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

Roar87 · 31 Oct 2015 at 11:28

Nitefly said:
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??

Or the Feds are the ones running the VPN's

Skeeter · 31 Oct 2015 at 11:31

So the police will have access to something Google has had for years.

Fine by me.

Infact, I doubt this would mean any changes in what's already being logged. It just means the police can get it. Your ISP already has every piece of data and every site you have visited logged anyway.

Hades · 31 Oct 2015 at 11:33

I've always considered a website to be the equivalent of a shop and the internet as the equivalent of a road to get to the shop. Using that analogy this is like someone standing on each rpad and outside each shop asking to see my Id card and writing down what I was doing. Welcome to the the land of the free

toon_mad · 31 Oct 2015 at 11:37

Another case of government big brother watching you.

Pawnless Endgame · 31 Oct 2015 at 13:59

I don't think this will make much difference. Remember that Mark Bridger guy who murdered April Jones a couple of years back? The court was able to go through his Google history and found incriminating search queries e.g. "naked children".

Sin_Chase · 31 Oct 2015 at 14:09

Caged said:
The police as a whole are a bunch of incompetent retards

RedDanDoc said:
Totally agree. I've got no respect for the Police in this country whatsoever. I think that they are an utter disgrace.

2 less people who will never call the Police for anything (right?) Thank-you for opting out of this public service to leave more time for decent people *thumbs-up*

Caged · 31 Oct 2015 at 17:58

Yes that's exactly what I meant. Do you have no concerns at all that police won't use these powers in ways that they aren't intended to be used? Because history would dictate otherwise. I mean why stop at using it to look at suspects when you realise there are limitless uses in being able to discredit people critical of the way you may have handled certain situations by leaking to the press that they enjoy porn of a certain German disposition?

I do not feel that police departments are sufficiently well funded or trained to be able to keep this incredibly personal information secure.

RedDanDoc · 31 Oct 2015 at 18:01

Sin_Chase said:
2 less people who will never call the Police for anything (right?) Thank-you for opting out of this public service to leave more time for decent people *thumbs-up*

I wouldn't waste my time contacting the Police if I got burgled or mugged if that makes me indecent then that's too bad. Do they give crime numbers over Skype just for insurance purposes?

gothic_hobbit · 31 Oct 2015 at 19:36

I thought Labour already implemented this years ago.

Sin_Chase · 31 Oct 2015 at 22:06

RedDanDoc said:
I wouldn't waste my time contacting the Police if I got burgled or mugged if that makes me indecent then that's too bad. Do they give crime numbers over Skype just for insurance purposes?

Why would you waste time getting a reference of insurance. Live your life without the Police. You are not getting a reference without making out a crime, so if you want one, get used to 'wasting your time' with the Police.

Yes that's exactly what I meant. Do you have no concerns at all that police won't use these powers in ways that they aren't intended to be used? Because history would dictate otherwise. I mean why stop at using it to look at suspects when you realise there are limitless uses in being able to discredit people critical of the way you may have handled certain situations by leaking to the press that they enjoy porn of a certain German disposition?

I do not feel that police departments are sufficiently well funded or trained to be able to keep this incredibly personal information secure.

I think you watch too many movies.... Police will have ACCESS to the data. I cannot see a situation where they will store it themselves. Access to said data will have sufficient safeguarding, application/review processes, auditing and otherwise. The same for any other data covered by Data Protection (CCTV et al)

You seem to think it will just all be accessed as and when, for any person, for any purpose by a computer in the staff canteen. The only people who would likely access it routinely will be branches of intelligence/security. Not 'The Police' that you hate so much.

Skeeter · 31 Oct 2015 at 23:38

Hades said:
I've always considered a website to be the equivalent of a shop and the internet as the equivalent of a road to get to the shop. Using that analogy this is like someone standing on each rpad and outside each shop asking to see my Id card and writing down what I was doing. Welcome to the the land of the free

Then your view of the internet is your issue.

Every hop you make through every device is logged. The only reason logs are deleted is capacity.

There already is someone writing down your ID at each turn you make. People just don't realise it.

CaptainRAVE · 31 Oct 2015 at 23:52

Nothing to hide, so not particularly bothered. It is sad how monitored everything has become though.

sigma · 1 Nov 2015 at 00:02

If it's to stop terrorism then why is there a 12 month limit?

What research/proof is there that after 12 months your data isn't important?

Why must we monitor everyone when in reality there aren't that many people doing dodgy stuff?

Are the police and politicians going to be monitored too?

Skeeter said:
There already is someone writing down your ID at each turn you make. People just don't realise it.

But they want to store everything. Not just logs, but the contents of e-mails and messages.

CaptainRAVE said:
Nothing to hide, so not particularly bothered. It is sad how monitored everything has become though.

Based on that logic, you wouldn't mind a camera in each of your rooms at home?

CaptainRAVE · 1 Nov 2015 at 00:14

sigma said:
Based on that logic, you wouldn't mind a camera in each of your rooms at home?

I don't get naked or have sex on the Internet - then again, it doesn't stop a lot of people

Chojin · 1 Nov 2015 at 00:22

There will probably come a point where if the police don't see enough facebook, youtube and porn traffic at a particular property they will get suspicious. Like when someone doesn't have a TV license but worse.

We're all just puppets.

sigma · 1 Nov 2015 at 00:37

Moses said:
Because if they want to do it, bulk collection covering everyone is the only way to do it.

That's quite an interesting concept to digest.

OhEsEcks · 1 Nov 2015 at 00:39

sigma said:
That's quite an interesting concept to digest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

adolf hamster · 1 Nov 2015 at 00:47

It'll be interesting to see the practical application of the storage of all the internet history and contents of every person in the uk is going to pan out, that's gonna be a lot of hard drives that the goverment won't pay for.

Then god forbid the processing power required to do anything more than just pull up specific individuals data, which ofc means that unless you're of interest to the police nobody's going to see it anyway, which tbh simply makes the police slightly more informed about the people they're looking at as opposed to actually being able to use it to track/predict potential criminals/terrorists before they commit crimes.

sigma · 1 Nov 2015 at 01:05

Moses said:
Well, they've already said the Wilson Doctrine doesn't apply because with bulk collection stuff from politicians will be collected.

Hmmmm.

StriderX · 1 Nov 2015 at 01:10

It's not todays capabilities that should be of any worry, it is the benefit of a foundation in law and practice combined with future advances.

When the system is fully autonomous, is the moment you should shut up and put up.