back to article In-a-spin Home Sec: 'We won't be rifling through people's web history'

The Tory government's draft Investigatory Powers Bill is expected to land in Parliament with a thud on Wednesday. However, over the weekend, Home Secretary Theresa May once again rejected claims that the latest attempt to legislate to massively ramp up surveillance of Brits' online activity would lead to authorities being able …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Kite flying

    The same old routine. Put out an totally unacceptable idea and wait for the public outrage. Then row back a bit until the Stupids think the government have caved in. Then make a law with what's left.

    The problem is that what's left is all they wanted in the first place but if they put that on the table there would also have been outrage.

    And the Stupids fall for it every time.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Kite flying

      By "Stupids", I presume you mean "voters"?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Kite flying

        yeah, stupids, voters, plebs, sheep, the little people on the street, i.e. us. Those who needn't worry, the goverment knows best, move on, nothing to see here or hang on, why are you asking, can I see some form of identification?

    2. Tom Chiverton 1

      Re: Kite flying

      Don't. Go talk to your MP about your concerns. Sign up to the Open Rights Group. Do something !

      1. Oli 1

        Re: Kite flying

        Yeah alight, the last time i did that i got told why i was wrong and why i should just trust the government, delivered on some of the most expensive looking (and feeling) stationary ever to grace my letterbox.

        Wasted hours, achieved nothing.

        Democracy in action.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Trollface

          Re: Kite flying

          @Oli 1

          Don't you mean "democracy inaction"? FTFY!!!

          (We need a "cynical SOB" icon)

      2. Tony S

        Re: Kite flying

        "Go talk to your MP about your concerns"

        I did exactly that (two MPs as I had two addresses). The responses I received did not actually specifically deal with my concerns, they merely re-iterated government proposals (both from the same party) and were almost word for word identical.

        I didn't want to put up with that and so then sent a second letter, highlighting the key issues and pointing out that what they were saying was factually incorrect; and asked for their comments on those points, rather than the spin that I had previously received.

        I did then receive a second letter from each; and again, they were so similar, that they could have been written by the same person. Neither really dealt with the original concern.

        Currently waiting for a letter from a new MP; different issue. Didn't respond to the original letter, so this is my second letter to her. If I don't hear anything in the next month, I'll probably be passing it on to the local press for them to chase; but I doubt that it will achieve a damned thing.

        Time to get out the pitchforks and torches!

      3. Fraggle850

        Re: Kite flying

        > Don't. Go talk to your MP about your concerns. Sign up to the Open Rights Group. Do something !

        It's exactly this sort of thing we need to put a stop to, bloody anarchists. The sooner our dear leaders have turned the country into a panopticon the better.

        Nothing to see here obersturmbannführer May, you can see that I'm loyal to the cause. No need to go sniffing around my Internet history, although it is my patriotic duty to report my concerns about Tom Chiverton 1.

    3. Roger Varley

      Re: Kite flying

      Not necessarily, they've always got the the choice of a minor tweak via the 2016 IPB Amendment Act, followed by another tweak via the 2017 IPB Amendment Act etc etc

      1. alain williams Silver badge

        Re: Kite flying

        Not necessarily, they've always got the the choice of a minor tweak via the 2016 IPB Amendment Act, followed by another tweak via the 2017 IPB Amendment Act etc etc

        Or even better a statutory instrument - which will sail through virtually unseen.

        1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Unhappy

          Or even better a statutory instrument - which will sail through virtually unseen.

          Indeed.

          Much favored by the the Dark Lord Mandelsohn under Blair*

          *But no Conservative should feel too smug about that.

    4. phuzz Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: Kite flying

      I'm not sure if people are falling for it every time, this is about the third or fourth time they've tried to get the snooper's charter in as law and it's been shelved every time.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Gimp

        "this is about the third or fourth time they've tried to get the snooper's charter in as law"

        Possibly more.

        Governments come and governments go and yet after a few months in post the new sock puppet Home Secretary asks for this to be included.

        So what's the common denominator between (by my count) eight Home Secretaries?

        I think it's time the Senior Civil Servants should start to be identified.

        They seem to be remarkably reluctant to step into the limelight

        I remain convinced this is not a policy, it's a disease.

        1. Intractable Potsherd

          Re: "this is about the third or fourth time they've tried to get the snooper's charter in as law"

          "I think it's time the Senior Civil Servants should start to be identified. They seem to be remarkably reluctant to step into the limelight."

          ^^ This. I was thinking much the same just last night - the snivel serpents are at the back of this, pushing their own agenda. There needs to be some light shed on the bastards, and a large amount of spring-cleaning to rid the Home Office of the people-haters that have taken root there.

  2. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. Tom Chiverton 1
    Stop

    Someone mis-read

    Because CW reckon the Government wants the GET part kept :

    http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500256476/UK-surveillance-bill-to-give-police-access-to-web-history

    Watch out for the fun definition of 'journalist' too. Because they get special treatment.

