1984, but in 2009

Dory Berkowitz-Bukowski

Dory Berkowitz-Bukowski

Clam whisperer
Oct 15, 2004
42,626
7,210
723
Robin Hood Country
Marklar
₥14,377
Plan to monitor all internet use
By Dominic Casciani
BBC News home affairs reporter



Ministers say police need new tools to fight crime
Communications companies are being asked to record all internet contacts between people to modernise police surveillance tactics in the UK.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith ruled out creating a single database - but wants companies to hold and organise the information for the security services.

The new system would track all e-mails, phone calls and internet use, including visits to social network sites.

Ministers say police and the security services need new tools to fight crime.

Announcing a consultation on a new strategy for communications data and its use in law enforcement, Ms Smith explicitly ruled out a single government-run database.


Communications data is an essential tool for law enforcement agencies to track murderers and paedophiles, save lives and tackle crime

Jacqui Smith
Home secretary
But she also said that "doing nothing" in the face of a communications revolution was not an option.

The Home Office will instead ask communications companies - from internet service providers to mobile phone networks - to extend the range of information they currently hold on their subscribers and organise it so that it can be better used by the police, MI5 and other public bodies investigating crime and terrorism.

Ministers say they estimate the project will cost £2bn to set up, which includes some compensation to the communications industry for the work it may be asked to do.

"Communications data is an essential tool for law enforcement agencies to track murderers, paedophiles, save lives and tackle crime," Ms Smith said.

"Advances in communications mean that there are ever more sophisticated ways to communicate and we need to ensure that we keep up with the technology being used by those who seek to do us harm.

"It is essential that the police and other crime fighting agencies have the tools they need to do their job, However to be clear, there are absolutely no plans for a single central store."

'Contact not content'

Communication service providers (CSPs) will be asked to record internet contacts between people, but not the content, similar to the existing arrangements to log telephone contacts.

But, recognising that the internet has changed the way people talk, the CSPs will also be asked to record some third party data or information partly based overseas, such as visits to an online chatroom and social network sites like Facebook or Twitter.

Security services could then seek to examine this data along with information which links it to specific devices, such as a mobile phone, home computer or other device, as part of investigations into criminal suspects.

MI5 already uses advanced techniques to tap into telephone conversations or intercept other communications, but this is not used in criminal trials.

Ms Smith said that while the new system could record a visit to a social network, it would not record personal and private information such as photos or messages posted to a page.

"What we are talking about is who is at one end [of a communication] and who is at the other - and how they are communicating," she said.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8020039.stm

Stuff like this really makes me want to just quit using technology, get rid of my facebook page and throw my mobile phone in the bin. Why can't we have any provacy anymore? :mad:
 
April23 said:
That's against our Constitution. Win!


(But doesn't stop our government. :( )
Click to expand...
It's called the 4th amendment.

Except:

Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967) established a 2 part test for the reasonable expectation of privacy. That is

1) has the subject 'exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy'
2) is society prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable.

So you need a warrant but there is no objective expectation of privacy when you use a public network.

Ty ty

(You do on a telephone though, sine it's not public)
 
Last edited:
By the way, 1984 was quite anti-communist. If a similar thing was promoted for everyone's 'best interests', I imagine you might post something quite different.

edit: Pro individual rights also includes letting people have the right to self determination. That is to say, free enterprise and and a free market. It doesnt necessarily come out to a picture of hippy-happyness.
 
Last edited:
I didnt say you were communist, is why I edited o_O You do tend to support heavy handed government intervention _when you agree with it_ though.
 
Like when? And I'd never support anything that meant loss of civil liberty, especially when it gives the police power to stop and search anybody FOR ANY REASON (which is a power they now have) and the power to sieze property from private houses under the guise of 'terrorism' laws.

The more privacy we lose in this country the more I hate it.
 
Gun control. :p

They have prevented several terrorist attacks. It is a hard balance and Im not saying it is balanced either. Terrorism is not just made up by someone though. It might have been capitalised upon at times but there are real risks. If you, or your country, seemed like too easy a a target there would be serious risks to it's stability. You dont even have to use recent terrorism as an example, you guys had extended police power in the '80s because of the IRA blowing shit up.

When it comes down to it though. You have ZERO expectation of privacy on the internet. You are shooting off information across a publicly maintained network, it might bounce off any number of computers before it gets where it's going (the magic of tcp/ip). The RIAA tracks people's emails, it's not hard to imagine the government doing it. It's just like being photographed on the street, you have to go grab their camera and pull out the film. On the internet you have to encrypt your emails if it is so important that you dont want it read.
 
Doesn't matter how encrypted things are nowadays, the police now have powers to detain anybody until they give them the something something key which encripts it all. I don't know the technical words etc. because I'm not a techie, but you can't hide shit in this country.
 
this has already existed for a long time...carnivore and echelon...supposedly carnivore was decommissioned but that just means they came up with a better version and kept it a secret
 
I am against the proliferation of cameras monitoring the public. Here in the US, traffic cameras are starting to pop up everywhere. The "war on terror" has been used to abrogate our freedoms. Everytime you give up a right to the government, you cannot get it back. We are suffering the slow creep of fascism. I think a more appropriate comparison is "V for Vendetta"
 
FancyVest said:
I am against the proliferation of cameras monitoring the public. Here in the US, traffic cameras are starting to pop up everywhere. The "war on terror" has been used to abrogate our freedoms. Everytime you give up a right to the government, you cannot get it back. We are suffering the slow creep of fascism. I think a more appropriate comparison is "V for Vendetta"
Click to expand...

I :heart: V

The anarchist uprising :drool:
 
If I was any lighter I'd float in air.

Like a balloon.

Are you calling me a creep or is fucktion creep a term? Dude, I just was saying that yes in general it the internet is a transparent system. No, I do not know how much your country has debased it's own traditional values but it's probably quite a bit.

You can tell you are natively english because the basis of most english case law up until post-ww2 is THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. :lol: Americans are afflicted similarly. Though you make fun of it constantly.

Dont you understand? WE AGREE ON THIS ISSUE.
 
Function creep is a term for what the labour government in the last 10 years has imposed. Basically putting little sections into lots of different bits of legislation and all together they strip us of all our civil liberties. If you made one big bill then there would be uproar, they have sneekily managed to do it by use of function creep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back