Another rushed law, another death knell for privacy

[X-13]

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.

 

We work with computers, out of all the people talking about this, the concept of lookup scripts shouldn't be alien.

[CAM]

But what if you visited that Linux forum? Repeatedly? Now you are an "extremist" and being looked at. As a result they now know...

 

- You visited a dating site

- You got directions to a bar

- You looked up hotel prices for that night

- You looked up trains home the following day

- You looked up "symptoms" on WebMD a few days later

- You never went back to the dating site, but you looked up Samaritans a few more days later

- All this happened a few months ago of course before you visited the Linux site followed by torrentbypass to get a legit ISO. Probably.

 

A lot can be inferred even without knowledge of what actually happened. Either way your privacy is violated.

 

Now I hope my bizarre search history ranging from arguments about civil liberties and Internet weirdos to nuclear bomb yields wasn't too displeasing to the authorities after they saw me post a picture of the Houses of Parliament on Twitter on Friday followed by a picture of a crossbow. You know, because inferred meaning and all.

 

(For the record, it was a zombie party on a Thames riverboat!).

[Theblacksheep]

We work with computers, out of all the people talking about this, the concept of lookup scripts shouldn't be alien.

 

The concept of creating analysis software like xkeyscore or having datacenters larger than commercial enterprises (that several years ago could store all UK content for 3 days (63PB)) shouldn't be alien either. I's not as if its 1 or 2 people sifting through logs, there's nearly 1m NSA employees alone, nevermind the others across the 5 eyes (US, UK, NZ, AUS and CAN).

Edited July 14, 2014 by Theblacksheep

[localzuk]

Very relevant quote:

 

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.

[tmcd35]

We work with computers, out of all the people talking about this, the concept of lookup scripts shouldn't be alien.

 

Which in turn implies someone has a legitimate reason to go to the effort of writing the script. As in a targeted search. Why would someone do that? Who has the power to do that? The only time I ever go near my Internet logs is when I already have a suspicion of wrong doing. From what I can tell, at the very least RIPA requires an agent with valid concerns to get the search signed off by a superior before the ISP is even involved. So we're not talking live monitoring. No auto submitting logs to GCHQ. Internal paper trails dealing with the request that can be audited and brought before a court of law. Hell, the beeb article was even reporting agencies that will be struck off the original access list in the 2000 Act.

 

I worst this argument is boiling down to "some bored ISP admin might search for somexxxsite.com and giggle at the list of IP addresses".

[X-13]

Which in turn implies someone has a legitimate reason to go to the effort of writing the script. As in a targeted search. Why would someone do that? Who has the power to do that? The only time I ever go near my Internet logs is when I already have a suspicion of wrong doing. From what I can tell, at the very least RIPA requires an agent with valid concerns to get the search signed off by a superior before the ISP is even involved. So we're not talking live monitoring. No auto submitting logs to GCHQ. Internal paper trails dealing with the request that can be audited and brought before a court of law. Hell, the beeb article was even reporting agencies that will be struck off the original access list in the 2000 Act.

 

I worst this argument is boiling down to "some bored ISP admin might search for somexxxsite.com and giggle at the list of IP addresses".

 

I'm thinking more of categorising traffic and investigating if one or more categories are present. [standard children and/or terrorist related.]

 

...or automatically sending copyright infringement information [i.Ps and such] to big media for lawsuits, with a nice kickback for helping.

 

...or passing on certain things to 3rd-parties for advertising. [i wouldn't put it past any of them.] You mentioned Tesco being interested in what you look at on THEIR website, but what about the things you look at elsewhere?

 

 

Also, you say only touch the logs occasionally. What if you could automate it to send details to the HT [et al] if certain conditions are met?

 

Le EDIT: wait, you didn't mention Tesco... SOMEONE mentioned Tesco...

Edited July 14, 2014 by X-13

[DPrince]

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?

 

Well, yes. They're the nation's security services.

It's somewhat naive to think that they're going to provide evidence to us for wrong-doing or damage. They're secret!

I'm sure if Snowden ever makes it back to the USA then they'll make their case in a court of law, or not.