    1. dogged

      Re: Someone mis-read

      > Watch out for the fun definition of 'journalist' too. Because they get special treatment.

      Do you have a link to this definition?

      And is that the usual special treatment with the length of rubber hose and the seized laptop?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Someone mis-read

      http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500256476/UK-surveillance-bill-to-give-police-access-to-web-history

      "Under the Investigatory Powers Bill expected to be introduced by home secretary Theresa May on 4 November 2015, telecoms and internet service providers (ISPs) will be required to retain their customers' web browsing history for 12 months, but they will be paid to cover the costs."

      If the ISPs will be paid to keep that data they'll no doubt do it, but can they resist mining it for their own gain?

      1. Otto is a bear.

        Re: Someone mis-read

        That will depend on the Data Protection Act registration for the data, and who the data owner is. I think our government would be upset, if this was done, and it would also be illegal, if not part of your Ts & Cs. I suspect that telcos and ISPs do this anyway, best check your Ts & Cs to find out.

        If a company gathers data they must tell you why they are doing it, and what it will be used for, any use outside that is an offence under the DPA.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What will the Plod do with their new powers?

    Visited a torrent site to download something legal - Computer taken away and an arrest for copyright.

    Visited a website over concerns about your child being suicidal or taking drugs? - Information passed to social service, say goodbye to your kids.

    Annoyed a Plod by pulling out in front of them or just they weren't having a good day - All information scrutinised and you get arrested or it's passed on to others.

    Also if you think this information won't sold to companies think again, I would say health data was more important than your web history but that's getting sold anyway.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The bureaucratic mindset is the one constant in the universe. Embarrass them even slightly and they'll do everything in their power to find something they can pin on you as punishment.

      In my case the local council confused me with my dad and made some mistakes on a council tax bill. After the mistake was pointed out to them they spent the next decade "investigating" me for a variety of things that were crimes only in their own minds. The best one was that I didn't declare a regular loyalty discount on retail purchases as taxable income when I was claiming benefits. I wish I was making this up.

      Anon because this is still an ongoing legal issue.

      These powers are being sold as for the police, but then as I recall, so was RIPA. Once it was passed, RIPA was mostly used by local government to fish for dirt on people they didn't like. This will be no different. Arguably it will be worse, because people can accidentally "visit" naughty sites all the time.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          This is what you get Shademeister

          when idiots vote busybody Socialist "do gooders" into any office. They can't just do what is expected of them, they always have to insinuate themselves into every aspect of your life. These people are exactly like those in China or Russia or East Germany! They only exist to rat you out to the Politburo or Stasi. Or in this case, the equivalent in Britain. Different names, same type of people.

          SINCE WHEN is it anybody's damned business whether you live alone or not? As far as I am concerned, Politicians are ALL criminals and should be treated as such. The fact that they pay no attention to the FOI proves it.

          Time to leave for less interfering pastures, I think.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: This is what you get Shademeister

            "SINCE WHEN is it anybody's damned business whether you live alone or not? As far as I am concerned, Politicians are ALL criminals and should be treated as such. The fact that they pay no attention to the FOI proves it."

            Well, if you don't want your council to care, don't apply for the Council Tax rebate for single occupancy.

            Although, the problem is that unless you arrange your own rubbish collection, the number of people in a household is important for the rubbish collection budget.

          2. Graham Marsden
            WTF?

            Re: This is what you get Shademeister

            > idiots vote busybody Socialist "do gooders" into any office.

            What the hell are you talking about? It's the *TORIES* that are pushing this legislation. Do you honestly think that their Councils are going to be *any* different when they get powers like this?

            Take off your political blinkers and call a pox on ALL their houses!

            1. Fraggle850

              Re: This is what you get Shademeister

              Yup, they all shit in the same pot. Wouldn't trust any of them.

              You are wrong to attribute this particular occurrence to the left but they have their own shameful episodes.

  5. frank ly

    "world leading oversight arrangements"

    There's not much competition so that _should_ be easy.

    1. Doctor_Wibble
      Black Helicopters

      Re: "world leading oversight arrangements"

      And aside from the typo possibilities relating to 'oversight' and 'an oversight' we end up with a distinct risk of having an 'oversight oversight'.

      Not to mention the other rather significant risk that the method of oversight might just be to take a copy of everything and drop it at the nearest NSA office just so they can double-check everything against what they already have on you.

    2. splodge

      Re: "world leading oversight arrangements"

      "world leading oversight arrangements"

      There's not much competition so that _should_ be easy.

      Also depends on the direction you wish to lead the world

  6. SVV

    Read the story in the Telegraph today

    Apparently 38 different public bodies will have access to the data, including local councils.

