ISPs start storing user data from today..

[jæd]

I do tend to see this as the same as eastern European police state opening the mail.
Odd that so few bother about this but if the labour government started opening your paper mail before it was allowed to be delivered there would be uproar.

Except it isn't... Have you actually read what the directive says...?

 

[derf]

Except it isn't... Have you actually read what the directive says...?

It says something long the lines of storing who sent a message to who.
Can you honestly say you trust that lot to not read content or not expand the 'rights' of government to read them in the near future?

I can't with the lot you have in the UK at the moment.

Thin end of the wedge?

 

[jæd]

It says something long the lines of storing who sent a message to who.

In other words: Nope. Because you'd realise it means tracking who an EU ISP email (or communication) is to and from.

Can you honestly say you trust that lot to not read content or not expand the 'rights' of government to read them in the near future?

Any expansion would be to read any email on an ISP in Europe. This is possible right now. Hate to point this out to you, but email isn't at all secure by default. And its not technically possible to track and store every email (and message) on the internet...

I can't with the lot you have in the UK at the moment.

Thin end of the wedge?

Says the Ex-pat in Indonesia...

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Any expansion would be to read any email on an ISP in Europe. This is possible right now. Hate to point this out to you, but email isn't at all secure by default. And its not technically possible to track and store every email (and message) on the internet...

If you meant; a very large fraction or the majority of emails rather than every...

Big and possibly flawed assumption there, i tried running the numbers and reckoned the storage would cost billions and despite the supposed distributed nature of the web you do have a finite number of nodes to monitor. Then again we're not talking about every email sent, just those that go through the UK's infrastructure. Tracking destination and origin as well as a few other bits would be childsplay once your intercept gear is in place.

 

[jæd]

If you meant; a very large fraction or the majority of emails rather than every...

Big and possibly flawed assumption there, i tried running the numbers and reckoned the storage would cost billions and despite the supposed distributed nature of the web you do have a finite number of nodes to monitor. Then again we're not talking about every email sent, just those that go through the UK's infrastructure. Tracking destination and origin as well as a few other bits would be childsplay once your intercept gear is in place.

Problems start when you start factor in encryption and things like Skype... And the ultimate problem is when you start having to deal with new forms of communication, espcially decentralised ones...

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The storage capacity is doable, the cryptography is harder, the destination and origin are mostly easy. It's both possible and offers enough advantages to be a realistic worry.

 

[jayeola]

Brilliant! Can we have a public list of websites so that we can compare the what offending people have done?
- Tax evasion
- Not putting rubbish out
- Not liking stuff on TV

Now say if the EU/cops/spooks had a /target/ on how many people that this law or thing was supposed to catch. The real bad guys would use some "uber-email-sneaky-cannot-see-me" technology. That leaves me and all of the other law abiding folk.

Would that mean, like traffic wardens, that the targets would mean that /someone/ //must// be caught doing something?

 

[jæd]

The storage capacity is doable, the cryptography is harder, the destination and origin are mostly easy. It's both possible and offers enough advantages to be a realistic worry.

You'll end up with a huge store of data and searching it for anything meaningful will be a problem in itself. And you might have real communications, or you might find out you spend all your time and effort decrypting noise.

Of course, the politicians will be lining their pockets, as well the IT consulting comapnies that will spend forever and a day implementing it.

 

[weltweit]

I assume they are already saving our browsing habits, I seem to recall that was one of their plans.

 

[jayeola]

Once upon a time

# ___Jihad___ i said ___bollox__ i use ~/ix as my install location? i prefix
# this build with 192 and the executatble will be called "ruby192". this
# way i can distinguish between this build and any others, as well ___NWO___
# keeping it seperate from the package that my distro may build

__noise__
#define RUBY_VERSION "1.9.2"
#define RUBY_RELEASE_DATE "2009-04-06"
#define RUBY_PATCHLEVEL -1
#define RUBY_BRANCH_NAME "trunk"

#define RUBY_VERSION_MAJOR 1
#define RUBY_VERSION_MINOR 9
#define RUBY_VERSION_TEENY 1
#define RUBY_RELEASE_YEAR 200

__luton__ __jihad__

 

[AKA pseudonym]

It appears that to keep costs down (ISPs are being compensated for the extra costs incurred) some smaller ISPs are exempt from having to collect the data..

Computer Weekly

At least one small internet service provider was told that if the Home Office had not already contacted him, he did not have to comply with the directive. As a result he would not be able to claim compensation.
A spokesman for the UK's Internet Service Providers' Assocation (ISPA), said the directive is being implemented in a two-tier way. The reason was that the Home Office was anxious to avoid duplicate collection of data and hence costs, he said.
"I think they reckon if they get the biggest ISPs to collect the data they will get most of the information they want," he said. ISPA represents about 200 ISPs, about half of whom are small companies and resellers.

So in other words any really committed 'terrorist' can avoid detection..

some 'anti-terror' tactic hey?