Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Internet Monitoring Plans For The UK

Announcements Posted on
  • View Poll Results: Do You Support The New Plans For Internet Monitoring?
    Yes, I do.
    12
    11.76%
    No, I do not.
    90
    88.24%

    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fires)
    Why, were you busy with something else?
    hehehe
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Any well organised terrorist group or crime ring who have to capacity to actually carry out a planned terrorist attack or commit serious online crime will be able to easily bypass Government restrictions and monitoring systems - just look at how people get passed the great firewall of China and avoid detection. The truth is that these measures will only serve to tackle one thing, and that's the basic civil rights that seperate us from Iran and China. Apart from anything else, this bill is a clear breach of the EU fundamental charter of rights ensuring the right to privacy in communications.
    As a democracy we should strongly value our freedoms of movement and thought without constant scrutiny and questioning from a paranoid surveillance state. Although I support Labour, the stop and search laws are a perfect example of how such 'terrorist' powers can be used for other negative means such as racial profiling and infringing on rights to privacy. No good can come out of these laws, and I think it's shocking how the Government dresses up a blatant eradication of our rights as part of an anti-terror initiative. Just remember that some of the worlds worst dictators have used supposed emergency laws to commit the most heinous abuses of civil liberties and human rights ever, so why is this creeping power any better?
    • Thread Starter
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingsholmmad)
    Yes, we have to have our privacy. No, I do not want my country turned into some Orwellian nightmare but we can't just rely on the police stumbling across criminal activity when it moves from the digital to the physical. They have to have the tools that will allow them to pick up the pedos that only operate on the internet, the terrorists that recruit via the deep web and the fundamentalists whose hatred is preached on fanatical websites. Stopping the police from having that option is tying one hand behind their back meaning that crimes that could have been stopped will be committed because the police didn't have the time or the opportunity to stop them.

    This bill isn't about the government reading all our e-mails, it's about the police having limited access to the internet history of suspects. There's a big difference.
    So you're happy to give up your human and civil rights to allow the police to snoop through your private life???
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Who's Monitoring the Monitors? :holmes:
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingsholmmad)
    Surely you don't deny that the bad guys are going to use new technology as it becomes available? Which surely has to mean that the police also have to use that new technology, just to keep up? If she doesn't introduce this bill, how is Theresa May (and with her, the police) supposed to keep up with the bad guys?
    The Bad Guys?
    Do you live in a comic book? Not everything is as black and white as cops and robbers, and not everything should be taken at face value
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This looks interesting, subbed .
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miracle Day)
    The way I see it.. is I have nothing to hide so I have nothing to worry about.
    :banghead:

    Everyone has something to hide or at least they should.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well that's the conservative party lost my vote
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingsholmmad)
    They have to have the tools that will allow them to pick up the pedos that only operate on the internet, the terrorists that recruit via the deep web and the fundamentalists whose hatred is preached on fanatical websites. Stopping the police from having that option is tying one hand behind their back meaning that crimes that could have been stopped will be committed because the police didn't have the time or the opportunity to stop them.

    This bill isn't about the government reading all our e-mails, it's about the police having limited access to the internet history of suspects. There's a big difference.
    What utter utter *******s. The police already have access to this information for suspects, they simply want to make everyone a suspect and theres nothing limited about it.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    We have to have our internet snooped on because of the dangers posed by radical muslims?

    How are they still enriching our lives if we're being increasingly forced under a police state because the danger they pose to the rest of us?

    Japan doesn't have to deal with these issues because they have a homogenous society. Perhaps an indictator to the path we must take if we wish to live in a free society. I certainly don't see losing my civil liberties as an acceptable trade for giving mr somalia a passport.
    You are so full of ****. I just knew youd be on here with your radical muslim bull and your racist ranting. We are NEVER going to return to an all-white Britain so put your fairy dust back into your bag tinky, grow up and deal with the realities of life.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SkyS0h1)
    You are so full of ****. I just knew youd be on here with your radical muslim bull and your racist ranting. We are NEVER going to return to an all-white Britain so put your fairy dust back into your bag tinky, grow up and deal with the realities of life.
    The reality of living under a police state because of social fracturing driven by immigrants of alien cultures.

    Okay, that's wonderful. Can I have an extra serving please?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    The reality of living under a police state because of social fracturing driven by immigrants of alien cultures.

    Okay, that's wonderful. Can I have an extra serving please?
    I thought it was because of all the paedos? Don't forget the paedos they come in all colours oooh and the drug dealers.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The proposal is not to look at what data is actually being transmitted but it will force ISPs to log where we connect to. (I.e. who we send an e-mail to and what website we visit. Not what we actually do on the website or the contents of the e-mail)
    I have a big issue with this because any criminal with a brain could easily cover their footsteps by using a proxy/vpn etc. (The IP of the proxy server will be logged but not the IP of the server that the criminal is actually connecting to through the proxy) Not to mention the other countless ways to avoid detection.

    In other words, it will be extremely expensive (ISP's having to store massive logs) and won't do anything to help the police.