 

And I AM playing Devil's advocate. I'm saying that his Government has declared him a traitor. You obviously disagree, both with that assessment and any motive they may or may not have for making that assessment. To you he may be a paragon of virtue, and a hero to the common man. It doesn't matter. As someone else has pointed out, he is a man who swore an oath to his country, and then broke that oath. He has been declared a traitor and is on the run. Why should we believe anything he says?. Even if he is as you believe, he now has every motive and reason to exaggerate the threats and paint the USA security services in the worst possible light. Even if he wasn't being protected by the Russians (and let's face it, they have plenty of reasons for him to keep coming out with these horror stories), he still benefits by painting the USA as corrupt, evil, eaves-dropping, snooping, ne'er-do-wells. And a good proportion of people will instantly believe him, because they WANT to believe him.

 

Me? I have no idea. The establishment is obviously corrupt, because we see it every day. Whether it is purposefully corrupt, or simply corrupt through over-complex systems, or incompetence, or negligence, I don't know. But he was part of that establishment, and as far as I am concerned he is equally corrupt, if not more so. I have no more reason to believe him than I do anyone else. In fact, I have LESS reason to believe him because he has already proven himself to be untrustworthy, is being shielded by a government that has a vested interest in not being truthful about these things, and has more to gain by painting the security services in a bad light. Even if all he gains is a bit of public sympathy and less chance of being executed.

 

I just found the argument that he wasn't a traitor because he didn't "damage" his country, and therefore was more trustworthy than the elected government, a little odd.

 

In terms of the other discussions on this thread, the fact is that the majority of the British people will treat this like many other issues. They will be deeply uncomfortable with the principle, and may not like the method, but they will accept it. They will recognise that they give up chunks of their privacy every day to a hundred different organisations, from Facebook to Tesco to their bank, and ultimately they just don't care. They get something in return for that (better prices, or the ability to see their friends baby pictures) and if they are told that the return for this is increased security then they will accept it. What will change it will be people who fully understand the processes and risks and rewards involved, who will then make judgements based on that. So politicians, judges, and people at the top of the security services. Because whilst we may believe that there are a lot of corrupt and ignorant people in these professions, there are also most assuredly some sensible and professional ones too.

[sparkeh]

I worst this argument is boiling down to "some bored ISP admin might search for somexxxsite.com and giggle at the list of IP addresses".

Actually I think at worst some malicious ISP admin looks at sites visited and blackmails the viewer. Surveillance information has been used this way before.

[tmcd35]

Also, you say only touch the logs occasionally. What if you could automate it to send details to the HT [et al] if certain conditions are met?

 

But that's the key, isn't it? It not whether or not data retention is a good/bad thing (which is all this bill is dealing with), it's what are those certain conditions?

 

I found this old Telegraph article while aimlessly searching the net for stats on this topic: How Big Brother watches your every move - Telegraph

 

3,254 pieces of data per week! on each of 64.1m people. Seriously, that's one hell of a data trual.

[X-13]

Actually I think at worst some malicious ISP admin looks at sites visited and blackmails the viewer. Surveillance information has been used this way before.

 

This is literally the M.O of some law firms.

 

1. Buy rights to adult films.

2. Put on TPB.

3. ???

4. Out of court settlement.

[mthomas08]

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 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.

 

I don't hear anyone talk about it any more or complain about it, including the one guy who was seriously furious about it. Perhaps I just don't care enough to pay attention to those talking about it? Which seems unlikely.

 

If your life was turned upside down (guessing you are being serious by what you are saying) then I don't know. That is unfortunate for you.

[Theblacksheep]

I'm sure if Snowden ever makes it back to the USA then they'll make their case in a court of law, or not.

 

It'll be a secret military court like Chelsea Manning. That's why he wont go back.

 

As someone else has pointed out, he is a man who swore an oath to his country, and then broke that oath. He has been declared a traitor and is on the run. Why should we believe anything he says?.

 

He knows what they were doing and though it was wrong, risked never seeing his family or friends again. Risked being killed by a short sighted 'merican on his return if free and faces life in prison or death depending on what a secret court decides. Just because he goes back on an oath doesn't mean he is telling a lie now. To do something like that despite the threat to life and now having to life under constant threat he still done it. Most would be too scared. Most has been proven correct via other means, via admission from the peoples word you are taking, company reactions, law cases, leaked emails and slides from their documentation.

