UK ISPs Refuse to Monitor Users 554
An anonymous reader writes "The internet industry has refused to sign up to plans to give law enforcement and intelligence agencies access to the records of British web and email users, throwing David Blunkett's post-September 11 data surveillance regime into fresh disarray.
In the latest of a long line of setbacks for the home secretary's data retention campaign, the Guardian has learned that internet service providers have told the Home Office that they will not voluntarily stockpile the personal records of their customers for long periods so that they can be accessed by police or intelligence officers."
EU framework draft on the matter (Score:5, Informative)
Summary:
Statewatch's analysis shows that there are "grave gaps in civil liberties protection":
- there are no grounds for refusing to execute a request on human rights grounds
- there are no limits as to what data can be exchanged where member states allow for the retention of data on all crimes, not just the 32 listed
- there is no reference to supervisory authorities on data protection
- there is no reference to the individual's right to correct, delete, block data nor compensation for misuse or for related judicial review
- no reference to controls on the copying of data
- no rules for checking on the admissibility of data searches
Re:EU framework draft on the matter (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a fundamental problem that arises when you start to collect data without a directed suspicion: people will start to fear that merely their patterns of behaviour (which he knows to be be monitored) will raise some suspicion and cause subsequent trouble. This is has chilling effects on society, on peoples very perception of freedom. Look at the horrors of the USSR, the DDR with its Stasi.
I think the issue needs to be centered around this, and leave the exact criteria, which are completely irrelevant. Governments should not be allowed to spy on people without a clear suspicion, period. Collecting data may only start *after the suspicion is backed by a public court of law*, not when some police officer decides that it might be handy, and even less *by default*, for crying out loud!
Doesn't anybody realise what a *huge* step this is?
Re:EU framework draft on the matter (Score:3, Insightful)
I think many do. And even more would realize it if they just had the chance to realize it: I believe that 90% of people do not know what this really means because they are not capable of opening the content put behind the technological "black box". If people were told that from now on you have to inform officials about who you communicated with, when and how - they could actually panic. If you had to inform the police every time when you chat with your neighbour, send a letter to your grand mother, or call their husband. What is happening with these data retention laws is exact analogy.
Re:LEAs have no other choice to catch the bad guys (Score:5, Insightful)
And which of those new technologies were used for September 11th, exactly?
That this event has pushed civil liberties to the background is not something to base policy on, it's something to fight against.
Increased surveillance on citizens does *not* prevent terrorism by people determined enough to do it kamikaze-style. Period. See 9/11, see Israel every day, see Bali. Forget it. The idea that it would is tasteless, perverse propaganda from power-hungry politicians that are not ashamed to abuse 9/11 to further their existing agendas.
Re:LEAs have no other choice to catch the bad guys (Score:3, Interesting)
We'd be trowing away civilization faster than can be done by
Re:LEAs have no other choice to catch the bad guys (Score:5, Interesting)
But "quite possibly" has not previously been a valid excuse for reducing civil liberties. The article qute clearly stated that, in the ISP's opinion, the govenment had failed to make the case that they data they wanted held would help in the fight against terrorism.
If it would genuinely, provably, help in the fight against terrorism, I would be happy for this sort of thing to go through. But what is happening is that the government is finding things that, in their opinion, might help in the fight against something - social security fraud, for example - and trying to bring that in under the umbrella of the "war against terrorism". And that random extension of police powers on only a vague suspicion that it might help is somethign we must fight against.
As a Brit, I am cheering this report. I don'tr want to be blown up, nor do I want anybody else blown up. But the government has to make a good case that these records will give a better chance of catching terrorists to justify both the infringement of liberties and the costs to the ISPs (which I, the ISP's customer, will pay).
Re:LEAs have no other choice to catch the bad guys (Score:4, Insightful)
Without civil liberties it's not a very "free world" now is it? If we don't have freedom, what are we fighting to preserve, exactly?
Re:LEAs have no other choice to catch the bad guys (Score:3, Informative)
What do you consider traditional? In the UK you needed (The RIP act made that past tense, hence why I will never vote for whichever party Jack Straw is in) to have a court order to be allowed to read somebodys mail or to tap their telephone.
Unfortunately ... (Score:5, Informative)
So, while it's nice that the ISP's showed some common sense and backbone, it's not really going to get them very far.
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:5, Interesting)
They don't need to hack your computer, use strong cyphers, or any other "high tech" terrorism. Much more effective is blow something up with a lot of people nearby. These guys aren't rocket scientists, and the gov knows that - this is a cynical manipulation of human tragady for their own political ends. Personally it makes me sick. This is disrespectful of those who died on Sept 11 and in Bali, of course anyone who questions these new powers is accused of being "unAmerican", and "against the war on terror". This is just cynical political posturing. A better way to fight terror would surly be to remove guns from America society - I think that would save a lot more lives than reading my email or anyone elses.
Does Osama bin Laden even have an email address? It seems pretty clear that terrorists don't need such things, a bomb, a gun or even a knife are (tragically) enough.
