Theresa May wants to see your emails, texts,calls and web browsing history...

[George Oscar Bluth II]

Holy cocking hell. It's staggering: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/mass-surveillance-uk-releases-new-details-of-plan-to-track-all-citizens-communications/2012/06/14/gJQARl53bV_story.html

British authorities on Thursday unveiled an ambitious plan to log details about every Web visit, email, phone call or text message in the U.K. — and in a sharply-worded editorial the nation's top law enforcement official accused those worried about the surveillance program of being either criminals or conspiracy theorists.

The government insists it's not after content. It promises not to read the body of emails or eavesdrop on phone calls without a warrant. But the surveillance proposed in the government's 118-page draft bill would provide authorities a remarkably rich picture of their citizens' day-to-day lives, tracking nearly everything they do online, over the phone, or even through the post.

...

In a statement to fellow lawmakers, May struck a measured tone, saying she recognized "that these proposals raise important issues around personal privacy" but that the law would be balanced.

She was less measured in The Sun, where she dismissed worries that the bill would stomp on free expression as "ridiculous claims" dreamed up by "conspiracy theorists."

"Without changing the law the only freedom we would protect is that of criminals, terrorists and pedophiles," she said.

Firstly, the cynical fucks burying this today while Cameron was at Leveson.

Secondly, notice them launching it in the Murdoch press.

Thirdly, I suppose it's too much to hope that the Liberal Democrats will remember that they're supposed to be the party of civil liberties and stop this happening?

[Mr Eggs]

It would cost a fortune,surely? If the previous bell-ends couldn't foist an I.D card on us,we can't be that apathetic to allow this shit?

[CaledonianGonzo]

Will she still be able to see all the Teresa May[nb]The other one[/nb] porn I've watched if I delete my browsing history?

[Zetetic]

It would cost a fortune,surely?

Remember that it's not centralised. That makes it considerably more credible I would have thought.

[KLG-7A]

A little off-topic, but look at what this big thicky said: http://www.maindevice.com/2012/06/14/online-activities-to-be-recorded-by-uk-isps-draft-reveals/

This situation made me think about the reality expressed in Geoge Orwell's book, Animal Farm and 1984.

[biggytitbo]

David Davis has already made the obvious point that real criminals will easily subvert it meaning its real affect will be to attack everyone else's privacy.


And there's so much disingenuous bullshit in there. It won't 'include content', when that level of detail is content in itself. A list of visited websites is also list of the content of those websites.


Notice the chilling use of the 'conspiracy theory'[nb]Also used by Cameron and Osbourne to deflect criticism at Leveson [/nb] meme, designed to undermine legitimate concerns by grouping them with fringe nonsense about 9/11 or UFOs. Thanks Aaronovitch.


And we know from virtually every other piece of bullshit legislation ostensibly designed to fight the usual twin bogey men of 'terrorism and paedos' that there will be function creep and eventually this will be used as a weapon against us in all sorts of more mundane stuff.

[MojoJojo]

Pedant alert: don't say they want to see your emails/texts/etc... That's their first line of defence, the contents of the emails or whatever are not going to be recorded [nb]probably just a practical measure more than anything else - who you contact is by far the most valuable information, and it requires a lot less expensive storage than the content[/nb], just who you contact.
The second line of defence is that they're not asking for information on emails, txts or calls - because they already have it[nb] not sure what the status is on web browsing[/nb]. They're just extending it to other communication mediums - i.e. facebook, skype and probably other things.

Basically, you're following the exact path that they want the debate to follow. Get outraged about stuff that's wrong, look like an idiot. And so the principals of the thing get ignored completely because the opposition has been directed into factually incorrect arguments.

I was first reassured that my privacy wasn't being invaded by some tory git on radio 4 this morning. They've defined the debate so, barring a miracle they're going to win.

It's also exactly the same as Labour were trying to do a few years ago. I'm really not sure why it didn't go through then, I doubt we'll escape again.

[Zetetic]

The second line of defence is that they're not asking for information on emails, txts or calls - because they already have it[nb] not sure what the status is on web browsing[/nb]. They're just extending it to other communication mediums - i.e. facebook, skype and probably other things.

I believe that the intention was also to lower the bar of oversight on obtaining access; is this the case in the bill as announced now?
Edit: I believe that you're also wrong as regards emails at the moment in the sense that I don't think there's a requirement for any (every?) email server in the UK to keep the kinds of logs involved. Am I wrong?

Web browsing access isn't widely recorded at the moment; I'd assume that access to certain sites (that get redirected through various means anyway) probably is. (When it comes to stuff like Facebook, Twitter and Skype, I assume there's no problem for Governments asking them for logs at the moment anyway, and they'll keep them for commercial purposes if nothing else.)

[George Oscar Bluth II]

It's the "without changing the law the only freedom we would protect is that of criminals, terrorists and pedophiles" bit that gets me the most. A new spin on "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".

To protect your freedom, we have to grossly invade your personal freedoms.

FAKE EDIT: MojoJojo, it says that in the article I posted. It's splitting hairs really. As biggy pointed out, that knowing the addresses of the webpages you visit is basically the same as having the content. And really, who you're contacting and when is just as important private information as what you're saying to them. Just as revealing I reckon.

[Zetetic]

MojoJojo's point isn't that they're not after important private information, it's that if you oppose the action then you have to get the details right when you're trying to bring others on side. It's not splitting hairs, it being careful that you don't overstate the move precisely because part of the defence will be "But we're not looking at the content!".

You're absolutely right to say

who you're contacting and when is just as important private information as what you're saying to them

[Mr Eggs]

Fuck 'em. Apart from posting childish shit 'ere,all I ever do is Google 'How gay is William Hague today?' In the hope he might pass by my flat.

Bring it on.

Its odd to see that internet providers will be 'FORCED' to hand over data. I see cost implications.

[biggytitbo]

The sheer amount and breadthof data, especially this idea of 'real time' monitoring, is a cookie jar that is going to be hard to resist.


The danger is they'll start trawling for 'naughty stuff' we've been up and the bar of what's 'naughty' will gradually get lowered and lowered until its at the online level of the anti-terror survellience legislation that ended up being used to target dog fouling and school catchment areas.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

So the obvious question is...  how do I protect my privacy?  Could I protect myself using a proxy server and would it be illegal for me to do so?

Would doing such a thing make them assume I'm a paedophile?

It's an interesting debate, partly because so much of what we say and do online is in the public domain already.  I'd be genuinely amazed, staggered, if the CIA, MI-5, Mossad and the like weren't routinely going through Facebook to find potential troublemakers.  I'd be interested to know how many of last year's rioters were caught because of the site.

[biggytitbo]

You could argue that google pretty much do this already (apart from phone calls), and the amount of detail they can infer about us just from what websites we visit is startling www.google.com/adspreferences

But they do that merely to sell ads to us and you can opt out, the government want to do it to prosecute us for being naughty, with what's defined as naughty entirely up to them.

The nosy cunts.

[MojoJojo]

The government will be paying for i - it' budgeted for and everything.

Zetetic - I didn't check the details and was going from what I heard on radio 4 this morning and the boring article on the register. So I knew I was probably going to get some detail wrong.
On the email front - I agree that every email server can't be legally required to keep logs, but I doubt that's how it's supposed to be tracked. I should probably research it, but I guess the legislation requires ISPs to log SMTP and POP traffic (or the headers anyway).
I was mostly going from what I thought I heard the minister say this morning.

George Oscar Bluth II - sorry if it's not clear,  I'm not arguing for the legislation. I'm annoyed that you've basically started a thread that's been responded to by the government almost before the proposal. They've framed the argument - it's not "snooping on people is bad" it's "of course snooping on people is bad, but we're not reading the content so it's not snooping".
They've laid out the opposition argument on terms favourable to them and you're following it.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

MojoJojo: I realise the thread title could be a bit misleading. No-one in the thread has said they're after the content of calls, texts or whatever though. The article I posted is pretty clear I think. I think we're discussing this from a fact based position.

