Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

UK MPs Campaign For Internet Privacy 7

WIAKywbfatw writes "The BBC is reporting that the All Party Internet Group (APIG), a committee of UK MPs has criticised the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act (ATCS) that was pushed through by the British government following the September 11 attacks in the US. As well as a host of other measures aimed at curbing terrorist activities, the ATCS required ISPs to keep customer data for up to six years, which the police have now admitted is illegal, as it contrevenes the Human Rights Act. The APIG is suggesting that data retention be discarded in favour of data preservation, essentially a snap-shot of internet traffic at the time of any future terrorist attacks. Certainly seems like a move to be applauded."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK MPs Campaign For Internet Privacy

Comments Filter:
  • Surely this is a bit late?

    The relevant info would be during the months before a terrorist attack. I'm not advocating the retention of all data, just the pointlessness of this approach.

    Feel free to prove me wrong (that'll never happen on /.!)
  • by nano2nd ( 205661 ) on Wednesday January 29, 2003 @08:42AM (#5180787) Homepage
    Privacy issues aside, the concept of gathering as much information as possible in an attempt to gain intelligence to prevent acts of terrorism is fundamentally flawed.

    Post 9/11, it transpired that we, the supposed forces of good, had intercepted messages between "them", the forces of bad, that would have tipped us of. The trouble was that by the time the messages had been processed, decoded, translated, it was 9/12.

    Put simply, we can gather the data, and we do. But we don't have the necessary "human bandwidth" to turn it into usable information within a reasonable timeframe.
    • Post 9/11, it transpired that we, the supposed forces of good, had intercepted messages between "them", the forces of bad, that would have tipped us of. The trouble was that by the time the messages had been processed, decoded, translated, it was 9/12.

      I will preface this by stating my email is OpenPGP compliant, and I sign my emails. I believe possessing strong encryption is a right of privacy.

      However, look at your argument here. I really doubt if the 9/11 thugs sent a message it would ONLY be on the morning they left. They were in the US for a long time (2 years or something right?) So a hypothetical email could have had 2 years to be processed, decoded, and translated.

      Think about what the other side would say about your argument. Know your enemy.

      • by Alrescha ( 50745 ) on Wednesday January 29, 2003 @10:17AM (#5181090)
        " I really doubt if the 9/11 thugs sent a message it would ONLY be on the morning they left."

        That's not what he said.

        With our previous monitoring, we had already intercepted communications between these people. We were unable to interpret these messages in time to be useful. Collecting even *more* data does not help this problem.

        A.
  • by uradu ( 10768 ) on Wednesday January 29, 2003 @09:51AM (#5181002)
    Will they be any more successful than in their choice of acronym?
  • Yet again (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Garry Anderson ( 194949 ) on Wednesday January 29, 2003 @12:31PM (#5182062) Homepage
    Very sorry to /. regulars - I have to bore you with this again to dispel some of the propaganda put by UK and US Governments.

    From my skilful.com website (yes Americans, it is spelt correctly):

    Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?

    Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.

    It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?

    Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:

    Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.

    Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!

    Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).

    The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.

    The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.

    INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA

    This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.

    Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"

    This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.

    It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.

    They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

    This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."

    "Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".

    This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).

    This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.

    So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?

    It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.

    As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.

    Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.

    The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.

    They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.

    The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.

    e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".

    Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?

    Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?

    No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?

    They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.

    Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?

    Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.

    In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.

    Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?

    Quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."

    The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).

    It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have adopted.

    Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

    You may be interested in the psychology of this type of surveillance. Here is a piece of text found on the Internet:

    Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.

    The government will be watching all you do.

    You will be good people now - won't you?

    Or else!

    I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear.

Working...