Fucking NL Wankers

[Scouse]

I wish we still had that "up yours" smiley:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2049000/2049593.stm

The bit I like is:

The number of staff that is has is such that it is completely unfeasible that it would be able to provide any oversight of how these powers are used,"

Lack of privacy still seem OK then Cam?

 

[xane]

I still fail so see where your argument on "lack of privacy" comes from.

The difference lies in your concept that if you blare out private information into a public domain without encrypting or attempting to conceal it, that people should ignore it out of consideration for your privacy.

I'd already considered that a problem is how to "police the police", and that it is likely any office would be under resourced, but then the same could be said of the snoopers themselves, who are hardly likely to pry into every e-mail simply because they can. If you have to fill in a mountain of paperwork before you choose to snoop, then its unlikely it'll be done in anything but the most serious of cases.

The whole issue is likely to be a damp squib, police badly need extra powers to apprehend criminals, it will always come at a loss of some liberty. There are still a significant amount of people in this country who approve of id cards, so its really a measurement of opinion as to how far you are willing to let your freedom be compromised for your security.

I personally don't do anything illegal, and if I did I wouldn't be discussing it over unencrypted e-mail. The lack of privacy in my case is minimal and well worth the effort if it catches criminals, who I see as a far greater threat to my personal security than any policeman (or indeed post office worker) can ever be.

 

[Scouse]

Cam - you're missing the whole fucking point and ignoring points previously made.

How the hell can you define mobile phone location data as "public domain"?

How can you not consider a request by the Post Office for my location information an invasion of my privacy?

 

[Embattle]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_2051000/2051117.stm

 

[Scouse]

Aye - I read that.

All it means is that he'll have to split up his proposals and get them in through the back door, with the whole act getting passed as an adendum to several other acts......

Standard politics - it's was hardly worth trying to get it through the normal way in this case though

Fuckers..................

 

[Wij]

Not sure I agree with you Cam. This is the same government that tries to find out the political persusion of rail-crash victims :/

Paperwork can easily be avoided if the data is already being collected. "Oops, did I accidentally click the button to look at your email ? Silly me." OK, the info already is being collected by isps but when these laws come in they'll probably want to 'streamline' the process of getting it from them.

At the end of the day who would these laws have helped ? I'm pretty sure that osama@alquaeda.org is not Bin Laden's preferred form of communication. You can't know what emails to look at without inside information on the organisation in the first place. If you have that through infiltration in person then the electronic data is irrelevant.

Just my 2p.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Wij
At the end of the day who would these laws have helped ? I'm pretty sure that osama@alquaeda.org is not Bin Laden's preferred form of communication. You can't know what emails to look at without inside information on the organisation in the first place. If you have that through infiltration in person then the electronic data is irrelevant.

Mr bin Laden may be smart enough to avoid using e-mail, but Gary Hart was convicted with proof from internet logs he was in a chatroom until the early morning on the day he fell asleep and ran his landrover onto the rail track. The Daminola Taylor trial showed the accused were some distance away by their mobile phone logs, who were incidently arrested on the basis of CCTV footage.

Like it or not this information is _already_ being recorded, and there is absolutely no control over who gets hold of it. Right now Vodafone tracks the position of my mobile, and they can had it over to anyone, I only have their word it isn't being used to collect marketing data right now and will only be used for criminal investigations. Same with my ISP, I have no idea where my e-mail are being collected and who has access to them, and when I walk down the high street I have no idea my movements may be tracked and recorded by the private enterprize running the CCTV.

My point is that nothing has changed apart from the fact that controls are being put in place as to who gets access to your "private" information. There is no "lack of privacy" because the very nature of walking around with a 24/7 transponder signal like a mobile phone is not the way to keep your location private, and sending unencrypted e-mail is not the way to keep prying eyes out of private discussions.

You can make an effort to keep your affairs private, and the Human Rights law will respect that, consider the court case of Naomi Campbell pictured coming out of a Narcotics Anonymous meeting, the newspaper evidently didn't seem to realise what the word "anonymous" means.

If your don't want people to know where you are simply turn off your phone, if you don't want people reading your e-mail use alternative forms of communication or use military-level encryption. If people then attempt to infiltrate your private affairs you have a point and a law to protect you, but simply saying "please don't look" is not being realistic.

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by camazotz
If your don't want people to know where you are simply turn off your phone, if you don't want people reading your e-mail use alternative forms of communication or use military-level encryption. If people then attempt to infiltrate your private affairs you have a point and a law to protect you, but simply saying "please don't look" is not being realistic.

Terrorists already know this though.

 

[stu]

Originally posted by Scouse
Aye - I read that.

All it means is that he'll have to split up his proposals and get them in through the back door, with the whole act getting passed as an adendum to several other acts......

Standard politics - it's was hardly worth trying to get it through the normal way in this case though

Fuckers..................

It's a shame you seem to have 0 clue as to how law is made.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Wij
Terrorists already know this though.