Although I completely agree with you that they probably want to debate to get confused like that. It is important to discuss the facts. Especially when the facts are outrageous enough.

[biggytitbo]

Slightly surprised this includes offline stuff such as phone and mail. As far as I know these have been around quite a long time so you can hardly argue that this is simply a response to changing technology - sounds more like a massive power grab under the hoary old veil of 'paedos and terrorism'.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

Grant Shapps just did exactly what MojoJojo was talking about on Question Time.

"Obviously I'd oppose it if the bill wanted to look at every text and email. But it doesn't do that, it merely takes a record of that communication taking place..."

Very clever of them to sell it this way.

[Milo]

I've got a vague memory of a campaign that opposed this sort of thing by people printing out all their emails, IM conversations, web history, etc, and then posting it to the minister in question in an attempt to overwhelm them with pointless, useless information. Or maybe they just started forwarding it all to the minister's email address.

[Sony Walkman Prophecies]

what's the link to clear the web-data google records whenever youre signed into gmail? Totally forgotten it now.

[HappyTree]

If only criminals have anything to hide then let's see all the politicians' communications too. Oh right.

[BlodwynPig]

nice use of the phrase "cookie jar" biggy.

For the record, I am not a Terrapin.

[Jean-Luc Prickhard]

Notice the chilling use of the 'conspiracy theory'[nb]Also used by Cameron and Osbourne to deflect criticism at Leveson [/nb] meme, designed to undermine legitimate concerns by grouping them with fringe nonsense about 9/11 or UFOs. Thanks Aaronovitch.

Awww, who's the poor diddums who doesn't like his stupid, bullshit belief system being called stupid and bullshit? Bear in mind, if your responses in the last thread about it is anything to go by, you were fully espousing that "fringe nonsense" about 9/11.

Also, god forbid anyone would call you fixated - how many times have you dragged David Aaronovitch's name into threads that weren't remotely to do with him? That book he wrote really got under your skin, didn't it? How dare he write and research what actually happened in a bunch of cases and not give every single lunatic idea exactly equal credence!

You're a tedious, tedious fuck, biggy, the equivalent of white noise, if white noise produced unfunny jokes, spouted conspiracy theory shit, then insisted that no-one use the term conspiracy theory because it's demeaning.

I look forward to many more years of you saying exactly the same thing and completely ignoring everyone who disagrees with you.

[daf]

Well it was nice while it lasted.

Good job I've still got my stash of mid 90's 'Ravers' hidden behind the loose brick in the cellar!

[biggytitbo]

Bear in mind, if your responses in the last thread about it is anything to go by, you were fully espousing that "fringe nonsense" about 9/11.

What thread was that Craptain?

Also, god forbid anyone would call you fixated - how many times have you dragged David Aaronovitch's name into threads that weren't remotely to do with him? That book he wrote really got under your skin, didn't it?

He's one of the chief culprits in creating this use of 'conspiracy theorist' to undermine legitimate political debate, which even chumps like Theresa May as now using.

How dare he write and research what actually happened in a bunch of cases and not give every single lunatic idea exactly equal credence!

Haha researched! You didn't read it then? The man's clearly read 1 and a half books on JFK yet he thinks he can pontificate about it, the daft ignorant sod. He's not an historian, he's a blowhard hack defending the staus quo.

You're a tedious, tedious fuck, biggy, the equivalent of white noise, if white noise produced unfunny jokes, spouted conspiracy theory shit, then insisted that no-one use the term conspiracy theory because it's demeaning.

What 'conspiracy theory shit' have I spouted? I don't insist anyone does anything, I point out the 'conspiracy theory' is a meaningless terms used by pricks like yourself and Theresa May as a shifty attempt to marginalise and undermine contrary opinion.