Police 'to be given powers to view everyone's entire internet history'

asim18 · 31 Oct 2015 at 00:23

randal said:
So spin up a VPS, SSH tunnel to it and send all web traffic over it. What are they going to do Band encrypted traffic?

Oh wait aren't they trying to do that too?

Yes you are absolutely correct, they have already commenced implementation of the mind control procedures needed to sway society into banning encryption. Does anyone remember a month ago when the CIA's Edward Snowden, told the world that encryption is stopping Aliens from contacting us?

Lmao, seriously?

I hope people are aware we're just going to be bombarded with anti-encryption propaganda until not only encryption is banned, but the very idea of two people communicating face to face with no 3rd person will be no more. And all liberties will be lost because we just don't have "anything to hide" do we.

Caged · 31 Oct 2015 at 00:26

The people against this sort of snooping just need to campaign on the same fundamentalist platform that May is taking up - "if we can't see all your stuff then we get bombed and children get abused".

If the anti-snooping campaign goes with "do you want the police to see you jacking it?" then the uproar should be decent enough.

Bunch of megalomaniacs.

Dicehunter · 31 Oct 2015 at 00:27

Oh no, Now I must delete "Midgets and Goats in Thongs" volumes 1 through 99, Someone get me a sledgehammer !!!

Deathjester · 31 Oct 2015 at 00:28

Keep you ISP highly amused by every month sending them a small fee and a letter saying that under the Data Protection act you wish for a copy of all the data the hold on you to ensure that it is relevant, in date and in scope.
Every single web address...

OhEsEcks · 31 Oct 2015 at 00:28

Caged said:
Oh well, it's time for encryption of everything as standard I guess.

Expect a false flag operation to push through legislation against public use of encryption technologies.

Meanwhile, the majority of terror attacks in the EU were based in Northern Ireland in 2014.

Caged · 31 Oct 2015 at 00:35

Has anyone in government been able to point to a terrorist incident and say "we guarantee that wouldn't have happened if we'd had a drag-net catching everything our citizens do online", and back it up with proof? As far as I'm aware, they haven't. Saying "oh that's secret but it would have, you just have to trust us" doesn't count. If you are convinced you need this data then put forth a convincing argument.

However, I have heard the phrase "was known to the authorities", which would imply that the reason why that person wasn't being closely monitored was a lack of man power. How is making an exponentially larger list of suspects going to help here?

Rroff · 31 Oct 2015 at 00:42

There is no case for "it wouldn't happen if it wasn't for encryption" (possible fringe cases aside) the moment there was any ban/weakening those upto no good would move onto other means of communicating.

asim18 · 31 Oct 2015 at 00:45

Caged said:
How is making an exponentially larger list of suspects going to help here?

All that's really happening is telling terrorists not to use certain methods of communicating.

Angilion · 31 Oct 2015 at 01:11

Muz333 said:
In all fairness, if someone was suspected of being a terrorist and constructing bombs I'd damn well want the police to be able to look into this before any suspected attack took place.

Granted VPN, onion routing and the dark net is where most of this would likely take place which wouldn't help the police any.

Since the point is data mining and routine surveillance, the fact that it's little or no use for targetted surveillance won't matter. It's already legal for the authorities to conduct surveillance with cause, whether online or offline, so obviously that isn't what this law is for. That's just some lying to hide behind. The flimsiest facade is enough now because privacy is increasingly seen as an obsolete and dangerous concept to be treated with suspicion.

Amp34 · 31 Oct 2015 at 05:39

Caged said:
Has anyone in government been able to point to a terrorist incident and say "we guarantee that wouldn't have happened if we'd had a drag-net catching everything our citizens do online", and back it up with proof? As far as I'm aware, they haven't. Saying "oh that's secret but it would have, you just have to trust us" doesn't count. If you are convinced you need this data then put forth a convincing argument.

However, I have heard the phrase "was known to the authorities", which would imply that the reason why that person wasn't being closely monitored was a lack of man power. How is making an exponentially larger list of suspects going to help here?

Pretty much every terrorist attack in the EU/against westerners in N Africa was done by people "known to the authorities". Most were either still being "tracked" or were not being monitored any more... Why does the government need to monitor more people, when they appear to already know (having arrested most of them before) who is likely to plan and carry out an attack, yet don't seem to actually be ale to stop them, as you say, quite possibly because of manpower.

Prime examples of this are the Paris attacks and the lee Rigby attack IIRC.

Amp34 · 31 Oct 2015 at 05:47

G-MAN2004 said:
That's what I thought. It's just like the banning of sites like Pirate Bay. If you know how to use torrents, then you're going to know how to use a proxy too. It was completely pointless.

Meh, you don't even need a proxy to access TPB. They went into the "cloud" about a year ago and now the addresses works again, without any proxy...

It's a prime example of the futility of it all.

thebennyboy · 31 Oct 2015 at 05:48

Deathjester said:
Keep you ISP highly amused by every month sending them a small fee and a letter saying that under the Data Protection act you wish for a copy of all the data the hold on you to ensure that it is relevant, in date and in scope.
Every single web address...

This is very valid point. Won't the ISPs have to provide a reason to log our data under the DPA? What reason is that going to be, that everyone in this country is now a suspected terrorist? :rolleyes:

Tefal · 31 Oct 2015 at 05:54

thebennyboy said:
This is very valid point. Won't the ISPs have to provide a reason to log our data under the DPA? What reason is that going to be, that everyone in this country is now a suspected terrorist?

"We are required by law"

?

Pretty water tight reason?

Roar87 · 31 Oct 2015 at 07:26

Why don't the police just go speak to GCHQ and get access to all that information anyway?

Belly · 31 Oct 2015 at 08:54

Mynight said:
Think about the poor sod that reads your browser history .

Brilliant!

£15 · 31 Oct 2015 at 11:01

George Hincapie said:
Why are you getting in a tizz? This is so simple to bypass it's laughable.

It may be simple for people already in the know, but Jo Bloggs won't have the slightest idea where to start.

For example, I bought my dad a years' membership to a VPN and his eyes just glazed over when I was explaining the benefits to his online security and privacy.

godinman · 31 Oct 2015 at 11:11

It doesn't matter if it's easy to bypass or not, it's the principal of the matter.

arc@css · 31 Oct 2015 at 11:12

godinman said:
It doesn't matter if it's easy to bypass or not, it's the principal of the matter.

+1

Ryan-3 · 31 Oct 2015 at 11:24

K1LLSW1TCH said:
I'm sure if little Ahmed wants to read the anarchist's cookbook he's not just going to hurrrr durrrr it into Google search.

He'll do a chemistry degree.

Although if anyone read my history and messages I would have already been locked away for quite a while.

Nitefly · 31 Oct 2015 at 11:26

I'm not sure about VPN's - you are basically just trusting them not to keep logs. The people paying for it are, probably, more likely up to dubious things, giving the Feds a shortlist of where to look..... Shirley??