back to article Small ISPs 'probably' won't receive data retention order following IP Bill

The government “probably won’t” force internet service providers with no history of working with the intelligence services into retaining internet records following wide-ranging new powers passed in the Investigatory Powers Bill, the Home Office has said. Last week the Investigatory Powers Bill - dubbed the Snoopers Charter - …

Page:

  1. Chris Hills

    Just like the MoD said they would not sell weapons to Saudi Arabia unless there was oversight of their targeting. Unless it's written down, it's an empty promise.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      UK governments have a history of ministers giving assurances that something would not be in the scope of a vaguely worded bill. The law enforcing agencies have then prosecuted people in exactly those same circumstances - quoting the same vague wording that was passed into law.

      If the law isn't precise then its limits will get stretched in practice.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "Unless it's written down, it's an empty promise."

      I doubt writing it down makes much difference.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Must be transparent

      Actually, unless there is full public transparency it's an empty gesture. Unless you are willing to believe Sir Humphrey when he assures you that "all appropriate steps are being taken, dear lady".

    4. Dave 15

      writing it down makes no difference

      the government is made of a bunch of barefaced liars anyway

  2. monty75

    It's almost as if they don't have a plan for implementing. Where have I heard that before? *cough*Brexit*cough*

    1. William 3 Bronze badge

      They didn't have a plan for Brexitg

      As they truly believed all the propaganda would ensure they won.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: They didn't have a plan for Brexitg

        "As they truly believed all the propaganda would ensure they won."

        The "winners" didn't seem to have any plan either.

    2. streaky
      Coffee/keyboard

      Don't see how Brexit applies. I voted for it and I didn't expect a government who didn't want it to have a plan, that's utterly absurd. Various parliamentary groups published reports before about what it'd look like and how it could be leveraged but parliament aint the government.

      This is a totally different issue where the people driving the law don't understand the law or any of its implementation details or effects on basically anybody at any time - including FWIW the people its supposed to be targetting who the government has admitted will not be bothered by it.

      No need to be mad because your side couldn't produce a decent argument for staying in that was actually positive for people outside London.

  3. Pen-y-gors

    Sign-off

    "adding that the process would have to be singed off by a judge."

    Sung to the tune of "Watching You" by Rodney Atkins I presume?

    (Yes I know it's a typo and should have been reported under corrections, but it's a wondeful image)

    1. frank ly

      Re: Sign-off

      I think it's a grammatical error. The verb 'sing' never takes that form but I can understand why someone might write it that way.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Sign-off

        "The verb 'sing' never takes that form [...]"

        But the verb "to singe" does. "to burn something"

  4. Dan 55 Silver badge

    Look at those canaries

    I've never seen so many canaries before.

    Oh, one by one they're disappearing.

  5. Nick Ryan Silver badge

    Next steps

    Next steps from our SS wannabee thought-police dictator:

    * Outlaw https access to websites

    * Mandate that all security protocols can be decrypted by a "master key"

    * Create a super database of all master keys, this should be outsourced to the usual inept organisations, overrun by a factor of 3 in time and 200 in cost and the data will be hosted in a different nation state. There will be no security problems with any of this.

    * Require that all ISPs maintain a white-list of permitted addresses that users may access, access to addresses other than those on the approved list will be recorded - purely for performance monitoring purposes of course.

    * Require that all ISPs maintain a black-list of non-conformant, non-compliance or just awkward addresses. Access to addresses on this black list will be recored, solely for performance reasons of course.

    * Create an arbitrary law that a citizen accessing a resource on the black list may be a criminal act with non-appealable on the spot fines and repeat offenders may face further sanctions. Ensure that all this dressed up with enough "mays" that nobody is sure if and when it may apply, but that it's definitely for the good of their children and will counter terrorism. Citizens will not be permitted to know what is on the black list, for their own protection as publishing the black list will be seen as aiding child abuser and terrorists.