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bin Laden is extremely rich. If you believe he is living in a cave, then you are buying into the bullshit propaganda that has already been refered to in this thread.
People who deal dodgy things, e.g. drugs, know there is always the possibility that their communications aren't secure, so they don't talk about it over the phone or e-mail. Believe it or not, terrorists also know this.
Anyone that believes that a terrorist could get caught by saying something on e-mail or browsing on the web clearly doesn't have a clue. These measures are all about spying on the little people. The big fish know the score already and use encryption and third-party messengers to exchange information, if they even bother using modern communications.
They also don't try to give signals over videos in the news. That was another bullshit lie. God forbid the people ever find out the real reasons why some terrorists attack the US...
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:2)
While I agree with most of what you are saying, there is no basis whatsoever for linking gun ownership with terrorism. Sep 11 was achieved with box cutters and Bali isnt in US and they have stricter gun laws anyway. It seems a little hypocritical to accuse people of using terrorism to justify unrelated legislation and then doing exactly the same thing yourself in the very next sentance.
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure, but I think the guy going round shooting people at the moment has a gun.
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:3, Funny)
On second thoughts, you're probably right.
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:5, Insightful)
No sireee, he is not terrorising anyone AT ALL. Heve you heard the word terrorist mentioned in news reports of this man AT ALL? Is this not entirely hypocritical?
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It reminds me of when Oklahoma City bombing happened. When at first it was blamed on Muslims in the media they were terrorists. But when it was white militia men...the word terrorist faded from the media. And I certainly don't recall a outcry to profile these groups. Round them up and arrest them., etc.
Or the shootings, assults and arsons linked to these white power Christian fundamentalist groups. Why aren't they called Christian terrorists?!? A number of which are members of the same Christian church sect!
Don't even get me started about the killings, bombings, assults, arsons and anthrax scares linked to anti-abortion groups. How come they aren't called terrorists?!?
You can bet, that if a group talked of a need to eliminate bankers. Posted assassination lists online of key bankers, some of which were later killed. Had bombed a number of banks, set fires to others, harassed customers, sent in anthrax scares to banks...You bet the FBI would be rounding them up fast!
Or how with all the school shootings, the media avoids talking about the pattern of them being middle-class white teen males? It's all kept vague and they refer how it's hard to find a pattern!
- MichaelRe:Unfortunately ... (Score:3, Insightful)
So presumably if guns were made illegal, he wouldn't use one?
In the UK, gun crime has shot up at least 50% since our government banned handguns in 1997. A guy in Australia also recently killed a couple of students and injured several more - with handguns. I believe Australia also banned handguns a few years ago (or at least made the subject to extremely strict controls, which is technically what has happened here in UK).
My point is, if you can't stop criminals and psychopaths getting hold of weapons, you might as well at least allow ordinary people to fight on the same level. This was the view taken in Britain until 1920, when gun control in this country started in earnest. Indeed, the Prime Minister Lord Salisbury was one of the founders of the Working Mens' Rifle Club in (I think) 1900.
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:3, Informative)
Source gun control network [gun-control-network.org]
I was AMAZED when I read this. Especially taking into account that population in the UK = pop of US/4 or so.
Now I feel I have to put in context one of your statements:
"My point is, if you can't stop criminals and psychopaths getting hold of weapons, you might as well at least allow ordinary people" to.
Ok, so you're suggesting a system just like the united states right? Let's see in the U.S.: In 1999, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, and 38% were homicides.(SOURCE: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)
It looks like guns are bad in the hands of ordinary people as well as criminals to me. *me wonders how many of those homicides were by ordinary people in a fit of rage, or by ordinary people accidentally shooting their friends/family etc. I wish I had those figures.
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:3, Insightful)
What's your point? A death is still a death. Innocent or not. We have gangs here as well you know, very rarely does anyone get killed.
Law abiding citizens are affected. Crossfire I'm sure kills quite a few folk. The money spent policing to get the area to the point that decent people can walk safely must be a huge portion of the Police budget. Or the not-so-well-off person who has to queue at community hospitals where a large portion of their budget is spent healing gunshot wounds. Jeez, it's so common you even have an acronym for it, GSW.
While you are at it, let's talk about home invasions being several hundred percent more common in the UK since the ban on guns.
OK, let't talk about it. First, cite your source, it's completely new to me and I've never heard or seen any statistic that shows this sort of crime going up, especially to the extent of several hundred percent.
Next, you have to realise that there is no gun culture in the UK, there never has been. Handguns were banned after 60ish man shot and killed at least 20 very young children. The man in question was a permit-holding member of a gun club and was legally entitled to own his weapons. Public opinion led to the complete ban of handguns only, at which point the owners of the guns were obliged to hand them in, after being given the monetry equivalent value of the gun.
Guns have absolutly no bearing in home invasion statistics here. Because guns are so rare (in my years I have NEVER even seen a gun in this country), the likelyhood of a homeowner having a gun was so remote that criminals wouldn't even give it a second thought.
