Government data snooping - what are they actually proposing?

[ymu]

Still not going to address your error? Insults are so much easier than research, eh?

How many times will you flounce from the thread before even you realise you're making a dick of yourself?

 

[weltweit]

have you read the terrorism act 2000?

Nope, not read it, but I am sure they have the right to "tap" / eavesdrop on my computer to track my online habits if they think I may be a terrorist.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Whatever the motivations for doing this (if it's for solving or preventing crimes and it can be shown to be necessary for that purpose then let the police and security services use it, not the Brighton and Hove women's institue or the fucking RSPB or whoever it is) anyone with half a brain and an inclination to do so can still avoid getting their communication tracked. PAYG phone in fake names, proxy servers, just sending things through the post instead; none of it is rocket science

 

[treelover]

This could all be very worrying for people on benefits, etc, they sign documents allowing the DWP to access any information that, the DWP, consider will help and expedite the claim, etc. One could see them using this to undermine genuine claims, etc.

 

[ymu]

Whatever the motivations for doing this (if it's for solving or preventing crimes and it can be shown to be necessary for that purpose then let the police and security services use it, not the Brighton and Hove women's institue or the fucking RSPB or whoever it is) anyone with half a brain and an inclination to do so can still avoid getting their communication tracked. PAYG phone in fake names, proxy servers, just sending things through the post instead; none of it is rocket science

Well, exactly. The only people who will be at greater risk from this are those without the resources to protect themselves, or those who don't think they have anything to hide (probably because they don't). Same with ID cards. Both policies enormously expensive and entirely ineffective at targeting those we are told they are intended to catch.

It's an authoritarian wet-dream; can't be justified in the real world.

 

[Pickman's model]

Nope, not read it, but I am sure they have the right to "tap" / eavesdrop on my computer to track my online habits if they think I may be a terrorist.

do you know what the definition of 'terrorist' is?

 

[Mooncat]

The Register submitted a freedom of information request as to what the network operators objections to the Interception Modernisation Program were:

"There is no evidence in the consultation document that there is a strong case for the acquisition and retention of additional data which [communications providers] do not currently collect for their business purposes - the proposals appear to be wholly disproportionate."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/22/mobile_imp/

 

[trevhagl]

I have no objection to the police being able to have access to my PC and my ISPs records on my browsing habits in the case that they might consider I may be a paedo.

I have no objection to the security services being able to effectively tap my computer to trace all incoming and outgoing messages in the event that they consider I might be a terrorist.

I do object to the compilation of a massive database of all of our online habits, through which 200 public service bodies can trawl looking for data without so much as a court's permission. Apart from anything else it will be very hard to police and will be open to widespread abuse.

it will more often than not be used to monitor those who have the 'wrong' political views.

 

[Pickman's model]

Nope, not read it, but I am sure they have the right to "tap" / eavesdrop on my computer to track my online habits if they think I may be a terrorist.

i ask again: do you know what the definition of 'terrorist' in the terrorism act 2000 is? and bloody hurry up and answer

 

[weltweit]

do you know what the definition of 'terrorist' is?

Nope, perhaps you might enlighten me?

it will more often than not be used to monitor those who have the 'wrong' political views.

Well that would be a waste of resouce I would say.

 

[weltweit]

i ask again: do you know what the definition of 'terrorist' in the terrorism act 2000 is? and bloody hurry up and answer

Stop ranting ranty man, I already did answer!! above!

 

[Barking_Mad]

Stop ranting ranty man, I already did answer!! above!

from here

Terrorism: interpretation


(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.


(2) Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a) involves serious violence against a person,

(b) involves serious damage to property,

(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.


(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.


(4) In this section—

(a) “action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,

(b) a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,

(c) a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and

(d) “the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.


(5) In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

 

[weltweit]

Doesn't seem too bad, is it?

 

[ymu]

Doesn't seem too bad, is it?

If you're happy regarding legitimate protest as "domestic extremism", no it does not. Otherwise, it's a tad chilling.

 

[weltweit]

If you're happy regarding legitimate protest as "domestic extremism", no it does not. Otherwise, it's a tad chilling.

But I don't see those words in the quoted text above.

If anything the text is too loose, it is not clear enough what they are focussing on.

 

[ymu]

But I don't see those words in the quoted text above.

If anything the text is too loose, it is not clear enough what they are focussing on.

Yeah, that would be the problem. It is loose enough that it applies to legitimate protest. The lines are deliberately blurred.

ACPO have been in a spot of bother over this recently. Whether anything will come of it is another thing.

Last month the Guardian revealed Acpo was running a £9m scheme to help keep tabs on political activists categorised as "domestic extremists", a term with no legal basis. Three secretive units, which employ a staff of 100 and also advise companies that are the targets of protest, are controlled by Acpo's terrorism and allied matters division, which Orde described as "a huge piece of business".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/11/hugh-orde-acpo-police-surveillance-protesters-reform

 

[El Jugador]

Threads and Dread

13 Uniform

(1) A person in a public place commits an offence if he—

(a) wears an item of clothing, or

(b) wears, carries or displays an article,

in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.

(2) A constable in Scotland may arrest a person without a warrant if he has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is guilty of an offence under this section.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—

(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months,

(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or

(c) both.

 

[Pickman's model]

Stop ranting ranty man, I already did answer!! above!

after fucking six weeks time to copy out the fucking act with your toes

 

[weltweit]

after fucking six weeks time to copy out the fucking act with your toes

I was busy!

 

[Paulie]

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.

And, doubtless, Detective Boy cares a lot less about it than you appear to...

Should I bet a tenner you also have a blog?

 

[ymu]

And, doubtless, Detective Boy cares a lot less about it than you appear to...

Should I bet a tenner you also have a blog?

Wut?

 

[Mooncat]

Looks like I.M.P. is still on the cards:

The Home Office has created a new unit to oversee a massive increase in surveillance of the internet, The Register has learned, quashing suggestions the plans are on hold until after the election.

The new Communications Capabilities Directorate (CCD) has been created as a structure to implement the £2bn Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP), sources said.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/28/imp_ccd/

I'm sure throwing cash and acronyms at something the ISPs themselves say is impossible will work out just fine