UK government can demand backdoors and if you reveal their existence you can be sent to prison

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
Why don't we double Jobseeker's Allowance? It's nothing in the grand scheme of total government spending.
Still £5bn which is 20 x £250m.

Ever done anything wrong? Maybe speeding? Maybe talking to a woman who isn't your wife? Maybe you like BDSM? Maybe you punched someone after a few beers once? Maybe you stuck your dick in a pigs mouth in an initiation ceremony at university?

You Probably don't want that stuff revealed.
And how does this charter give government the power to reveal that?
 

sim667

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2010
1,365
2,746
0
Which was my point in comparing with the welfare bill. All that money is already being spent and while £250m seems like a lot, it's nothing in the grand scheme of total govt spending.
That is an estimation of the cost of the governments offer to initially pay for equipment for ISP's to be able to do what they're required to do.

It doesn't however cover the cost of the ongoing storage needed, which will inevitably be passed on to the consumer.

So we're left will a bill that will cost the consumer money, invades privacy of the public, has little or no affect on the people people who its targeting (because it takes less than five minutes to set up p2p encryption), means you can be sent to jail for disclosure of information scraped from records in court (including if you disclose information about politicians/government which are in the public interests), and will need the Human rights act to be scrapped.
 

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
That is an estimation of the cost of the governments offer to initially pay for equipment for ISP's to be able to do what they're required to do.

It doesn't however cover the cost of the ongoing storage needed, which will inevitably be passed on to the consumer.

So we're left will a bill that will cost the consumer money, invades privacy of the public, has little or no affect on the people people who its targeting (because it takes less than five minutes to set up p2p encryption), means you can be sent to jail for disclosure of information scraped from records in court (including if you disclose information about politicians/government which are in the public interests), and will need the Human rights act to be scrapped.
Maybe you guys are right. But I can't get my head around any real life scenario where someone who isn't doing anything illegal would have their communications monitored.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,251
0
UK
Maybe you guys are right. But I can't get my head around any real life scenario where someone who isn't doing anything illegal would have their communications monitored.
Monitoring everyone is the whole point of the snoopers charter.
 

sim667

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2010
1,365
2,746
0
Maybe you guys are right. But I can't get my head around any real life scenario where someone who isn't doing anything illegal would have their communications monitored.
Thats not really the point.

The point is the government don't deem the public worthy of privacy, the want to aggregate data and profile everyone in the UK (which of course will vulnerable to hacking, as we know government is not immune to hacking), they want to gag anyone being able to refer to this data when it comes to holding government officials accountable, and they want to make the public pay for all this.

Its only a matter of time before they start pre-arresting people based on this data, they already pre-arrest people who they think may commit a crime, but then that undermines the whole notion of freedom, and having to prove guilt for a crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eraserhead

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
Monitoring everyone is the whole point of the snoopers charter.
It isn't. The point is having the data so they can monitor people if their behaviour flags them up. GCHQ have neither the resources nor the inclination to monitor everyone around the clock and manually sift through their online activity.

Its only a matter of time before they start pre-arresting people based on this data, they already pre-arrest people who they think may commit a crime, but then that undermines the whole notion of freedom, and having to prove guilt for a crime.
Surely it's better to arrest someone who has planned to commit that crime and about to go through with it than wait to pick up the pieces after?
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,316
11,798
0
Midlife, Midwest
Maybe you guys are right. But I can't get my head around any real life scenario where someone who isn't doing anything illegal would have their communications monitored.
There are a whole lot of activities that, while they are not illegal, I can imagine that people would not want unknown Government bureaucrats knowing about.

What if you and your spouse use the internet to browse wife-swapping websites? What if your teenage son was curious about transgender issues?

What right does the Government have to keep track of that sort of information? It is private. And what people do in their own home; that doesn't harm anybody else; and that doesn't contravene the law - ought to remain private.

The Snoopers Charter law doesn't just mean that an active monitor will be sitting there, watching what you are doing in real time. It means that an electronically-accessible record of your activities will be kept, pretty much indefinitely. So that, nine months from now, should Dad's plumbing business be audited by the Inland Revenue - some unknown investigator will come across Mom's fascination with well-endowed foreign gentlemen and teenaged Timmy's interest in dressing up in a pony costumes. Mom and Timmy haven't done anything wrong, but all of a sudden their most private (and legal) personal thoughts are violated.

Thats the problem with this sort of requirement.
 

sim667

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2010
1,365
2,746
0
Surely it's better to arrest someone who has planned to commit that crime and about to go through with it than wait to pick up the pieces after?
On that basis would it be fair for you to be given 3 points and a speeding fine if I knew you were going to use your car, in case you decide to speed?
 

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
On that basis would it be fair for you to be given 3 points and a speeding fine if I knew you were going to use your car, in case you decide to speed?
No, that's different - I said "someone who has planned to commit that crime and about to go through with it". A bit different.