    Also, I'd like to note that if this legislation actually comes into effect, then it will make tracking file sharers a much easier task.

    http://www.official-documents.gov.uk.../8359/8359.pdf
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miracle Day)
    I'm neutral. The way I see it.. is I have nothing to hide so I have nothing to worry about. I'll subscribe to the thread though to see what arguments for both sides people put forth.
    On a similar wavelength, I've never commited a crime ... but I wouldn't appreciate police being able to get a warrant to search my house for evidence in case I have and they just haven't found out yet.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkphilosopher)
    The proposal is not to look at what data is actually being transmitted but it will force ISPs to log where we connect to. (I.e. who we send an e-mail to and what website we visit. Not what we actually do on the website or the contents of the e-mail)
    No, they will store that information aswell. A warrant will be required to access it but i'm sure that wont be at all difficult to obtain.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    No, they will store that information aswell. A warrant will be required to access it but i'm sure that wont be at all difficult to obtain.
    "155. There are three primary types of communications data as defined in this Bill:
    • Subscriber Data – Subscriber data is information held or obtained by a provider in
    relation to persons to whom the service is provided by that provider. Those persons
    will include people who are subscribers to a communications service without
    necessarily using that service and persons who use a communications service without
    necessarily subscribing to it. Examples of subscriber information include:
    – ‘Subscriber checks’ (also known as ‘reverse look ups’) such as “who is the
    subscriber of phone number 012 345 6789?”, “who is the account holder of e-mail
    account xyz@xyz.anyisp.co.uk?” or “who is entitled to post to web space
    www.xyz.anyisp.co.uk?”;
    – Subscribers’ or account holders’ account information, including names and
    addresses for installation, and billing including payment method(s), details of
    payments;
    93
    – information about the connection, disconnection and reconnection of services
    which the subscriber or account holder is allocated or has subscribed to (or may
    have subscribed to) including conference calling, call messaging, call waiting and
    call barring telecommunications services;
    – information about the provision to a subscriber or account holder of forwarding/
    redirection services;
    – information about apparatus used by, or made available to, the subscriber or
    account holder, including the manufacturer, model, serial numbers and apparatus
    codes.
    – information provided by a subscriber or account holder to a provider, such as
    demographic information or sign-up data (to the extent that information, such as a
    password, giving access to the content of any stored communications is not
    disclosed).


    Use data – Use data is information about the use made by any person of a postal or
    telecommunications service. Examples of use data may include:
    – itemised telephone call records (numbers called);
    – itemised records of connections to internet services;
    – itemised timing and duration of service usage (calls and/or connections);
    – information about amounts of data downloaded and/or uploaded;
    – information about the use made of services which the user is allocated or has
    subscribed to (or may have subscribed to) including conference calling, call
    messaging, call waiting and call barring telecommunications services;
    – information about the use of forwarding/redirection services;
    – information about selection of preferential numbers or discount calls;
    • Traffic Data: Traffic data is data that is comprised in or attached to a communication
    for the purpose of transmitting the communication. Examples of traffic data may
    include:
    – information tracing the origin or destination of a communication that is in
    transmission;
    – information identifying the location of equipment when a communication is or has
    been made or received (such as the location of a mobile phone);
    – information identifying the sender and recipient (including copy recipients) of a
    communication from data comprised in or attached to the communication;
    – routing information identifying equipment through which a communication is or
    has been transmitted (for example, dynamic IP address allocation, file transfer
    logs and e-mail headers – to the extent that content of a communication, such as
    the subject line of an e-mail, is not disclosed);
    – anything, such as addresses or markings, written on the outside of a postal item
    (such as a letter, packet or parcel) that is in transmission;
    – online tracking of communications (including postal items and parcels)."

    Or from your own source:
    The latest figures were compiled by Sir Paul Kennedy, the interception of communications commissioner, who reviews requests made under the Act. They relate to monitoring communication “traffic” – such as who is contacting whom, when and where and which websites are visited, but not the content of conversations or messages themselves.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Shall we stop putting net curtains up in our houses so that people can see what we're up to and who is visiting us?

    After all, we have 'nothing to hide' so there's 'nothing to fear'.

    People who have said that, please slap yourself across the face from me.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I take the view that whatever applies to the real world applies to the virtual world. Thus, I am against this proposal considering in the real world the police don't monitor our phone calls, mail and phone messages without a warrant. But, just like the real world where hate speech and defamation are illegal, it should also be illegal on the internet and anyone caught should be punished.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I can see why a lot of people would feel very uncomfortable with this, but I really don't feal this matters to me. I have nothing to hide so have nothing to fear from this proposal. Before anyone says anything I don't think this should go ahead if so many people are against it, I'm just saying that I personally have no problem with it.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    I take the view that whatever applies to the real world applies to the virtual world. Thus, I am against this proposal considering in the real world the police don't monitor our phone calls, mail and phone messages without a warrant. But, just like the real world where hate speech and defamation are illegal, it should also be illegal on the internet and anyone caught should be punished.
    But does the written word on a social media platform really stir the same feelings as someone doing it in the real world with spoken word?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 19, 2012
New on TSR

Exclusive Nick Clegg interview

Your questions answered by the deputy prime minister

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.