Online activity to be stored under new law

[sgtkate 10]

Andy Burnham's full support for Ms May about it in the Commons speaks volumes.

 

Then again, I am not the least bit surprised about leftist support for it, this kind of 24/7 cradle-to-grave surveillance was long the socialists' wet dream in western Europe...and the Eastern Bloc's reality for decades.

 

Meanwhile, the other US-aided British government's hand is busy waving an alleged terrorist bomb planted in the Russian A321 from Sharm-El-Sheik in our faces, before the air accident investigators have even looked at the flight recorders.

 

 

I'm sorry? Leftists support for this? Are you kidding me?

[L00b 441]

I'm sorry? Leftists support for this? Are you kidding me?

Andy Burnham, shadow Home Secretary, in the Commons: ''We support the government in its attempt to update the law in this important and sensitive area''

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34715872

 

Was I mistaken to hold Mr Burnham, senior Labour MP, prominent runner-up to the Labour leadership election, since appointed to a high-profile and highly-representative position in Mr Corbyn's shadow cabinet, for a reasonably authoritative representative of "the left"?

?

 

Where on earth did you get that from?

14 years of Socialist rule in France started 1981 (recently spruced up by Mr Hollande and cohorts: they even got Sarkozy geolocated last month!), 13 years of Labour Rule in the UK started 1997. Take a passing glance at the state and extent of the State's interference and stake in Marcel Dupont's and Joe Blogg's everyday life as a result.

 

Besides decades of socialist rule in Russia and the Eastern Bloc. "Stasi" rings a bell?

Edited November 5, 2015 by L00b

[psynuk 10]

I would like to read the entire proposal, but not sure where to find it (I am sure it is on a .gov site somewhere).

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473770/Draft_Investigatory_Powers_Bill.pdf

[spilldig 190]

You can't defend liberty by taking it away.

[esme 10]

They already have this information, it's part of what they call metadata, which they define as everything that isn't message content.

 

So you visit a website, your PC resolves the address with a name service, then uses that address to contact the site & request the page you want, the address resolution handshake is all metadata according to HMG, so they know which site you go to, before you go to it, already.

 

So this as far as I'm concerned is misdirection, HMG will fight a valiant battle over retaining weblogs and eventually lose, because they don't need them, and while we're fighting them on this, we're not fighting them on something else that they do want to get through

[spilldig 190]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473770/Draft_Investigatory_Powers_Bill.pdf

 

Thank's for that psynuk.

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2015 at 16:00 ----------

 

I would like to read the entire proposal, but not sure where to find it (I am sure it is on a .gov site somewhere).

 

But when I hear Teresa May talking about websites when she clearly means web services I have to laugh. She hasn't got a clue (still) about what she is proposing.

 

Blimey tzijlstra. I hope you have plenty of time. I have just had a look at it.

[flamingjimmy 10]

this kind of 24/7 cradle-to-grave surveillance was long the socialists' wet dream in western Europe

 

Where on earth did you get that from?

 

...13 years of Labour Rule in the UK started 1997. Take a passing glance at the state and extent of the State's interference...

 

Right, so where you got that from was that you consider Tony Blair's labour to be representative of socialists. That's why you were way off, makes sense now.

[esme 10]

Of course, a lot of the paranoia over this forgets that if you connect to a site with https, then even your ISP doesn't know what pages and data is being passed across it's pipes.

 

So yes, your ISP will see you connected to your bank. After that, it has no idea.

As for using https, has no one heard about Symantec issuing bogus security certificates ?

 

That's certificates that will pass muster with your browser but are different to the ones issued to site owners.

 

source :

Chrome won't trust Symantec-backed SSL as of Jun 1 unless they account for bogus certs

As Google has dug deeper into Symantec's certificate issuance, they've found many bogus certs, triggering an internal audit by Symantec that found literally thousands of "misissued" certificates.

So thats https rendered useless for security as we don't know who these certificates were issued to, though I suspect it was probably the NSA.

 

You can no longer be sure that any site you are talking to is actually the site you think you're talking to, there could be a "man in the middle" attack and you would never know, you definitely can't be sure no one can see the content of the messages.

 

I did hear rumours of black boxes placed in key routing centres that would perform such attacks but this was discounted because they would need certificates issued by authorised providers to work and none of them would do this, this doesn't sound quite as far fetched any more.

 

I'm just wondering why Google are waiting until June 1st until they do something, this has already happened, the horse has bolted.

[Nagel 10]

Neither the Conservatives or Labour should be trusted for one minute over schemes like this.

 

Actually they can be trusted, but just because we have a fairly benign government at the moment doesn't mean things can't change in the future. Things could change quite quickly.

 

Imagine if the government becomes more controlling and dictatorial and they have all these means of surveillance that can be used against the population.

[the_bloke 17]

As for using https, has no one heard about Symantec issuing bogus security certificates ?

 

Yes, that's another problem too. Security is only as good as the person administering it.

 

Does anyone see the irony in being horrified by UK ISP's being forced to retain data by people who use VPN's based in countries with far less strict data laws and virtually no legal comeback? It's only a matter of time before one of these 'anonymous 'we don't save your data' VPN providers get hacked and spill out customer credit cards and secretly collected browsing habits all over the place.

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2015 at 17:25 ----------

 

It's already been happening for years:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34729139

 

The Government have also been trying to make it legal for years; the Interception Modernisation Programme was part of the failed Communications Data Bill in 2008. It would have required.. you guessed it, ISPs to store all websites visited in the last 12 months.

[L00b 441]

Right, so where you got that from was that you consider Tony Blair's labour to be representative of socialists. That's why you were way off, makes sense now.

If you say so, jimmy, if you say so.

 

I'm far less concerned about political point-scoring and taking on your habitual socialism-can-never-do-wrong kneejerking on here, than about this n-th attempt at eroding our right to privacy still further by legitimising illegal practices, so you ain't gonna get any more out of me on that front

 

In other others news, the TPP in its final inception has now been finally been published, by New Zealand. Look it up for a taste of 21st century US economical imperialism, doubling as a taste of things to come with the TTIP. Now, imagine the little bit of snooping legislation of the topic running in that context...

 

How much are them small deserted islands going for, again?

[I1L2T3 10]

Andy Burnham's full support for Ms May about it in the Commons speaks volumes.

 

Then again, I am not the least bit surprised about leftist support for it, this kind of 24/7 cradle-to-grave surveillance was long the socialists' wet dream in western Europe...and the Eastern Bloc's reality for decades.

 

Meanwhile, the other US-aided British government's hand is busy waving an alleged terrorist bomb planted in the Russian A321 from Sharm-El-Sheik in our faces, before the air accident investigators have even looked at the flight recorders.

 

 

Yet another reason why I won't vote Labour again. Burnham is a horrible and opportunistic piece of crap.

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2015 at 19:58 ----------

 

Actually they can be trusted, but just because we have a fairly benign government at the moment doesn't mean things can't change in the future. Things could change quite quickly.

 

Imagine if the government becomes more controlling and dictatorial and they have all these means of surveillance that can be used against the population.

 

The government becoming more controlling and dictatorial could well be part of the plan. They sing from the same hymnsheet and both ultimately want roughly the same outcomes.

 

Don't trust them. Seriously.