    * Publish marketing-created statistics about how well this is working with a reduction in prosecutions against child abusers proving how well the system is working (on the spot fines are not prosecutions which is why they can no longer be appealed against). Earnestly note that the government would like to do better.

    * Redefine the black list as "anything not on the white list". This is important for the safety of children and the prevention of terrorism.

    * Ensure that the press smear anybody who disagrees with these changes as being a child abusing terrorist.

    Success! The country is now a much better place with all dissenters (really child abusers and terrorists) successfully identified and locked up.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Next steps

      Because "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Next steps

        "If you have nothing, you have nothing to fear."

        FTFY

    2. Bronek Kozicki

      Re: Next steps

      @Nick I upvoted you, but then I thought - what if "powers to be" read your post and interpret the upvotes as endorsement of this plan? You have to admit, that's a possibility too, in which case downvotes would be needed ...

    3. Kane
      Joke

      Re: Next steps

      "* Outlaw https access to websites"

      Well The Reg will be alright then, eh!

      1. sdalton
        Alert

        Re: Next steps

        I'm not sure that needed the Joke Alert icon, tbh.

    4. Haku
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Next steps

        Ah but, the government already have form for this; just ask to see the definitions of what is considered to be child pron.

        Answer (I kid you not), "We arent allowed to tell you".

        As published in Private Eye a few years ago.

        Post anonymously, what a joke!

        (Hi Uncle Pete, how are things at GCHQ this evening??)

        1. Haku

          Re: Next steps

          I'm reminded of a Bill Hicks bit on the definition of pornography - http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2gzsxp

    5. Jim Howes

      Re: Next steps

      "* Require that all ISPs maintain a white-list of permitted addresses that users may access, access to addresses other than those on the approved list will be recorded - purely for performance monitoring purposes of course."

      That's fine with me. I only require access to four IP address ranges:

      0.0.0.0/1

      128.0.0.0/1

      0::/1

      and

      8000::/1

    6. streaky

      Re: Next steps

      Your own comment proves why it'll never happen, that's literally the end of the economic system.

  6. Magani
    Happy

    Dear Santa

    Please give me a log-free VPN for Christmas.

    1. Ole Juul

      Re: Dear Santa

      Set up your own VPN and don't log yourself. As it turns out the Black Friday deals on VPSs are here today, and I've seen a lot of really great offers.

      1. MrXavia
        Facepalm

        Re: Dear Santa

        But the idea behind a VPN service, is that it is not trackable to a single user, setting up a VPN on a VPS for yourself defeats this purpose

        1. DJ Smiley

          Re: Dear Santa

          Erm no it isn't.

          The idea is the traffic cannot be viewed in transit, and not MitM'd unless they are placing the Man after your vpn exit point (i.e. another country.).

          Of course to get around this will mean most companies will soon be hosted out of places where they can't be reached, along with moving their tax paying dollars there too.... oh, wait.

        2. Ole Juul

          Re: Dear Santa

          "But the idea behind a VPN service, is that it is not trackable to a single user"

          That is not true. And please note that the article is about problems with the ISP which is why you would use a VPN to bypass them.

  7. S4qFBxkFFg

    "However, ISPs have pointed out that the current wording of the bill does not explicitly state that all costs would be recovered - instead it mentions “appropriate costs” which could be open to interpretation. For a small provider, that would not necessarily include the man hours spent having to update its network."

    This, at least, can probably be got around - if ISP A is required to do some task to comply with the law, it can simply outsource it to IT company B and present the invoice to Mr. Plod. It does of course leave the taxpayers shafted, as the ISP has no incentive to seek the best value option (which could well have been doing it in-house!).

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      " if ISP A is required to do some task to comply with the law, it can simply outsource it to IT company B and present the invoice to Mr. Plod. "

      For maximum effect, IT company B is a company setup by ISP A for the express purpose of doing the work and billing through the nose.

      PROFIT!

