UK.gov to unveil reborn, renamed net-snoop plans in Queen's Speech The Coalition's plans to hugely step up surveillance of the internet aren't new - indeed they date from well before the Coalition - but readers could be forgiven for thinking it's all brand new this morning after a quick look at the national newspapers today. David Cameron's government first published its intentions to snoop …
Of course it won't prevent terrorist attacks the government like them because they're a good excuse to piss more tax money away on the IT systems they've been bribed to implement.
Anybody who still thinks that the govenrnent want to stop terrorism probably also think that Dr Mbenge Ngobo from Nigeria really does want to send them SIX MILLION DOLLARS US.
Since all my emails are sent through my own dedicated server based in the US over an encrypted connection they can try and monitor my emails as much as they want they won't get very far unless they manage to get some trojan onto my pc or on the server.
Since lots of web based email services now turn on https as the default how are they going to monitor who emails who when its encryped unless they require Google, yahoo, Microsoft etc to give them an backdoor to their servers.
"Since lots of web based email services now turn on https as the default how are they going to monitor who emails who when its encryped unless they require Google, yahoo, Microsoft etc to give them an backdoor to their servers."
If you are watching a HTTPS connection from it's start you can basically pick up the cookie that is set by the server on the client's machine. This cookie can then typically be used to assume the unsuspecting user's HTTPS session.
They don't need to monitor the traffic from you to the mail server...just the unencrypted SMTP traffic between mail servers. Using SSL to your web server won't help you - only encrypted mail stands a chance (e.g PGP/GPG). Even then, then still know who was mailing whom (as no doubt their US counterparts will have the info they need from any US SMTP servers).
Basically - no back-door necessary.
"Since lots of web based email services now turn on https as the default how are they going to monitor who emails who when its encryped unless they require Google, yahoo, Microsoft etc to give them an backdoor to their servers."
You might like to see what's available under the PATRIOT act.
US/UK/Canada "intelligence" sharing has been a reality for *decades*.
You might have trouble getting a UK suspect out of the US without *evidence* but slipping a copy of pretty much anything is no big issue for the boys at Fort Meade.
I give it only a generation or so before EVERYTHING on the Internet is encrypted and untraceable - BECAUSE of actions like this.
You get a court order, you can record what you like of my private life, for events linked to possible crimes. What more than that could you possibly want or need?
Just seems that the burden of proof (i.e. he IS doing something dodgy, at least we think so) is too high for the government to bear. If it is, and you can't even convince a judge that a court order might be a reasonable and fair response, then you have to think about exactly what you're trying to do and why.
Basically, the answer is "bypass our own law system", which is the scary part. Why would you *want* to do that when you can change all the laws and get feedback from judges?
Under what damp, mossy stone are the people who invent these ideas found? Here (not completely coherently, I admit) is what happens:
1. The Government passes the law
2. The criminals, terrorists, pædophiles, and others who already know about Tor, Vpns, PGP, GPG, and ZPhone carry on their business as usual
3. The taxpayer, or the Internet user, foots the bill for this circus
4. The "system" gets flooded by everyone's taglines which say "I am neither drug dealer, terrorist, people trafficker, pædophile, politician, nor lawyer"
5. The whole exercise has zero effect, but no-one can prove it
6. A few years from now, when the Stalinists take over, we're all screwed
It doesn't have zero effect.
Remember the last "we must fight the terrorists" data act? The one that was used by local councils to check which schools your kids should goto or who was letting their dogs crap in the park?
This same data is going to the same local councils. Complain about the potholes in the road and the council can do a quick check of which porn sites you have been visiting before writing you a letter suggesting you apologise before the list gets sent to your kids school or your employer.
Well..that's nonsense....so you may as well take down your curtains and remove your blinds...you've nothing to hide anyway...oh please! dress up for goodness sake, your nudity offends me!
When are we going to stand together to demand this is stopped? Oh yeah, just after we stop the NHS reforms and put an end to war...good luck folks :)
Now, how can I use this new legislation for my gain......
"We need some leaders who can tell both to take a running jump."
It's an all too common occurrence that when politicians get into office--whether it's in the US, UK, Australia etc.--they immediately change their minds or become very circumspect on security matters. In fact, it's so common and its signature so distinctive that it must be singled out from all the usual disingenuous promises made by politicians.
Clearly, at security briefings etc., the establishment bureaucracy wheels out their very best version of Sir Humphrey Appleby who then proceeds to spook pollies with very frightening stories and disturbing 'facts' together with dire warnings about how truly courageous it would be for the politician not to follow this departmental advice, especially if xyz [list of dire events] were to happen under his or their watch.
It seems the security establishment has an extremely well-rehearsed and very successful formula for doing so.
