News - All your communications are belong to us - GCHQ

[HEXUS]

They are trying again.

Read more.

[tonymontana2007]

We live in a policed state. big brother watching everything we do. shocking and not right at all.

[abaxas]

Great idea but badly thought out.

The issue is that by definition the data collection system becomes a target. Hence the thing that is suppose to protect is infact the thing that is best attacked.

[zaph0d]

I think it's time for the Scots to rebuild good ol Hadrian's wall, this time to keep Whitehall out. I've got nothing to hide but I don't want all my data to be "lost" (read sold to highest bidder) by the government, they already do enough of that as it is.
Even if they're only storing "data" like web addresses, phone numbers, to/from headers etc etc that's enough for the same criminals and terrorists to find out everything about you. Plus do you really think that these hardened criminals and terrorists are using open standards of communication? Or that they don't use encryption? This is all a front to enable something more power than Big Brother, they want Big Sister, she's a real Bitch!
This isn't a case of "Do you have somethin to hide?" it's a case of "Do you trust the Government to not lose your data?"

[kingpotnoodle]

Can't see this ever making it through and if it did really being of any use. Surely the cost to the industry would be prohibitive without government subsidy? That's a lot of storage to hold all those records, and besides if you run your email or web browsing over an SSL protocol all an ISP can store is vaguely where your traffic went, which is easily undermined with proxies or TOR.

Phone calls and texts might be a bit different, I suppose siphoning off phone data is harder for the end user to circumvent, but if crims knew it was monitored (which they will thanks to massive publicity) they'd just switch to an encrypted IM system using servers overseas out of friendly jurisdiction. Sure the ISP/Telco records that PAYG phone X (registered with false name) sent data packets to a server in Russia... but what actual use is that?

Big Brother laws are never going to work because the real hardcore well organised criminals, the ones we REALLY want to catch are always just going to have a way round it. It just impinges on the freedom of the rest of us, costs a fortune to implement and for no good.

[Tpyo]

Erm... anyone remember the direct action campaign from previous email surveillance worries re: The US gov (basically putting a stream of randomly generated potential 'keywords' at the end of, or as invisible text in, emails). The general principle was that if enough people did it, the automated filters would be useless and the manpower required to check/sort emails manually would make it unfeasible to snoop in an untargeted manner. Ditto with adding some crappy low-level encryption (easy to break/ can even provide its own key) which would barely be noticable to the end user but the cumulative computing time required for anyone trying to decrypt/analyze all emails on spec would again be prohibitive.

Would an equivalent system be feasible (makes/sends multiple fake/automatically ignored messages each time a real one is sent - hide all the real data in a sea of crap). The gov would still be able to find out info on specific individuals but the idea would be for the resource requirements for blanket monitoring to be prohibitive.

[Saracen]

It still astonishes me (though I guess it shouldn't) how hypocritical many politicians can be, and how something is a crappy idea when the government want to do it and you're the opposition, but a great idea when you're in government .... at which time, no doubt, those now in opposition will oppose that that they tried to do themselves when in government.

Full credit to David Davis, and no doubt some others, for being opposed when in opposition and still opposed now he's an MP in the party in power.

[TaintedShirt]

I think it is really scary and sad when a state treats it's entire population as suspect. It then gives itself the power to check everything to ensure you are innocent. China/ Syria/ Egypt/ Iran/ UK? A state should treat everyone as innocent and search for the guilty not the other way around.

I also have no faith in any country's ability to hold on to this information. The NHS have lost laptops, the prison service lost discs or was it memory sticks. What hope do we have of security when most of the people who work with our private data don't even think of it as something important enough to look after properly. Local PCT have had 16 self reported IG (Information Governance) violations in the 2011.

If only there was some loosely knit organisation of people who didn't really know each other that could rise up and defend the common man and also not try to blackmail or extort money. Ah well...

[format]

Full credit to David Davis, and no doubt some others, for being opposed when in opposition and still opposed now he's an MP in the party in power.

I always thought it was something of a shame that he never got to be Tory Party leader, he at least appears to be in possession of some scruples.

[Brewster0101]

I don't have an issue with this. I ain't bothered if someone has the time to see what things I read or browse on the internet. But like TaintedShirt states, the government can no way keep secret information secret. They are the biggest security threat to this country. They let in illegal immigrants and loose them, they loose prisoners, child abuser, sex offenders. They can't even compile a NHS database and keep it safe or working. They can't collect the correct taxes from people, they are incapable of monitoring and controller their own affairs. Maybe they need to look in their own back yard before poking around in other peoples back yards.

I also have no faith in any country's ability to hold on to this information. The NHS have lost laptops, the prison service lost discs or was it memory sticks.

[aidanjt]

I always thought it was something of a shame that he never got to be Tory Party leader, he at least appears to be in possession of some scruples.

Which is precisely the reason why he'll never be Tory party leader.

[Animus404]

Here we go again.

[Skywalker]

And here we go again..All that crap about terrorist and what not..Im not saying they ain't real but how far will the goverment go in years to come? CCTV's in bedrooms to keep us safe?? Sounds funny doesn't it; yet we'll all stop laughing in few years time.
Oh and terrorist can still send a hand written letters or pass information by other means now don't they? They will no doubt adjust too but the legislation of theirs will stay, making it hard for me to distinguish who the real terrorist are

[rabbid]

... Ditto with adding some crappy low-level encryption (easy to break/ can even provide its own key) which would barely be noticable to the end user but the cumulative computing time required for anyone trying to decrypt/analyze all emails on spec would again be prohibitive.

Would an equivalent system be feasible (makes/sends multiple fake/automatically ignored messages each time a real one is sent - hide all the real data in a sea of crap). The gov would still be able to find out info on specific individuals but the idea would be for the resource requirements for blanket monitoring to be prohibitive.

Surely that would just lead to laws prohibiting use of encrypted transfer for private individuals?

[jim]

It's a bit sad when you start contemplating VPNs just for the sake of a bit of privacy.

Oh well, the Lib Dems have now said that they'll save the day. Given their record of independent action so far in the coalition... oh, scratch that.

[rabbid]

FYI its proposed to need a warrant to access these records.

But how long will it be with the usual function creep before all these records can be trawled at will?