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Megaphone

    £2bn pounds a year !

    That's a lot of teachers, nurses, dentists, doctors etc that could be paid for instead of this total fucking waste of time, money and effort.

    Don't forget to add to that bill the supercomputers GCHQ will need to sift the mountain of useless shit such as pictures of cats to find the one kid who searched for marijuana.

    TWOFTAM.

  9. Jess

    I'm guessing Opera might see a spike in popularity

    With its free built in VPN, (plus ad blocking)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I'm guessing Opera might see a spike in popularity

      No you won't, that's now owned by the Chinese Government. Opera may have been hot ten years ago but I wouldn't touch it with a shitty stick.

      http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/russia-asks-opera-to-implement-site-blocking-filters-in-its-turbo-mode/

      http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2465223/opera-flogs-browsers-and-vpn-to-chinese-consortium-for-usd600m

  10. Velv
    Headmaster

    Oh, well, that's all right then, nothing to fear. The new law is simply permitting the practise they're already doing.

    And it's not like nobody has ever taken a law and put an new interpretation on it at a later date. Loophole I think is the term normally used. Doing something unexpected within the letter of the law if not the spirit.

    Can we all now avoid paying tax using offshore companies because the letter of the law says we can even if HMRC says that's not the spirit of the law?

    Didn't think so. Muppets!

  11. frank ly

    Look at the details to find the devil

    Something I remember reading about this was a statement that the ISP retained data was 'simply' a record of which website you had visited, not any details of what you looked at.

    However, in the past there have been court cases where it's been stated in evidence that (as an example) the accused had performed Google searches about how to kill someone with paraquat. The search terms do appear as part of the address string and I assume they are stored by the ISP in totality. So, we are immediately lied to.

    (It's possible that the police went to the trouble of contacting Google and asked them to search their server records for requests from a particular IP address. I doubt that however.)

    So, your local police will know that you've been searching for haemorrhoid cream and the clerks at the tax office will know that you need snug fit condoms.

    As I've asked (rhetorically) before; what are the penalties for unauthorised searching of ISP records and for misuse or abuse of the information in them? I suspect there are none.

    1. FuzzyWuzzys

      Re: Look at the details to find the devil

      "As I've asked (rhetorically) before; what are the penalties for unauthorised searching of ISP records and for misuse or abuse of the information in them? I suspect there are none."

      There have been many cases of disgruntled Plod and other Gov officials deliberately searching in secure databases for ex-partners or even just the neighbour who won't stop cutting his lawn at 8am on a Saturday. So all it takes is for you to piss of someone with privileged access, a few record changes and next thing a SWAT team is kicking in the door of your semi 'cos it said you're a child abusing terrorist!

      1. Christoph

        Re: Look at the details to find the devil

        Or some plod (or anyone else from the long list of agencies who can snoop through your browser history at will) who's a bit short of the ready looking for anyone who has accessed porn sites, then looking up more detail on those people, then selecting suitable targets for blackmail on the treat of revealing those porn site visits.

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Look at the details to find the devil

        "There have been many cases of disgruntled Plod and other Gov officials deliberately searching in secure databases for ex-partners or even just the neighbour who won't stop cutting his lawn at 8am on a Saturday. "

        As in criminal prosecutions for doing it, thankfully.

        The interesting part is when standover tactics have been used to try and get the discovering parties not to file complaints.

    2. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: Look at the details to find the devil

      "Something I remember reading about this was a statement that the ISP retained data was 'simply' a record of which website you had visited, not any details of what you looked at."

      ____________________

      So they know that you're a regular visitor to horseporn.com, but at least they don't know what sort of bridles you like.

      So that's alright then!

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Look at the details to find the devil

      Or they probably just opened up a browser to Google and typed in "how to....." on the perps computer. Criminals and terrorists aren't the sharpest tools in the box - that's the reason why they resort to criminality and terrorism.