So, I fail to see how the banning of handguns had anything to do with any increase in house breaking.
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:3, Funny)
WASHINGTON (AP) The results of a new survey conducted by pollsters
suggest that, contrary to common scientific wisdom, correlation does in
fact imply causation. The highly reputable source, Gallup Polls, Inc.,
surveyed 1009 Americans during the month of October and asked them, "Do
you believe correlation implies causation?" An overwhelming 64% of
American's answered "YES", while only 38% replied "NO". Another 8% were
undecided. This result threatens to shake the foundations of both the
scientific and mainstream community.
"It is really a mandate from the people." commented one pundit who wished
to remain anonymous. "It says that The American People are sick and tired
of the scientific mumbo-jumbo that they keep trying to shove down our
throats, and want some clear rules about what to believe. Now that
correlation implies causation, not only is everything easier to
understand, it also shows that even Science must answer to the will of
John and Jane Q. Public."
Others are excited because this new, important result actually gives
insight into why the result occurred in the first place. "If you look at
the numbers over the past two decades, you can see that Americans have
been placing less and less faith in the old maxim 'Correlation is not
Causation' as time progresses." explained pollster and pop media icon
Sarah Purcell. "Now, with the results of the latest poll, we are able to
determine that people's lack of belief in correlation not being causal has
caused correlation to now become causal. It is a real advance in the
field of meta-epistemology."
This major philosophical advance is, surprisingly, looked on with
skepticism amongst the theological community. Rabbi Marvin Pachino feels
that the new finding will not affect the plight of theists around the
world. "You see, those who hold a deep religious belief have a thing
called faith, and with faith all things are possible. We still fervently
believe, albeit contrary to strong evidence, that correlation does not
imply causation. Our steadfast and determined faith has guided us through
thousands of years of trials and tribulations, and so we will weather this
storm and survive, as we have survived before."
Joining the theologists in their skepticism are the philosophers. "It's
really the chicken and the egg problem. Back when we had to worry about
causation, we could debate which came first. Now that correlation IS
causation, I'm pretty much out of work." philosopher-king Jesse "The Mind"
Ventura told reporters. "I've spent the last fifteen years in a heated
philosophical debate about epistemics, and then all of the sudden Gallup
comes along and says, "Average household consumption of peanut butter is
up, people prefer red to blue, and...by the way, CORRELATION IS CAUSATION.
Do you know what this means? This means that good looks actually make you
smarter! This means that Katie Couric makes the sun come up in the
morning! This means that Bill Gates was right and the Y2K bug is
Gregory's fault." Ventura was referring to Pope Gregory XIII, the 16th
century pontiff who introduced the "Gregorian Calendar" we use today, and
who we now know is to blame for the year 2000.
The scientific community is deeply divided on this matter. "It sure makes
my job a lot easier." confided neuroscientist Thad Polk. "Those who
criticize my work always point out that, although highly correlated,
cerebral blood flow is not 'thought'. Now that we know correlation IS
causal, I can solve that pesky mind-body problem and conclude that
thinking is merely the dynamic movement of blood within cerebral tissue.
This is going to make getting tenure a piece of cake!"
Anti-correlationist Travis Seymour is more cynical. "What about all the
previous correlational results? Do they get grandfathered in? Like, the
old stock market/hemline Pearson's rho is about 0.85. Does this mean
dress lengths actually dictated the stock market, even though they did it
at a time when correlation did not imply causation? And what about
negative and marginally significant correlations? These questions must be
answered before the scientific community will accept the results of the
poll wholeheartedly. More research is definitely needed."
Whether one welcomes the news or sheds a tear at the loss of the ages-old
maxim that hoped to eternally separate the highly correlated from the
causal, one must admit that the new logic is here and it's here to stay.
Here to stay, of course, until next October, when Gallup, Inc. plans on
administering the poll again. But chances are, once Americans begin
seeing the entrepeneurial and market opportunities associated with this
major philosophical advance, there will be no returning to the darker age
when causal relationships were much more difficult to detect.
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:2, Insightful)
UK liberties (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, and it's up around 50% since Dunblane and the subsequent handgun restrictions. Is that in spite of the ban, or because of it?
I'm not at all convinced I'd want routine carrying of handguns legalised in the UK at present, but more because I'm afraid of the number of unfortunate accidents that would occur because people here haven't grown up with them than because I object to them on self-defence grounds. Getting a gun isn't hard if you're a bad guy as it is, it's just that right now, the only people who have them are the criminals.
In principle, I don't see that any government has any business restricting anything (carrying weapons for SD or sport, speed of travel in your car, use of drugs, bringing alcohol home from your booze cruise, whatever) unless it is preventing a clearly demonstrated threat to the general population. The government has failed to demonstrate this beyond random spin in any of these cases, and plenty of informed criticism argues that they are actually causing more damage to the population as a whole with their current policies. Yet, as it stands now, my girlfriend can't legally carry CS spray for self-defence, I can't legally drive faster than 20mph on a road near my home where 40mph would normally be safe, and cannabis is illegal although the vast majority of population want it legalised in every recent survey taken.
