Government data snooping - what are they actually proposing?

[Boris Sprinkler]

My ISP already keeps a record of what sites I visit for 12 months? You sure of that?


You have guarantees on this? No chance of function creep?



You have guarantees on this? No chance of function creep?



I take it you've never heard of Tor or the myriad of anonymous browsing methods. Nether has Joe public but you can bet your arse Jonny Jihad has



I thought my ISP was already keeping that data?



Please tell me how its going to work then. T-Mobile have already said its 'Technically Impossible' but if you know more about it then them pray tell. As I understand it the only way this would work for actually fighting crime would be if you banned encryption

ya, pretty much what I said in post 3. Which was conveniently overlooked by DB.

 

[Mooncat]

ya, pretty much what I said in post 3. Which was conveniently overlooked by DB.

Something else that bothers me is wasn't the tube bombing successful because although the anti-terrorist forces had the data, the valid data was lost in an sea of irrelevance? The real criminals will know this, take measures and increase the noise to signal ratio.

ETA (taken from el Reg) :

70 000 people, proxy logs (HTTP and HTTPS only) = 180GB a week (uncompressed)

20 million people all Internet traffic = ???

 

[ymu]

Didn't the Stasi run into exactly the same problem? Collecting so much data on everyone they couldn't actually do anything with it.

 

[detective-boy]

I'm still unclear.

Don't ask me about the technicalities ...

... but what I do know is most (if not all) of the actual information that it is proposed to store is already available in individual investigations where there is contemporaneous awareness that this particular individual is a suspect (e.g. if someone is suspected of being a paedophile it is possible to get at least some details of their activity in terms of websites visited, etc.).

I assume that there has been some consultation with the industry (who will be the place where the information is obtained and stored) otherwise the Home Office may as well be asking for the moon-on-a-stick!

 

[detective-boy]

Detective Boy fails to mention the fact that councils use these sort of powers (RIPA)for something as trivial as spying on parents who want to send their kids to a better school....
he obviously has more trust in our elected megalomaniacs than me

That is a misuse of the process. It is also not widespread - there have been a few examples and they have been jumped all over and they have led to a tightening of the access process rules (and there is an argument to be made for tightening them further).

It is NOT an argument for removing the entire facility.

 

[Beanburger]

Don't ask me about the technicalities ...

Well that was the entire point of the fucking thread.

 

[detective-boy]

So you don't know the first thing about what they're proposing. Quelle surprise.

As I've said before, I know you hate my fucking guts. I know that. You don't have to fucking prove it after every fucking post I make. I think you're a fucking obnoxious, supercillious prick ... but I don't stalk you around the fucking boards slagging you after every fucking post you make. So why not wind your fucking neck in, eh?

 

[detective-boy]

A "useful idiot".

As opposed to a useless cunt.

 

[detective-boy]

I had hoped that it would be possible to participate in the discussion again without getting fucking abuse from the usual tossers.

Clearly I was wrong.

* Abandons thread *

 

[ymu]

No chance of backing down then d-b? Or, of course, demonstrating that the information you posted was corrrect and that we've all got it wrong. Just another hysterical personal attack, which you will continue until you are backed into a corner and flounce off the thread.

Oh, you already have. Bit quicker than usual.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

Don't ask me about the technicalities ...

... but what I do know is most (if not all) of the actual information that it is proposed to store is already available in individual investigations where there is contemporaneous awareness that this particular individual is a suspect (e.g. if someone is suspected of being a paedophile it is possible to get at least some details of their activity in terms of websites visited, etc.).

I assume that there has been some consultation with the industry (who will be the place where the information is obtained and stored) otherwise the Home Office may as well be asking for the moon-on-a-stick!

That's the point. The home office are asking for a moon on a stick and ISP's have informed them of this. It is such massive levels of data retention that parsing it for meaningful data will be very difficult indeed.
ISPs are not storing data for all users surfing habits. It's not in their interests to, they may save records for a period of time, 30 days say for example. They save info on who had an IP address certainly to comply with requests made retrospectively for example once a server hosting child abuse images is located and the access logs obtained. The forensic search would be made on the computer(s) of whoever is identified as having accessed the server.

