Government to monitor Internet Use

[Kymmy]

You guys do realise that they will need a warrant to instigate monitoring of the calls/web/email of the persons of interest and that this isn't a blanket monitoring of the internet

From the bbc news article linked to in the first post

A new law - which may be announced in the forthcoming Queen's Speech in May - would not allow GCHQ to access the content of emails, calls or messages without a warrant.

[nomadking]

From 3 years ago.
Plan to monitor all internet use

Ministers say they estimate the project will cost £2bn to set up, which includes some compensation to the communications industry for the work it may be asked to do.

Communications data is an essential tool for law enforcement agencies to track murderers and paedophiles, save lives and tackle crime
Jacqui Smith
Home Secretary

So whose idea was it?

Labour did indeed suggest creating a giant database of all the UK's web usage, but abandoned the idea after widespread opposition, including from the two parties now forming the UK's coalition government. Without knowing the full details of the current plans it's not easy to directly compare them.

Must not be allowed to happen it really musn't neither this government or any of the potential ones in the future have the common sense not to misuse this sort of power and as for the whole warrant thing lol lol lol yes because we have never done surveilance in the past without warrants have we. This is simply the biggest invasion of privacy ever considered in this country and the citizens of this country have always had the right within reason and must continue to have freedom of speech without feeling they may be persecuted for what they say.

Look at the nsa in the US to see how good intentions can go badly wrong they are an agency that routinely infringes the rights of US citizens and rarely if ever get bought to task about it. This whole "terrorism" argument for all the extra monitoring and security is getting a bit thin now and is not valid also this system would not prevent that there are ways to communicate securely that would not be picked up by this system so terrorism as the excuse is complete bs.

Oh for the money to leave this country i would be off like a shot and given that at one point in time i would happily have died to defend this country i think thats a sad way for me to now think but i also know many others who share the sentiment.

[nomadking]

Why are people only now complaining about something that was enacted 3 years ago.

The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009
Made 2nd April 2009
Coming into force 6th April 2009

Obligation to retain communications data
4.—(1) It is the duty of a public communications provider to retain the communications data specified in the following provisions of the Schedule to these Regulations—
(a)Part 1 (fixed network telephony);
(b)Part 2 (mobile telephony);
(c)Part 3 (internet access, internet e-mail or internet telephony).
(2) The obligation extends to data relating to unsuccessful call attempts that—
(a)in the case of telephony data, are stored in the United Kingdom, or
(b)in the case of internet data, are logged in the United Kingdom.
(3) An “unsuccessful call attempt” means a communication where a telephone call has been successfully connected but not answered or there has been a network management intervention.
(4) The obligation does not extend to unconnected calls.
(5) No data revealing the content of a communication is to be retained in pursuance of these Regulations.

Doubt it will come to pass.After a few years it will probably be abandoned as too expensive and unwieldy.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Why are people only now complaining about something that was enacted 3 years ago.

This is not the same as that, though. It takes it a step further.

The retention directive means that ISPs have to keep the records for a year, and provide them upon receiving a correct and legal request from an authorised party... which AFAIK requires a warrant.


The new proposals would enable GCHQ to access the same information in real-time, and without a warrant.


Even with it still "only" concerning the date/time/name/address of the communications in question, and not the actual content (without a warrant), I am still extremely opposed to this.

[Uncle Peter]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Why are people only now complaining about something that was enacted 3 years ago.

Well they are clearly attempting to circumvent the current hoops which have to be jumped through to obtain an interception warrant to inspect historic data. This is the issue.

I rather suspect the bottom line is that the increased use of voip based interconnections and remote teleconference access is hurting our friends in North Yorkshire from engaging in their routine practice of state sponsored industrial espionage

[nomadking]

Looking at any content would still need a warrant.

Mr Clegg told the BBC people should wait to see the full proposals before judging them - and insisted the content of any communications would still only be accessible with a warrant.

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Looking at any content would still need a warrant.

I have a warrant can I look at your content

Originally Posted by Kymmy

You guys do realise that they will need a warrant to instigate monitoring of the calls/web/email of the persons of interest and that this isn't a blanket monitoring of the internet

From the bbc news article linked to in the first post

Also they will have a mirrored feed of all traffic and whilst they may only use it for 'persons of interest' it could also be used for fishing expeditions or worse.

[Uncle Peter]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Looking at any content would still need a warrant.

What Mr Clegg says is irrelevant. Why would the government admit to engaging in clandestine interception of communications outisde the remit of the law of the land? In fact why would the government of another country admit to doing exactly the same thing on our soil with the blessing of our government on the basis of some "special" relationship?

To suggest that such a mechanism would not be abused is rather naive.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Looking at any content would still need a warrant.

Doesn't mean anything. Typical misdirection. They are not planning to go after content but the question would be if they needed a warrant to look at the places your visiting and the people with which you are communicating, that is what they are trying to implement after all. To say they need a warrant to look at content isn't relevant.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Looking at any content would still need a warrant.

Yes.

But it has been claimed that no warrant will be required for the real-time on-demand access to the other information, and that is still IMO a step too far.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Why are people only now complaining about something that was enacted 3 years ago.

Maybe if you took the time to read the act from three years ago and read what is being implemented now you would know they are not the same .

[Fawkes]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

You guys do realise that they will need a warrant to instigate monitoring of the calls/web/email of the persons of interest and that this isn't a blanket monitoring of the internet

From the bbc news article linked to in the first post

Also in the linked article is a video of David Davis MP who completely contradicts the above in an interview on BBC news.