Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

David Cameron suggest banning message encryption

So the principle thing in this Bill is to extend the current rules about capturing phone metadata are to be extended to internet communications.
(Why they're not extended to the postal network must be down to people thoughtlessly not putting the sender address on the outside of every letter they send).

The police are very keen on accessing phone records and hardly any requests are denied (95%+ granted). Only one force has given a breakdown of which crimes the access were made for, and that's the terrorist hotbed of Humberside. Unfortunately the largest groups of crimes are "Drugs" followed by "Other crimes" which isn't very revealing. https://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/...-Watch-Report-Police-Communications-Data1.pdf

Across the UK in 2014, the police accessed phone records approx every 2 minutes.

Warrants granted for Interception of Communications in 2014: 2,795
Accesses to Communications Data by Police in 2014: 246,329
http://www.iocco-uk.info/docs/IOCCO Report March 2015 (Web).pdf

That's before we get on to security services.
 
pinkychukkles said:
Leaving aside the legitimate uses of VPNs that I've already mentioned, what is there to prevent the government compiling a list of IP addresses for all known VPNs and then requiring all UK ISP providers to block connection attempts to them much like they have done for Pirate Bay?
Click to expand...

I don't think China have quite managed that one yet (although I'm sure they try)
 
pinkychukkles said:
Gotcha :thumbs:

because... ?
off the top my head - there are many legitimate uses for VPNs, i.e. companies providing them for staff to facilitate out-of-office working
but any others?
Click to expand...

Loads of legit uses. Online banking over public Wi-Fi. Securely accessing resources behind a firewall. Wanting privacy for its own sake isn't suspicious, or certainly shouldn't be. As I'm sure you agree.
 
Fwiw it's worth I recently paid a whole 20 quid for a years VPN access. Mostly so when I'm on the works wifi I can get past the blocking of such sites as auto trader and right move and not let them know I'm browsing urban. As a bonus it removes the censorship of sites like Kat and the Pirate Bay (although as it's a cheap one I can't actually torrent through it)
 
Lazy Llama said:
So the principle thing in this Bill is to extend the current rules about capturing phone metadata are to be extended to internet communications.
(Why they're not extended to the postal network must be down to people thoughtlessly not putting the sender address on the outside of every letter they send).

The police are very keen on accessing phone records and hardly any requests are denied (95%+ granted). Only one force has given a breakdown of which crimes the access were made for, and that's the terrorist hotbed of Humberside. Unfortunately the largest groups of crimes are "Drugs" followed by "Other crimes" which isn't very revealing. https://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/...-Watch-Report-Police-Communications-Data1.pdf

Across the UK in 2014, the police accessed phone records approx every 2 minutes.

Warrants granted for Interception of Communications in 2014: 2,795
Accesses to Communications Data by Police in 2014: 246,329
http://www.iocco-uk.info/docs/IOCCO Report March 2015 (Web).pdf

That's before we get on to security services.
Click to expand...

If you ain't happy, you can complain though to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, they have only ever upheld 10 complaints , so everything must be really ticketyboo:hmm:
 
pinkychukkles said:
Leaving aside the legitimate uses of VPNs that I've already mentioned, what is there to prevent the government compiling a list of IP addresses for all known VPNs and then requiring all UK ISP providers to block connection attempts to them much like they have done for Pirate Bay?
Click to expand...
Because they would have to block every VPS provider. You can set up your own VPN on one.
 
Global Stoner said:
Fwiw it's worth I recently paid a whole 20 quid for a years VPN access. Mostly so when I'm on the works wifi I can get past the blocking of such sites as auto trader and right move and not let them know I'm browsing urban. As a bonus it removes the censorship of sites like Kat and the Pirate Bay (although as it's a cheap one I can't actually torrent through it)
Click to expand...

I run mine own from home . I'm not that bothered about hiding from my ISP, just want to access things securely over Wi-Fi and get to my server.
 
Am I correct in assuming that if a web site is accessed via Tor, the ISP will not hold the ultimate destination information?
 
