Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Weaver]

Article in ispreview :
    http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2015/12/uk-isp-zen-internet-criticises-lack-of-detail-in-internet-snooping-bill.html

[kitz]

Our understanding from a recent debate between ISPs and the Home Office is that the bill may not be forced upon smaller ISPs, but this has yet to be clarified.

That is interesting.   
... and the consequences if this was true could be even more interesting, because it could in effect invalidate any new snooping legislation.   It wont take anyone with criminal intent to know which ISPs to avoid.   

[tommy45]

 Those who this bill is supposedly aimed at Wont be affected  regardless of which ISP they use ,Then there is the even more stupid part of this bill ,regarding encryption and government wanting a back-door in it, they have lost the plot,
And then there are the gagging orders that would prevent an ISP  from telling customers and other ISP's  that they where required to log and keep logs,
This bill is a total waist of money and time it will not make our towns & cities any safer from terrorist attacks , they like other organised criminals will continue to plot and communicate without being snooped up on, But this bill will have a big impact on our privacy,

[kitz]

I agree it is a waste of time.  There will always be other ways.

[Weaver]

@tommy45 agreed
It is madness, an utter disgrace.

[BritBrat]

It's not for all, MP's are exempt from being logged.

Guess they can be trusted.

[kitz]

Srsly?   :rolls eyes:

[Weaver]

MPs exempt: The hypocrisy. Agree with Kitz. They are not criminals (well apart from those who've done time for expenses fraud) but we are, so we need monitoring.

[Chrysalis]

MP's excempt? rofl, they got their own MP isp then?

[sevenlayermuddle]

Of course I'd rather not have big brother watching my every move but I continue, undaunted, to support the government's efforts.  Although they do need, as xpressed by Zen, to clarify exactly what's needed.

One thing the UK has proven itself quite good at (understatement in extreme) over the past century is intelligence gathering - anybody who thinks otherwise should pay a visit to Bletchley Park.   Moreover this country has had more experience than most, in later decades of last century, of dealing with terrorist threats.   The government and security services really do deserve some recognition and cooperation, IMO.

It seems incredibly naive to me that the country's computer geeks should now rise up and assume that they know better, and tell the security services that they are  'doing it all wrong'.

No need for flaming though, I'm aware I am the minority. 

[loonylion]

this isn't anything to do with the security service, it's to do with the police and those in charge of them wanting a slice of the pie GCHQ already has, and there is absolutely no way that it is proportionate for the police/councils to have access to this amount of data on a whim.

[roseway]

The Dutch government has decided that encryption is good and backdoors are bad:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/dutch-government-encryption-good-backdoors-bad/

[Weaver]

@sevenlayermuddle - respect. We just disagree on some points that's all.

[sevenlayermuddle]

@sevenlayermuddle - respect. We just disagree on some points that's all.

Respect returned.   I never expected to convert others, only the freedom to express my own point of view.   

And, as a favourite poster on an old office partition used to say, "Everybody is entitled to my point of view".   

[kitz]

One thing the UK has proven itself quite good at (understatement in extreme) over the past century is intelligence gathering - anybody who thinks otherwise should pay a visit to Bletchley Park.   Moreover this country has had more experience than most, in later decades of last century, of dealing with terrorist threats.   The government and security services really do deserve some recognition and cooperation, IMO.

Oh I have absolutely no doubt that someone somewhere has more powers.   
Ive experienced it myself with whom I shall call the 'men in black' came knocking at my door out of the blue looking for someone.
Although it scared the crap out of me at the time, I can understand it if say someone was making threats to someone 'high up'.


TBH I expect places like GCHQ do a heck of a lot more than we know. TBH that doesnt bother me too much.   However like LL, I feel that if people like the police or others can have access, then the more likely that personal data will without doubt at some point be leaked into the wrong hands.    The more data that is stored in more locations then they will become a target.   What if say for example someone with criminal intent decided to see if they could hack into the likes of say TalkTalks storage and obtain such data.   What if someone in the police was corrupt and snooped more info than they should.   This is why more clarity about the bill is needed and who can access it.... and even why some strongly object.