Privacy Groups Attack UK ISPs 'Collusion' With Government Snooping 91
judgecorp writes "Privacy groups have accused British ISPs of a 'conspiracy of silence' over the impact of the UK government;s proposed Communications Data Bill or 'Snooper's Charter.' The letter accuses the SPs of allowing themselves to be 'co-opted as an arm of the state' — and of not telling their customers what they are up to. Under the bill, ISPs can be ordered to store their users' communications data (the who when and where but not the content of emails etc) for police to search through."
Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
What will they do when their snooping forces a large percentage of the people to use Tor or a VPN?
They can already lock you up for 2 years for failing to divulge encryption keys or passwords.
When I look at the definition of terrorists and then at my government I really dont see much difference these days.
Re:Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
What will they do when their snooping forces a large percentage of the people to use Tor or a VPN?
Probably try to get ISPs to "Block Tor" like Japanese Police
Theresa May co-opted more like (Score:5, Insightful)
We voted Cameron in on the basis that they would end the police/spooks driven surveillance culture. He put Theresa May in the home office, she then tried to implement the reforms, end ASBOs, separate police and spies, curb police secret comments on background checks etc. The things we elected him for.
The police PR division turned on her and started campaigning against her. Police officers were on TV arguing that by curbing background checks, "pedos will kill your children" and other scaremongering, and there's such a fear in the UK, that nobody denounced what they said. Each time an attempt to curb their powers comes along, they went on the attack, citing undisclosed terrorists plots, was another common tactic.
So now she's pretty much tamed, they want more snooping, she's too afraid to go against them, so she's become just another Home Secretary implementing mass surveillance.
So now we have the situation where the police are driving full speed towards a police state, and they are too naive to think of it as a police state.
Who you talk to is none of the govermments business. Tracking everyone as though they're criminals needs evidence that they are a criminal, what the government is doing is hypothesizing that EVERYONE is a future criminal and this EVERYONE should be tracked, and it's ok because we promise not to look at the data unless we think you are a criminal.... but yet EVERYONE is being treated as a criminal and monitored.
Be afraid of criticising the government, because you're being watched.
Re:Well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
What will they do when their snooping forces a large percentage of the people to use Tor or a VPN?
It's already happening. Typically, this is solved by doing the same thing that law enforcement's been doing since the days of Sherlock Holmes: You watch the suspect. Today, it's easier than having to use the old Mark 1 Eyeball -- we have a large variety of electronic surveillance devices to choose from, but the fundamentals of investigation haven't changed.
On the other hand, if your only lead starts at a Tor exit node, well... sucks to be you. Now you're going to have to work for your doughnut.
They can already lock you up for 2 years for failing to divulge encryption keys or passwords.
Citation needed. "They" is a bit non-specific.
When I look at the definition of terrorists and then at my government I really dont see much difference these days.
Well, I do. The government is better funded, they wear sharp uniforms, and are atleast partially accountable to the people my peers voted into office. Terrorists, on the other hand, want to make you part of their latest political statement... and unlike with the government, you aren't likely to survive the process.
Re:2004 (Score:5, Insightful)
We need a hard-nosed leader with a purer-than-the-driven-snow history, to fix this. That's a difficult combination to find. If there's any blemishes in his/her past, the security forces will 'leak' that part of their massive surveillance database to protect their 'good' deeds and eject the leader they don't like.
Or you could just lower your damn leadership standards. That's what we did in the USA...
Its getting very local (Score:4, Insightful)
Many years ago if you where political a national task force would track you - telephone, car, protests, work, friends...
Years ago you faced the Forward Intelligence Teams (FITs) - maybe local but much more active with facial recognition.
What I find very chilling about this new vision for data collection and sharing is the low level of gov getting GCHQ like data powers e.g.. "council
Write too much about rates, parking costs, talking about a chauffeur-driven Mercedes expenses claim - the UK has few real whistleblowers laws.
Anyone with this new clearance been exposed e.g.. in an expenses claim story could go on a search deep into the private lives of staff until they 'find' something or a press contact.
With what your average isp keeps, anyone could rewind any digital life in the UK for a day, week, month based on working for a local gov?
Re:Theresa May co-opted more like (Score:5, Insightful)
We voted Cameron in on the basis that they would end the police/spooks driven surveillance culture.
Well, that was dumb. Never vote for a conservative on the basis that they'll reduce government power: they might claim that's what they want, but they'll never follow through, because they have to be seen as tough on crime.