  12. Jemma

    Don't we have a treason act to deal with these people?

    Treason is the action or actions of a person or persons against the will, safety, security or rights of the country/population involved.

    This Snoopers bill destroys any right to privacy whatsoever, since someone can be traced via a switched off phone, by their car if it happens to be one of those spavined electrics (talking to the company etc) and so on. Anything we do, researching something like the welrod for a school project and being Muslim with intent, ooh your gonna assassinate reichsfuhrerin May.. Clue clumping police retards tramping about finding nothing (you hope). I'd love to see how secure our bank records would be too (spent 3k on a transit van for your business, and you're non white, TERRORIST BOMB PLOT).

    It is against our safety and security because it will be perceived as racist (because quite frankly it is) and this will often be enough to push potential bombers over the edge, therefore risking our general safety (including that of muslims BTW) and security. Even when idiot cops are warned by one of the foremost experts in a particular industry that potential terrorists are trying to buy materials they're ignored.. Cue two bombings.

    I've yet to meet anyone who thinks this is a bright idea or something that they want or like the idea of..

    On top of all of that it makes us look like the racist scum of the planet.. Which label personally I don't deserve and nor do most of us (excepting the Tory government of course).

    Over and above that, this is the SECOND time they've tried to get this crap through under the radar..

    This parliament can trace its roots back to a revolution against a king who amongst other things ignored the will of the people, put the population at risk of violence, abused their trust and eventually got his head chopped off for his trouble. It might want to think on that before it repeats history. I'm sure someone has a rusty chainsaw spare....

    And here is one for the sociopathic racists - you might have heard of a chap called Douglas Bader, his family happened to be of German descent. You were saying?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Don't we have a treason act to deal with these people?

      "[...] you might have heard of a chap called Douglas Bader, his family happened to be of German descent"

      Not to mention the family formerly known as "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha".

    2. Dave 15

      Re: Don't we have a treason act to deal with these people?

      Bank record... mmm, they are ALREADY shared with the rest of the EU and America whether you like it or not.

  13. Emperor Zarg
    Big Brother

    Is there a whitelist?

    Can we have a regularly updated list of ISPs that have not been asked to comply with the data retention order? So we can...use ... er... avoid them, obviously.

  14. td0s

    I thought this bill was about passing into law all the illegal snooping Edward Snoden blew the whistle on?

  15. Alistair
    Windows

    Hello: ISP? Are you logging everything?

    Yes!

    I'll call back

    <finds smaller ISP>

    *swaps to new ISP*

    "Smaller ISP" -> wow, We just got 75,000 new customers, Jesuz! we need to expand

    <Knock Knock Knock> "Hello, I'm from the government"

  16. Dazed and Confused

    If I said the next thing a say will be a lie and the last thing I said was the truth

    My ISP has an interesting legal conundrum posed on their site.

    They state that they don't have any monitoring or filtering systems in place. They point out that they could be forced to in the future and that they could be forced to lie. Failure to comply would put them in breach of the Snoopers Charter. However since they market their service as having neither filtering nor monitoring systems and base their business on this claim if they were to lie they would be in breach of the Fraud Act and it's difficult to see how they can be forced to break one law in order to comply with another.

    Being forced to lie is also legally questionable.

    1. Dave 15

      Re: If I said the next thing a say will be a lie and the last thing I said was the truth

      What they will have to do is remove the part about not saving anything, thus alerting everyone to the fact the government has knobbled them

      1. BongoJoe

        Re: If I said the next thing a say will be a lie and the last thing I said was the truth

        What they will have to do is remove the part about not saving anything, thus alerting everyone to the fact the government has knobbled them

        Eggsactly! This is much the reason why the AA patrolman used to salute you if saw your car. Because if he didn't you were supposed to stop and talk to him.

        The reason why he wouldn't salute is that around the next bend is a speed trap that he wasn't allowed to tell you about. But getting you to stop and restart would be sufficient...

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