Lazy Llama said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Supplementary question: How many people on the boards have the Tor icon on their desktop? I certainly do, although I very rarely use it.

All anyone needs to get access to my browsing history, is simply to ask. I strongly object however, to this data being available to just about anyone who demands it, and without either my knowledge or consent. IIRC, it is an offence for your ISP to tell you that someone has demanded your data.
 
So they've already been doing the mass data capture for years without needing the legislation, and have also been doing mass interception which is definitely not allowed even under the new legislation.

So we can definitely trust them to stay within the rules.
 
Don't do *much* dodgy online these days but may well now switch to encrypting every e-mail and using TORS just to spite these fuckers.

If no-one's made the point already, one of the lads suspected of hacking Talk Talk is just 15 years old, so, even if you trust the police/govt, why would you trust ISPs necessarily to keep your data safe? Also some people, as a preference, like as little data being gathered about them as possible - hence staying off social media, etc.
 
weltweit said:
I just watched May explaining that the data they want is just a list of websites accessed, not individual pages or messages sent. So if you are connecting to Dutch VPN 001 it will just say, connected Dutch VPN 001 - she likened the info required to an itemised phone bill of sites accessed.
Click to expand...
VPN's aren't websites. So it shouldn't list anything.
 
Lazy Llama said:
The Bill actually says "any internet service" so it's not just websites, it's anything. Whether they'll expect ISPs to track every DNS query and every NTP check isn't clear.
Click to expand...
Just the extra storage to hold 12 months' worth of every single source/destination pair from every port on every subscriber's machine is going to require a metric shitload of storage, not to mention a certain amount of infrastructure to grab, filter and stream it all to that storage.

Isn't this, amongst other things, the equivalent of an unexpected unilaterally imposed tax on ISPs?
 
It's already happening, costs the ISP's about £200mil each which they don't get back.
 
Last edited:
Section 185 of the Bill states that ISPs should receive an appropriate contribution from the Secretary of State.
So we'll be paying for it one way or another.
 
Lazy Llama said:
So they've already been doing the mass data capture for years without needing the legislation, and have also been doing mass interception which is definitely not allowed even under the new legislation.
Click to expand...
Is this just opening it up to the cops etc?. But yeah, the secret services already have tapped into the cables.
 
If I understand it correctly Teresa May wants to permit the relevant authorities to trawl through this data based on her say so (or perhaps other politicians) rather than having judges make the decision.
 
weltweit said:
If I understand it correctly Teresa May wants to permit the relevant authorities to trawl through this data based on her say so (or perhaps other politicians) rather than having judges make the decision.
Click to expand...
No, the process is she gives her assent, then the judges give their assent. But the judges are not going to go against her, are they..
 
sleaterkinney said:
No, the process is she gives her assent, then the judges give their assent. But the judges are not going to go against her, are they..
Click to expand...
Oh ok, I didn't pick that up. A comment was made on the radio today asking if this was best use of her time daily authorising all these snoopings when she has a large and busy department to run?
 
It is kinda funny though, we give private companies like google and apple a lot of information willingly through our phones, but are worried when our government has the data.
 
weltweit said:
Oh ok, I didn't pick that up. A comment was made on the radio today asking if this was best use of her time daily authorising all these snoopings when she has a large and busy department to run?
Click to expand...
What?. Do you think she'll be doing this personally?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Humberto
David Cameron is a walking disaster. And war criminal.
Replies
12
Views
751
Mation
Mation
Kid_Eternity
David Lammy’s time is up
Replies
11
Views
671
Whagwan
Whagwan
Pickman's model
david cameron's time is up again
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
190
Views
10K
brogdale
brogdale
T & P
Fucking King Charles’s voiceover, and fucking ‘Britain welcomes everyone’ message during the NYE London fireworks
2 3 4
Replies
103
Views
4K
Spymaster
Spymaster
elbows
End-to-end encryption propaganda campaign
Replies
1
Views
461
NoXion
NoXion
Back
Top Bottom