UK To Track All Browsing, Email, and Phone Calls 286
Sara Chan writes "The UK government plans to introduce legislation that will allow the police to track every phone call, email, text message and website visit made by the public. The information will include who is contacting whom, when and where and which websites are visited, but not the content of the conversations or messages. Every communications provider will be required to store the information for at least a year."
They already track you with cameras (Score:4, Funny)
...at every intersection in London. I guess the ACLU was unsuccessful in setting up a branch office.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Umm, you realize that there's the word "American" in the ACLU's name, right? I can imagine British groups like this one [liberty-hu...hts.org.uk] are not at all happy with either of these situations.
but (Score:2)
what he was trying to get at is that the ACLU are completely totally irrelevant in the UK, and that the ACLU hasn't got a monopoly on trying to improve peoples' liberty
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
WHOOOOOOSH!
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!
Re:but (Score:4, Funny)
A double whoosh! Oh my god, WHAT DOES IT MEAN!? T_T
Re:but (Score:4, Funny)
A double whoosh! Oh my god, WHAT DOES IT MEAN!? T_T
It means that someone completely missed the point, had it explained to them and then ... missed it again. It was actually funnier than the original joke.
Re:but (Score:4, Funny)
Triple whoosh! All the way!
Whoa! That's so intense!
Whooooooaaa-oh my god!
Wow! Woooooooooooo!
Re:They already track you with cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
The same thing is going to happen in the US, ACLU or not. The bills are already written. They are just waiting for another 9/11 to they can ram them through.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why bother with a law when they can just do it illegally and have politicians of both major parties defending them?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because passing a law permitting it tells your whole populace that they are being watched where they previously thought they had privacy.
Secretly watching people is all well and good, but only the paranoid and observant know it's happening. If you come right out and TELL everyone, then they all know that they are being watched - even when they are not - and will regulate their behaviour accordingly. This is much cheaper than hiring real policemen - instead, every citizen becomes his own policeman. Then you
so true (Score:3, Insightful)
how right you are. in spite of the troll mod i'm going to get and the karma hit... the more they do stuff like this, the more guns and ammo i buy. bottom line, eventually it comes down to boots on the ground and who's willing to kill or more importantly die for what they believe in. a lot of people will kill for this kind of totalitarian crap. however, most won't want to die for it. i have faith that eventually America will see the light and embrace individual liberty and personal responsibility again and
Re:so true (Score:5, Insightful)
It's so nice to see the lunatics on the far-right agreeing with the lunatics on the far-left. Really makes one hopeful about the future.
We are called 'libertarians' (Score:3, Insightful)
Socially liberal, very strong on individual rights, very strong on limited government.
Some embrace anarchy.
'Lunatics' we are not : this was the position of people like Jefferson, for the most part.
Re:We are called 'libertarians' (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, you're right, there were many a time when Jefferson would go on a long-winded THC-fueled rant about having "boots on the ground" and being "willing to die" to defeat a democratically elected government.
Of course, thankfully the lunatics usually aren't as industrious as Jefferson was, otherwise we might really be in trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's so nice to see the lunatics on the far-right agreeing with the lunatics on the far-left. Really makes one hopeful about the future.
Don't be too sure. How did Lewis Black put it?
.... is when those little pricks work together.
The only thing dumber than a Democrat, or a Republican
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The NSA, DIA, FBI, state taskforces all get to seek files of interest eg p2p, voice prints, images with unique known id's.
The US sucks it all up. They just dont want the herd thinking about it as they use the net, so keep the fact very low on the talking points.
The change in the UK is from sealed courts for spies or cases changed so no mention of intercepts would reach the press to a more direct idea.
The UK is now getting to the point wh
Re: (Score:2)
Dear E.U. Cousin:
It really isn't that bad. The U.S. is already tracking all our cellphone calls, and our emails, plus our location moment-to-moment. It really isn't that bad. Soon you too will know the joy of Big Brother (tm).
