In-a-spin Home Sec: 'We won't be rifling through people's web history' The Tory government's draft Investigatory Powers Bill is expected to land in Parliament with a thud on Wednesday. However, over the weekend, Home Secretary Theresa May once again rejected claims that the latest attempt to legislate to massively ramp up surveillance of Brits' online activity would lead to authorities being able …
The same old routine. Put out an totally unacceptable idea and wait for the public outrage. Then row back a bit until the Stupids think the government have caved in. Then make a law with what's left.
The problem is that what's left is all they wanted in the first place but if they put that on the table there would also have been outrage.
And the Stupids fall for it every time.
"Go talk to your MP about your concerns"
I did exactly that (two MPs as I had two addresses). The responses I received did not actually specifically deal with my concerns, they merely re-iterated government proposals (both from the same party) and were almost word for word identical.
I didn't want to put up with that and so then sent a second letter, highlighting the key issues and pointing out that what they were saying was factually incorrect; and asked for their comments on those points, rather than the spin that I had previously received.
I did then receive a second letter from each; and again, they were so similar, that they could have been written by the same person. Neither really dealt with the original concern.
Currently waiting for a letter from a new MP; different issue. Didn't respond to the original letter, so this is my second letter to her. If I don't hear anything in the next month, I'll probably be passing it on to the local press for them to chase; but I doubt that it will achieve a damned thing.
Time to get out the pitchforks and torches!
> Don't. Go talk to your MP about your concerns. Sign up to the Open Rights Group. Do something !
It's exactly this sort of thing we need to put a stop to, bloody anarchists. The sooner our dear leaders have turned the country into a panopticon the better.
Nothing to see here obersturmbannführer May, you can see that I'm loyal to the cause. No need to go sniffing around my Internet history, although it is my patriotic duty to report my concerns about Tom Chiverton 1.
Possibly more.
Governments come and governments go and yet after a few months in post the new sock puppet Home Secretary asks for this to be included.
So what's the common denominator between (by my count) eight Home Secretaries?
I think it's time the Senior Civil Servants should start to be identified.
They seem to be remarkably reluctant to step into the limelight
I remain convinced this is not a policy, it's a disease.
"I think it's time the Senior Civil Servants should start to be identified. They seem to be remarkably reluctant to step into the limelight."
^^ This. I was thinking much the same just last night - the snivel serpents are at the back of this, pushing their own agenda. There needs to be some light shed on the bastards, and a large amount of spring-cleaning to rid the Home Office of the people-haters that have taken root there.
This post has been deleted by its author
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500256476/UK-surveillance-bill-to-give-police-access-to-web-history
"Under the Investigatory Powers Bill expected to be introduced by home secretary Theresa May on 4 November 2015, telecoms and internet service providers (ISPs) will be required to retain their customers' web browsing history for 12 months, but they will be paid to cover the costs."
If the ISPs will be paid to keep that data they'll no doubt do it, but can they resist mining it for their own gain?
That will depend on the Data Protection Act registration for the data, and who the data owner is. I think our government would be upset, if this was done, and it would also be illegal, if not part of your Ts & Cs. I suspect that telcos and ISPs do this anyway, best check your Ts & Cs to find out.
If a company gathers data they must tell you why they are doing it, and what it will be used for, any use outside that is an offence under the DPA.
What will the Plod do with their new powers?
Visited a torrent site to download something legal - Computer taken away and an arrest for copyright.
Visited a website over concerns about your child being suicidal or taking drugs? - Information passed to social service, say goodbye to your kids.
Annoyed a Plod by pulling out in front of them or just they weren't having a good day - All information scrutinised and you get arrested or it's passed on to others.
Also if you think this information won't sold to companies think again, I would say health data was more important than your web history but that's getting sold anyway.
The bureaucratic mindset is the one constant in the universe. Embarrass them even slightly and they'll do everything in their power to find something they can pin on you as punishment.
In my case the local council confused me with my dad and made some mistakes on a council tax bill. After the mistake was pointed out to them they spent the next decade "investigating" me for a variety of things that were crimes only in their own minds. The best one was that I didn't declare a regular loyalty discount on retail purchases as taxable income when I was claiming benefits. I wish I was making this up.
Anon because this is still an ongoing legal issue.