Can you please stop with the "terrorists", although the "War on Terror" excuse has been given for RIP, a majority of these proposals were put in place long before 9/11, the primary purpose of RIP has been to control who has access to information.

I respect privacy, in fact I supported stand.org.uk when the government proposed making a law to include escrow for encryption, or their unworkable law that required submitting the encryption key, if I remember I actually e-mailed my MP about it.

 

[Will]

*cough*

 

[Scouse]

Cam. I'm beginning to think you're a troll in the budding.

Yes - we all know they collect data about emails and mobile phones.

Yes - we all know that the data can be requested by the police/inland revenue/customs and excise for use in criminal prosecutions - and we don't have a problem with that.

You're just ignoring all the points made because you're being bolshy and stubborn.

The Post Office should NOT be able to request my mobile phone location data. If there are worries about criminal actions then the police should be involved and then, and ONLY then, can the police request my mobile phone location data.

Sorry to have to point it out with such emphasis. It seems to me that you've been ignoring that point in all your posts because you're on some sort of "it's all your fault if you use something as convenient as a phone or email" crusade.

The argument here is not that the data is collected - we all know it is - and it's not surprise. It's the fact that the government is trying to give organisations access to data that they DON'T already have. Don't try to tell me that the Post Office needs it for non-criminal investigations.

 

[xane]

Why don't you tell me under what circumstances the PO is going to snoop on you for non-criminal investigations ?

Access is restricted and it is a lengthy procedure to request information, why don't you read the conditions under which snooping is allowed and then decide if this is really as big an intrusion into your private affairs as the shock-obsessed media are telling you.

I admit that I do have reservations about certain agencies being allowed, but always remember that restrictions apply and people are not given a carte blanche on private files. As I said before there is always a cost in liberty if you want security, its only that people have different measurements of that balance.

 

[Will]

Mobile phone location would fall under Directed Surveillance

From OSC Guidance and Advice
Directed surveillance and CHIS may be authorised by a Superintendent or, in other bodies, as set out in SI 2000 No. 2417 and SSI 2000 No. 343.

• The authorising officer must believe it to be proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by carrying it out and necessary to prevent crime or disorder, protect public health, collect or assess any tax, or for other specified purposes.
• Public authorities must keep a record of all such authorisations and they are subject to review by Commissioners/Assistant Commissioners and OSC inspectors.

Don't forget the fact David Blunkett has waved the white flag on this issue anyway due to public concern.

 

[FatBusinessman]

Originally posted by ItchyTrigaFinga
The authorising officer must believe it to be proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by carrying it out and necessary to prevent crime or disorder, protect public health, collect or assess any tax, or for other specified purposes

Does "other specified purposes" include "cos I feel like it"?

 

[xane]

Originally posted by FatBusinessman
Does "other specified purposes" include "cos I feel like it"?

No, but "cos they may vote Tory" might be

 

[Will]

Normally "other specified purposes" means "It is a good reason, honest it is, and I'm sure a test case in court will decide."

 

[Scouse]

Agreed Itchy.

And:

Why don't you tell me under what circumstances the PO is going to snoop on you for non-criminal investigations ?

Cam - Why don't you tell me when the Post Office and the Police merged?


NEWSFLASH!!! Post Office detectives have caught kiddie fiddler through use of mobile phone data!

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
Cam - Why don't you tell me when the Post Office and the Police merged?

NEWSFLASH!!! Post Office detectives have caught kiddie fiddler through use of mobile phone data!

Now you really are pushing the argument here. Its blatently obvious that "criminal investigations" don't actually become so until some evidence is already in place, obtaining that evidence will either positively or negatively produce some form of criminal complaint, only then do the police get involved.

The police don't have the time or inclination to spend every waking moment watching everyone all the time, kiddle fiddlers and such are often alerted to the police by institutions such as the PO, or more specifically, Local Council Social Services, who incidently were to be included in the recent RIP amendment.

Your insistance that all initial "suspect" monitoring should be done by the police only benefits the real criminals who rely on a lack of resources to escape detection. If institutions must call in the police for every single suspicious moment, both organisations would quickly become overloaded.

The "serious crime" banner under which investigations must proceed includes serious fraud, the PO is a likely institution where suspicions of persons engaged in this sort of crime can be initially picked up. As with banks, who routinely investigate for laundering when large sums of money are used in personal accounts, the PO already does some investigating on certain usage of the mail, this happens right now, in violation of your privacy, the RIP amendment just makes it easier.

I am not trying to explain or vindicate the government action on this, merely to explain how a lot of this hysteria over RIP is driven by FUD and misinformation.

 

[Will]

If the Post Office can't come up with a reason for obtaining your mobile data, they can't get it. And I know I can't think of any reason.

There are a few vague terms in the legisation, but the idea is that it allows the law to deal with new technologies without new laws. The fine details are thrased out with test cases in the courts.

 

[Scouse]

The police don't have the time or inclination to spend every waking moment watching everyone all the time, kiddle fiddlers and such are often alerted to the police by institutions such as the PO

I just don't accept that. The post office picks up letters from a post box and delivers them somewhere else. Unless they regularly open and read your post then they're none the wizer about what's being said in your letters. How the heck would that lead to a "criminal investigation"?

Even if by some miracle some dodgy kiddie porn merchant labelled his latest batch of photos up and sent them through the PO - the first thing the Post Office would do would be RING THE POLICE rather than ask vodafone where he might have been......

They're a parcel delivery organisation - NOT an investigatory body.


Also, Itchy:

If the Post Office can't come up with a reason for obtaining your mobile data, they can't get it.

They aren't being asked to justify their reason for their application to the mobile phone operators - they're just going to be able to ask for the information. The mobile phone operators aren't going to question a request through legitamate channels.

Now, I know loads of people who work in the CPS and the Police and they routinely check on their mates details for a laugh.

This sort of legislation opens up a system to a lot more abuse and, by their own admission, they can't police it.


If there's a legitamate use for this - they should have to apply to a body which CHECKS whether it's a legitamate use.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
If there's a legitamate use for this - they should have to apply to a body which CHECKS whether it's a legitamate use.

You mean these guys (I did link to them before) ?

 

[Scouse]

And as Ian Brown, director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research said about those guy's:

The difficulty that the Government has encountered in getting the right processes in place for the police should make us ultra-cautious in extending these powers to such a wide range of bodies. We don't think that there's been enough resources put into the oversight arrangements for the current proposals, let alone what will be needed for this huge extension. In practice, these bodies are going to obtain this personal data on anyone they wish, without any effective way of checking what they're doing.

......

 

[xane]

In practice, these bodies are going to obtain this personal data on anyone they wish, without any effective way of checking what they're doing

You mean like before RIP was implemented, for example ?

 

[Scouse]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In practice, these bodies are going to obtain this personal data on anyone they wish, without any effective way of checking what they're doing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You mean like before RIP was implemented, for example ?

No - not at all. Because the Post Office DOESN'T have access to personal data like that and never did.




Cam - don't get me wrong - I'm not at all against the use of my personal data being used in criminal investigations in any way - like you say, I've nothing to hide.

What I do object to is organisations which have no business looking at my personal data having access to it. The organisations mentioned have very thin (some would say anorexic) reasons for ever needing access.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
Because the Post Office DOESN'T have access to personal data like that and never did.

I disagree, part of the original licensing agreements to mobile phone operators was for them to record every call, but there was no law restricting who could access this information, it was basically up to the discretion of the operating companies.

The PO would never have had to look up mobile phone data simply because it never needed to, the RIP bill makes sure they need a reason.

Originally posted by Scouse
The organisations mentioned have very thin (some would say anorexic) reasons for ever needing access..

Precisely, and RIP _ensures_ that without that reason they don't have access. Only the FUD spread by organisations like FIPR who hypothesise that unlmited unchecked access _could_ be given says otherwise.

 

[Scouse]

I disagree, part of the original licensing agreements to mobile phone operators was for them to record every call, but there was no law restricting who could access this information, it was basically up to the discretion of the operating companies.

Yes there is - the Data Protection Act would prevent unauthorised access to this data.

If the phone companies/ISP's wanted to use this data they would strip any personally identifiable information from it before selling it on.

The Post Office could request access to this data all the time if it liked - but it'd get slapped back and told to both "fuck" and "off".

 

[kanonfodda]

Originally posted by Scouse


Yes there is - the Data Protection Act would prevent unauthorised access to this data.

If the phone companies/ISP's wanted to use this data they would strip any personally identifiable information from it before selling it on.

The Post Office could request access to this data all the time if it liked - but it'd get slapped back and told to both "fuck" and "off".

If the Data Protectin Act was all powerfull, then you wouldn't have your name on mailing lists all over the world. If you allow them to have your details they WILL use them, as has been proved.

It's only illegal if you don't give permission.

If you check the contracts you sign etc, they will have a little box which says:
"Tick this box if you DON'T want your details plastered to every mofo on the planet"

They get permission by some nice legal wording.

 

[Scouse]

They get permission by some nice legal wording.

No - they get permission by people being complete ignorant mongs.

I myself, on the other hand, hardly ever get spam

And that's going way off point anyway Mr Fodda - there's a world of difference between a request for mobile phone data and spam mail delivered to your home......

 

[kanonfodda]

Originally posted by Scouse


No - they get permission by people being complete ignorant mongs.

I myself, on the other hand, hardly ever get spam

And that's going way off point anyway Mr Fodda - there's a world of difference between a request for mobile phone data and spam mail delivered to your home......

/edit: Let me re-prhase for the ignorant mongs who can't understand my wording.

Scouse, read the post, the spam was an exaple, I'm saying it is easy for *Organisations* to get hold of your details as things stand now. The post was on point, by emphasising the fact that is is currently very easy to get hold of personal data.