What was that about appropriateness of laws and police states? Damn, I can't remember...
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:3, Interesting)
As The Register pointed out this week, the Washington Sniper did more to harm the US Government's IT infrastructure by shooting one member of the FBI's 'cybercrime' unit than all these high-tech hacking attempts have ever achieved.
As someone said in a completely different context, for all the technological wonders that man can think up, never underestimate the power of a bit of hot metal moving very quickly.
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:2, Interesting)
As I said - Sept 11 and Bali didn't need much, not even guns.
I think gun control might do some good, but of course you might have a different view, I didn't mean to cause offence.
Thank the Blunket (Score:5, Insightful)
Apart from the privacy issues there is also the huge cost implication of keeping those records. I also wonder how easy such information would be to trawl through? I suppose Mr Blunket wants the ISPs to bare the cost of that too!
This is stupid - Sept 11 had VERY little to do with the Internet, why are Govs both sides of the pond using this a feeble excuse to extend their powers?
Re:Thank the Blunket (Score:5, Insightful)
For the same reason they are using Sept 11 as an excuse for invading Iraq even though there isn`t a shred of evidence the Saddam was involved in any way.
Bush Jr: What idiot let this guy off the hook?
Bush Sr: That would be me son, sorry.
Re:Thank the Blunket (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called a bandwagon... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they always do... goverments will grasp at any sufficiently shocking event to further their powers. They may even be asked to do so by their own constituents, who in the face of such shocking events, ask for "action" to be taken to prevent future occurrences. The mob will be pleased with almost any "action" however silly or ineffective, so politicians tend to reach for the easiest or most high-profile ones. The Internet is an easy target since very few people understand what goes on on it, and how.
Not to single out governments for this type of behaviour though: most political organisations such as environmental groups, activists, or unions and trade organisations, are quick to use public opinion on any event that "proves" the case to push their own agenda.
umm (Score:3, Funny)
Re:umm (Score:4, Insightful)
Which brings me to something I was thinking about before, Whats worse:
1) A govt that forces you to give them your keys when they ask.
or
2) A govt that dosnt ask or inform you in any way, but instead uses tools like Magic Lantern [google.com] to get them?
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
Hows the hunt for the sniper going? Any idea how many people he would have been able to kill in the UK before he`d have been caught?
Heard of David Copeland? He's the guy who bombed and killed/injured gays/blacks in the UK a few years ago. He worked alone but was still caught after `only` three attacks. He was the only consistant person on film in the three locations at the appropriate date/time.
Or do you think that it's worth letting people like him get away with it with no chance of arrest other than waiting for him to make a mistake (like in your sniper case), because the horrible loss of rights by people being..uh..filmed while walking in a public place outweighs the advantages?
Re:umm (Score:2, Insightful)
Ben Franklin once said anyone who wants security over freedom deserves neither, and I happen to think the guy was onto something.
Re:umm (Score:3, Interesting)
The UK (or more specifically, London) is about to introduce `congenstion charging` - that is, charging drivers money to enter the centre of London in a bid to reduce unneccessary traffic. This is being done with cameras and number plate recognition. People are complaining because they don't want to pay, not really because of any civil liberty concerns - we've generally accepted that as being a price worth paying.
And don't underestimate the cost of speeding cars, either - it kills more people than many other crimes (ie terrorism, murder etc). Death/injury rises exponentially with speed increase (not linearly), so for example the difference between 30 and 35 mph results is many greater deaths. Given that only a tiny number of journeys are so important that the it makes the risk of death/injury worthwhile, I believe it's worth the inconvenience to drivers. And if you have to use cameras to enforce the law, rather than the quaint idea of employing thousands of police with speed guns, then so be it.
re: your Franklin quote - i don't believe that the use of cameras DOES infringe your freedom, as they do not stop you from doing anything - they just make it easier to see that you were doing it at a late point. Given that they`ll be used in court, in front of a jury, then if you can see a problem with any given piece of film now, then its rather patronizing to think that a jury member won't have a similar problem with it at a later date when its being used as evidence against someone. A second point on the same issue - i personally have increased security and freedom when walking in an area covered by security cameras. But perhaps you`ve not been robbed at knifepoint? I think you might feel differently if you had (like I have, in Brixton - the shittiest part of London, with a huge street crime problem). People feel (and statistically are) safer in areas with cameras - do you perhaps have any statistics showing that people have less security and freedom?
Re:umm (Score:4, Insightful)
And are you saying that you'd resent getting caught breaking two laws by a machine as opposed to a person?
Re:umm (Score:2)
Re:umm (Score:2)
Re:umm (Score:3, Informative)
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
I see, so what you're saying is that you want to break the laws that you don't feel like obeying with impunity, while resevering the right to whine when the state can't enforce the ones that you think are important? I rather like that idea, and see that it's becoming increasingly popular with many US citizens.
You can keep the driving laws for yourself then, and I'll excuse myself from accounting and securities fraud, if that's OK with you? Who needs a pension anyway?
