General / Off-Topic UK News: Snoopers Chater Passing into Law

[K-Rose]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...liament-lords-what-does-it-mean-a7423866.html

So yeah... Get yourselves on a VPN!

My favourite bit: "the only amendment that the bill received from MPs was a measure that stopped themselves being spied on"

 

[Lianachan]

The sooner we obtain our independence from fascist Britain the better.

 

[K-Rose]

The sooner we obtain our independence from fascist Britain the better.

I don't think it matters where you go, it's been shown that the UK spies on it's allies as much as it's own citizens.

Proof came out about GCHQ tapping the main line from Europe to the Americas, it was in the news for all of a day then has been largely forgotten about.

 

[Talarin]

I don't think it matters where you go, it's been shown that the UK spies on it's allies as much as it's own citizens.

Proof came out about GCHQ tapping the main line from Europe to the Americas, it was in the news for all of a day then has been largely forgotten about.

And this follows a trend across the globe. France already has a much greater remit in law. I believe Germany has also (or has something in the works). Given the increasing role of the Internet in both domestic and international crime, I think it's not unreasonable for records to be kept of some sort. The key, of course, is a) how well it's secured (in the UK - it'll be the ISPs that hold the data) and b) how well it's overseen.

 

[JonnyC0mbat]

What are you doing on the internet that worries you so much? If they really are that interested in my internet habits, they're going to be pretty bored.

Besides, the UK Government doesn't have enough personnel to prevent much of anything, let alone monitor people in vast numbers. This was always going to happen, and probably should have happened sooner.

 

[Lianachan]

What are you doing on the internet that worries you so much? If they really are that interested in my internet habits, they're going to be pretty bored.

Besides, the UK Government doesn't have enough personnel to prevent much of anything, let alone monitor people in vast numbers. This was always going to happen, and probably should have happened sooner.

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." - Edward Snowden

Edited afterthought: There's also an excellent Rationalwiki article about that fallacy.

 

[JonnyC0mbat]

I've never been prevented from saying what I've wanted to say, nor do I spout hate under a veil of anonymity.

I have nothing to hide.

And it's not a fallacy, you just disagree.

 

[Arry]

To me, the 'ability' to access such data, is already there and being used for years. We cannot hide anything that requires 'transmission' or storage. Now it seems to be 'legal', for security agents etc. to use the information.

The Apple phone of a US mass murderer was; thrown into the public domain and a row ensued, over Apple being forced to unlock the guys phone. Then things went quiet and later reveled, they got the data they wanted after all.

Even the so called dark web, is not immune to to those who wish to gain access to information there.

My issue is; 'who becomes the enemy of the state?' What grounds can such laws be implemented or used?

Example: Someone who is anti-fracking and joins a protest group against the practice, or even just attends a march. Will these people have there data examined? Of course they will, because it is government policy to support fracking, thus they a fighting the government and can legally have all of there 'history' examined. Then, anything, can be used against them, even if totally unrelated to their 'anti-fracking' activities.

This law is open to abuse; especially by government bodies. What is perfectly legal and acceptable today, can change, simply due to the political winds of change.

At the same time: If you keep your actions clean and above board, there is a good chance, that you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Lianachan]

This law is open to abuse; especially by government bodies. What is perfectly legal and acceptable today, can change, simply due to the political winds of change.

I wouldn't say it's open to abuse, I would say it is abuse - a further erosion of human rights.

 

[Zetta]

Pretty disgusting that they pushed this through.
Personally I will be using TOR and VPNs for as much as I can once this comes into force, not because I have anything to hide but just because I believe I have a right to basic privacy.

 

[Talarin]

I wouldn't say it's open to abuse, I would say it is abuse - a further erosion of human rights.

Isn't that a bit hyperbolic?

This isn't actually that different from your mobile phone provider keeping a record of sites you access over their network (which they do), or a metadata of your phone calls (which they do).

 

[Minonian]

Know what? By knowing some people, and a lot of events like terrorist attacks whom are the reason of such laws, i don't have any problem with this. Never does, never will...
The world got this coming because of them.

 

[Minonian]

Pretty disgusting that they pushed this through.
Personally I will be using TOR and VPNs for as much as I can once this comes into force, not because I have anything to hide but just because I believe I have a right to basic privacy.

Do as you wish but before you say anything against it, think about this.

This is the first line of defense against terrorism and cyber criminals. Like it or not, but it's necessary.

 

[K-Rose]

I notice the guys supporting the Empire are more prone to accepting "don't do anything wrong and you have nothing to fear!"

 

[Arry]

I notice the guys supporting the Empire are more prone to accepting "don't do anything wrong and you have nothing to fear!"

problem is, we don't know what will be considered wrong tomorrow.

 

[Zetta]

Do as you wish but before you say anything against it, think about this.

This is the first line of defense against terrorism and cyber criminals. Like it or not, but it's necessary.

They already have all the tools they need to spy on suspects, all it takes is information and warrants. Creating a haystack is not going to make the job any easier, the more data they have to sift through the higher the chance you have of missing a target.

Condoning this level of spying in the name of safety is foolishness.

 

[Minonian]

No they are not have all the tools. This is about to ensure they are get the clues and proofs in case of some suspicious activity, if there are no need of it, than they are not going to do anything with your informations, and sorry, but i'm not going to ask the opinion of some suspicious groups like anonymus snowden or asslange about a cyber security law whom are pretty much moving in the borders of law, if not surpassing it.

Its their interests to have no such laws, and henceforth?

Well... I really need to finish my sentence? I don't think so!

 

[Ca$hback]

I live a boring life but I get irritated at the principal of people being interested in where I am, what I'm doing, keeping tabs, being strategic just to be dominant. I hate that. Makes me want to spy on them and leave them ambiguously threatening notes so they're the ones afraid to sleep at night. But it isn't one person, it's the state. It's only a matter of time before they find me and take me back to the lab anyway. Also, I'm more annoyed by this IRL than online.

 

[K-Rose]

Where it gets worrying for me is in relation to macro population manipulation.

There's already studies coming out showing the Right & Left are getting further apart by targeting articles & things like Facebook.

So it used to be that you'd get balanced opinion pieces and articles from various news papers and their websites. In the Guardian now you can get opinion pieces from Conservatives, Labour, Greens, UKIP. Same in the Independant.

But now you've got "news" websites with a right/left leaning article, and all the advertising revenue that comes with it from clicks. You're going to focus on pushing that article out to people who are likely to read it. The result of this is that you go on your Facebook, you're more likely to see articles that validate your opinion. You get people's opinions moving apart. Right wingers read right wing articles that they agree with and don't see any counter arguments, and the same from the left.

This is happening as an unintentional (I believe) consequence of targetting articles, adverts & revenue to where it'll make the most. Though given that Facebook has freely admitted that they've done experiments on their user base it's not such a far jump to say that all of this is being used to study human behaviour & how it can be manipulated through social media.


But now this effect on people's online behaviour is known, with strong evidence (though yet to be 100% proven), it worringly shows in the future how technology can be used to push articles, opinions etc in the direction of the average citizen. Thus over time how the average person can be manipulated to vote in a certain way.

 

[Arry]

No they are not have all the tools. This is about to ensure they are get the clues and proofs in case of some suspicious activity, if there are no need of it, than they are not going to do anything with your informations, and sorry, but i'm not going to ask the opinion of some suspicious groups like anonymus snowden or asslange about a cyber security law whom are pretty much moving in the borders of law, if not surpassing it.

Its their interests to have no such laws, and henceforth?

Well... I really need to finish my sentence? I don't think so!

They have the 'tools' and technology to see, hear and monitor whatever they wish to, but up until now. It was never 'usable' to prosecute; now it is.