Government want to 'Reclaim the Internet.'

They could do more if they didn't spend so much on bulk surveillance. It's about prioritisation of resources.

 

Lee Rigby's killers were know to the authorities. The reason they didn't stop them is because they didn't have enough people to monitor them properly.

 

What about when the council want to see them to check if you're trying to unfairly get a school place for a kid? Is that proportionate?

 

Even the US are attempting to bring their security services' spying on their own people under some sort of oversight. Ours seem to be trying to do the bare minimum to stop people complaining too much.

Ok...at present I am happy to be monitored by computers for the sole purpose of the defense of the realm. When such suggestions as you make look like becoming a reality we can chat again.

The unfortunate truth about Lee Rigby is any two people could have decided to carry out that attack completely offline and both been completely unknown to police.

Bulk surveillance could pick up two people completely unknown to the police who are plotting something similar. No guarantees of course.

Have we been able to establish that the government actually wants to reclaim the web and not the Internet yet?

Berners Lee

 

---------- Post added 27-05-2016 at 12:16 ----------

 

"The web evolved into a powerful, ubiquitous tool because it was built on egalitarian principles and because thousands of individuals, universities and companies have worked, both independently and together as part of the World Wide Web Consortium [established by Berners-Lee so that stakeholders could work together in open groups to build a better web than any company could build by itself], to expand its capabilities based on those principles."

 

Tim Berners-Lee

You do know he was talking about network protocols, HTTP, HTML and the means to deliver data, not the content being delivered right?

The W3C couldn't care less about trolling and what information is put online, it only cares it's delivered in a universally used standardised format.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/10107784/Web-inventor-Berners-Lee-warns-forces-are-trying-to-take-control.html

 

This journalist seems to think there are

 

---------- Post added 27-05-2016 at 14:14 ----------

 

 

Probably less than you think.

Read the headline of that article, it says control of the internet and Berners-Lee speaks of the Web.

I admit that is confusing for non-specialists, but let me try and explain: the Hyper Text Transfer Protocol is the foundation for the World Wide Web, that is what you use at the moment.

E-mail though is a different protocol (mailto) as is the file transfer protocol, bittorrent, internet relay chat and so on. These various protocols are what we now consider the internet. So tech ically the web is part of the internet, but not the same as the internet (in taxonomy terms: it is a child of).

What the government is trying to achieve is more active monitoring of all sorts of protocols and services that are part of the internet, e-mail, web-traffic and so on, but more importantly that of services, whatsapp, snapchat, facebook chat etc.

I have huge issues with that, simply because all they are doing is reducing privacy in exchange for monitoring whilst the 'dark forces' they try to target will simply switchto different services.

There are so many out there, many of which have no hosting in the UK at all, that it is impossible for the government to monitor it al. I amthinking of ICQ (a classic)' ventrilo, teamspeak, webex... There are literally thousands of alternatives. So this proposal breaches the principle of freedom/privacy, without a guaranteed outcome, it is the start of an ever growing movement to smother the beauty and success of the internet in regulation.

Whats the key difference between that and the UK Data Protection Act 1998.

The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which defines UK law on the processing of data on identifiable living people. It is the main piece of legislation that governs the protection of personal data in the UK.

You can look up the differences yourself. The issue is not limited to the DPA though. e.g. The UK government have already been forced to change RIPA to conform to the EU's stricter standards.

---------- Post added 27-05-2016 at 17:14 ----------

Ok...at present I am happy to be monitored by computers for the sole purpose of the defense of the realm. When such suggestions as you make look like becoming a reality we can chat again.

I mentioned school places because it has actually happened. That's why I'm suspicious of allowing anything that isn't targeted with a clearly defined, appropriately narrow, scope.

The unfortunate truth about Lee Rigby is any two people could have decided to carry out that attack completely offline and both been completely unknown to police.

 

Bulk surveillance could pick up two people completely unknown to the police who are plotting something similar. No guarantees of course.

Have we been able to establish that the government actually wants to reclaim the web and not the Internet yet?

I mentioned school places because it has actually happened. That's why I'm suspicious of allowing anything that isn't targeted with a clearly defined, appropriately narrow, scope.

 

I do vaguely remember that actually now you link to it. It's widely agreed by the commentators that it was disproportionate.

But the story relates to physically following them, not monitoring their communication.

So far as I know when people commit crimes online the police obtain a warrant to get the account holder's information from an ISP (if they can't identify him off the bat because he's doing it on Facebook or whatever under his own name!). Simply put a council asking for an ISP to hand over such details on the grounds of suspicion of fiddling a school place should and would be refused.

