Internet Privacy.

As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly. (proverbs 26:11)
I notice with alarm a return of proposals to allow the state to monitor Internet packet data, which represents a vast intrusion into people’s daily lives. The “terrorism” argument won’t wash. Network analysis can be already be achieved on suspects with a judge’s say so, and there have been almost no successful terrorist outrages outside Northern Ireland for a good few years. Clearly then, no further powers are needed as the security services have successfully thwarted several plots. I have no problem with the police or GCHQ monitoring e-mails if there is a reasonable suspicion that someone’s up to no good, but this proposal leaves open the option of trawling operations which will capture jokes (I’m going to blow this airport sky high), metaphor (put a bomb under…), simile (as popular as a terrorist…), exaggeration for comic effect (I’m going to f*****g kill you!) and end up putting everyone with a moderately colourful turn of phrase into terrorist networks that don’t exist.
The concept of “packet data”: where, to and from whom, etc is one from the early days of digital telephony. In the Internet, it is not separated in any meaningful way from “content”. With e-mails for example, the ISPs will be forced to capture everything (content included) then throw away that which they don’t need. This will, of course be recoverable. Packet data IS content with Internet browsing history. If you have access to a browsing history, you have a pretty good window onto a man’s soul, one I certainly don’t wish the state to have.
With too much data from too many non-suspects, the temptation for the authorities to trawl rather than search for information and turn it into intelligence, will be great. False positives will mean real terrorists will find it easier, not harder to evade capture. These measures will be easily circumvented by web-literate bad guys with a modicum of trade-craft. They will use public WiFi hotspots and an anonymised browser like TOR for example.
These proposals were dropped as too unworkable and illiberal even by the last Government. Which civil servant thought he’d have another go at turning this emetic proposal into law and what can you do to ensure he gets the message the second time?This is the text of a letter I wrote to my MP. Feel free to copy and paste, if you want to send one to yours. E-mail addresses can be found here.

7 replies
  1. cuffleyburgers
    cuffleyburgers says:

    Jackart – you are correct of course, however all the signs are that this infamy originates in Brussels and therefore our puppet government in Westminster has rather little room to manoeuvre, unless Dave decides to grow a pair… I'm not holding my breath.

    You have a blind-spot regarding the EUro-fascists which is puzzling.

    It is not an important issue it is THE important issue if we are to get good government back.

  2. Malcolm Bracken
    Malcolm Bracken says:

    Point me to the directive rather than just saying "LOOK! LOOK! It's all the vicious EU's fault."

    In any case, that explains why some vicious little turd of a civil service Gauleiter tried to reprieve the idea, it does not mean that Cameron is an EU stooge.

    I suspect there might be a Tory back bench rebellion on this.

  3. cuffleyburgers
    cuffleyburgers says:

    Jackart – Courtesy of Richard North "…Data Retention Directive, otherwise known as Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006…is the directive which requires member states to oblige providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks to retain traffic and location data for between six months and two years for the purpose of the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime"

    The whole point about government is that it is supposed to protect us from the activities of vicious turds of gauleiters, especially foreign ones.

    Wake up.

    • Luke
      Luke says:

      So six years after the directive suggesting that the govt should be able to retain traffic data blah blah, the govt decides that it should as a matter of course snoop on such a data? I think I am with jackatrt here.


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *