Email and web use 'to be monitored' under new laws

[Smudge]

The Dept of Homeland Security has had those rights over here since 2001; we'd be naive to think it's limited to the US only. Intelligence organizations don't ask for permission.

[Daggers]

It might be but now they're making it legal. Not happy about this at all.

[Tielemans63]

This wasn't an April Fool then?

Oh shit...... I've got a lot of deleting to do.

[MrSpaM]

Serious question though, is this action retroactive? Can they only monitor things after this comes into place, or will they be able to see what you have been looking at for the last few years, safe in the knowledge that it wasn't being monitored?

They can already see all this stuff if they get a search warrent for it, all this law means is they'll be able to look at your internet traffic without a warrent. They need to get round this so that people being caught doing naughty terrorist things can't just turn around and say "well you didnt have a warrent so i can't be charged for that"

Your ISP will generally keep logs of all of your internet traffic for 6 months, most of them get rid of it after this though. Just bare in mind it's not just websites you've visited though, it's EVERYTHING you have downloaded.

[Guest Bilo]

Might just gorge myself on as much filth as I can until this legislation comes on.

#panicwanking

[Captain...]

They can already see all this stuff if they get a search warrent for it, all this law means is they'll be able to look at your internet traffic without a warrent. They need to get round this so that people being caught doing naughty terrorist things can't just turn around and say "well you didnt have a warrent so i can't be charged for that"

Your ISP will generally keep logs of all of your internet traffic for 6 months, most of them get rid of it after this though. Just bare in mind it's not just websites you've visited though, it's EVERYTHING you have downloaded.

Are they legally required to do so or is it just a policy. There is so much that is still unclear about this, I mean the internet is still very unregulated, it is not difficult to get someone to download something they don't mean to.

Just as an example, how many viruses are there that hack your e-mail account and start spamming your contacts, if you can access people's e-mail accounts, you can easily communicate through someone else's account.

If you are going to do something wrong you will encrypt and hide all communications, the only people that will leave anything incriminating on their computer are going to be pretty small time and not very smart.

Whereas this will give so much scope for snooping and eavesdropping into people's private lives, which of course would never be abused (well the chances are slimmer with NOTW gone).

[hairy]

The police can snatch your PC without too much trouble so I dont see a lot has changed

[Captain...]

The police can snatch your PC without too much trouble so I dont see a lot has changed

You can wipe your PC, but everything you send and receive electronically can be taken and used against you.

[MrSpaM]

You can wipe your PC, but everything you send and receive electronically can be taken and used against you.

This is also true, you can wipe whatever you want off your pc, but if they wanted to see what you had been downloading they can just go to your ISP and get the information anyway. I think the legal requirement is 6 months for your ISP to keep your downloads and uploads before they can delete them. I'm not 100% on the time frame, but they are legally supposed to keep them for a while.

[Daggers]

It took me about half an hour to hack into a neighbour's wireless network when I tried to see how easy it would be. Future attempts on other networks would be quicker.

Tor networks and proxies abound, internet cafes and free wireless exists all over. Anonymous email boxes, bulletin boards and sites contain a mass of information to assist you in not being detected.

Anyone with intent on communicating or attacking, using the internet for their nefarious activities, would simply use an old, second-hand, wiped machine, a Linux distro and some of the above techniques. The surveillance is rendered useless - you become invisible to them and anonymous to the government.

Which leaves the the rest of us with all of our data being handled by these people who leave laptops on trains and attack plans on memory sticks in cafes. Your data that has been collected by organisations in the past and then sold on to corporations.

May is in favour, Slimy Dave is in favour, Spineless Clegg is in favour and Labour tried to do something similar - I don't trust them to bring the correct change home from a trip to the cornershop, like fvck do I trust them with this.

I firmly believe that if they push ahead with it they will regret it - it will be tantamount to declaring war upon the innocent and the internet...and they are far too thick to win.

[21st Century Fox]

It took me about half an hour to hack into a neighbour's wireless network when I tried to see how easy it would be. Future attempts on other networks would be quicker.

Tor networks and proxies abound, internet cafes and free wireless exists all over. Anonymous email boxes, bulletin boards and sites contain a mass of information to assist you in not being detected.

Anyone with intent on communicating or attacking, using the internet for their nefarious activities, would simply use an old, second-hand, wiped machine, a Linux distro and some of the above techniques. The surveillance is rendered useless - you become invisible to them and anonymous to the government.

Which leaves the the rest of us with all of our data being handled by these people who leave laptops on trains and attack plans on memory sticks in cafes. Your data that has been collected by organisations in the past and then sold on to corporations.

May is in favour, Slimy Dave is in favour, Spineless Clegg is in favour and Labour tried to do something similar - I don't trust them to bring the correct change home from a trip to the cornershop, like fvck do I trust them with this.

I firmly believe that if they push ahead with it they will regret it - it will be tantamount to declaring war upon the innocent and the internet...and they are far too thick to win.

Senior Police Officials have even stated it's not needed and is overkill. The fact that May is using the same rhetoric that The News of The World used when it was under the cosh about how it'll catch kiddie fiddlers says alot. She's even digging up high profile cases like the Soham murders to try to pull the wool over the publics eyes.

Special delivery for Mr. Clegg....

[MrSpaM]

It took me about half an hour to hack into a neighbour's wireless network when I tried to see how easy it would be. Future attempts on other networks would be quicker.

Tor networks and proxies abound, internet cafes and free wireless exists all over. Anonymous email boxes, bulletin boards and sites contain a mass of information to assist you in not being detected.

Anyone with intent on communicating or attacking, using the internet for their nefarious activities, would simply use an old, second-hand, wiped machine, a Linux distro and some of the above techniques. The surveillance is rendered useless - you become invisible to them and anonymous to the government.

Which leaves the the rest of us with all of our data being handled by these people who leave laptops on trains and attack plans on memory sticks in cafes. Your data that has been collected by organisations in the past and then sold on to corporations.

May is in favour, Slimy Dave is in favour, Spineless Clegg is in favour and Labour tried to do something similar - I don't trust them to bring the correct change home from a trip to the cornershop, like fvck do I trust them with this.

I firmly believe that if they push ahead with it they will regret it - it will be tantamount to declaring war upon the innocent and the internet...and they are far too thick to win.

Yeh this is another problem, people jumping onto other peoples wireless which will in turn get the wrong people in trouble and could possibly ruin peoples lives. I've got a friend who if you give him half an hour, he'll have everybody on your streets logon details for their routers, it's really not difficult, and more people do it than you think.

[m00nie]

Yeh this is another problem, people jumping onto other peoples wireless which will in turn get the wrong people in trouble and could possibly ruin peoples lives. I've got a friend who if you give him half an hour, he'll have everybody on your streets logon details for their routers, it's really not difficult, and more people do it than you think.

beg to differ.. WPA2 with AES is standard on most routers nowdays.

[MrSpaM]

beg to differ.. WPA2 with AES is standard on most routers nowdays.

Yeh you'd think that was safe wouldnt you, i've been prooved wrong myself unfortunatly when he managed to get into mine in ten minutes flat

[davieG]

BBC

There has been "a lot of scaremongering" about plans for new email and web monitoring laws, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has said.

He said they were "not the draconian proposals they have been portrayed as", and safeguards for privacy and civil liberties were "absolutely guaranteed".

Home Secretary Theresa May has said the move will help bring "criminals, paedophiles and terrorists" to justice.

But MPs and civil liberties campaigners have warned against the plan.

Internet service providers are obliged to keep details of users' web access, email and internet phone calls for 12 months, under an EU directive from 2009.

Although the content of the calls is not kept, the sender, recipient, time of communication and geographical location does have to be recorded.

The proposed new law - which the Home Office says will be brought in "as soon as parliamentary time allows" - would extend those requirements to social networking sites and internet phone services such as Skype.'Proportionate measures'

It would also reportedly allow intelligence officers to access emails, calls and texts as they happen, without a warrant, rather than retrospectively.

Mr Clegg told the BBC people should wait to see the full proposals before judging them - and insisted the content of any communications would still only be accessible with a warrant.

"There's been a lot of scaremongering, a lot of myths about in the media over the last couple of days," he said.

It just seems to be overkill and intrusive”

"Any measures will be proportionate. They will not sacrifice people's civil liberties, we will not create a new government database and we will not give police new powers to look into people's emails."

He added: "Let's be clear, we aren't simply going to ram some legislation through Parliament... There's a legitimate debate here to be had."

But Chris Fox, former head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said the move would be "a massive intervention by the state into people's private lives".

"If you are investigating crime you have targets... it just seems to be overkill and intrusive for the 99.9% of the rest of us."

He said the idea was "fraught with danger for the innocent vast majority", not least that of misidentification, which could result from genuine criminals disguising their communications as those of law-abiding citizens.

However, the home secretary told the Sun that "ordinary people" would have nothing to fear from the government's plans.

Mrs May said that phone records were often used to solve crimes - including child murderer Ian Huntley, as well as the "gangland thugs who gunned down Rhys Jones", the 11-year-old shot dead in Liverpool.Life-saving potential

Attempts by the last Labour government to create a giant central database containing all UK web and telephone use were dropped after huge opposition, including from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

The Conservative shadow home secretary at the time, Chris Grayling, said the government had "built a culture of surveillance which goes far beyond counter-terrorism and serious crime".

But Lord Carlile, the former official reviewer of terrorism legislation, said that "having come into government, the coalition parties have realised this kind of material has potential for saving lives, preventing serious crime and helping people to avoid becoming victims of serious crime".

Nevertheless, several Conservative backbenchers have attacked the proposals.

Another former shadow home secretary, David Davis, said: "If they want to see all this information they should be willing to put their case before a judge or magistrate. This will force them to focus on the real terrorists rather than turning Britain into a nation of suspects."

Fellow Tory Dominic Raab said it was "a plan to privatise Big Brother surveillance".