Re: (Score:2)
It's only about 30 years late, but it shouldn't be too long before Airstrip One is brought into the Oceania fold properly. Though we might have to find a new name for Ingsoc, not so sure the Inner Tea Party is going to like the word "Socialism" in there.
Re: (Score:2)
And you know this how?
Re: (Score:2)
The same thing is going to happen in the US, ACLU or not. The bills are already written. They are just waiting for another 9/11 to they can ram them through.
Citation?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The same thing is going to happen in the US, ACLU or not. The bills are already written. They are just waiting for another 9/11 to they can ram them through.
It already happened. How do you think that a massive bill like the Patriot Act got passed within days of 9/11? Like you said, it was just waiting in the wings. And I agree, we're in for more of the same. What irritates the FUCK out of me is the admiring stance taken by so many of our government officials towards the UK's surveillance state. It's crazy. What is with you people! Maybe we need to start requiring psych profiles for anyone holding public office, elected or otherwise. If you're paranoid, megamani
Re:They already track you with cameras (Score:4, Funny)
[citation needed]
[Citation Redacted]
Big brother loves you (Score:5, Funny)
And we've always been at war with eastasia.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just wait until they add license plate recognition to those cameras.
Here in the States, I could imagine something similar being hooked up and defended on the grounds that 'you don't have privacy when you travel on public roads'.
Or some other bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in the States, I could imagine something similar being hooked up and defended on the grounds that 'you don't have privacy when you travel on public roads'.
That would probably because you don't have privacy when you travel on public roads.
If you're driving along buggering a goat while smoking crack and the police see you, they will stop you and arrest you. You're not in your own home, you are in public.
Senationalist headline (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Senationalist headline (Score:5, Insightful)
How about: *Proposal* in UK To Track All Browsing, Email, and Phone Calls?
I guess it depends how cynical you are about the law-making process. Whilst I'm yet to make my mind up on the current government, I can definitely see why some people make the jump to thinking that this is as good as done. It's not as if the previous government particularly cared about our rights after all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me put it another way: When's the last time you saw a *Proposal* to stop tracking browsing, email, and phone calls, because free countries ought not to place their citizens, insofar as there is no reasonable suspicion that they're committing any crimes whatsoever, under surveillance? (Or even a simple nationalistic argument: "...on the grounds that nations governed under the opposing principles turned into the states against wh
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Senationalist headline (Score:4, Insightful)
You also forget that before the election, every party lies through their teeth to get into power. It's expected.
Re:Senationalist headline (Score:5, Insightful)
How about: *Proposal* in UK To Track All Browsing, Email, and Phone Calls?
Not even a proposal. It's speculation that there might be a proposal. If you read the actual quote from the defence review from the article, it more or less says: 'we need to upgrade lawful intercept capabilities to help fight terrorism'.
Now OK, there may be some civil liberties issues with what the government eventually comes up with. But there is a difference between being worried and making shit up, and this article has crossed that line.
Re:Senationalist headline (Score:4, Informative)
How about: *Proposal* in UK To Track All Browsing, Email, and Phone Calls?
Just like a little while ago 'Australia to ban pedestrians from using ipods', which was in actuality an organisation - which comprised of a single person - that voiced an extremist opinion.
Re:Senationalist headline (Score:5, Informative)
Further, the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 [wikipedia.org] in the UK facilitated the state's power to do just that.
So I'm just wondering what the difference being proposed is? If the proposal headling is sensational then surely the responce to it is to given the existance of legislation already? Is it the real-time tracking thats at issue? The Telegraph article only included
Re: (Score:2)
So when someone in the UK government clearly states their intentions for evil, it's all "hold on guys, it's just a proposal!". But when Apple introduces a new revenue stream without a hint of malice, "It's really only a matter of time now. [slashdot.org]"
Re:Senationalist headline (Score:5, Funny)
> without a hint of malice...
I beg to differ.
Malice -> from latin Malitia -> from Malus = evil; therefore "evil thing" in latin is Malum
Malum -> latin for... apple.
That's what i call a hint :D
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
sans macrons, but has been used in latin poetry to mean "i'd rather be an apple tree than an evil man in adversity"
-5 offtopic
Encrypte Everything (Score:2)
I guess it's finally time (if it wasn't a long time ago) to move to encrypting everything you do online. And moving to encrypted VOIP obviously, though I don't know if they can still track who you are calling in that case. Still a problem if you send something to someone and they don't encrypt it on their end, but better than nothing.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Problem is that the Brits can hold someone they want indefinitely until they cough up an encryption key under the RIPA act. All they have to do is ask the person once a day for 20-30 days, and essentially that would be sentence to life in prison because each refusal is 2-5 years in the slammer.
Re:Encrypte Everything (Score:4, Interesting)
Also I'm not sure of the specifics but if they really wanted to they could probably insist you give them the encryption key for a particular session... one which was generated and discarded by your browser long since.
then throw you in jail when you don't comply.
Re:Encrypte Everything (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you could get 20-30 convictions, but those 2-5 year sentences would probably be concurrent. I'm not sure whether they can ask multiple times for the same volume either - anyone know?
Re:Encrypte Everything (Score:5, Informative)
No they can't.
As I pointed out last time RIPA came up, it's much more like a search warrant.
See my post here explaining it in more detail and my followup responses which explains, and provides links to the relevant legislation straight from the horses mouth:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1809504&cid=33806568 [slashdot.org]
RIPA is an awful piece of legislation and has no place in a modern democracy, however there are many myths about it like that which you have stated which are simply just fantasy. RIPA is bad, but it's not quite that bad. It needs to be withdrawn from the books either way, but let's not over-dramatise the issue, else legitimate calls for it's removal based on legitimate concerns will just get lost amongst the madness.
Re:Encrypte Everything (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You want the key for my encrypted emails from a year ago? Sorry, I change keys every two weeks and don't record the expired ones, and since it's 256 bit encryption, there's no bloody way I'm going to remember that sucker a year later.
Re:Encrypte Everything (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, I change keys every two weeks and don't record the expired ones, and since it's 256 bit encryption, there's no bloody way I'm going to remember that sucker a year later.
If your in the UK, have fun in the slammer, Part III of the Act, which requires persons to supply decrypted information [wikipedia.org]
Deni ability, and lack of intent may get you off in other countries, but not likely in this case. You had best start encrypting files with something like truecrypt where you can have 2 passwords on the same file giving up different data. Perhaps if you give them some unencrypted data they won't know to expect another password.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Act itself actually has a number of defenses, which aren't really discussed in the Wikipedia article.
IANAL, but if you could provide evidence to demonstrate that you genuinely did change your keys that frequently, you'd probably be OK.
Of course, I'd ask why you're keeping email encrypted that you can no longer decrypt - and if I'd ask it you can be more-or-less guaranteed that the prosecution would make a huge deal out of that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd ask why you're keeping email encrypted that you can no longer decrypt
My assumption is the encrypted emails were not stored by the defendant, but were rather stored in a log controlled by the ISP or government who are then asking for the un-encrypted contents. Without providing some data, and no way to "prove innocence" which is more the standard with this law, it could be some time (in jail) before posting a defense in front of a judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Without providing some data, and no way to "prove innocence" which is more the standard with this law, it could be some time (in jail) before posting a defense in front of a judge.
This part is very true - while as a society we have the idea of "innocent until proven guilty", if you're remanded in custody for some time awaiting trial then when you get out, your life is likely to be severely fucked. It's entirely possible you'll have lost your job, your house may have been repossessed if any other wage earners in the household don't earn enough between them to pay the mortgage and you'll have to explain to any potential employer that the reason you have a big gap in your CV is that yo
Worthless, my ass (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF are you talking about? Let's say you've got naughty pictures of your wife, a few commercial trade secrets, a spell for summoning Yog-Sothoth, and your bank account passphrases all stored on your laptop, encrypted. One day, the drive electronics (but not the platters) fails and you RMA it to Western Digital, install the replacement, and restore your back
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Encryption is worthless when the government twists the arms of encryption providers to cough up a master encryption key.
