Poll: Investigatory Powers Bill or "Snoopers' Charter" has been approved

Are you happy with the investigatory powers bill being passed?

  • Yes, I fully agree with it.

    Votes: 14 2.5%

  • Yes, but I am uncomfortable with certain aspects of it.

    Votes: 31 5.5%

  • I am undecided.

    Votes: 27 4.8%

  • No, but I do agree with parts of it.

    Votes: 103 18.2%

  • No, I fully disagree with it.

    Votes: 391 69.1%
  • Total voters
    566
Mynight said:
Indeed :(.


Since you work in network engineering maybe you'd know the answer. I've googled and failed to find a satisfactory answer.

Apparently you can run a VPN within a SSL tunnel. As such assuming you use port 443 would you be able to see its a VPN connection within? I would assume the SSL would hide the VPN within but my knowledge is limited on this.

Just wondering if it's possible to remove the VPN suspicion as well :D.
Click to expand...

VPNception? :D

Not sure to be honest. That sounds a bit pointless. There's some very smart kit out there these days that's designed to figure out what the connection is doing rather than blindly allowing/denying traffic by port. I wonder if it'd pick up "tunnel within a tunnel". Might have to ask one of my more clever colleagues!

I'd imagine such a long-lived SSL connection would be treated with similar suspicion to a VPN. I did some experimentation running mine on different ports to see if there was any performance difference but can't remember what the results were now. I assume I ended up running 443/UDP for a reason.

As long as you're not doing anything illegal I wouldn't worry. The idea is to make it a massive pain in the rear for the authorities as a point of principle IMO. :)
 
Last edited:
Narj said:
I'd imagine such a long-lived SSL connection would be treated with similar suspicion to a VPN.
Click to expand...

Thats a very good point I hadn't considered.

I'm after another side project to keep me amused. VPN within a rotating SSL :D.

Once they cotton on I'll redesign it to look like a VPN :D.

Nah nothing illegal just intrigued on whether it's possible to hide it or not.

I was thinking a VPN SSL hybrid with a script clicking aimlessly around facebook in the background as "legitimate traffic".
 
Narj said:
I agree. The lack of news coverage is stunning. Why isn't this all over the BBC?

I know I'm normally a critic and whine about bias but in this case I'm genuinely surprised.
Click to expand...

The list of entities that will have immediate access is pretty crazy as well not to mention those that are apparently getting it down the line.
 
ITT: asim18 demonstrates his recent discovery of the Latin phrase non sequitur like a toddler that has just learned how to say hello.
 
Chaos said:
Who can view my internet history ?

A list of who will have the power to access your internet connection records is set out in Schedule 4 of the Act. It’s longer than you might imagine:

Metropolitan police force
City of London police force
Police forces maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996
Police Service of Scotland
Police Service of Northern Ireland
British Transport Police
Ministry of Defence Police
Royal Navy Police
Royal Military Police
Royal Air Force Police
Security Service
Secret Intelligence Service
GCHQ
Ministry of Defence
Department of Health
Home Office
Ministry of Justice
National Crime Agency
HM Revenue & Customs
Department for Transport
Department for Work and Pensions
NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England that provide ambulance services
Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service
Competition and Markets Authority
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland
Department of Justice in Northern Ireland
Financial Conduct Authority
Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
Food Standards Agency
Food Standards Scotland
Gambling Commission
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
Health and Safety Executive
Independent Police Complaints Commissioner
Information Commissioner
NHS Business Services Authority
Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust
Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation
Office of Communications
Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
Scottish Ambulance Service Board
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
Serious Fraud Office
Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust

The world when your isp gets hacked.
Click to expand...

Anyone who doesn't really understand why they should be worried should perhaps ask themselves if they would happily allow any of the above agencies to install software on their internet connected computers and personal devices for monitoring purposes.

I suspect not, so why is it ok at the ISP level?

And the thought that the government is going to be able to keep this safe and secure? Absolutely laughable.
 
Last edited:
That list is ridiculous. Utterly crazy.

This is one of the only acts where I've written to my MP to ask them to oppose. Obviously that achieved very little.

I've already got a foreign VPS which I'll configure as a VPN for all my internet access. I'll whitelist some friends too so it's harder to pin down who has done what.
 
FrenchTart said:
I've already got a foreign VPS which I'll configure as a VPN for all my internet access. I'll whitelist some friends too so it's harder to pin down who has done what.
Click to expand...

Yeah I have dished out free VPNs to some friends. I've got a 3TB transfer pool each month which I only ever use a fraction of, even with streaming services!

Yep, OpenVPN is a piece of cake to configure. :D Linode have docs on how to do it, I think. Not sure if they document the iptables masquerading part but it's pretty straightforward.
 
Last edited:
In the poll, I agree with the small bits of text that attempt to clearly set out the role of the state in terms of digital surveillance and its limits. I do not agree with how they went about it, the limits they set out and how broad of a blanket cover it offers the listed agencies without proper judicial supervision or scrutiny in the House or Lords. The risk of digital radicalisation, terrorism and sexual deviancy they offer as a justification for these measures is out of all proportion with their reach and the risk of their potential misuse. It should have been abandoned or amended heavily until it was basically a new bill reaffirming our right to reasonable privacy, being considered innocent until proven guilty and a fair and proper trial, not blanket harvesting operations capturing all and sundry which the courts may throw out anyway at great expense to the tax payer.
 
Indeed. I actually don't have an issue with GCHQ monitoring communications and doing somewhat dubious stuff. Personally I believe that it is needed (though should be with oversight and not allowed to stray into the realms of super dodgy).

This is completely different though.
 
Can I change my poll entry I put "No, but I do agree with parts of it."

Then I saw the bloody list, why, just utterly bonkers who gets access to my midget costume fetish!
 
FrenchTart said:
Indeed. I actually don't have an issue with GCHQ monitoring communications and doing somewhat dubious stuff. Personally I believe that it is needed (though should be with oversight and not allowed to stray into the realms of super dodgy).

This is completely different though.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this.
 
The thing is while it was illegal all it could be used for was national security just like they claimed it's for.

Now its legal it can be used for everything/to prosecute for completley unrelated things
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom