my live filter logs scroll by is a great cure for insomnia. So there's an entry in a file on a hard drive in London somewhere that says IP 178.42.37.63 visited torrentbypass.com and 2:30am last Wednesday. Great, good luck to who ever finds it. I really do hope it's useful in combating illegal piracy, maybe 15 lines down there's an entry for CentOS download the proceeded it - doh!

[sted]

I trust someone who stands up for what is right more than someone who obsessively follows poor laws. A traitor is someone who does something to damage a country. Many don't believe what he did actually did any damage, but instead did good as it meant the tide of surveillance was looked at.

 

i dont want to argue about wether what he did was a good thing or not but he did agree to keep silent when he joined the us services if you cant keep your word how can anything you say be trusted as you have previously shown that you cant be trusted. Laws that forbid govenment people telling what they know exist for good reasons and its not up to one person(and ceratinly not an analyst) to decide what information should become public knowledge