But woe betide anyone who breaches my copyright. Hanging is too good for them!
Re:umm (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe we should put government run cameras in our homes too. Because by your theory, we should be willing to give up our rights so the government can cacth criminals.
Two Words: urban planning (Score:3, Interesting)
People in high-density/pedestrian-oriented urban areas would probably a)have a stronger bond with people in their vicinity, b)play a more active role in policing their neighbourhood, and c)notice a guy setting up down the block with an assault rifle.
This guy is sick, for sure. How did he get that way? Why doesn't every contry have a sniper killer? All I can say is: the conditions that created this individual aren't changing, so prepare for more. He won't be the last.
Re:Two Words: urban planning (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell, I've got an idea. I'll run for dictator and mandate that we implement your idea of urban "stuffing". And, as part of the mandate, we'll do away with any type of "single family dwelling".
From now on, a minimum of 2 families must live in every home.
Can't find a family you want to live with? Let me know and you will be assigned one.
There, terrorism problems solved.
Karma to burn, also...
So now the govt will make the records mandatory... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, the government gets whatever it wants, because it has all the power. It has all the power because it has all the guns, and that is especially true in the UK.
What differs from country to country is how well the government knows what it wants. If the government in this case is determined enough to pass a law requiring that ISPs keep mandatory records, there's nothing the ISPs can do about it. If the population of the UK is anything like that of the US, the people won't even notice or care.
I guess the biggest difference between the UK and the US is that the media isn't privately owned to quite the same degree in the UK as it is in the US, right? But that media which isn't owned by private entities is owned by the government, so we get right back to the issue of how much the government itself actually wants this.
No matter how this turns out, though, I have to give a hand to the ISPs for telling the government where to stick it...
Re:So now the govt will make the records mandatory (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, the only publicly-owned media in the UK is the BBC. All other TV and radio stations, and all newspapers, are privately owned.
Re:So now the govt will make the records mandatory (Score:5, Informative)
Note also
Re:So now the govt will make the records mandatory (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also the case that the media in the UK (private or public) can be considerably more critical of the governement and politicians than media in the US. Anyone who's ever watched Larry King interview a senator, then seen Jeremy Paxman do the same with a British MP will know that blustering Larry is a cream puff.
Also interesting to note that the BBC News website carried an interview with Noam Chomsky on 9/11 this year. No US network would ever have done that.
UK ability to criticise government (Score:3, Interesting)
Generally you're right, although it's worth noting that both your examples are BBC ones.
Sky News is pretty good from the now and then that I catch it, as is Channel 4 news.
All the broadsheet newspapers generally provide more challenge to the government than the present Westminster opposition do - even The Guardian [guardian.co.uk] which is nominally a Labour-supporting paper.
It's actually quite interesting that the one policy theme that the current opposition could successfully pick up on as a basis for the next election is the Libertarian agenda, currently being touted by The Daily Telegraph [telegraph.co.uk] (which has been the Conservative Party's candid friend for a long time).
However, the Conservative Party has far too many internal interests who are bound to social authoritarianism despite their economic liberalism to go for this. It would be a brave step for them to refocus the party and lose a large part of the existing (small) support in the hope of gaining a larger support elsewhere.
They've started to recognise this - that their authoritarianism makes the country view them as the 'nasty' party - but they'll have to move very carefully to make the move effectively.
Re:So now the govt will make the records mandatory (Score:2, Insightful)
Governements in democraties do not have all the power. And this has nothing to do with guns. Many americans always bring back the issue of guns in the most irrelevant situations!
I guess the biggest difference between the UK and the US is that the media isn't privately owned to quite the same degree in the UK as it is in the US, right?
This is equally irrelevant. Privately owned media can be forced by governements to say anything the governements want as much as public media.
Anyway, this is about ISPs which are all (AFAIK) privately owned.
Re:So now the govt will make the records mandatory (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not so sure. There was talk a few months ago of the RIP Act [slashdot.org] being voided because of a new European law that had been passed.
Has anyone heard anything about this recently?
(-1 Hearsay, Suspicion and not a lot else)
Re:So now the govt will make the records mandatory (Score:5, Interesting)
Not all the guns. The IRA still has a few, and the loyalist gangs have a load - oh, yes, and the Yardies tend to be well supplied, and the Tongs. But I guess you meant that the citizenry are not allowed to bear arms without a license, which is not routinely given.
However, I think that this is all but irrelevant in this case as (a) retention of ISP data records just isn't the sort of thing that popular revolutions are made of, and (b) as you say, most the of the people wouldn't even care (yes, sadly, the British population is just like the US population in this regard). You know the line "I've got nothing to hide, so why shouldn't they implant me with a v-chip?".
I guess the biggest difference between the UK and the US is that the media isn't privately owned to quite the same degree in the UK as it is in the US, right? But that media which isn't owned by private entities is owned by the government
The only publicly owned media corporation is the BBC, which is paid for by television license subscription. It's not really owned by the government in the sense that you mean (ie, the government can't tell it what to broadcast, or not - though God knows they've tried time and again). The problem for the government is that the BBC carries more weight with the people that the government of the day ever will - so they have to watch their step. It carries more weight, because it broadcasts the soaps and reality TV shows that keep Joe Couch-Potato happy and fat.
