Surveillance of the internet for UK

Nasher said:
But also bad actors can use the same systems to do bad things.

Assume any logs etc being kept on you are also accessible to hackers. Just like anything you put on social media is immediately compromised.
Click to expand...
Yaayuh! said:
We need to know how, though, as it seems a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. Surely you need to monitor and collect data first to arrive to a conclusion that there is criminal activity.
Click to expand...

Indeed to both points. Perfectly viable.
 
Lysander said:
I thought the ISPs already logged and stored user browsing history?
Click to expand...

For some they do yes.

I used to work for one of the major ISPs (about 5 years ago), and designed a system where traffic could be "snooped" from an individual's specific internet connection, then stored for evidence later. I also worked on a similar system that intercepted and blocked child porn, based on data from the internet watch foundation.

However, it could only be used if a judge ruled that it could be, this wasn't something that was simply turned on at the will of the provider, to collect data - it was for things like terrorism, or whatever.

A lot of this stuff has existed for a while, and is in the public domain if you know where to look, or are interested.

That said - by having a social media account, people are probably handing over insane amounts of personal data to a social media company. Anything an ISP does - is likely to be practically non existent in comparison.

I have no idea about any ulterior motives, or conspiracy theories, the system seemed pretty benign and sensible.. Whether this tech will be used to collect data to make money, in future - I have no idea.
 
I think the problem with these type of laws is that they are brought in with the best of intention. But in their urge to get the law passed, and so they only have very few self restrictions, they tend to fail to lock in a counter balance of accountability. So later on when new people have control of the laws they end up using it for things it weren't intended to be used for.
 
dLockers said:
I mean, surely, you have to be doing something really illegal to get to the top of one of these lists?
Click to expand...
No, you need to be caught doing something really illegal, and this is the problem - All those kiddie-fiddlers, who'd previously meet in person to share footage of kids being tied up and abused, are now able to annonymously share their stuff online to much wider audiences. It's becoming a serious problem - Authorities just don't have the resources to police it, but it's made much harder by all the security and privacy stuff.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-abuse.html

Pawnless Endgame said:
Spreading that mindset is a dangerous precedent.
Click to expand...
So is giving everyone the right to hide their illegal activity.
I've been snooped and subsequently investigated, partly because of some things I Googled in order to substantiate assertions made on this very forum - A few questions answered, followed by a bit of shop talk and I was on my merry way. I was looking up some dodgy stuff, but nothing outright illegal and my intentions were pure, so not a problem. I'd rather someone kept an eye and simply checked rather than the situation in the link above.
 
Screeeech said:
For some they do yes.

I used to work for one of the major ISPs (about 5 years ago), and designed a system where traffic could be "snooped" from an individual's specific internet connection, then stored for evidence later. I also worked on a similar system that intercepted and blocked child porn, based on data from the internet watch foundation.

However, it could only be used if a judge ruled that it could be, this wasn't something that was simply turned on at the will of the provider, to collect data - it was for things like terrorism, or whatever.

A lot of this stuff has existed for a while, and is in the public domain if you know where to look, or are interested.

That said - by having a social media account, people are probably handing over insane amounts of personal data to a social media company. Anything an ISP does - is likely to be practically non existent in comparison.

I have no idea about any ulterior motives, or conspiracy theories, the system seemed pretty benign and sensible.. Whether this tech will be used to collect data to make money, in future - I have no idea.
Click to expand...

It was like that when I worked for an ISP years ago, long before these laws came in. Logs were kept but were not allowed to be opened without a court order/warrant.

But that doesnt stop someone doing it illegally. A lot of hacks are inside jobs. I've seen fraud carried out by people who infiltrated the company by getting a job there. They were actually part of some hacking group.
 
Last edited:
Bouton Aide said:
They want to fry the bigger fish like the makers/users of encro chat
Click to expand...

Producing, providing and making available an encrypted chat app isn't illegal whatsoever. Just ask WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram et al. What users do on that network is another matter.

ttaskmaster said:
So is giving everyone the right to hide their illegal activity.
Click to expand...

That's already illegal, eg 'conspiracy to...'. That doesn't automatically make it legitimate to surveil everyone on the off chance you catch some random bad guy or can go 'back in time' to see what someone was up to after the fact. We have an inalienable right to privacy and an assumption of innocence. The ECJ has already ruled on this.
 
Probably the most solid, definable outcome of mass surveillance from governments is making it easier for people to hide illegal activity, quite possibly that's the *only* outcome.

The reason WhatsApp etc offer 'end-to-end encryption' is because the activities of the government made it a selling point, not to criminals but to the sizeable portion of society that expects, wants, privacy and sees the invasion of their privacy by a government as a step too far.

Yes you could argue that the general populace allows a far greater invasion of privacy from the social meda/tech companies like Facebook, but that's a choice.

Of course it's also a choice whether to use a VPN for all traffic, and even though I have nothing to hide I'm getting more and more tempted as time goes by...
 
Rainmaker said:
That's already illegal, eg 'conspiracy to...'.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's illegal.... But so what? If you can't see them doing it, what good is outlawing it?

Rainmaker said:
That doesn't automatically make it legitimate to surveil everyone on the off chance you catch some random bad guy
Click to expand...
That's basically what Police patrols are doing, no?
Driving the roads and walking the streets, on the lookout for anything amiss?

Rainmaker said:
We have an inalienable right to privacy and an assumption of innocence. The ECJ has already ruled on this.
Click to expand...
That concept does nothing to actually protect those that need protecting, though. You have many such rights, but they are meaningless text on a bit of paper somewhere.
A human being has no natural rights of any kind and even fewer that are actually inalienable.
 
I think the one thing that's always a fly in the ointment, when it comes to these types of surveillance, is that even when the government have good information collected through traditional means, they still fail to act.

With most, if not all of the recent terror attacks - the security services already had enough intelligence to act, but they failed and the attack(s) happened anyway.

It ends up with bloody idiots like Amber Rudd - trying to enact anti-VPN legislation in the name of 'terrorism' when if they just stuck to good old fashioned policing and actually followed up their intel, they'd have prevented more than half of the recent terror attacks...
 
Bouton Aide said:
at the end of the day they probably only want to catch top criminals.

If you going on porn hub or downloading few movies they probably don’t care.

There’s too many people think that they give a flying **** about the little things.

They want to fry the bigger fish like the makers/users of encro chat or the people importing 500KG of cocaine or the people planning the next bomb.
Click to expand...
If that were the case then it's rather unfortunate that this would do nothing to help catch top criminals.

Would you be in favor of the government installing webcams in every room of every house in the UK because they probably only want to catch top criminals and don't give a flying **** about the little things? If the answer to that is no then it's hypocritical to be in favor of mass internet surveillance.
 
DeliciousStorage said:
Would you be in favor of the government installing webcams in every room of every house in the UK because they probably only want to catch top criminals and don't give a flying **** about the little things? If the answer to that is no then it's hypocritical to be in favor of mass internet surveillance.
Click to expand...

They not proposing to install cameras in every house though are they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom