Internet Monitoring Plans For The UK

Poll

Do You Support The New Plans For Internet Monitoring?

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18434112

Theresa May sets out plans to monitor internet use in the UK
Home Secretary Theresa May: "On occasions this is quite simply a matter of life and death"

Details of internet use in the UK will have to be stored for a year to allow police and intelligence services to access it, under government plans.

Records will include people's activity on social network sites, webmail, internet phone calls and online gaming.

Home Secretary Theresa May said the change was needed to keep up with how criminals were using new technology.

But senior Tory David Davis said it was "incredibly intrusive" and would only "catch the innocent and incompetent".

The Communications Data Bill has been published in draft form - but the government faces a battle to get it through Parliament intact, with Lib Dem MPs and Conservatives such as Mr Davis calling for it to be watered down or abandoned altogether.

Restrictions are likely to be placed on the types of phone and internet data local councils can access in an effort to win over critics, but the proposals have still been branded a "snooper's charter" by civil liberties campaigners.

Rachel Robinson, policy officer for Liberty, said: "It's good that local councils won't be able to watch the entire population but even law enforcement should be targeting suspects - not all citizens.

"Just like the internet, any private home can be a crime scene, but should we install hidden cameras and microphones in every bedroom in the land?"

•

The Bill extends the range of data telecoms firms will have to store for up to 12 months

It will include for the first time details of messages sent on social media, webmail, voice calls over the internet and gaming in addition to emails and phone calls

The data includes the time, duration, originator and recipient of a communication and the location of the device from which it is made

It does not include the content of messages - what is being said. Officers will need a warrant to see that

But they will not need the permission of a judge to see details of the time and place of messages provided they are investigating a crime or protecting national security

Four bodies will have access to data: Police, the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, the intelligence agencies and HM Revenue and Customs

Local authorities will face restrictions on the kinds of data they will be able to access

What a load of bull****. Theresa May is a nosey bitch - this isn't even about terrorism anymore its just an excuse to snoop on people.

The internet is just about the last place where we can actually say something without some liberal wuss saying 'Hey! You can't say that! You might offend someone'. Now thats going to change and no doubt there will be an increase in the amount of arrests made over internet trolls or people with radical view points expressing themselves. This is no better than China's policies.

A life or death situation? *******s. I'm including a poll in this to see who supports and who is against these plans.

Reply 1

username967031

i do not support this, but agencies have been keeping an eye on everyones internet, phone activities for the past 10 years at least. If something got too big, they would shut down immediately. I think its only now they are officially announcing it, but its nothing new.

Reply 2

DScofield

3

I assume those in Westminster won't have their emails recorded? Would make this business with the politicians and their over-familiarity with the Murdochs easier to combat.

Reply 3

Kiss

OP

2

Original post by DScofield

I assume those in Westminster won't have their emails recorded? Would make this business with the politicians and their over-familiarity with the Murdochs easier to combat.

I don't think its about 'terrorists' at all.

Reply 4

kingsholmmad

7

Original post by Kiss

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18434112

What a load of bull****. Theresa May is a nosey bitch - this isn't even about terrorism anymore its just an excuse to snoop on people.

The internet is just about the last place where we can actually say something without some liberal wuss saying 'Hey! You can't say that! You might offend someone'. Now thats going to change and no doubt there will be an increase in the amount of arrests made over internet trolls or people with radical view points expressing themselves. This is no better than China's policies.

A life or death situation? *******s. I'm including a poll in this to see who supports and who is against these plans.

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?

Reply 5

Harry Callahan

14

No, it's a ridiculous plan, to be honest.

Reply 6

S1L3NTPR3Y

13

I have nothing to hide so long as they only use these powers to stop serious crime (terrorism, child porn, organised crime, etc.) but if they try to use them to check I don't go on bit torrent then they f**k off with these proposals.

Reply 7

Miracle Day

21

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.

Reply 8

Kiss

OP

2

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' are going to be using technology to achieve their means. But to actually follow through with any physical activity - eg. a terrorist bombing - that can be countered by having police trained to identified and deal with terrorist suspects. This isn't to do with technology improvements - the technology has always been there. This is about intruding into our personal lives without any warrant to do so. And think about it for the future implications: lets say we do manage to somehow effectively counter terrorism indefinitely, these laws will still be in place. And no doubt if we introduce laws like these we are only allowing ourselves to become dragged into the Orwellian world which the UK is slowly becoming.

You may argue that 'You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide' - but I've heard that line in numerous totalitarian contexts. It isn't as simple as saying that - we have to be entitled to decent privacy.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 9

RyanT

15

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.

Reply 10

jordanosborn

7

The problem with this being to prevent crime is that anyone who is serious about concealing their identity can do so relatively easily via vpns, proxy's etc. But most of the public will not know how to do this and it's just an inconvenience for people who just value their privacy. So in fact it probably wont give the police a one up, it will most likely just affect ordinary citizens.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 11

Kiss

OP

2

Original post by jordanosborn

The problem with this being to prevent crime is that anyone who is serious about concealing their identity can do so relatively easily via vpns, proxy's etc. But most of the public will not know how to do this and it's just an inconvenience for people who just value their privacy. So in fact it probably wont give the police a one up, it will most likely just affect ordinary citizens.

Yeah, it just seems like a huge waste of money as an excuse to intrude into privacy

Reply 12

kingsholmmad

7

Original post by Kiss

The 'bad guys' are going to be using technology to achieve their means. But to actually follow through with any physical activity - eg. a terrorist bombing - that can be countered by having police trained to identified and deal with terrorist suspects. This isn't to do with technology improvements - the technology has always been there. This is about intruding into our personal lives without any warrant to do so. And think about it for the future implications: lets say we do manage to somehow effectively counter terrorism indefinitely, these laws will still be in place. And no doubt if we introduce laws like these we are only allowing ourselves to become dragged into the Orwellian world which the UK is slowly becoming.

You may argue that 'You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide' - but I've heard that line in numerous totalitarian contexts. It isn't as simple as saying that - we have to be entitled to decent privacy.

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.

Reply 13

Smerdyakov

Nope. It is just plain authoritarian. It may be more useful for law enforcement but really the same argument could be used for all getting rid of most rights.

Reply 14

Fires

9

Note that they are throwing in the HMRC, so clearly this is not just to do with "terrorism" or "organised crime" but serves a wider agenda of state snooping. Successive governments are trying to introduce legislation like this in waves across Europe, which suggests it is emanating from Brussels. One of the chilling things about all these EU initiatives is where the data finally ends up. The Mafia? The Vatican? Moscow? Anything is possible. We know from history that the EU Commission is deeply insecure, riddled with corruption and a tool of various power interests.