If it's not refused then yes I agree with you, the state monitoring is going too far.

I do vaguely remember that actually now you link to it. It's widely agreed by the commentators that it was disproportionate.

 

But the story relates to physically following them, not monitoring their communication.

 

So far as I know when people commit crimes online the police obtain a warrant to get the account holder's information from an ISP (if they can't identify him off the bat because he's doing it on Facebook or whatever under his own name!).

They don't obtain a warrant - they issue an RIPA request. Unfortunately most mobile ISPs have automated systems that just give them the information without checking if the request is valid (I'm not sure about the ones using cables). Giving information to the police when they haven't issued a valid request is illegal - although the police are obviously unlikely to prosecute.

They don't obtain a warrant - they issue an RIPA request. Unfortunately most mobile ISPs have automated systems that just give them the information without checking if the request is valid (I'm not sure about the ones using cables). Giving information to the police when they haven't issued a valid request is illegal - although the police are obviously unlikely to prosecute.

Ok, so without a warrant or RIPA, if a council obtained access to a couple's communications regarding their child's school place the council wouldn't have a leg to stand on. If the council applied for a RIPA/warrant for such access to online communications it should not be granted.

Regarding the RIPA in the actual case, it's clear it should not have been granted.

Ok, so without a warrant or RIPA, if a council obtained access to a couple's communications regarding their child's school place the council wouldn't have a leg to stand on. If the council applied for a RIPA/warrant for such access to online communications it should not be granted.

 

Regarding the RIPA in the actual case, it's clear it should not have been granted.

The problem is, as the article I linked to in post #64 says "The Home Office said the RIPA legislation did not appear to have been used inappropriately.". So the government thought it was OK. They draft legislation so vaguely, require so little independent authorisation or oversight and provide no real penalties for misuse that it's obvious that they have no real concern for privacy or proportionality.

Read the headline of that article, it says control of the internet and Berners-Lee speaks of the Web.

 

I admit that is confusing for non-specialists, but let me try and explain: the Hyper Text Transfer Protocol is the foundation for the World Wide Web, that is what you use at the moment.

 

E-mail though is a different protocol (mailto) as is the file transfer protocol, bittorrent, internet relay chat and so on. These various protocols are what we now consider the internet. So tech ically the web is part of the internet, but not the same as the internet (in taxonomy terms: it is a child of).

 

What the government is trying to achieve is more active monitoring of all sorts of protocols and services that are part of the internet, e-mail, web-traffic and so on, but more importantly that of services, whatsapp, snapchat, facebook chat etc.

 

I have huge issues with that, simply because all they are doing is reducing privacy in exchange for monitoring whilst the 'dark forces' they try to target will simply switchto different services.

 

There are so many out there, many of which have no hosting in the UK at all, that it is impossible for the government to monitor it al. I amthinking of ICQ (a classic)' ventrilo, teamspeak, webex... There are literally thousands of alternatives. So this proposal breaches the principle of freedom/privacy, without a guaranteed outcome, it is the start of an ever growing movement to smother the beauty and success of the internet in regulation.

It's not that confusing to be fair.

---------- Post added 27-05-2016 at 17:20 ----------

You do know he was talking about network protocols, HTTP, HTML and the means to deliver data, not the content being delivered right?

 

The W3C couldn't care less about trolling and what information is put online, it only cares it's delivered in a universally used standardised format.

No we were discussing the founding principles of the internet. I was speaking in a broader sense. It doesn't matter

You can look up the differences yourself. The issue is not limited to the DPA though. e.g. The UK government have already been forced to change RIPA to conform to the EU's stricter standards.

It would be quicker if you just explained what the difference is because you must have already read them both.

The problem is, as the article I linked to in post #64 says "The Home Office said the RIPA legislation did not appear to have been used inappropriately.". So the government thought it was OK. They draft legislation so vaguely, require so little independent authorisation or oversight and provide no real penalties for misuse that it's obvious that they have no real concern for privacy or proportionality.

From this example, maybe not. The Home Office maybe said what they said because the suspicion was founded on a correct assumption. The child wasn't eligible for that school. Good school or not, the parents did 'fiddle' another child out of a place - they deliberately held moving house until after she was accepted. Perhaps they did have a quiet word with the council about playing Harry Palmer though, behind closed doors. They hardly gave a ringing endorsement of Poole Council's actions.

Hardly worthy of Brave New World or 1984 related panic.