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
That was basicaly the Eus stance before the lrevious law was brought into play the uk govenent called it too broad and ignored it


the retention of traffic data and location data with that right must therefore be considered to be particularly serious. The fact that the data is retained without the users of electronic communications services being informed
Click to expand...

So very differnt to the sboopers chsrter as everyone is informed (and gping to be passed the bill)
 
It means we might get a stay of execution until this entire mess is over and we've #TakenBackOurSovereignty so our government can legally obtrusively spy on its own people and bulk collect data to sell to the highest bidder, or lose on a bus.
 
It may be more complicated than that. The case is being fought in our courts, and was referred to the ECJ, from which it has now returned with the aforementioned clarification. In the end, it'll depend on how far we choose to integrate with the continental cyber security efforts after Brexit, and whether terrorism can force Germany and other privacy hawks to back mass surveillance. No sign of that for the moment, but we may end up partially under the ECJ's remit, whilst the principles it's defending change.

Still, lol, Davis/Watson - the last bastions of privacy.:D
 
platypus said:
It means we might get a stay of execution until this entire mess is over and we've #TakenBackOurSovereignty so our government can legally obtrusively spy on its own people and bulk collect data to sell to the highest bidder, or lose on a bus.
Click to expand...

Those things are true, but the data will be more widely disseminated by computer security failures than by being left on a bus. Nobody in their right mind would think it would be secure. Personal data being stolen from computerised systems online is so routine nowadays that it only makes even a brief mention on the news if it's a slow news day and if there's something noteworthy about the hack. It's so common that it's normal and therefore not newsworthy.

There's something else it will mean - international businesses, especially those based in the EU, will probably be more reluctant to do business in the UK. Why do business with a country which not only has bad security and no privacy but boasts about it? Why open your business up to legal problems in the EU by doing business in a country that fails to reach minimum EU legal standards for security and privacy? You'd have to have completely seperate systems in place (and I mean genuinely, physically seperate with no wi-fi connection) for EU and UK because allowing any information connected to EU citizens on the UK system would be illegal.
 
datalol-jack said:
It may be more complicated than that. The case is being fought in our courts, and was referred to the ECJ, from which it has now returned with the aforementioned clarification. In the end, it'll depend on how far we choose to integrate with the continental cyber security efforts after Brexit, and whether terrorism can force Germany and other privacy hawks to back mass surveillance. No sign of that for the moment, but we may end up partially under the ECJ's remit, whilst the principles it's defending change.

Still, lol, Davis/Watson - the last bastions of privacy.:D
Click to expand...

No country should feel forced to back mass surveillance because of false promises that it will keep them safe from terrorism. The victims of this attack are barely cold and already certain people are using their deaths as an excuse to demand more surveillance laws in Germany. It's a bit sick tbh.

Angilion what you said about businesses is correct. They need to keep their data safe or their reputation (and then their profits) will be ruined. They aren't going to risk doing business in a country where digital security is deliberately weakened, when they can do business elsewhere with strong security.
 
Mynight said:
Didn't realise they had the infrastructure ready to go.

O well they'll have lots of lovely logs of nothing on me.
Click to expand...

Same. Markonius has connected to a VPN in Switzerland. Markonius has sent encrypted data to that VPN. Markonius has received encrypted data. I'm not a criminal but that doesn't mean I feel like sharing my private internet history with thousands of people from various government agencies.
 
markonius said:
I'm not a criminal but that doesn't mean I feel like sharing my private internet history with thousands of people from various government agencies.
Click to expand...

Your feelings and criminal status are irrelevant. The government wants your data, whatever it may be.

The fact that you're connecting to an IP address in Switzerland and exchanging encrypted information, is still data to them and this is being recorded.

Using a VPN is just telling them "hey, you'll have to penetrate me deeper to get the data you're legally entitled to"

The only thing you can really do now is just accept that the Internet is now fully infiltrated and is simply not private. I used to warn people of the infiltration and total seizure of the internet over 5 years ago. It's just too late, the data is now legally owned whether it's encrypted or not. Using a VPN as an assumed method of personal opt-out is just completely pointless and futile lol.
 
Last edited:
asim18 said:
Your feelings and criminal status are irrelevant. The government wants your data, whatever it may be. The fact that you're connecting to an IP address in Switzerland is still data and is being recorded.
Click to expand...

Nobody said that it wasn't.

The fact that they cannot get hold of all his other browsing data is the point.
 
FrenchTart said:
Nobody said that it wasn't.

The fact that they cannot get hold of all his other browsing data is the point.
Click to expand...

Of course they can still get hold of "the data", the fact that it's encrypted doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Haven't you heard of IXP infiltrations? Encrypted communications are still tapped and stored for future cracking/scrutiny. That's if the VPN endpoint provider isn't already fully compliant in which case data is decrypted and then forwarded in plaintext.

I'm guessing you also haven't heard of when Google got infiltrated? They used to remove SSL inside the Google data centres and pipe plaintext data to the NSA. Some VPN provider being run from some guys basement in switzerland, no problem lol.

My point is that they now legally own "the data", whether it's encrypted or plaintext, they still own "the data". Using a VPN doesn't mean "the data" doesn't exist any more.
 
Last edited:
asim18 said:
Of course they can still get hold of "the data", the fact that it's encrypted doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

My point is that they now legally own "the data", whether it's encrypted or plaintext, they still own "the data". Using a VPN doesn't mean "the data" doesn't exist any more.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. They cannot unless they can compel the owners of the server at the other end to release logs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom