UK taxpayers should foot £2bn or more to adopt Snoopers' Charter, says Inquiry The first Parliamentary report into the UK's draft Investigatory Powers Bill, commonly referred to as the "Snoopers' Charter", says it has great potential to damage the nation's technology sector and the public should therefore pick up the tab for the £2bn (US$2.85bn) or so it will require to implement the data-harvesting …
Look, either you pay your share of the £2B from your taxes (the the government then gives to the ISPs), or your ISP will have to charge you more to make it's costs back.
What's that? You'd like a third option where you don't have to pay for the privilege of being spied upon? You and me both mate.
IPB The first Parliamentary report into the UK's draft Investigatory Powers Bill, commonly referred to as the "Snoopers' Charter", says it has great potential to damage the nation's technology sector and the public should therefore pick up the tab for the £2bn (US$2.85bn) or so it will require to implement the data-harvesting legislation.
So it's a stupid fucking idea therefore the public should pay for it? What are these twats on? How about not doing it? There's two billion good reasons not to; quite aside from the fact that it will do precisely fuck-all to increase security and is a gross violation of human rights and -frankly- everything Britain stands for.
This particular section of the public cordially invites them to fuck right off and spin violently.
"It's all going to be taxpayer's money no matter which budget it comes from"
I think John Brown's point is valid. If it's heaped on ISPs it's hidden, HMG doesn't have to justify the amount & they'll claim the fact it was 8x over estimate as the ISPs' incompetence. If it's a matter of public record they'll have to justify it and it becomes much harder for them to hide the real cost. Even better, if they stick to their estimate of cost and then have to fund it directly the Treasury has the chance to turn down extra funds whist the PAC & NAO have a chance to give them a good kicking.
If it's a matter of public record they'll have to justify it and it becomes much harder for them to hide the real cost
"You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?"
Independence Day explains the sort of funding shenanigans that will ensue far better than anything else I've yet heard.
If it's heaped on ISPs it's hidden, HMG doesn't have to justify the amount & they'll claim the fact it was 8x over estimate as the ISPs' incompetence.
Don't forget the government have form on this. Look at the energy sector. Because the welfare state is (despite its vast cost) shambolic and ineffective, energy suppliers have to pony up the "Warn Homes Discount". That's a third of a billion quid added to your energy bills each year. Then there's the Energy Company Obligation, to insulate selected properties that adds another £0.7bn to energy bills. Then you've got the Feed it tarrifs and renewables obligations, that force energy suppliers to over-pay billions each year for electricity from PV and wind power, currently around £5bn and rising fast. All of which together then create the very problem of high energy costs and fuel poverty that government complain about. By 2020, all of these state-mandated interferences will be an additional cost of at least £9bn a year (NAO, 2020 prices), and that's before the ridiculous bribes for nuclear are factored in. In overall terms, by 2020, more than a third of the costs of your domestic energy bill will be the assorted interferences by government in the energy market. And the liars, idiots and thieves of government have the audacity to claim that they are working to keep your energy bills down.
But as a scheme for (1) spending other people's money without being in the slightest bit accountable, it's great for the wasters of Westminster. And (2) as a means of blaming other people for a problem created by government, it is equally marvellous.
So, coming back to the Snoopers Charter, government are addicted to spending other people's money. They've run out of tax income, and even though in a few weeks they''ll be conducting a further huge raid on pension savers, that still won't be enough for Cameron's tax 'n' spend plans, so the additional costs of the Snoopers Charter will have to be loaded upon ISPs. And don't forget, that by loading the costs through your ISP, the thieves of government actually make 20% of the total costs, because YOU will be charged VAT on the Snoopers Charter costs added to your bill.
There are no polite words to express the depths of my contempt and loathing for Cameron, his lickspittle parliamentary party, his Eton & Oxbridge chumocracy, and his big state champagne socialism.
I read it as the committee saying, "hey, this is a badly thought out, badly defined and utterly stupid fucking idea
Which means they will go through with it. Just like with smart metering.