So it wouldn't be ok to arrest someone who has downloaded a guide on bomb making, and who has a house full of the constituent parts for making a bomb and maybe even a map of a public place with a big "X" marked on it?
 

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
There are a whole lot of activities that, while they are not illegal, I can imagine that people would not want unknown Government bureaucrats knowing about.

What if you and your spouse use the internet to browse wife-swapping websites? What if your teenage son was curious about transgender issues?

What right does the Government have to keep track of that sort of information? It is private. And what people do in their own home; that doesn't harm anybody else; and that doesn't contravene the law - ought to remain private.

The Snoopers Charter law doesn't just mean that an active monitor will be sitting there, watching what you are doing in real time. It means that an electronically-accessible record of your activities will be kept, pretty much indefinitely. So that, nine months from now, should Dad's plumbing business be audited by the Inland Revenue - some unknown investigator will come across Mom's fascination with well-endowed foreign gentlemen and teenaged Timmy's interest in dressing up in a pony costumes. Mom and Timmy haven't done anything wrong, but all of a sudden their most private (and legal) personal thoughts are violated.

Thats the problem with this sort of requirement.
And as said HMRC investigator will have absolutely ZERO interest in said activity it would not be disclosed privately or publicly. ISPs already have access to all this information.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,251
0
UK
No, that's different - I said "someone who has planned to commit that crime and about to go through with it". A bit different.

So it wouldn't be ok to arrest someone who has downloaded a guide on bomb making, and who has a house full of the constituent parts for making a bomb and maybe even a map of a public place with a big "X" marked on it?
Of course. Because that is a crime in itself.
 

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
Of course. Because that is a crime in itself.
Could you give me a better example of where someone has been arrested without committing a crime? I'm not saying that in a confrontational way, just after clarification.
 

sim667

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2010
1,365
2,746
0

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,251
0
UK
And as said HMRC investigator will have absolutely ZERO interest in said activity it would not be disclosed privately or publicly. ISPs already have access to all this information.
ISPs don't already have access to that information as they don't currently record what people do online for an extended period.
 

sim667

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2010
1,365
2,746
0
Thanks. I'll agree, that's not right. But I don't see where that fits into this bill?
It gives them more basis to arrest you for a crime you haven't yet committed, they could start rounding up people who say the plan to attend protest events on Facebook, for example.
 

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
It gives them more basis to arrest you for a crime you haven't yet committed, they could start rounding up people who say the plan to attend protest events on Facebook, for example.
I haven't read all of the bill. Does it actually give police new powers to arrest people before attending a protest? Also, monitoring facebook groups is pretty straight forward and wouldn't require a crack team of GCHQ codebreakers.

I honestly don't see how any of this is any worse than Google or Facebook tracking your internet usage.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,316
11,798
0
Midlife, Midwest
I honestly don't see how any of this is any worse than Google or Facebook tracking your internet usage.
If someone from Google or Facebook phoned me up and threatened to blackmail me because they'd found me browsing risqué web sites - I'd tell them to get lost. Such an action would destroy their company business models overnight.

But if some creep from the police or the local government planning office did the same thing - I'd be in a very different position.

And keep in mind: Google and Facebook come by their data as a result of providing a service to me. Implicit in my accepting their terms of service is the understanding that they will accumulate a certain amount of data. The police or any other Government agency aren't providing any service to me as part of my internet usage. I never accepted or agreed to hand that information over to them.
 

sim667

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2010
1,365
2,746
0
I haven't read all of the bill. Does it actually give police new powers to arrest people before attending a protest? Also, monitoring facebook groups is pretty straight forward and wouldn't require a crack team of GCHQ codebreakers.

I honestly don't see how any of this is any worse than Google or Facebook tracking your internet usage.
No, that power already exists.

It gives them more reasons to though. And its not just about Facebook groups, its about what pages you look at.

In frankie boyles words
all it takes is a misspelled search for “bong-making” and suddenly you’ll be in an orange jumpsuit getting beaten with a pillowcase full of bibles. Also, pay attention when searching for a child’s prom.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/10/frankie-boyle-theresa-may-internet-surveillance
 

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
But if some creep from the police or the local government planning office did the same thing - I'd be in a very different position.
But they couldn't. They would need a warrant to do so.

"They would only be able to make a request for the purpose of determining whether someone had accessed a communications website, an illegal website or to resolve an IP address where it is necessary and proportionate to do so in the course of a specific investigation."
 

impulse462

macrumors 68000
Jun 3, 2009
1,697
2,203
0
I can't for the life of me understand people who are ok with this saying things like "I have nothing to hide" or "vast majority won't be spied on". These people just don't get the point.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,251
0
UK
I can't for the life of me understand people who are ok with this saying things like "I have nothing to hide" or "vast majority won't be spied on". These people just don't get the point.
Just look at the sales of 50 shades of grey. All of those people have at least some interest in BDSM.