These powers are being sold as for the police, but then as I recall, so was RIPA. Once it was passed, RIPA was mostly used by local government to fish for dirt on people they didn't like. This will be no different. Arguably it will be worse, because people can accidentally "visit" naughty sites all the time.
This post has been deleted by its author
when idiots vote busybody Socialist "do gooders" into any office. They can't just do what is expected of them, they always have to insinuate themselves into every aspect of your life. These people are exactly like those in China or Russia or East Germany! They only exist to rat you out to the Politburo or Stasi. Or in this case, the equivalent in Britain. Different names, same type of people.
SINCE WHEN is it anybody's damned business whether you live alone or not? As far as I am concerned, Politicians are ALL criminals and should be treated as such. The fact that they pay no attention to the FOI proves it.
Time to leave for less interfering pastures, I think.
"SINCE WHEN is it anybody's damned business whether you live alone or not? As far as I am concerned, Politicians are ALL criminals and should be treated as such. The fact that they pay no attention to the FOI proves it."
Well, if you don't want your council to care, don't apply for the Council Tax rebate for single occupancy.
Although, the problem is that unless you arrange your own rubbish collection, the number of people in a household is important for the rubbish collection budget.
> idiots vote busybody Socialist "do gooders" into any office.
What the hell are you talking about? It's the *TORIES* that are pushing this legislation. Do you honestly think that their Councils are going to be *any* different when they get powers like this?
Take off your political blinkers and call a pox on ALL their houses!
And aside from the typo possibilities relating to 'oversight' and 'an oversight' we end up with a distinct risk of having an 'oversight oversight'.
Not to mention the other rather significant risk that the method of oversight might just be to take a copy of everything and drop it at the nearest NSA office just so they can double-check everything against what they already have on you.
Apparently 38 different public bodies will have access to the data, including local councils.
"Town halls were granted permission to access private communications data 2,110 times last year, more than GCHQ and MI6 combined. "
Now, excuse me for being a bit thick, but doesn't this look a bit more suspect than the "protecting us from evil" line that is being used to sell this particular piece of legislation?
Councils will need the approval of a magistrate for at least some of the access to web history. Hardly a major hurdle. The DT article also notes that councils last year were granted more access requests under the current provisions than GCHQ and MI6 combined.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11968999/Councils-and-taxman-to-be-given-power-to-view-your-internet-history.html
There is a poll on that page which is currently showing over 10,000 votes (96%) against the proposals. That is an unusually high response for the DT on a poll about a Government Law & Order proposal.
Given that any retention by UK ISPs can be defeated by the simple expedient of using a VPN, I think there is good reason to doubt that this legislation exists for the purpose of defeating terrorism.
I'm not sure it's even for the purpose of mass-surveillance.
I think Ms. May is performing the Tory equivalent of pole-dancing in order to draw attention to her, er, potential and she isn't concerned about any collateral damage.
>It's nice that you trust your VPN provider so fully
You've missed the point. This legislation isn't about the "under the counter" data slurping of the security services, it's supposed to be about the "above board" lawful activities of Mr. Plod. The fact that Mr. Plod's lawful access can so readily be circumvented implies that the legislation has some different purpose.
VM's are very cheaply available in various non-UK countries. eg Linode for example let you choose where to place your VM. Some of the options are in non-5-eyes countries, if that helps (which I doubt that does, as Linode is US owned :<).
The simple fact is that until Camoron and May get access to EVERYTHING we do on line they will never be satisfied. There will be subtle changes and acts brought in to accomplish this every year.
And don't think liebour will be any different. Given the amount and scope of the collected data they wont complain if they receive the data. Privacy, as we know it, will soon be a distant memory and the youngsters will grow up in a world where everything you do,read,write and say will be logged,filed,indexed and cross referenced.....And no one will be left to fight the democratic right to a private life...
It's not the parties - they go along with it for their own reasons - but rather the sir humphries who are the source of this constant barrage of privacy-invading nonsense. They see themselves as superior to the plebian mass. The Ministers are just the current mask they wear to push their "enlightened" consensus dictatorship.
"for example, we won’t be requiring communication service providers from the UK to store third party data, we won’t be making the same requirements in relation to data retention on overseas CSPs [such as Facebook, Google, et al].".....
Well that's its then, they don't need to bother about facebook etc because the NSA have all the info and will transfer it to GCHQ so its on their servers any time they want it.
Or am I being paranoid because they are out to get me . . . .
So that will be 'everything the police ask for is signed off by the home secretary as a matter of course' then? The involvement of judges will only come after they've made free with our data, and then only in cases where you find out what they've been up to.
> "'everything the police ask for is signed off by the home secretary "
There'll not be enough hours in the day to sign off all the police requests, including the irrelevant, the unnecessary or just plain 'gone fishing'.
The really dangerous people will go unnoticed among all this dross and irrelevance until they perpetrate...
"There'll not be enough hours in the day to sign off all the police requests, including the irrelevant, the unnecessary or just plain 'gone fishing'."
That isn't an issue, the kind of stuff that the HomeSec signs off now are things like "We need to spy on everyone in UK in case Ter'ists"
Those 1400 warrants she signs off a year sounds like a small number until you realize each of them is a request like that.
We won't try to enforce stuff on people who are likely to forcibly tell us to Fuck Off and over whom we have no expectation of influence because we will get comprehensibly Fucked Over if we try... So we will pick on someone else.
Anything else we do not understand and is almost within our reach is fair game as long as you minging bastards let me and my fold have my way.
Why doesn't she go chat up Nick Stringer at the IAB? She obviously needs a, similarly warped, Toy Boy. Maybe someone can toss a Grenade under the bed when they are doing the two backed beast.
Silly me, that's incitement to do something, violent, about the problem. Presumably Dancing Bears do not have access to Grenades..
Maybe she will realise Nick, along with the rest of her attempted sexual conquests, is simply not evil enough to Father her spawn and, having ripped him to shreds in another orgasmic frenzy of powerlust, go into an extreme sulk and vaporize herself.
Something like that anyway. Hopefully there are better people on the case than myself.
TBH I don't have too much of a problem with GCHQ and chums having access to this kind of information, slightly more concerns about plod but I really can see no reason why my local council need this information. Is it in case I'm visiting a website to learn how to avoid their increasingly stupid parking regs?
This year: "No, we would never use this law to look at your web-browsing history"
Next Year: "Leaked government documents show that the Greater Liverpool Environmental Authority has examined the web-browsing habits of over 10,000 residents based on demonstrated anti-social behavior such as not separating recyclable glass out of their garbage bins."
Typical vagaries designed to direct your attention away from what they can do. This "never look at your browsing history" is complete and utter bullshit. What they mean to say, and won't, is; "We won't break into your home computer, without probable cause anyway, to grab your browser/search history, when we can fully recreated it from other data we steal, I mean; gather with lawful need." THIS is what is cleverly missing from their narrative.
I've just installed squid as a proxy server on one of my web servers, and configured an SSH tunnel to it using PuTTY.
So I'd like to thank Mrs May and the Tory government for prompting me to find out more about my internet access and ways to prevent the government from monitoring my activities via ISP records.
Clearly this is only security theatre: any terrorist/freedom fighter doing anything non-trivial can do this. Rent a server somewhere outside the UK, install squid, and use it as a proxy with the connection tunnelled over SSH. All the government can find out from the ISP is the fact that they connected to a specific IP address using an encrypted connection at a specific time.
Forcing the big ISPs to log connection information allows the government to spy on the majority unsuspecting law-abiding population, but anyone who knows what they're doing can quite easily avoid this spying while still communicating via the internet.
I was thinking of doing this on my DO droplet in Frankfurt, but WHY SHOULD I? I don't want my country to be some sort of gulag, I want it to be a free democratic place where the police (and security services) GET A WARRANT before searching through my stuff. She is scum.
This post has been deleted by its author
A Question of Trust
REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS REVIEW
by DAVID ANDERSON Q.C.
Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/434399/IPR-Report-Web-Accessible1.pdf
I only had time to read the first third or so of this last night (it's a weighty 380 pages), but it seems fairly balanced.
What I don't know is how the draft bill squares up to this...
I see a couple of comments saying, "I don't mind GCHQ and the police spying on me, but not my Local Authority."
What makes you think that police officers or the bods at GCHQ are any more trustworthy than you local council office worker? They aren't. The only thing that makes you feel that way is that you do not believe you are doing anything that would be of interest to GCHQ or the police, while you may be doing stuff that your local council won't like. Well, spare a thought for the many people who are in a similar vulnerable position wrt the police or government. Such as journalists exposing corrupt politicians or whistle-blowers fingering corrupt police practises.