You are misunderstanding the mechanics of UK corruption. 2Bn fleeced of the plebs means a few millions landing in the right pockets of the approved contractors and suppliers chosen to implement it. Directorship here, directorship there, sponsorhip (100% legal) of a party here, sponsorship there.
That actually is still more aboveboard than the financing of Partido Laborista Blairista which is done exactly as per "Evita":
And the money kept rolling out in all directions
To the poor, to the weak, to the destitute of all complexions
Now cynics claim a little of the cash has gone astray
But that's not the point my friends
Check who are some of the sponsors of Blair foundaton. Make sure you are well seated so you do not fall off your chair.
... the Government are still completely clueless about the whole issue, but they think that if they stamp their little feet and demand the moon on a stick, the service providers can somehow wave a magic want and make all their dreams come true...
(And, of course, the Government justifies all of this because of "Paedos and Terrorists and Drug Dealers, Oh my!")
> can i have my coffee back please? it's on the floor ...
Well at least you missed the keyboard and monitor!
> who is the Cowardly Lion, the Tin Man, the Scarecrow? The chaps behind the curtain I think we know
Call me David, Gideon Osborne and Treasonous May, of course.
Pay no attention to NewsCrap, Greed4S, Screwco, Crapita et al lurking behind the curtain...
a less important, but interesting extension - what if the company interferes with an overseas entity (indlvidual, or company, government etc), breaking that jurisdiction's law and then staff end up facing extradition? Who is extradited - the responsible manager? business owner? (even if they hate this idea and only doing bare minimum required by the law)
Or will it be the civil servants who draft it, the Home Sec who introduces the law, the MPs who pass it (if they do) ? Ha. Ha. Ha.
What about an employee of the ISP who (whilst not revealing any details to the public) refuses to help El-Governmenti hack some poor buggers laptop?
Do they get sacked? Could they even claim unfair dismissal if they can't cite the reason without going to jail?
At what point do morals outweigh (bad) law?
At the risk of invoking Godwin, the Nazi's made it ok for their army to do lots of nasty things - many of the soldiers on the ground didn't want to do it, but they risked a bullet in the back of the head themselves if they didn't. However, this hasn't stopped a lot of people from being hounded to death by the international community.
Whilst obviously not in the same league, what if (in the future) these kinds of immoral laws are made illegal on an international scale - do the people who were made to implement them get prosecuted?
Seriously, we have a bunch of clueless twats (seemingly) in charge - they probably aren't even clever enough to realise they are being led around by the nose by the vested powers. It's shameful.
"The purpose is to allow law enforcement agencies to identify the communications service to which a device has connected. ....There are questions as to how collecting and storing ICRs is technically possible, and whether Data Retention Notices to retain all user ICRs are ‘necessary and proportionate’."
Collecting ALL internet records on EVERYONE and handing them over for EVERY purpose can never be necessary or proportionate.
Do you really want newspaper editors seeing into your private lives MPs? No? Yet that is what this does. David Camerons IP address visited Pig Fanciers forum! Cameron Loves Porkies!
Then there's the question of political stability. It's necessary in a democracy to have privacy, Parliament cannot be spied on while it deliberates because foreign powers would seek to head off legislation they don't like. Political groups seeking power need protection from the parties in power. Journalists need to protect their sources, Judges protect their deliberations, Lawyers protect their confidential discussions.
You learned that Obama gets a briefing on the private political discussions of leaders around the world. He knows their talking points before they give their speeches. Do you think he just reads and forgets and those are never acted on?
If all men are equal why are some of them snoopers and some of them victims of snooping?
How can Parliament control the snoopers if the snoopers control Parliament?
And history shows countries 'turned', use their spy apparatus against their people. Parliament did not approve Charles Farrs 'magic' re-interpretation of legislation. And government after government has been elected under this surveillance regime kept it hidden from Parliament, but not from Charles Farr. We've been turned.
With certain individuals having huge amounts of private data and leverage on officials vying for electing. The idea that they wouldn't use that power is naive.