    "Town halls were granted permission to access private communications data 2,110 times last year, more than GCHQ and MI6 combined. "

    Now, excuse me for being a bit thick, but doesn't this look a bit more suspect than the "protecting us from evil" line that is being used to sell this particular piece of legislation?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Read the story in the Telegraph today

      Councils will need the approval of a magistrate for at least some of the access to web history. Hardly a major hurdle. The DT article also notes that councils last year were granted more access requests under the current provisions than GCHQ and MI6 combined.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11968999/Councils-and-taxman-to-be-given-power-to-view-your-internet-history.html

      There is a poll on that page which is currently showing over 10,000 votes (96%) against the proposals. That is an unusually high response for the DT on a poll about a Government Law & Order proposal.

      1. choleric

        Re: Read the story in the Telegraph today

        And the same organ is reporting that browsing history WILL be required to be recorded and retained by ISPs for 1 year. So who's telling the truth May or the Telegraph?

    2. Warm Braw

      Re: Read the story in the Telegraph today

      Given that any retention by UK ISPs can be defeated by the simple expedient of using a VPN, I think there is good reason to doubt that this legislation exists for the purpose of defeating terrorism.

      I'm not sure it's even for the purpose of mass-surveillance.

      I think Ms. May is performing the Tory equivalent of pole-dancing in order to draw attention to her, er, potential and she isn't concerned about any collateral damage.

      1. Chris 3

        Re: Read the story in the Telegraph today

        It's nice that you trust your VPN provider so fully.

        1. Warm Braw

          Re: Read the story in the Telegraph today

          >It's nice that you trust your VPN provider so fully

          You've missed the point. This legislation isn't about the "under the counter" data slurping of the security services, it's supposed to be about the "above board" lawful activities of Mr. Plod. The fact that Mr. Plod's lawful access can so readily be circumvented implies that the legislation has some different purpose.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Read the story in the Telegraph today

          It's trivial to set up your own VPN is you have a server (virtual or hardware) in another country.

          1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

            Re: It's trivial to set up your own VPN

            And if you don't have a server in another country ?

            1. Sir Runcible Spoon

              Re: It's trivial to set up your own VPN

              "And if you don't have a server in another country ?"

              Get one.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re Pascal Monett: It's trivial to set up your own VPN

              VM's are very cheaply available in various non-UK countries. eg Linode for example let you choose where to place your VM. Some of the options are in non-5-eyes countries, if that helps (which I doubt that does, as Linode is US owned :<).

    3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Read the story in the Telegraph today

      "Town halls were granted permission to access private communications data 2,110 times last year, more than GCHQ and MI6 combined. "

      This, of course, takes no account of the number of accesses without permission.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Read the story in the Telegraph today

      Thats because GCHQ routes data in such a way to avoid having to ask for permission

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    face it.

    The simple fact is that until Camoron and May get access to EVERYTHING we do on line they will never be satisfied. There will be subtle changes and acts brought in to accomplish this every year.

    And don't think liebour will be any different. Given the amount and scope of the collected data they wont complain if they receive the data. Privacy, as we know it, will soon be a distant memory and the youngsters will grow up in a world where everything you do,read,write and say will be logged,filed,indexed and cross referenced.....And no one will be left to fight the democratic right to a private life...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: face it.

      "And don't think liebour will be any different. "

      Even under new management one suspects that the totalitarian streak of Labour's left or right wing groups is their common factor.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: face it.

      It's not the parties - they go along with it for their own reasons - but rather the sir humphries who are the source of this constant barrage of privacy-invading nonsense. They see themselves as superior to the plebian mass. The Ministers are just the current mask they wear to push their "enlightened" consensus dictatorship.

    3. Measurer

      Re: face it.

      Gasp... You mean the world of Google!

      We're already there, it's just if Google know your dirty little online secrets, they'll just try to sell more of it to you, until heart failure or friction burns kill you. They won't be holier than thou about it.

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon

        Re: face it.

        you can choose not to use Google (most people could manage that). It's a bit harder to not use your ISP for internet access.

  8. Fading
    Black Helicopters

    Time for operation haystack

    All I need is a nice little worm that will spoof IP addresses and create a bogus random browsing history. Infect a couple of more popular ISPs used by MPs and bob's your man from uncle. Plausible deniability for all.......

  9. Big_Ted
    Black Helicopters

    You all missed the most important part

    "for example, we won’t be requiring communication service providers from the UK to store third party data, we won’t be making the same requirements in relation to data retention on overseas CSPs [such as Facebook, Google, et al].".....

    Well that's its then, they don't need to bother about facebook etc because the NSA have all the info and will transfer it to GCHQ so its on their servers any time they want it.

    Or am I being paranoid because they are out to get me . . . .

  10. Fraggle850

    Re: "world leading oversight arrangements"

    So that will be 'everything the police ask for is signed off by the home secretary as a matter of course' then? The involvement of judges will only come after they've made free with our data, and then only in cases where you find out what they've been up to.

    1. Teiwaz

      Re: "world leading oversight arrangements"

      > "'everything the police ask for is signed off by the home secretary "

      There'll not be enough hours in the day to sign off all the police requests, including the irrelevant, the unnecessary or just plain 'gone fishing'.

      The really dangerous people will go unnoticed among all this dross and irrelevance until they perpetrate...

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like