E-petition against UK online monitoring law

Access to the content of the communications will require a warrant.

You assume a warrant will be hard to get.

Unlike getting a warrant to raid your home, whereby if they're wrong they not only end up looking silly but also have to pay for any damage caused, the chances are you'll have no idea if a senior police officer has granted a warrant to one of his colleagues to look at your data.

And what penalties will be given for officers who get access to innocent people's data? If the answer in reality is none, what's to stop warrants being handed out like confetti?
 
You assume a warrant will be hard to get.
Actually I dont, I just stated what the link said. Having any access to any of this information without a warrant is already a significant extension of their powers. And as you say below, how will you even know if one was granted?

estebanray said:
Unlike getting a warrant to raid your home, whereby if they're wrong they not only end up looking silly but also have to pay for any damage caused, the chances are you'll have no idea if a senior police officer has granted a warrant to one of his colleagues to look at your data.

And what penalties will be given for officers who get access to innocent people's data? If the answer in reality is none, what's to stop warrants being handed out like confetti?
 
Actually I dont, I just stated what the link said. Having any access to any of this information without a warrant is already a significant extension of their powers.

I'd say the power to force ISPs to set up systems to record and store this information is the greater power being granted here.
 
No point in voting before one has had the time to disgest the draft bill.

No point in voting afterwards, either. An online petition is not a vote on whether or not the law is passed, so it's just a waste of time. They want as much blanket realtime surveillance as they can get on as many people as they can. They'll use any and every available suffering as a tool for suppressing dissent and whatever deceptive description of the scope, functionality and intended use of the system works best at the time - why on earth would they pay any attention to an online petition?

It'll happen and a little while later the next step will be started. Most likely a far larger amount of routine unrestricted access to the data than is claimed - that's the easiest one to implement and it's an obvious purpose of the changes - why else remove the need for a warrant? There always has to be something else, something more, and there is always an excuse for it. It doesn't matter how irrelevant the changes are to the stated problem, since it's just a "If you oppose the changes, you are promoting <insert bad thing that is the excuse of the day>!"
 
[..]
It's not clear exactly how much data is being recorded (you might be surprised how much can be embedded in a URL request), given how much they want to spend on it I'm wondering if they actually intend to capture session data at the same time (to be made available subject to warrant).

Until the next change in the law removes the need for a warrant, spurring the same people to say the same things - nothing to fear if you've nothing to hide, it'll only be used against terrorists/child abusers/communists/witches...whatever group is the convenient catch-all excuse is at the time.

After that, there'll be something else.
 
no doubt they will abuse the **** outta this, warrants are already handed out like join a gym leaflets, the government will use this not just for terrorists, but campaign groups, political opposition etc. etc.

we shouldn't be monitored at all, this is apparently a free democracy and not china!

Also the government bitch and whine about having no money, cutting services for the poor and sick, but oh wait we found the £1.8bn needed to throw at ISP's for this ****
 
You need to look at the history of the 20th century. Should give plenty of clues about how quickly you can go from benign to totalitarian government.

So when are you having the CCTV installed? Seriously if you have nothing to hide...

That isn't really a brilliant argument. A government that "goes bad" will enact all of the necessary laws or ignore any inconvenient laws anyway. That is what history seems to show, it doesn't really show any nations slowly enacting laws until the become an evil police state.

The authorities having controlled access to communication information isn't in itself a bad thing (they already do with telephone records for example) but I would be concerned about the technical, logistical and legal details of any new powers. What controls would be in place, what would the cost be, how technically feasible would it be etc?
 
What's logistics or tehnical feasability have to do with anything?

I'm more concerned in the end result. I don't need to know that they are going to be mirroring every port in and out of the UK going into a massive database (which will be hacked several months later - the UK isn't really known for keeping sensitive data well protected).

As said before it's just another foot on a slippery slope. It's nothing to do with terrorists, it's nothing to do with protecting children it's about monitoring.

A few months after activation people will end up having letters / emails along the lines of 'Whilst routinely monitoring a known terrorist / copyright infringement website your IP came up on there several times we also noticed you downloaded rubbish.mp3 - please pay us £x and don't do it again'.

Most of the higher level of criminals (i.e. terrorists) will not use the same phone twice let alone the same internet connection. Secure VPN's will also get around it. We are achieving nothing. The woman who is proposing this looks around 65 years old - she probably hasn't got a clue how any of this works shes just heard the arguments from the RIAA, etc. and thinks they can kill two birds with one stone.


M.
 
Have any of these epetitions actually made a difference? Ever? No... because they are simply a way for the government(s) to make us think we have a say in matters without actually ceding any power.
 
WTB offshore ISP :p

Not o keen on the complete invasion of privacy.
And who would be drawing the line where?
Would there be a line drawn?

I think the whole blocking of specific sites was on ly the start of this tbh and it looks like it may lead to other things.

I'd quite hapily sign the petition once I've read a bit more about it but whats the bets that the government publish a paper stating something daft along the lines of,

"masses of paedophiles sign online petition to prevent monitoring their traffic on the net!"

Or is that more daily mail? :p
 
What's logistics or tehnical feasability have to do with anything?

Because how a law is enacted can be almost important as the law itself.

A few months after activation people will end up having letters / emails along the lines of 'Whilst routinely monitoring a known terrorist / copyright infringement website your IP came up on there several times we also noticed you downloaded rubbish.mp3 - please pay us £x and don't do it again'.

You could always not download stuff illegally? :D :D :D

Most of the higher level of criminals (i.e. terrorists) will not use the same phone twice let alone the same internet connection.

Is that really true or are we giving criminals a little bit too much credit? After all quite a few plots have been uncovered and quite a few people arrested so they don't really seem to be the criminal masterminds that some make them out to be.

The woman who is proposing this looks around 65 years old - she probably hasn't got a clue how any of this works shes just heard the arguments from the RIAA, etc. and thinks they can kill two birds with one stone.

She is the Home Secretary, as the minister in charge of that area she is the one that would do the announcements. It is unlikely in the extreme that she is the one that sat down and came up with the proposed legislation in the first place,
 
To be honest, I don't care, I don't use my computer for anything illegal so they can monitor whatever they like.



The woman who is proposing this looks around 65 years old - she probably hasn't got a clue how any of this works shes just heard the arguments from the RIAA, etc. and thinks they can kill two birds with one stone.

Its a series of tubes!!!
 
This is what happens when politicians don't consult experts in the field about how crime rings operate on the internet. If they honestly believe paedophiles, terrorists and whom ever else is just going to blatantly do their thing without going behind a few encrypted proxy servers then it is them who deserve to be in prison.

When I worked for a government service company which provides internet access to schools in a certain area of the UK, I made a case report showing just how easy it was for a child with very little knowledge to bypass ALL of their online filtering, security and monitoring services with a simple free proxy site. I then followed on to show them how even with the most sophisticated monitoring hardware AND software, it is still IMPOSSIBLE to track the online movements of a person who is intentionally evading these technologies.

For less than £30 a month I purchased eight 256bit SSL encrypted proxies around the world, each of which would make a random connection to each other in a random order for each unique TCP stream. In doing this, even tracing the TCP/IP connections was impossible due to international laws (It can take years for a court to get records from another country/government). All of these servers also kept all records on drives which where sanitised every half hour and restored from a clean backup (restores took less than 1 minute), so even if one of the servers was located simply trying to get any meaningful data from it was fruitless, not to mention it was all encrypted anyway.

Then there is the plain simple form of online criminal communications which is in plain site on forums just like this one in which users communicate using what looks to be normal chatter. For instance, would you be suspicious if some guys where chatting on here about joining up for jogging sessions? In reality those guys could very well have pre-arranged to use the forum and that topic to communicate about when they want to have sex with children and where.

In reality the only reason this law has been passed is because the fat cats at Warner Bro's (Etc) can't afford to buy a new yacht this year and are kicking up a stink over in the USA, where most of the politicians have massive amounts of capital invested in the media industry. And with Mr Cameron being bum pals with Obama and sharing a common agenda for "Defeating Terrorism" we simply follow suit without question.



As for this petition, it's never going to work. There have been petitions go through parliament with hundreds of thousands of e-signatures and they haven't even been sniffed at.
 
Last edited:
When I saw this on the news the other day, they also talked about how they made some huge arrests of paedophiles recently in a big police operation of tracking online traffic to known paedophile sites. Now this makes me wonder, if they can do all these arrests perfectly fine without more powers, why do they even need even more tracking powers?

Also I've seen costs reported as being between 1 and 1.8 billion, which makes me wonder, wouldn't they solve much more crime and raise public confidence in police by just spending that money on more police officers.

Personally I'm completely against monitoring like this, which is just thought up by the government without help from industry experts, as this is something that is trivial to circumvent (and will be by the people who the police are trying to target the most) and it invades the privacy of people who have done nothing wrong. It just seems like the internet is evolving fast and the government is so tech illiterate that it is afraid of everything and throwing together laws to try and implement technology that will limit or remove the rights of those who use the internet.
 
Back
Top Bottom