Here is a link http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/09/imp_hold/

 

[Mooncat]

That's the point. The home office are asking for a moon on a stick and ISP's have informed them of this. It is such massive levels of data retention that parsing it for meaningful data will be very difficult indeed.
ISPs are not storing data for all users surfing habits. It's not in their interests to, they may save records for a period of time, 30 days say for example. They save info on who had an IP address certainly to comply with requests made retrospectively for example once a server hosting child abuse images is located and the access logs obtained. The forensic search would be made on the computer(s) of whoever is identified as having accessed the server.

Here is a link http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/09/imp_hold/

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This.

I know you don't think much of The Register D-boy and I do agree they over hype things (their Global Warming coverage is shameful as well) but you'd do well to read some of the comments in that article.

 

[trevhagl]

That is a misuse of the process. It is also not widespread - there have been a few examples and they have been jumped all over and they have led to a tightening of the access process rules (and there is an argument to be made for tightening them further).

It is NOT an argument for removing the entire facility.

the Government should have made it absolutely clear when the RIPA powers could NOT be used, with severe penalties for those who abuse it.

But to be honest, i don't think they care as they have no respect for anyone's privacy as the big ID database proves. They want to know everything about everyone, but would be appalled if a higher power did that to THEM

 

[CyberRose]

Didn't the Stasi run into exactly the same problem? Collecting so much data on everyone they couldn't actually do anything with it.

Precisely why any "Big Brother" initiative can only be targeted at specific individuals already known to the authorities, rather than meaning everybody will be spied on.

Orwell might have written a fascinating and terrifying critique of a totalitarian dictatorship, but where he slipped up was assuming that ALL those TV screens in everybody's homes could actually be monitored ALL the time. Not possible. Still, doesn't stop the wave of paranoia or the smug sniffing of ones' own farts...

 

[ymu]

Oh right, so we shouldn't worry. The Stasi were ineffective so it's not a problem.

You've achieved a new low CR.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

i think you misread cyberose's post ymu.

 

[ymu]

Did I?

 

[CyberRose]

Did I?

No, the worrying thing is, I don't think you did. I think you genuinely think that our government is like the East German state during the Cold War...

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

oh no you didn't, as you were.

 

[El Jugador]

Precisely why any "Big Brother" initiative can only be targeted at specific individuals already known to the authorities, rather than meaning everybody will be spied on.

Orwell might have written a fascinating and terrifying critique of a totalitarian dictatorship, but where he slipped up was assuming that ALL those TV screens in everybody's homes could actually be monitored ALL the time. Not possible. Still, doesn't stop the wave of paranoia or the smug sniffing of ones' own farts...

A computer could monitor the whole lot, no problem.

Anyway, all you've said there is just another way of saying "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" - so we'd better all hope there'll never be any proper cunts in charge of deciding what is 'something to hide'.

 

[Mooncat]

A computer could monitor the whole lot, no problem.

How? How could 'a computer' monitor zettabytes of information for anything remotely useful?

ETA:- whether or not these mythical uber-computers actually exist I'm wondering just what use all this extra data would be. Anyone even remotely computer literate is going to be able to circumvent such things.

If your still watching D-B: What and how would you use the contact records (IMO of someone unable to use the most basic of countermeasures)?

 

[ymu]

No, the worrying thing is, I don't think you did. I think you genuinely think that our government is like the East German state during the Cold War...

Do you think dictatorships just arrive fully formed out of nowhere? Are these things that just happen elsewhere? Spain, Italy and Germany have all had totalitarian dictatorships within living memory, all of them arising against a background of war, the economic havoc wreaked by the 1929 crash, and far right bully boys on the march.

What's changed in the last 70 years to stop it happening again, because I'm seeing some pretty frightening parallels?

I know you like to be all knowing and cynical, but you actually come across as very naive. How do you justify your complacency in the light of modern history?

 

[El Jugador]

How? How could 'a computer' monitor zettabytes of information for anything remotely useful?

ETA:- whether or not these mythical uber-computers actually exist I'm wondering just what use all this extra data would be. Anyone even remotely computer literate is going to be able to circumvent such things.

If your still watching D-B: What and how would you use the contact records (IMO of someone unable to use the most basic of countermeasures)?

Facepalm yourself - especially in realtime it's a piece of piss to pluck out (say) anything outgoing from the IPs on list x, and every hit destined to the sites on list y and every contact from/to any particular users of services on list z - and even retrospective trawls through potentially vast activity logs are easy when you know precisely what you're looking for. Sure the most dangerous surveillance subjects will know how to get around all of this, but then that raises the question "who do they really plan to use this against then?" and the answer obviously is "everybody else".

