`revelations of federal officials collecting mass archives of user activity`
Am I the only one who read this as feral officials?
3426 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jun 2009
Remember a time when it was though the web would be a lawless place? Sooner or later people are going to realise that the stuff they do on line has consequences (and the law for things like libel or incitement work just fine on-line, no need for a separate ‘on a mobile device’ bit of paper). Sure, if you’re savvy enough you can make it very difficult but it seems obvious that the people sending the tweets here don’t have that.
One thing that wasn't mentioned in the article is apparently one of the victims only heard about the arrests from the media rather than the police.
"This system was stuffed full of "low quality data" which made the database so unwieldy that staff had to block delete almost 650,000 records relating to tobacco and alcohol smuggling without first checking to see if they contained actionable data. It is estimated that at least 200 of the records contained enough intelligence to lead to seizures."
And there was no backup? Sounds like a criminal level of negligence. Destroying evidence etc etc.
I had wondered if some smart criminals were bankrolling politicians who were particularly likely to let the system trundle on without adequate investment or get/turn staff in the various agencies but cockup is still the most likely explanation.
"Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the BPI, said: “The early results from Operation Creative show that through working with the police and the online advertising industry, we can begin to disrupt the funding that sustains illegal websites."
We don't know that they were illegal, there was no criminal convictions. They were suspected and on that basis ISPs were told to redirect access. Even if they were clearly breaking the law, it's devolving to the level of we don't like you so we're going to throw the book at you. It's only a matter of time before this gets abused (if it hasn't already).
It's legal in the way that councils using anti-terrorism laws to spy on people who might be putting the wrong material in their recycle bins or live outside the catchment area of their kid's school is legal. Might not cross exactly the letter of the law an expensive barrister can convince a jury could might technically be valid but it’s an obvious abuse.
These rules were designed to not penalise a company for being international and take account of the different points of the economic cycle around the globe and now they effectively punish companies which are at a national level or lower.
It also allows them to benefit from the regulatory environment here without having to pay their share of the upkeep.
The revolving door between HRMC and the consultants who set these schemes up is an obvious conflict of interest as well.
" It seems like the technical people that develop and keep the systems running are the real masters of the universe, not the bankers."
But the attitude is IT is a cost centre, not a profit centre. Every penny spent on IT is wasted but spend millions on X manager or Y sales persion or Z broker, why look at how they are cutting costs/selling stuff/????
Every bank and insurance firm in the land is in the same postion.