So Cameron is not our PM, he's the one chosen from the set of PM's permitted by the surveillance apparatus. If they didn't approve him, his embarrassing selfies would be over the tabloids. As so many other MPs have experienced.
Snoopers Charter has been rejected many many times by Parliament, it is not law, you snoopers need to realize you've been turned.
"Then there's the question of political stability"
I don't trust the current cnuts in government with this power. I absolutely won't trust some unknown future bunch of cnuts to have it. Especially in a country so determined to vote warmongers, bigots, crooks, racists and kiddy fiddlers into power.
Whoever gets into power, we always lose, we can never trust them. And they never give up abusive power once gained.
Does anyone here know what an 'Internet Connection Record' might be?
Give me unfettered access to any of the committee's connections and I'll happily produce what one might look like? :)
I have clue enough to know they're both deeply invasive and utterly useless to law enforcement/intelligence at the same time?
Does anyone here know what an 'Internet Connection Record' might be?
Well given the context of this bill is supposed to be about ALL communications, not just those across the Internet, what an ICR is and contains is also dependent upon the communications medium used.
What is interesting is whether those scrutinising this bill that Smith, have tumbled this. I suspect not and hence why they are still looking it it wholly from the viewpoint of the Internet. So if the commitee have their wits about them, they would be massively extending the scope and timeline of their work into 2020, alternatively simply rename the bill and confine it's scope to Internet communications.
"Well given the context of this bill is supposed to be about ALL communications, not just those across the Internet, what an ICR is and contains is also dependent upon the communications medium used."
If you communicate via carrier pigeon then, RFCs 1149 & 2549 notwithstanding, there wouldn't be any ICR so they'd have to rely on any other provisions of the bill that might apply. Ditto if you communicate by telephone.
An ICR only applies to internet communications. There are plenty of serious objections to this bill without going off-piste looking for others.
@Doctor Syntax "so they'd have to rely on any other provisions of the bill that might apply."
Precisely my point! By seeming to focus wholly on the Internet, these other parts aren't necessrily getting the scrutiny they need to ensure they are fit for purpose. Also because of the wide scope of the bill and a desire to keep things simple, I expect imprecise language is being used just so that a clause can have wider general application, leaving room for interpretation...
That would be reassuring, if true. But just knowing someone visited Facebook isn't useful, so the reality will be that the snoops will be recording that you visited www.facebook.com/MyLittleJihadist and Liked his rants. That page may not be of interest to the spooks now, but when they decide it's a target, they have a record of every UK visitor, no matter how innocent it was in the past.
P.S. A Western style bridle, of course! Other types are for weirdos
The ICR is a list of all the domains you've connected to, but not individual URLs.
And you believe them, for one fleeting picosecond? There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that this will be limited to domains. If you're generous, it'll be mission creep that extends it to URLs, but personally, I don't even believe that they'll start at that level, that's just the fig leaf for gullible.
The interesting progression will be Sturmbahnfuhrer May's response when evidence of visiting a URL is deemed irrelevant in court because the Clown Prosecution Service can't prove what the content of the URL was at the time it was accessed. Do you think she will prove stupid enough and extreme enough to demand ISPs keep a changelog of the entire interent? I think she will.
I think that's confusing an Internet Connection Record with a World Wide Web Connection Record (it wouldn't be surprising if the Home Secretary was unaware of the difference). If I cause to be executed:
jonathan@Odin:~$ ping 185.53.177.8
have I created an ICMP ICR to horsesex.com that would be of interest to the plod? [1]
If I did
$ lynx 185.53.177.8
I should certainly create an HTTP connection [2], but no objectionable images would be retrieved, so the WWWCR had better remember the browser's User Agent string, too. I would take a moderately large bet that the Home Secretary doesn't know what one of those is.
[1] Source:
jonathan@Odin:~$ dig horsesex.com
; <<>> DiG 9.9.5-3ubuntu0.7-Ubuntu <<>> horsesex.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 22088
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4000
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;horsesex.com. IN A
;; ANSWER SECTION:
horsesex.com. 600 IN A 185.53.177.8
[2] I haven't done so, and don't intend to, so I can't tell you anything about the site, or even if it responds on port 80!
That is by far the best way to look up horsesex.com. Thank you for sharing.
So people in government are actually getting paid to dream this stuff up?
With taxpayers money?
Are they trying to get the public to revolt?
Once that happens, draconian web snooping will clearly be the only way forward.
[2] I haven't done so, and don't intend to, so I can't tell you anything about the site, or even if it responds on port 80!
[vic@perridge ~]$ nmap -p 80 horsesex.com
Starting Nmap 6.01 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2016-02-02 15:13 GMT
Nmap scan report for horsesex.com (185.53.177.8)
Host is up (0.13s latency).
PORT STATE SERVICE
80/tcp open http
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 7.20 seconds
Yep. It does.
Vic.
It doesn't matter what it is and it isn't really necessary to define it, they know that if an ISP doesn't come up with an ICR or furtle with apps so end-to-end encryption doesn't work (that way they can't be blamed when they can't decrypt), then it's going to get so rodgered that it's going to make the rest pull their finger out.
So when do UK citizens get a say in all this, considering it affects all their lives?
Or is it more along the lines of... "Don't worry your little head about it, tax payer #154192574. Mummy and Daddy Cameron-May will look after you!"
That's not how democracy works dear boy... See you later at the golf/private supper club what!
We live in a representative democracy so.. 2020? Slight issue - basically all he parties agree on essentially this issue because they're all equally clueless - not sure what the fix to that is.
Good news: this committee seems to essentially agree with the sensible arguments against on definitions/funding etc.
IIRC the Greens are opposed to surveillance.
The Lib Dems acted as a brake on it in the last parliament.
Whilst Labour was definitely pro-surveillance under Blair, Brown and Miliband and most of the current PLP including Burnham are also in favour of it don't be surprised to see the Corbynites come out against it.
> We live in a representative democracy so.. 2020? Slight issue - basically all he parties agree on essentially this issue because they're all equally clueless - not sure what the fix to that is.
>Good news: this committee seems to essentially agree with the sensible arguments against on definitions/funding etc.
>IIRC the Greens are opposed to surveillance.
>The Lib Dems acted as a brake on it in the last parliament.
>Whilst Labour was definitely pro-surveillance under Blair, Brown and Miliband and most of the current PLP including Burnham are also in favour of it don't be surprised to see the Corbynites come out against it.
So just in the nick of time then, after the Gov has done whatever it wants. Sigh.
How about people actually voting or vetoing changes in their legislation, with exact diffs presented with plenty of time for analysis and consideration. Maybe a separate legislative cycle every 2 years, or something, I've still got to hammer out the exact details for my plan of Democracy 2.0.
User Blair+Dave+Theresa is requesting permission to merge the following changes from branch "neoconlunatics:snooperscharter2018" into "legislationgovuk:master". Accept or deny?
Sadly for most peons the choice is either vote for who your parents voted for or for who your newspaper tells you you should vote for. Because they've seen the film before and it's sh1t.
As my wife and I enjoyed a quiet vape, and were chatting away, for various reasons, the following questions came up:
1) What is the capital of South Dakota ?
2) What is the capital of New York ?
3) How far from Cape Canaveral to Houston ?
4) Which is further East: Tallahassee or Pensacola ?
(We are planning a holiday).
That means in five minutes of downtime, we generated goodness-knows how much data - and metadata, and ICRs (or whatever) - from 2 mobile devices linked to our wifi.
That's before you add the 2 tablets, smart TV, 2 PCs, and a spare phone.
Our household alone must create enough data to take a second or two to sniff.
Now add that to the other 59 in my road .... with *many* more devices than we have.
They are going to drown in data. And when the next terrorist atrocity happens (planned openly on Facebook) they will still be sifting through last weeks data.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