 

[CyberRose]

A computer could monitor the whole lot, no problem.

No it couldn't. At some point, as I said earlier, a human must make a decision. There are not enough humans alive (and never will be) to monitor all communications in this country (or monitor all CCTVs etc). It's pure paranoia

Anyway, all you've said there is just another way of saying "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" - so we'd better all hope there'll never be any proper cunts in charge of deciding what is 'something to hide'.

I'm saying that it is, always has been, and always will be, physically impossible for the government to do what the paranoids believe will be the result of "Big Brother" initiatives. Big Brother initiatives can only target and intrude into the lives of people already targeted by the authorities for whatever reason. Take CCTV for example, how many hours worth are recorded every second? Probably a year's supply in the click of a finger. Nobody can or will view all of that just to see what random people are getting up to. However, the authorities will retrospectively view recorded footage if they are looking for specific information on a specific individual. Emails are no different. Even if they did record everything that was written by you or me in an email (which despite what the paranoids and the smug self fart sniffers believe, isn't true), the only time anyone will ever read it is if we do something to make us a target (ie are suspected of a crime).

It's not a case of "if you have nothing to hide you've nothing to fear" (which, incidentally, is a perfectly logical argument), because these initiatives probably won't help detect whatever it is you're hiding in the first place.

"Big Brother" initiatives are purely for retrospectively targeting known individuals, it isn't intended to find out what everybody is up to in their spare time, nor would it be possible for them to use these initiatives as such.

 

[CyberRose]

Do you think dictatorships just arrive fully formed out of nowhere? Are these things that just happen elsewhere? Spain, Italy and Germany have all had totalitarian dictatorships within living memory, all of them arising against a background of war, the economic havoc wreaked by the 1929 crash, and far right bully boys on the march.

What's changed in the last 70 years to stop it happening again, because I'm seeing some pretty frightening parallels?

Well your "parallels" are pretty twisted and desperate. Background of war in their own country. And you're saying this economic crash has had worse effects than 1929?! Oh and our "totalitarian government" ensures your far right bully boys are met with the full force of the police whenever they try to cause havoc anywhere.

I know you like to be all knowing and cynical, but you actually come across as very naive. How do you justify your complacency in the light of modern history?

I'm naive and you're a paranoid who likes the smug smell of your own farts. So who's right?

 

[CyberRose]

Facepalm yourself - especially in realtime it's a piece of piss to pluck out (say) anything outgoing from the IPs on list x, and every hit destined to the sites on list y and every contact from/to any particular users of services on list z - and even retrospective trawls through potentially vast activity logs are easy when you know precisely what you're looking for. Sure the most dangerous surveillance subjects will know how to get around all of this, but then that raises the question "who do they really plan to use this against then?" and the answer obviously is "everybody else".

It's easy to pick out anything when you know what you're looking for!

 

[ymu]

And you're saying this economic crash has had worse effects than 1929?!

Are you saying this one is over already?

 

[CyberRose]

Are you saying this one is over already?

Ah classic debating tactic there! Pick out a minute and irrelevant point and make it into something big because you feel you can argue a point against that. I'm actually honoured that the only thing you identified in my last posts to argue against is whether or not this economic crisis has finished!

 

[El Jugador]

Oh, well while we're on the matter of debating tactics,

I don't know what government proposal you are referring to that involves people monitoring CCTV or whatever it is you're imagining, so why even try to talk about it? Unless it makes it easier for you, since no-one really knows what you are describing in your vague generalisation of "Big Brother initiatives".

And then trying to misrepresent anyone who argues against you as one of some group of 'paranoids' is doing you no favours either.

And that thing about the farts is starting to look like a bit of a weird compulsion so please keep your projections to yourself.

 

[trevhagl]

Do you think dictatorships just arrive fully formed out of nowhere? Are these things that just happen elsewhere? Spain, Italy and Germany have all had totalitarian dictatorships within living memory, all of them arising against a background of war, the economic havoc wreaked by the 1929 crash, and far right bully boys on the march.

What's changed in the last 70 years to stop it happening again, because I'm seeing some pretty frightening parallels?

I know you like to be all knowing and cynical, but you actually come across as very naive. How do you justify your complacency in the light of modern history?

i would like to believe certain other posters on here but yours seems closer to the truth. I don't think even the Tories had such contempt for democracy, and thats really saying something!