Probably aimed at the same idiots who appear to have voted for this bunch of clowns. Probably the same Camorons who buy the arguments offered up by the recent rash of MI5 6 7's (I've lost count) PR officers giving interviews in the 'independent' press of late.
I absolutely support the police and similar bodies having the access to all the communications of targeted individuals that they believe may be up to no good. What I don't like is the idea that they want to slurp up everyone's data in the hope of finding one bad apple. The danger is that an individual who is no danger accidentally triggers whatever a algorithm they are using and before you know it their life is ruined. For example, once upon a time I was a fairly decent organic chemist and, like most chemists, I could rustle up half a dozen different things that go bang using just what's under under your kitchen sink. Combine that knowledge with a new found interest in electronics and before you know it there's a red flashing light next to my name. Stop the world I want off!
"we will not be giving powers to go through people’s browsing history"
Note that that does *NOT* mean that they won't be recording and storing all that history, just that they (supposedly) won't be looking through it all the time.
It's like saying "We're not tracking you everywhere you go, but we're storing the data from ANPR cameras, so if we *want* to find out where you've been, we can..."
If the security services want to store every GET request generated, have they actually worked out the logistics?
When I last worked in schools back in 2006/7 we had a proxy server that kept logs of the type required, with 1,500 users generating a 250MByte file daily. (In round numbers). Bearing this in mind, let's do some working out.
The population of the UK in 2015 is 64 Million in round numbers. If only 95% of the population uses the internet, then this produces a figure of 60.8 Million users.
Using the log figure I mentioned above, then a file of (60.8*10^6) * (250*10^6)/(1.5*10^3) is generated, which gives a figure of 10.3 TBytes per day, which over the year gives a figure of 659 TBytes.
From when I had to search the 250MByte log files for details of sites that had been visited by pupils was a pain, & could easily take half a day.
Storage wise, this may not be a problem, but searching such an amount of data is going to be a headache, & somehow I don't think log parser is going to be much use. Then there is the problem of getting all the log files in the same format.
One final thing, take my internet usage. Sometimes I tether my computer to my mobile phone, other times I use the local library & connect to the citywide network, (best of luck unraveling that) & then sometimes I use family internets. So putting together a comprehensive browsing history for me could be a nightmare :)
Everyone knows that the best way to find needles in haystacks is to make the haystack at least a billion times bigger.
The only possible use for any of the proposed mass-collection of personal data is to make targeted fishing and phishing expeditions easier.
It's so much easier to frame or defraud someone when you know their communication history.
With many internet capable phones, 2 offering tethering, a few open wireless networks (4 blocks of flats nearby plus houses etc) and more than one landline with internet (oooh, plus several thousand mail addresses, and use of multiple VPN services)...
We will happily tie up some parts of LA, Police, or security services, trying to patch together our communications, hopefully for weeks or months, as they wade through around 1 TB of traffic, much of it from random webcams, worldwide {World Wide Webcam running on 4 Android mobiles, for example}, traffic from browsers claiming to be Safari (on Android), Safari (on neghbors' iPhones using our connections), plus various TV streaming services, plus the odd 'dodgy' p0rn video which our neghbors may click on, plus lots of streaming audio too, oh and a dozen or more tablets, laptops, iMacs + Windows systems, and another collection of cellphones (PAYG with low credit, so using wi-fi for internet).
So long as they don't try to bill for their waste of time, we will be happy giving them plenty of haystack to sift through.
Yes, dear ElReg reader (and those of the public who are equally innocent bystanders):
"You're very welcome!" :)
This post has been deleted by its author
Why does everyone trust the ISPs, Facebook at al with their life data? It has been repeatedly demonstrated that they are poor custodians. Ashley Madison is an excellent example of how that trust can be abused.
The politicians who are allowing these corporations to accumulate the power are the very ones who will be most at risk. I remember the scandal when Gordon Brown's Visa bill with Champagne from Oddbins was disclosed. Imagine what an unscrupulous employee, or exec could do, knowing where the President is by the minute. " So he did meet that terrorist to negotiate whilst claiming no negotiations" could easily lead to "Now Mr President, about the regulation of data centres..."
Its not that governments should have access, it that these corporations shouldn't have (and keep) the data in the first place!!!
Did you know that most messaging apps report to the server your location every time you send a message, which they store.
An Siri is now always listening...
Get your tIn foil hats now!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