I only wish that someone would break ranks and send the formula to WikiLeaks. Not only would our curiosities be satisfied, but also then we might be able to provide an effective inoculation against it.
"it would be for the politician not to follow this departmental advice, especially if xyz [list of dire events] were to happen under his or their watch."
Especially when said spooks are well practised in carrying out false flag operations. In the worst case, a few proles would end up dead but the state survives and that is all that counts.
This thing just won't die, regardless of who is in government. It's beginning to look as if "Prime Minister" is little more than an honorary title (like an Honorary Doctorate).
I just wish those who are really in charge would give us a proper insight into what so threatens us that we need to give up our freedom to counter it (no live demonstration needed, thanks).
So everyone will be using these then?
No they won't be, because the use of encryption etc must inevitably be made a criminal offence also.
Won't happen eh? It's already an offence not to know the password any encrypted file (or maybe just a file containing random data) found on your computer.
Whoever you vote for, Sir Humphrey always gets in.
I wanted to use the thumbs down, stop, wtf, fail, nuke and anon icons all at once. Can you give us a feature to do that?
Not only is this ridiculous, intrusive and fascist, it's probably also in breach of EU law. As for the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" crowd, I'm glad you feel so happy for the whole world to see your credit card details, bank statements, medical histories and love letters to your significant other an I look forward to reading them.
This sounds like a classic govt departmental land grab:
No clear scope or vision. Check
Vague mutterings about protection against terrorism, paedos and criminals. Check
No timescale or cost breakdown. Check
The security geezer on the radio this morning was even trying to use the heightened threat due to the Olympics and Jubilee as a ratchet device to increase the scare factor. Fortunately, David Davis was able to point out that these events would be in the past before this proposal could actually hit the statute books.
Hopefully, the cost and public backlash will get this kicked into the long grass again.
Even at Have Your Rant on the BBC, the usual "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" brigade are being drowned out by the anti's, some of whom are even presenting reasoned argument (well as reasoned as HYS ever gets).
The optimist in me hopes that this is consigned to the dustbin of politics quite quickly with minister claiming they have listed to the vox populaire and reconsidered.
If not, it may be time to man the barricades. Black helicopter 'cos I just can't be sure.
GCHQ have no busy tracking the general population in this way. It is an outrageous move reminiscent of East Germany's Stasi. This does seem to be generating a lot of anger on the newspaper websites, but if this is right then the anger will die down soon enough. It's actually very very depressing this is happening. The majority of the population will probably do nothing about this (they probably don't care). Our "democracy" is kaput; there's no alternative if you vote for Labour, the Tories or the Lib Dems (not that I did; anyway, how long will our votes remain secret). Basically those in the coalition made a lot of noise about civil liberties but then don't seem to have done anything. Now they're going to do the very thing they originally condemned. Isn't this (by any definition) called lying? Well if it's going ahead I will make it as difficult for the spooks to track me: use cash for all transactions (though I can't avoid using a cash machine unfortunately); don't carry my mobile phone anywhere; use the internet as little as possible (particularly with reference to controversial or political topics). The truth is surveillance is going to get worse, not better. I might as well go & live with the Amish.
Currently, if you wish to use encryption, anonymising proxies, darknet etc etc, you at least need to make a modicum of effort to research it all. If this pile of shite goes ahead, all that info will be collated together in a glossy supplement, bundled with your favourite sunday paper, "Learn to protect yourself and your family online! Free with tomorrow's Mail on Sunday" and everyone who is even slightly bothered will be making a little effort to secure themselves to the gills.
So, one possible conclusion is that this is intended to build the ultimate social network map of "everyone else" - those that don't take such security precautions. This is suspicious at best.
How many more lives could be saved by spending the same money on improved road safety measures, domestic & workplace safety measures, disease prevention, and anti-smoking laws...? Potentially tens of thousands of lives would be saved every year.
It is madness to claim this is justified by terrorism.
Terrorism is one of the most improbable ways anyone in the UK will ever die (on average just 8 people per year). The same number of people die falling out of trees.
So once in place they will seek to obtain more value from the system. Opening it up to the NHS so helpful dietary advice emails can be sent to those with too many hits on McDonalds for example.
That is the trouble with delusional politicians and civil servants, they think they can do no wrong so don't see any problem implementing a system with potential to do enormous wrong.
"That is the trouble with delusional politicians and civil servants, they think they can do no wrong so don't see any problem implementing a system with potential to do enormous wrong."
They also assume the govt they are a part of will change into one they don't like.
I used to get tense when Blair went to america for his orders, and come back with another raft of iniquity to keep us n order. Now Cameron and his cronies are doing the same. Looks like his orders are to provide nodes for this:- http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/04/02/americas-new-data-centre-makes-uk-surveillance-plans-seem-petty/
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