The FBI now wants to require all encrypted communications systems to have back doors for surveillance, according to a New York Times report, and to the nation’s top crypto experts it sounds like a battle they’ve fought before.
FBI Drive for Encryption Backdoors Is Déjà Vu for Security Experts [wired.com]
Re:Encrypte Everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Would not help. VOIP usually uses SIP to establish a call (source and destination), and then RTP to stream the media for the voice (content). Encryption is not going to conceal the source and destination in a SIP call and will only protect the content. Even if you were to wrap the whole thing in IPSec, you would still not be concealing the source and destination since either SIP or IPSec would largely be irrelevant since the IP packets themselves contain the source and destination.
What the government wants is the source and destination according to the article. The ISPs are responsible for this so it would not be terribly difficult, although expensive, to monitor all traffic for those SIP handshakes and then create a database. Even VPN tunnels would be recorded as well and probably stand out because that traffic is inherently encrypted.
Unless you have a direct point-to-point SIP call, encryption is useless. You need to wait for ZRTP encryption which is endpoint-to-endpoint. Devices and software that support that will still use SIP to establish the call, but regardless of how many different media servers are involved (Asterisk as an example), the call would be encrypted and recordings would be useless. This is also why it is not that attractive to most people setting up private VOIP networks for business since call recordings would be more difficult with ZRTP and are usually required in a call center.
Most VOIP calls are not point-to-point SIP, but SIP being ultimately routed to PSTN. In the US at least that would make it nearly impossible to hide the source and destination since they would be using ANI and not Caller ID for billing. I am not sure what the analog in the UK is for ANI. Even if you encrypt the SIP portion of the traffic the other end on a regular telephone number is not, so once again largely useless.
Making a truly secure phone call is pretty difficult already, and making it anonymous is next to impossible with 3rd parties involved, or without compromising someone else's networks to hide your traffic inside them.
Freenet, TOR, and other forms of darknets are not well suited to VOIP traffic which requires low latencies to operate. So anonymity, provided through reasonable doubt, will not work unless these networks become far more prolific and a little more advanced. Imagine some guys laptop running a TOR node while he is on wireless Internet. Might as well route your VOIP traffic around the Moon and back. If Darknets are going to support low latency traffic then they have to develop a QoS model that nodes could process and eliminate high-latency nodes from being considered when choosing a route.
The UK is fucked period. I would imagine even if you guys had 100% residential participation in a darknet that the UK government would throw you in jail if you did not hand over the encryption keys to traffic they acknowledge you are not even responsible for creating, but are providing for as an ersatz ISP. One way or the other, the UK will make darknets illegal too, and then you guys have nothing.
My best suggestion for people in the UK is to get out now before they erect the wall to keep you in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just wonder, is this that big of a problem? Connection anonymity, I mean? I don't think it was in the Internet's design, but I could easily be wrong. IMHO, being able to use free hardware/software to encrypt our calls point-to-point is way more important, as that would make the audio tap very expensive, just as it should be. They would literally have to outlaw connecting to the Internet with a free device, or go back to the good old ways [coloribus.com].
Who has access? (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue isn't so much whether law enforcement can scrutinize your web access, but rather that the information could leak out. A distressing amount of private information seems to be kept on laptops that keep getting stolen out of cars.
Requiring ISP's to keep this data is also iffy. ISP's don't want to be in the business of spying on their subscribers. There's no profit in it, it only angers the customers, and potentially the ISP could be drawn into a legal tangle if it potentially knows that someone is doing illegal stuff like, say, downloading and emailing nuclear bomb schematics to someone in North Korea or Iran.
Anyway it sounds like the government is leaving enough wiggle room to discard the policy if it generates too much controversy.