 

I just found the argument that he wasn't a traitor because he didn't "damage" his country, and therefore was more trustworthy than the elected government, a little odd.

 

"Damage the country" is very ambiguous term when it has nothing to back it up. They could argue all the hassle changing password and systems 'damaged the country', are they arguing that companies that changed to SSL by default "damaged the country" because they couldn't collect everything as easy...

[pcstru]

The "nothing to hide nothing to fear" arguments for government snooping powers would be powerful from posters who do not and have never posted on a forum ... anonymously. 'Naive' edugeek users have several times been advised to stop using their real names. It was and remains, good advice. Yet surely, a "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" world, doesn't contain such advice?

[SYNACK]

Which in turn implies someone has a legitimate reason to go to the effort of writing the script. As in a targeted search. Why would someone do that? Who has the power to do that? The only time I ever go near my Internet logs is when I already have a suspicion of wrong doing.

 

Umm, big data, data mining, profiling... seriously google does this already with much more legally limited information for the chance of a few cents worth of click through revenue, stores with even less information willingly provided by shoppers can dig out secrets accidentally How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did - Forbes

 

These companies have a few people after a little more coin writing algorithms to find patterns and correlations with limited data. They do this because as you say there is so much data going through it would be impossible by hand. This is all over a purchase or two, now think about the insane budgets and resources governments can pull in (academics and the like) along with the amount of impunity and information they have access to. Think about their goals, not just a few dollars but maybe a few lives or more likely the perpetuation of their own system.

 

They are not going to sit around and wait till inspector plod from the corner police box reports that little Jimmy from number nine might be staying up past his bed time a bit too often. They will have teams of people working on software and profiles to smash through all that data as fast as possible looking for any little anomalies that may raise a flag. One you get flaged you get put on a list and then get data mined a bunch more along with possible heavy handed investigation...

 

Remember at this point when they are tapping all your communications and rifling through your trash you may not have done anything wrong, just searched the same kind of stuff that someone else did before something bad happened.

 

Where does that stop, 'think of the children etc.', safer streets, how about flagging up violent speech (which they can) and certain searches so the police can monitor people who might assault someone - might be ok - but wait, there are too many people and waiting around takes time, we'll just pre-crime it. They were going to do this, statistically proven to within 80% or so, oh look more efficient policing and safer streets. Served up slow enough and in the right way there are a lot of people who would go for that which is terrifying.

 

The above example is a little extreme but not far off if people don't start standing up to a bunch of governments who care a lot more about keeping themselves in power than the people they supposedly represent. Democracy was nice while it lasted but I don't think I could point to any country anymore where the will of the citizens is carried out.

[DPrince]

It'll be a secret military court like Chelsea Manning. That's why he wont go back.

 

I agree that this is the most likely, although I don't know that it's a certainty. It is still a court of law, albeit military law. My point was that any case that the government or security service or military have against him will be made in that arena. Not to us. At least, not until he faces that court.

 

 

 

He knows what they were doing and though it was wrong, risked never seeing his family or friends again. Risked being killed by a short sighted 'merican on his return if free and faces life in prison or death depending on what a secret court decides. Just because he goes back on an oath doesn't mean he is telling a lie now. To do something like that despite the threat to life and now having to life under constant threat he still done it. Most would be too scared. Most has been proven correct via other means, via admission from the peoples word you are taking, company reactions, law cases, leaked emails and slides from their documentation.

 

I agree that this is one perception. And a compelling one. The idea that he still did it even though the risk was huge can be used to imply that he must have been morally righteous. Alternatively, I could infer that he was extremely naïve, or didn't care. The fact is, that we just don't know, and presumably any traitor, regardless of their motive, faced the same risks.

 

 

"Damage the country" is very ambiguous term when it has nothing to back it up. They could argue all the hassle changing password and systems 'damaged the country', are they arguing that companies that changed to SSL by default "damaged the country" because they couldn't collect everything as easy...

 

Again, I agree with you. Somebody (you? I don't recall) said that he wasn't a traitor because he didn't "damage his country". I'm not maintaining that he did damage his country, so can't really comment on what they 'could' argue. I'm just saying that the people who we would assume would be best-placed to judge say that he DID damage the country, and they want to make that case in court.

 

And I AM playing Devil's advocate here... I'm not supporting or condemning Snowden ... I'm just saying that you (rightly?) mistrust what the American Government say on this issue, whereas I mistrust everyone.

I don't believe what the US Government say, any more than I believe what Snowden says. But the idea that Snowden is more trustworthy because he broke his oath to his country and is now spilling secrets left, right and centre is laughable. He may well be telling the truth. He might not. The Government may well be telling the truth. They might not.

Edited July 14, 2014 by DPrince

[jinnantonnixx]

This is probably a bit off-topic, but utterly facscinating.

 

Zoom into the map a bit, then press the play button. You can adjust the speed.

 

Tell-all telephone | Data Protection | Digital | ZEIT ONLINE

 

A bit of background

Most people’s understanding of what can actually be done with the data provided by our mobile phones is theoretical; there were few real-world examples. That is why Malte Spitz from the German Green party decided to publish his own data collected from August 2009 to February 2010. However, to even access the information, he had to file a suit against telecommunications giant Deutsche Telekom.

http://www.zeit.de/digital/datenschutz/2011-03/data-protection-malte-spitz

 

And this is the data that just ONE company has on a person.

Edited July 14, 2014 by jinnantonnixx

[CHR1S]

Probably been said already, if you are on these lists of data already mined then you're not someone who these lists and mines are used to gain intelligence on.

 

Rolling PAYG mobiles, did they not learn anything from 24 or breaking bad?

[Arthur]

Rolling PAYG mobiles

Or a Blackphone?

 

A review of the Blackphone, the Android for the paranoid « Ars Technica

[sparkeh]

Rolling PAYG mobiles, did they not learn anything from 24 or breaking bad?

From Breaking Bad, I learned that once you are done with a phone you have to snap it in half!? They always snap them in half!! Why!?

(Oh and I learned not to get involved in the meth business but that's a different topic).

[tmcd35]

Data Protection: Betrayed by our own data | ZEIT ONLINE

 

And this is the data that just ONE company has on a person.

 

A very interesting read. Leads me to one question - what's the answer? Stop using all technology? or regulate the data produced?

[localzuk]

A very interesting read. Leads me to one question - what's the answer? Stop using all technology? or regulate the data produced?

 

Or, stop everyone gathering this data all the time.

[CAM]

But how? Short of going back to paper and pencil for everything, we are permanently connected to the Internet. Everything we do leaves a record of site visited, every shot we fire in a game for entertainment, every film we stream, every silly cat GIF we view. Even if you were to disconnect completely or use encryption to hide what you do, you will still be targeted and snooped on in one way or another.

[pcstru]

Data protection legislation is meant to offer some protection in limiting the use of data to the purposes for which it is necessary. That still offers avenues for abuse but it does give individuals some control over their data.

 

Snooping legislation increases the risk of abuse by increasing access - "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" unfortunately doesn't take into account the many cases of abuse of power we find in 'government'.

[jinnantonnixx]

A very interesting read. Leads me to one question - what's the answer? Stop using all technology? or regulate the data produced?

 

 

You might laugh, but.....

 

In the name of security, German NSA committee may turn to typewriters | Ars Technica

 

But make sure you don't use these new-fangled electric typewriters.

Soviet Spies Bugged World's First Electronic Typewriters

 

 

Shortwave and one-time pads are still quite the thing.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/want-to-listen-to-spy-broadcasts-heres-how-af632c532db1

Edited July 15, 2014 by jinnantonnixx

[localzuk]

But how? Short of going back to paper and pencil for everything, we are permanently connected to the Internet. Everything we do leaves a record of site visited, every shot we fire in a game for entertainment, every film we stream, every silly cat GIF we view. Even if you were to disconnect completely or use encryption to hide what you do, you will still be targeted and snooped on in one way or another.

 

It doesn't have to leave those traces. Perfectly easy to ban the retention of data beyond a week, say...