He has obtained a briefing paper on the issue, written in October 2010 by the Information Commissioner Christopher Graham's office, which said the case for retaining such data had yet to be made.

It also warned: "There needs to be some recognition that this additional data will be a honey pot as it will reveal the browsing habits of celebrities, politicians, etc."

And it suggested that a new offence, possibly attracting a custodial sentence, could be created to punish any wrongful disclosure.'Checks and balances'

Critics have warned that any new law could end up being used more widely than originally intended - similar to the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which has been used by local authorities to check on children's school catchment areas.

The information commissioner said public bodies not involved in dealing with serious crime or national security, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, should have to apply to a court before access was granted.

Labour have said the police and security services have to be able to keep up with new technology, but there must be "clear checks and balances" on what they are able to do.

Leader Ed Miliband said the issue was "very sensitive" and had been "spectacularly mishandled" by the government, leading to fears of intrusion into people's day-to-day lives.

Even if the move is announced in the Queen's Speech, any new law would still have to make it through Parliament, potentially in the face of opposition in both the Commons and the Lords.

The Internet Service Providers' Association said any change in the law must be "proportionate, respect freedom of expression and the privacy of users".

[Daggers]

The rebellion begins from inside, from the Daily Torygraph

Chief among the Conservative rebels was Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, who suggested the proposals were hypocritical given the Prime Minister’s previous stance against the “control state”.

In a 2009 speech Mr Cameron said: “Faced with any problem, any crisis, given any excuse, Labour grasp for more information, pulling more and more people into the clutches of state data capture.”

Mr Rees-Mogg said: “The Government ought to remember why it favoured liberty in opposition. The powers it creates may in future be used by less benevolent administrations.”

David Davis, the former Shadow Home Secretary, said the plan was “an unnecessary extension of the ability of the State to snoop on people.”

“What this is talking about doing is not focusing on terrorists or criminals. It’s absolutely everybody’s emails, phone calls, web access,” he said.

Senior Liberal Democrats are also planning to rebel. They want the Government to clarify whether the legislation will allow GCHQ to access information “on demand” and without a warrant. The party passed a motion at its spring conference banning communication interception without “named, specific and time-limited warrants.”

Tim Farron, the President of the Liberal Democrats, wrote on Twitter: "We didn’t scrap ID cards to back creeping surveillance by other means. State mustn’t be able to trace citizens at will."

Julian Huppert, a Liberal Democrat MP, called for the Home Secretary and the Head of the Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism, Charles Farr, to appear before the Home Affairs Select Committee. He wrote yesterday: “The security services insist they have good reason for keeping lots of things, but frankly, I’ve never found the argument ‘we know but we can’t tell you’ very persuasive. Especially when it is overused by the same people to argue for every power they want, from 90-day detention to control orders to the existence of WMDs in Iraq.

“Liberals everywhere must watch this space with caution.”

He added the proposals were a "complete mess". While Downing Street insists the content of messages will not be accessed, Mr Huppert said it would be impossible for an internet service provider to see who a person is contacting on Skype or by Facebook without accessing the content of a message.

One Liberal Democrat MP told the Guardian newspaper: “These proposals are entirely contrary to the core beliefs of the Liberal Democrats and the position we adopted in opposition.”

[acooling08]

Guess I'll have to stick to regular porn now

[Daggers]

"You don't know what you're doing!" etc.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9184581/Ministers-accused-of-retreat-over-internet-surveillance-plans.html

[Guest]

If a government ever wants to push through some useless piece of legislation, then say it's to protect us from paedos and terrorists. Radio 2 this lunchtime was full* of idiots saying this law would be great to save us all from these modern day evils.

* There may be some exaggeration...

[21st Century Fox]

If a government ever wants to push through some useless piece of legislation, then say it's to protect us from paedos and terrorists. Radio 2 this lunchtime was full* of idiots saying this law would be great to save us all from these modern day evils. * There may be some exaggeration...

It stuns me how many people buy into it. Like I said earlier when the Government are using the same tactics as tabloid newspapers, we're deep in the shit.

[Guest]

It stuns me how many people buy into it. Like I said earlier when the Government are using the same tactics as tabloid newspapers, we're deep in the shit.

It's as if we're expected to believe that criminals are too stupid to hide their online presence. Yeah, surveillance catches some of them, but it only catches the stupid ones. The clever ones, the ones we really should be worried about, will carry on doing what they're doing, undetected.

[Daggers]

It stuns me how many people buy into it. Like I said earlier when the Government are using the same tactics as tabloid newspapers, we're deep in the shit.

I refer the honourable gentleman to The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism by Emmanuel Goldstein

[BoneDog]

[BoneDog]

Interesting thoughts from a US marine living in England. I always thought that the US would be just like us in regards to cameras being everywhere but he says it's "absolute madness here" with how snooped on we already are.

[21st Century Fox]

Interesting thoughts from a US marine living in England. I always thought that the US would be just like us in regards to cameras being everywhere but he says it's "absolute madness here" with how snooped on we already are.

There's a Simpson's episode with Eddie Izzard in where they take the piss out of the amount of surveillance cameras in the U.K.