And the rest of our media are owned by sundry groups - right-wing (mostly), left-wing (rarely), and a big chunk of it by Rupert Murdoch, who's an Australian/American/Chinese/whatever-gets-him-TV-
Anyway, to attempt to answer the question - will HMG just make the retention mandatory - I don't know. They've backed down before when it came to crapping over civil liberties (and at other times, they've just shit all over them). My guess is that there are a hell of a lot of people using ISPs in the UK right now, and there just ain't enough votes to be got by ramming this down the ISPs throats. On the other hand, never underestimate the power of the securocrats - the ridiculous mess that is the RIP Act was their handiwork.
David Blunkett did go on record as saying that there were some things that a governing party must not do, even if it could steamroller any opposition (the Labour party has a huge majority in Parliament). So, who knows - maybe they'll just decide that without the co-operation of the ISPs, it ain't a fight worth having.
Watch out for the low-flying pigs though.
--Ng
The easy vote (Score:3, Funny)
We will be increasing you subscription charge by 25%,
Your bandwidth will be limited to 26kbits.
We will be capping you email to 20mb a month and browsing to 2000 pages.
All this has been necessary to comply with recent government regulation introduced by David Blunket.
If you have any problems, you know how to vote next time around.
Have a nice day.
Re:So now the govt will make the records mandatory (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel sorry for a certain type of American. You don't realise how screwed up your world-view is.
Re:So now the govt will make the records mandatory (Score:3, Interesting)
The government has power because we the people give it power. The governments gets things it wants and we don't want because we the people do not stop the government from getting what the government wants before it is too late. I am constantly amazed by how the majority groups with in Nations, Trade unions and Political organizations neglect to make use of their democratic rights to govern them selves and get rolled over by a small but determined minority that makes excellent use of its democratic rights. I have actually seen unpopular legislation passed in an unnamed national assembly just because half of the majorities MPs were stuck gossiping at the watercooler when the vote was called and being absent they could not stand up and be counted.
If we keep expecting to exercise our democratic right to influence government after bills we dont like have been passed because we were to lazy to show up to vote or too brain-dead to speak up we will have a hard time ahead of us. It would be so much easyer if people opposed legislations that robs them of their rights BEFORE it is passed. Sort of like putting on the FLAK jacket BEFORE you get shot
Re:So now the govt will make the records mandatory (Score:2, Insightful)
And in the US, those guns have stopped your government passing laws [hhttp] that threaten [ala.org] your freedoms [libertarianworld.com], right?
Oh... wait
Re:So now the govt will make the records mandatory (Score:3, Informative)
An easy misperception to make. Actually, the BBC is not owned by the government, and certainly isn't run by the government (although the government is a stakeholder which sets the broad regulatory (and funding) environment in which it operates, as is the case for all broadcasters).
The BBC is an independent, self-running organisation, controlled by a board of governers which has a license to collect a license fee from television owners to fund itself. It is not politically possible for the government of the day to direct the content of the BBC, although it may from time to time pass statutes which control all broadcasters (such as the act which prevented the broadcasting of the voices of leaders of defined terrorist organisations. This act didn't actually accomplish anything as the broadcasters simply dubbed the pictures with the voices of actors).
As the BBC is seen as broadcasting in the public interest, any move to bring its output under government direction would be seen by the population as the strongest movement possible towards a dictatorship.
It would be easier for the government to revoke/reallocate the license for a commercial operator than the BBC. And the government has done this before when in the 80s it invited the incumbent ITV companies to reapply for their own licenses, including the level of cash they were to pay for the priviledge.
Question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Was it due to a principle, or was it due to the cost associated with the record keeping?
Sure, its easy enough to say "well done" and "finally some sense" - but do we really know what motivated them to say no to the voluntary retention of data?
Re:Question... (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe they were afraid people wouldn't surf for porn anymore if they could be seen by the government and thus traffic would reduce with 60%
Stef
Re:Question... (Score:2)
Read the Article Carefully... (Score:2)
The fact: They would keep the logs for 15 months. Beyond 15 months, it's not affordable to keep the logs, and hence they would not. Big Deal.
Re:Read the Article Carefully... (Score:2)
Quote:
Mr Lansman said that service providers were "rightly concerned" that retaining communications data beyond normal business practices may be unlawful
i.e. they are worried about the conflict between these regs and Human Rights legleslation. The only mention of 15 months was in respect of the examples cited in the Home Office document, which the ISPA didn't accept. I didn't read anywhere that they were happy with a 15 month limit. They did say they didn't want to keep data beyond the limits required for normal business use. This is in fact what the law currently states (EU law that is) - that once data is no longer useful for the purposes of billing it must be erased. This would be much less than 15 months.
Re:Question... (Score:2, Informative)
As the article notes, apart from the cost, it is very likely illegal to retain such data. European privacy law prevents you holding such logs longer than necessary to run your business (billing, handling net-abusers etc. - about 1-2 years, tops).
As the monitoring code isn't statutary yet, it might not afford ISPs a defence against a prosecution under privacy laws.
Re:Question... (Score:2, Insightful)
By supporting their action and citing our reasons, we are making our own statement. This statement is independent of their motivation and one which we might not have been able to make otherwise. I don't see how that hurts.
Devon
rational behavior (Score:2)
Re:Question... (Score:2)
They will just let anyone make laws these days.
Re:Question... (Score:2)
Basically there is nothing in it for the ISPs, and even a tax break probably wouldn't make it worth their while.
As they say... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Through utilitarian intentions, a moral victory was won."
Its got nothing to do wi sep11 (Score:3, Insightful)
Currently the only free domain is the internet, rest everything from transport to what you eat to what adv you watch is in hands of "control". Such legistlations will eliminate freedom on internet also. This is the beginning, soon more and more rules will come.. like what email you send what chat you do, which software you download
People call me paranoid... but thats what they called andy too.. and look where intel isRe:Its got nothing to do wi sep11 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Its got nothing to do wi sep11 (Score:5, Informative)
That may or may not happen in the land where the incoming president appoints all his oil business buddies to top government positions, but it sure as hell doesn't happen in the UK. We have a little matter of a Data Protection [dataprotection.gov.uk] regime. This may be avoidable by the government when they pass primary legislation such as RIPA [stand.org.uk], but corporations can't just opt out of it.
If the data protection registrar discovered that corporations were receiving identifying personal information from non-legitimate sources, their databases would be closed down the same day.
Really, this is a paranoid red herring.
Re:Its got nothing to do wi sep11 (Score:2)
Too many people these days seem to mis-understand freedom. Just because an article a reporter writes isn't printed is not freedom-related. It's the editor or owner expressing theirs.
I freely agree that the governments are getting a little heavy-handed, but many other things are just other people expressing their freedom.
is that priority??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:is that priority??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who's 'we'? If you're referring to the Washington situation, then you should be aware that the UK already has extremely tight gun control laws. Possibly the US might look to making those a priority, but the UK already has.
Cheers,
Ian
Hopefully people will notice with their wallet... (Score:3, Interesting)
Kjella
In a related story... (Score:5, Funny)
Excellent! (Score:2)
I just hope all the ISPs will have the courage to do the same with their respective governments... But I seriously doubt it!
We're not a free/cheap police force... (Score:3, Insightful)
nice typing (Score:2, Funny)
The investigations citedrefer
have been struggling to agree terms
No vember
to force internet prov-iders
I mean really! get a spell checker! And a grammar one too!
Doesn't surprise me in the least. (Score:5, Informative)
Remember, this is the man who is trying to remove the right to trial by jury. This is the man who is thinking of revealing a defendant's past convictions, which will bias the court even further against the unfortunate. This is the man who persecutes people crossing the channel with their car boots (trunks?) yet allows big corporations to get away with tax evation and theft on a colossal scale.
"New Labour - Same Old Tories"
Re:Doesn't surprise me in the least. (Score:2)
Let us be fair to David Blunkett. There hasn't been a universal right to trial by jury for a long time, and few people think you should be able to demand a jury trial for littering or parking offences. Similarly, few people (not including David Blunkett) think that you shouldn't have the right to a jury trial for murder. So what he's proposing is moving the line -- I think he's moving it to far, but it's not "trying to remove the right to trial by jury".
This isn't just a one off... (Score:4, Interesting)
David Blunkett has a habit of putting legislation into action that is far too heavy handed - think about his post-Sept 11 proposals, or his reaction to refugee housing. Thankfully most of it seems to get filtered out by due process.
He does seem to act a bit rashly, and seems to leap before he looks too often. I sometimes wonder if his presence is reverse-discrimination in action (he was blind from birth).
Re:This isn't just a one off... (Score:2)
That's why we have process. It's a useful negotiating tactic - make your points more forcefully than you need to, knowing you're going to get scaled back to about where you wanted to be, rather than making your points where you want, and then lose half of them. It should be noted that Blunkett is a lot more liberal than any of his recent predecessors.
No, he's there because he did a good job at Education.
Leaps before he looks (Score:2)
Hmm, I wonder if that's cos he's blind?
Re:This isn't just a one off... (Score:5, Informative)
Blunkett used to be the leader of Sheffield City Council, which is the city I came from.
He was the person who plunged it catastrophically in to debt to finance the World Student Games - an event we were told would attract massive world interest. Hmm. It attracted just about none.
The reason he did it was that he was convinced Neil Kinnock was about to win the next election and so provide a free bail-out to his pals. Remember the infamous Labour Rally in Sheffield, just before the General Election of...err...sometime in the late eighties/early nineties? When Labour acted as if they'd already won, when in fact they lost for a third straight time with Kinnock as leader?
Blunkett jumped out of the council as fast as he could, leaving some non-entity (Clive Betts, never achieved anything of national note) to take his place and hence the blame. The city finances were trashed, with huge amounts of debt due to a failed event.
I'm amazed more people don't bring up Blunkett's political history when interviewing him. It's almost as if the past just never happened.
Cheers,
Ian
OT: Political Memory (Score:2)
It's like this in the USA, too. It's not just that during our 2000 presidental election it was obvious that G.W. Bush Jr. was a moron, it's _also_ that anybody that _really_ cared to learn what kind of executive he'd be could look at his record in Texas. Anybody that voted for Bush under the theory that he gave a shit about the environment or poor people (especially poor brown people) or anything, really, except large companies did so in total defiance of his record as governer.
In short, voters everywhere are 100% unable to correlate between past performance and future likely behavior. It's very odd, given that you'd think such an ability would be highly adaptive, but there you go.
My ISP is Not The Law (Score:5, Funny)
There is no chance of my ISP every doing this in the UK. They can't arrange for the cable box to be fixed. They can't get my bill right after 12 months of me telling them that I do in fact pay by direct debit and they shouldn't be charging me a levy. They can't even pick the phone up after 10^6 rings...
What chance do they have of recording all my web page visits and emails?
http://www.nthellworld.com/ [nthellworld.com]
Money (Score:3, Insightful)
Bigger problems....... (Score:4, Interesting)
Clearly though the idea that Echelon can hoover up phone/emails and record/scan them is just so much hooey, as I always thought it was. Reassuring in a way.
Freedom or Security? Choose *one.* (Score:2, Insightful)
What, you mean like I'm sure it is here in the U.S.? Well, I guess we really are ahead of Europe...especially when it comes to the idea of discarding privacy for the (dubious) sake of security.
I'll spare the Ben Franklin quote. I'm sure someone else has already posted it.
Who is going to pay for this? (Score:3, Interesting)
This could destroy the business of a lot of small ISPs. It's difficult enough keeping an ISP running at the best of times.
So what? (Score:5, Informative)
You should assume that whatever you send over your network link is publicly readable (if not always modifyable) and encrypt accordingly.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
What good will encrypting your mails do you, when the Police have the power to demand that you surrender your keys, on pain of a prison term?
Mind you, if you're using the internet to send stuff you don't want Them to read, you're asking to get caught anyway...
Access to free speach (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know how possible or feasible this idea is, but something needs to be done.
Freedom of speach is at stake. I'm not sure of the details, but wasn't there a court case or a precedent that says that if you are scared about the repurcussions of you accessing information, your right to free speach is being hindered? Well if logs are going to be kept for significant ammounts of time, and the govt or private companies are going to have access to it, i'd consider this to be of concern.
Surely the point is (Score:3, Insightful)
N
ISP montoring (Score:3, Informative)
Also the difference between the US and UK media is two small enties known as the 'Constitution of the US of A' and the 'Offical Secrets Act'. The US Constitution gives the right of free speech to US citizens, it also prevents the US Gov from banning any kind of publication (ie can't tell the media what to say). It is slightly different in the UK as it doesn't have a written constitution, the Official Secrets Act allows the UK Gov to prevent the publication of certain information that may be adverse to UK National Security, an example of this is during the Falklands War when the UK Gov prevented the invasion of the Falklands from being reported for a number of days, this allowed UK forces to be readied without the Argentines knowing about it be watching the BBC.
UK ISPs Moving Servers (Score:3, Insightful)
What happened to that and doesnt Blunkett realise that the ISP can easily move these vital pieces of equipement out of the UK jursidiction? It just shows what lack of understand politicans and their advisors really have of the Internet and its workings.
The only truely safe way for them to stop any so-called net-terrorism is to shut down the net which obvisiously wont happen!
Nothing wrong with logging in principle (Score:2, Insightful)
making people notice (Score:4, Interesting)
The current UK government is very good a raising stealth taxes (taxes that are easily forgotten). One of these is an air-flight tax. The budget airlines don't like these as they can be a significant %age of the total price; so they quote these separately - which ensures that everyone always remembers that they are being taxes.
The ISPs should do the same: itemise cost to provide service + cost to record all your traffic.
This 'in your face' mechanism may help get this obnoxious intrusion removed.
Does the post office record the address of every letter that you send ?
Oh so the information is in your ISP logs? (Score:2, Insightful)
No but really. What will happen is that they will check your computer logs AND another attack will happen.
NOT SO WOW (Score:4, Informative)
The population of the UK are dullards, sad, boring people obsessed with entertainment and celebrity. They don't know or care who is in charge and a vast majority of them don't vote anyway (9% turnout in the last council elections round here).
They are too stupid to understand how law affects them and generally don't care anyway.
People go to work like zombies do the bare minimum to get a pay packet go home and plug themselves into the nearest drug supply (TV or booze usually).
They people of the isle are sheep - they do as they are told - innovation is dead - long live the service sector.
Nobody ever sees the "big picture" and the greatest threat to our nation is (apparently) paedophiles.