Re: (Score:2)
Attach a simple addition (Score:5, Insightful)
All politicians will have to register all their communication devices, email addresses, phone numbers, and then make the list of all communication (not the content) available to the public.
Who watches the watchers?
We have met the enemy, and it is us.
Re:Attach a simple addition (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to blame the politicians, but these days I think they're almost as powerless as the rest of us.
The No2ID campaigner Guy Herbert is quoted in the article as saying:
We should not be surprised that the interests of bureaucratic empires outrank liberty.
And that's it. These plans represent job security for civil servants. They mean bigger budgets, bigger offices, higher salaries, more staff. More bureaucrats will be needed to operate the system, to answer requests for information from it, and implement whatever mechanism of "accountability" is considered sufficient to safeguard privacy.
The people who are pushing this will never face an election. They will never be sacked. This is why the plans persist from government to government. Ministers come and go, but the civil service is permanent, and always attempting to expand. The bureaucrats lost their battle for ID cards, but they're still winning their war.
So, I think if we want to impose surveillance on anyone, we should start with the public servants. And the more responsibility they have, the more closely they should be watched. The only problem is, in order to do this, we're going to need to hire a few more bureaucrats...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These plans represent job security for civil servants. They mean bigger budgets, bigger offices, higher salaries, more staff.
Congrats, you've just discovered "the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Attach a simple addition (Score:4, Funny)
The people who are pushing this will never face an election. They will never be sacked. This is why the plans persist from government to government. Ministers come and go, but the civil service is permanent, and always attempting to expand.
Didn't the BBC used to have a documentary series on that aspect of the British government?
Didn't we decide we don't want this (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always one and the same. " --- Adolf Hitlet
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. It doesn't matter if you call yourself "liberal" or "conservative" - the game is over, and you have already been bought and sold. Enjoy your vote, for the consolation it gives you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, historically that's not the case; it's only been the last 10 years, where Labour decided that the only way they were every going to get elected again after they so thoroughly ruined the economy in the late 70's was to parrot all the Conservative policies without actually being the Conservatives - i.e. "New Labour". Prior to that (and possibly going forward, depending on how Ed decides to direct the party), they were very much a socialist movement and clearly to the left of British politics. Of cou
Oblig. (Score:5, Insightful)
Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
Seems like Fiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This really reads like something out of fiction.
That's because it is fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
"Vorratsdatenspeicherung" in Germany did essentially the same thing. Good that the constitutional court ruled this law illegal in March this year and all records had to be deleted. But the European Union presses Germany to re-implement another, very similiar law. So the activists have to work EU wide to stop the crap this time.
V is for Vendetta! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Perhaps he was intentionally encrypting his posting - you never know who is watching!
Nothing new (Score:4, Informative)
Not so sensasonal headline (Score:2, Informative)
The Government's Strategic Defence and Security Review, which revealed: "We will introduce a programme to preserve the ability of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain communication data and to intercept communications within the appropriate legal framework.
Yes, it is _just_ a proposal, do you want it to come about? So... time to ramp up development of https-everywhere [eff.org], ensure that you use GNU Privacy guard [gnupg.org] for all EMail, bit locker on your drives, and dust off your NT box to run https-everywhere [pgpi.org]!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> bit locker on your drives
BitLocker is closed-source and supplied by Microsoft. You can't trust it to not have some sort of back door. If you really need good drive encryption, go for TrueCrypt or Linux's ecryptfs tool. Or if not those, something else open-source at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Purely out of curiosity, I know it's been possible for a while to use virtual hosting in conjunction with HTTPS but is it common?
Reason I ask is that even with HTTPS, you'd still know that somebody was regularly hitting up an IP address that corresponded with the secure website of a known-"undesirable" (be it terrorism, kiddie porn or whatever the witch-of-the-month subject is) organisation. On its own it may not be enough to secure a conviction, but it could very well be enough to secure search warrants,
The lesser of all evils (Score:2, Insightful)
Lessons learned from 2006 AOL data scandal: Bupkus (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope Britons go ballistic in opposition to this proposal.
Re: (Score:2)
Or at the very least demand that the same records be kept for police, politicians, judges etc...
Freenet to the rescue.... (Score:2)
How Quaint (Score:5, Funny)
The UK government plans to introduce legislation that will allow the police to track every phone call, email, text message and website visit made by the public.
How quaint -- they use laws to grant government authority for such things. Over on this side of the pond the President just declares it to be so and tells the judicial they're not allowed to hear any petitions for redress of grievances. Much simpler that way.
I ask myself (Score:2)
Weasel words: Why "made by the public"? Why not "made by everybody"? After all, if they're only tracking who the call is made to and not the content of the message, what does the government have to fear?
One law for the people, and a different law for the government.
This must be a different UK (Score:2)
From the one that I saw today on TV, where all the MPs and subjects were getting their bowels in an uproar over proposed cuts. Because, in the words of the PM, "we ain't got no money for nuthin'!"
Oh, a big boondoggle surveillance project? "Sure, mista, we got cash for that!"
How old is this idea? (Score:3, Informative)
Been hearing about ideas for complete internet data retention for a good few years now. Here's how it usually goes:
1) An idiot cabinet politician comes up with a "simple good idea"
2) Lots of people speculate about how good an idea it is and how useful it's results would be
3) The media cotton on to the idea resulting in larges amounts of WTF??!!!111!!!1/?1
4) Someone finally tells the cabinet politician how expensive and dangerous the idea is
5) Cabinet politician blusters about how it's still a good idea for years without making any progress towards implementation
6) Cabinet gets reorg'd and the idea is quietly shelved as a higher priority "simple good idea" comes along
Yup, this kind of thing comes along fairly regularly and this old chestnut always gets shot down fairly quickly. Move along folks, this isn't just old news, it's not even news-worthy.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Careful (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they are already doing things much like the Americans. Reference [bash.org]
And it gets worse (Score:3, Informative)
My useless vote (Score:2)
Red party started 2 wars and tried this shit -> unelectable!
Blue party cut everything and try this shit -> unelectable!
Yellows are in coalition with the tories -> unelectable!
The hippies won't ever get elected -> unelectable!
The racists are racists -> unelectable!
Is there anyone left to waste my vote on??
European law (Score:3, Informative)
Overwhelm the storage capacity... (Score:2)
just phone calls email and text? (Score:2)
Data Center (Score:2)
TIA (Score:2)
We tried that here, once. [wikipedia.org]
Or twice [aclu.org].
Time to become a spammer (Score:2)
Maybe spammers are cleverer than we thought they were: all that they have ever wanted is private communications.
Whats wrong with the USA and UK? (Score:3, Interesting)
Both countries elected new leaders (Obama in the US, Clegg in the UK).
Both leaders (and their parties) promised real change. Less aggressionist foriegn policy. Less violations of civil liberties. Winding back the crap done by the previous government. Less acting on behalf of vested interests and more acting on behalf of the people who elected them.
Yet, both governments and their parties have delivered essentailly NONE of the things they promised and seem to be going the other way.
The UK seems to think 1984 is an instruction manual for how to run a government. And the US isnt that much better.
Is there a SANE country out there?
One that has:
A government that doesn't violate its citizens civil liberties
No censorship
Decent Internet links
Good jobs in software development
Good standard of living
Everyone speaks English
Oh and dont suggest India, there is no way I could live in a country where eating a nice jucy steak is against the national religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you stand living in the US, with armed police keeping you under constant surveillance and ready to shoot you if you do something they don't like the look of?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I had a look at TFA (I know, I know) and I can't see anything quoted in the article that suggests they're doing what the article suggests they're doing. The governments stated aims can be just as well satisfied by allowing security services to basically place wiretaps on individual suspects. I see nothing there that suggests blanket logging of all communications data, nothing at all.