🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <o4xT7.1414$8%.418515@monolith.news.easynet.net>, pisces
<pisces48@yahoo.com> writes

>Under "Anti-Terrorism" Act, ISPs can now be compelled to log the kind of
>data that would enable NCS actually to do what they initially said they were
>doing.

nope :(

under ATCS ISPs will now negotiate a Code of Practice that relates to
keeping data .. since I doubt that many ISPs would have any necessity to
be logging the type of data referred to (records of downloads from news
servers) the question of retention wouldn't arise anyway.

Of course, if the CoP was seen to be insufficient in practice the SoS
has powers to do some compulsion - but this again relates to the
retention of logs and not to creating logs in the first place.

>> The relevance of uk.gov.social-security is ?
>
>The government has already taken powers in Social Security Fraud Act 2001
>(http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/10011--a.htm#1) to get direct
>electronic access to data from colleges, utilities, banks, credit providers
>and credit reference agencies, and other organisations to be used for
>data-matching to catch suspected benefit fraudsters.
>
>Under "Anti-Terrorism" Act, subject to data protection law, ISPs can now be
>compelled to log 

nope :( [see above]

>(and RIP gives power to access) 

nope :( it's still not in force (middle of 2002 at the earliest)

>traffic data - potentially
>in bulk, subject to 'proportionality' in pursuit of any crime including
>benefit fraud.
>
>Not very far away from traffic analysis of a person's web activity being
>matched for being unsuitable or inconsistent with being a benefit claimant.

you should probably note the "Big Browser" aspects of the RIP Act which
means that gathering information on "web activity" is likely to be hard

>(The Tories wanted Social Security snoopers actually to be included in list
>of agencies authorised to obtain)

correct; but they failed

>> I would also argue that uk.politics.censorship is not relevant, since
>> this is regulation, not censorship,
>
>Surveillance and intrusions of privacy that chill free-speech are a form of
>censorship.
>
>> and that is *exactly* why
>> uk.net.regulation exists.
>
>Why is there some imperative to confine discussion to the most tightly
>defined single group ? 

because the people who created u.n.r are desperate for it to be
relevant. Warnings were given, but not heeded, before the group was
created that it would just end up one more place to crosspost to  :(

that said, it does make sense to avoid cross-posting

>Even if this group *is* the most appropriate group,
>why do you think discussion should *only* occur there ? 

because crossposting is evil - and at this width, affects how far
articles travel :(

>There are many
>interests peripheripherally or centrally affected by Net regulation. Why
>should they all be subsumed into discussion in uk.net.regulation ? That is
>exactly what cross-posting is *for* ?

Cross-posting at the start of threads is usually done to cause mischief.
Removing cross-posting thereafter compounds that mischief :(

-- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin