Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kevin Wood]

... After all I have nothing to hide ....

I do. I forgot to leave my recycling bin out this morning, so I fully expect to see a black helicopter following me around to make sure I'm not throwing away any cardboard boxes.

[albitz]

Just surprised that someone hasnt yet posted up the "If youve nothing to hide youve nothing to fear" chestnut.

If it helps protect us from terrorists and crimminals I for one am all for it. After all I have nothing to hide.

Be surprised no longer Albs.

It was always going to happen Nick.

[cem_devecioglu]

I wonder if they monitor forums.

BLOW UP THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT!!

I'll wait for the knock on the door now   

we are busy wait! 

[Nickbat]

Government plans to access details of every email and website sent in Britain would be an impractical waste of money that would make the UK more like China and Iran, a leading British technology expert has said.

Trefor Davies, Chief Technology Officer at business internet service provider Timico, wrote on telegraph.co.uk that the proposed measures could also drive users underground and make tracking paedophiles and copyright infringers far harder.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9180624/Digital-surveillance-practically-impossible.html

A voice of reason. 

[ninjapirate]

Exactly, it gets bought in to stop "terrorism" who then obviously find differant methods to comunicate (didnt we have terrorists before the internet) then once its in, they will abuse the system and our rights, and others will no doubt find a way to get the information we send/use. raaaaa raaaa raaaa 

[Nickbat]

I see the Telegraph is running a vote on this issue.

Currently, it stands at 6.89% in favour and 93.11% against (total: 12,706 votes) .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/rowena-mason/9183503/Nick-Clegg-promises-plans-to-snoop-on-emails-will-get-highest-possible-safeguards.html#disqus_thread

[Marks DTM Calib]

I ran a project to develop a layer 2 protocol for some mainline telecoms kit to support such a function as defined in the IEEE standards.

The 'port mirroring' function is quite basic but, when you sit and look at the data throughput its chuffing huge.....it truely was a git to test!

Quite what you do with the info is questionable as it takes quite a bit of analysis to interpret whats passed.!

Clearly only of any use for specific targeted individuals in reality, would I be worried about them looking at my packet based traffic.....no not realy. Would I want them to be able to monitor that of say Abu Hamza......yes probably.

For me, its yet another load of miss reported bull by the press particularly when you consider what info is aleady processed from a marketing perspective by the likes of google etc.

[Nickbat]

I ran a project to develop a layer 2 protocol for some mainline telecoms kit to support such a function as defined in the IEEE standards.

The 'port mirroring' function is quite basic but, when you sit and look at the data throughput its chuffing huge.....it truely was a git to test!

Quite what you do with the info is questionable as it takes quite a bit of analysis to interpret whats passed.!

Clearly only of any use for specific targeted individuals in reality, would I be worried about them looking at my packet based traffic.....no not realy. Would I want them to be able to monitor that of say Abu Hamza......yes probably.

For me, its yet another load of miss reported bull by the press particularly when you consider what info is aleady processed from a marketing perspective by the likes of google etc.

Not really, Mark. the government will be proposing the ability to monitor in real time all emails, social networking & website visits made by any individual – without a warrant. They already have the ability to tap into the online behaviour of those they consider serious threats.

As an analogy, if you feel comfortable having all your post arriving re-sealed having been examined before delivery, that's fine.

I don't.   

[jerry]

As a computer illiterate user Ive just been reading "Worm" by Mark Bowden which explains the complexities of the development of the internet and its (rather scarily) vulnerability in the kind of layman's terms I (sort of ) understand. The point is that however smart the technology is there are always going to be equally smart "baddies" as there are "good guys" and that the battle between the two will be endless over developing new security systems and broaching them. That applies to cyberspace and the digital world as much as it does to anything else in the "real" world. Its human nature. The problem is that the vast majority of users are not criminals or terrorists and so on what basis should their privacy be breached? Moreover, although the protagonists in Mr Bowden's book are portrayed as rather idealistic "geek" good guys, they all now work for very large corporate organizations and such "big buisinesses" have long been linked with the political parties so are the "good guys" themselves using the information they have access to in less than ethical ways? I dont doubt that the idealism of many of the pioneers of the internet (leastways those not working for the military!)was genuine and that the fact that there was no single controling body was seen as a good thing but the inherent vulnerability of such a system was always going to be exploited. The genuinely threatening criminals/terrorists will always find a way around any system so why put the liberties of the vast "innocent" at risk? And who should make that call? This is not to say, of course, that there should not be any security systems/policing to protect this general populace but surely there should be limits as there are real dangers to the "Big Brother" extremes being contemplated.

[TheBoy]

I ran a project to develop a layer 2 protocol for some mainline telecoms kit to support such a function as defined in the IEEE standards.

The 'port mirroring' function is quite basic but, when you sit and look at the data throughput its chuffing huge.....it truely was a git to test!

Quite what you do with the info is questionable as it takes quite a bit of analysis to interpret whats passed.!

Clearly only of any use for specific targeted individuals in reality, would I be worried about them looking at my packet based traffic.....no not realy. Would I want them to be able to monitor that of say Abu Hamza......yes probably.

For me, its yet another load of miss reported bull by the press particularly when you consider what info is aleady processed from a marketing perspective by the likes of google etc.

Not really, Mark. the government will be proposing the ability to monitor in real time all emails, social networking & website visits made by any individual – without a warrant. They already have the ability to tap into the online behaviour of those they consider serious threats.

As an analogy, if you feel comfortable having all your post arriving re-sealed having been examined before delivery, that's fine.

I don't. 

They cannot do it for everyone. So its not much different to current, except they can be dynamic when a situation starts to come to light.

I can't say I'm comfortable with it, but the alternative is to shoot suspects.  As much as I like the latter, its probably less practical than the former.

[Kevin Wood]

All this publicity does them no favours either, because it's trivial to arrange all your comms to pass encrypted through a tunnel terminating somewhere outside the UK/EU's jurisdiction if you care enough about your privacy.

Encryption techniques are freely available which can't be cracked in real time, by anyone.

Those who have something to hide, or just feel strongly enough about the situation, will rearrange their affairs as such, and now you don't even know who you'd want to be snooping on, even if you could.

Politicians don't understand IT. It's a fundamental problem we witness time and time again. Exhibit A- the £11bn NHS IT project recently canned. Here we are again. They decide to achieve the impossible and make a big song and dance about it, not realising they have shot themselves in the foot in the process.

[Nickbat]

All this publicity does them no favours either, because it's trivial to arrange all your comms to pass encrypted through a tunnel terminating somewhere outside the UK/EU's jurisdiction if you care enough about your privacy.

Encryption techniques are freely available which can't be cracked in real time, by anyone.

Those who have something to hide, or just feel strongly enough about the situation, will rearrange their affairs as such, and now you don't even know who you'd want to be snooping on, even if you could.

Politicians don't understand IT. It's a fundamental problem we witness time and time again. Exhibit A- the £11bn NHS IT project recently canned. Here we are again. They decide to achieve the impossible and make a big song and dance about it, not realising they have shot themselves in the foot in the process.

Too true, Kevin. 

But you know, even if they could set it up, and even if they did make "promises" that they would only use the powers to track down serious criminality, just take on board what Michael Portillo said in 2009:

the government routinely abuses the powers it has[/highlight]. It's not a matter of the last resort, it's the first resort. It isn't something that happens exceptionally, it happens all the time.]I having been been in government have every reason for believing that the government routinely abuses the powers it has. It's not a matter of the last resort, it's the first resort. It isn't something that happens exceptionally, it happens all the time.

 

http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2009/02/now-he-tells-us.html

[Nickbat]

The Daily Mash echoes Kevin Wood's sentiments. 

"Totally inept losers confident they can lock down the internet"

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/totally-inept-losers-confident-they-can-lock-down-the-internet-201204035088/

[Rods2]

The hardware is available to do this real-time monitoring, but it is not cheap. The consequences are that the investment will have to be paid for by, guess who, you and me. 

It will mean the loss of many small ISPs as they won't be able to afford the setup costs, which will reduce ISP choice and push up Internet access prices as you will end up with the big 4 or big 6, just like with energy, then happy days for the big 4 / 6. "Our new bargain price Internet access package, currently the cheapest in the UK, first 3 months free, then just £99.99 per month". 

[Nickbat]

The hardware is available to do this real-time monitoring, but it is not cheap. The consequences are that the investment will have to be paid for by, guess who, you and me. 

It will mean the loss of many small ISPs as they won't be able to afford the setup costs, which will reduce ISP choice and push up Internet access prices as you will end up with the big 4 or big 6, just like with energy, then happy days for the big 4 / 6. "Our new bargain price Internet access package, currently the cheapest in the UK, first 3 months free, then just £99.99 per month". 

Must admit I hadn't thought of that angle, but you're quite right, Rod!