[Chapter-delegates] Giant database plan 'Orwellian'

Wed Oct 22 01:46:53 PDT 2008

Since my reply below the UK's Director of Criminal Prosecutions has  
also joined a growing chorus of concern to make a public warning about  
the huge extensions being proposed to surveillance and its impact on  
society.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/21/dpp_civil_liberties_speech/

Christian

On 20 Oct 2008, at 17:46, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:

> It is a nice theory to believe that privacy directives will be able  
> to manage privacy in practice but I think the BBC story should be  
> taken a bit more seriously.
>
> see http://www.openrightsgroup.org/
>
> The British Information Commissioner has expressed many times his  
> disquiet over the way things are developing towards a surveillance  
> society.
>
> http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/news_and_views/current_topics.aspx
>
> The precedent of the conduct by the UK government with previous UK  
> legislation such as RIPA where promises of limited applicability  
> made by ministers were broken within a couple of years and the even  
> more recent massive data losses of personal data that the Government  
> makes for a justifiable scepticism.
>
> There are some links here http://www.fipr.org/policy.html
>
> What I think needs to be understood is that the proposal is  
> intelligence led by GCHQ not the police (ACPO). The Home Office is  
> itself divided. The police just want to be able to tap phones and  
> stuff when then want.
>
> The reaction on this list that users deploy encryption is telling.  
> However the data they want to record is traffic data not the content  
> itself. So encrypting your emails won't stop the authorities from  
> drawing the inevitable conclusion from who your talk to, who they  
> talk to and what websites you visit and so forth.
>
>
> There have to be consequences from the combination of separate  
> pervasive surveillance and recording measures for fishing  
> expeditions rather than focusing resources to develop ways to assist  
> targeting serious criminal investigations.
>
> My concern is governments today see electronic communications not as  
> a better way for society to find the bad eggs but as justification  
> for government to know everything we do so they find the bad eggs.
>
> The consequence of this is massive information centralisation at the  
> risk of deteriorating the public's desire and ability to act in its  
> own defence.
>
> This is odd when the Internet architectures are at there best  
> supporting decentralisation. It also makes for a much worse life due  
> to the inconvenience and unpredictability of being placed under  
> continuous investigation without cause by people we cannot in any  
> significant way influence because we cannot know what they are  
> actually doing.
>
> An oped by Bruce Schneier 2007 How To Not Catch Terrorists is worth  
> the read  http://www.schneier.com/essay-163.html
>
>
> Christian
>
>
>
> On 18 Oct 2008, at 12:01, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
>
>> I think some background is needed here. The Beeb article draws a
>> unnecessary dark picture by forgetting to mention that all this data
>> retention is also regulated by other directives regarding privacy of
>> personal data, which are considered the most stringent ones in the  
>> world.
>>
>> As Veni mentions, the UK is only transposing an EU directive. The
>> directive itself harmonizes an,d updates what member states have been
>> doing for years. Even before the Internet became a major  
>> communication
>> tool, telephone call listings were used in support of police
>> investigations.
>>
>> We are fortunate enough in Europe to have democratic governments  
>> under
>> permanent scrunity from their parliaments. So I think we are pretty  
>> safe
>> that an Orwerllian plan could not be deployed unbeknownst of  
>> anyone.  I
>> would point out that countries who do -or previously did- large scale
>> monitoring of their population usually do not even bother passing  
>> laws
>> to allow that.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> Veni Markovski wrote, On 17/10/08 18:48:
>>> These requirements are part of EU Directive 24 / 2006, so I don't  
>>> see
>>> anything to worry about. Yes, they could store the data could have  
>>> been
>>> 6 months (the minimum), or 24 (max). PGP will not help, if you are
>>> committing a crime :)
>>>
>>> veni
>>>
>>> At 03:45 AM 10/18/2008  +1200, Franck Martin wrote:
>>>> Time to use PGP and IPSec
>>>>
>>>> This link came up in the IGC mailing list... Posted here for  
>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7671046.stm>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7671046.stm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Excerpts from this UK news:
>>>>
>>>> Details of the times, dates, duration and locations of mobile phone
>>>> calls, numbers called, website visited and addresses e-mailed are
>>>> already stored by telecoms companies for 12 months under a  
>>>> voluntary
>>>> agreement.
>>>>
>>>> The data can be accessed by the police and security services on
>>>> request - but the government plans to take control of the process  
>>>> in
>>>> order to comply with an EU directive and make it easier for
>>>> investigators to do their job.
>>>>
>>>> Information will be kept for two years by law and may be held
>>>> centrally on a searchable database.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>>> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Patrick Vande Walle
>> Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates