🚀 go-pugleaf

"Denis Mcmahon" <denisf@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7shl1u04alrar0oioclepforvct06orpe9@4ax.com...
> fu set to uk.net.regulation, for the simple reason that I'm pissed off
> of reading all this crap in multiple ngs, uk.net.regulation was set up
> specifically for the discussion of such issues,

Nobody is forcing you - does it offend some conformist sensibility ? The
idea of cross-posting is cross-fertilisation of ideas and communities - if
you can't see the relevance to each of the groups chosen, I suggest you
re-read the original post. It's not just regulation, it's surveillance, and
the groups chosen were chosen for that reason.

> >http://www.yougov.com/pp.jsp;jsessionid=1wb2pvn8k2?news.id=20016033
> >Blunkett's proposals on internet privacy: for or against
>
> Oh right, so I have to add my email address to your "live spammables"
> collection before I vote eh? Are you sure this isn't an email address
> harvesting exercise.

I've no idea - why not read the site's privacy policy ?

> >Part 11 of the anti-terrorism, crime and security bill will allow
> >the SoS to require that internet service providers (ISPs) keep a
> >record of their customers' internet activity.
>
> However, access to the stored records will still be subject to RIPA,
> which means that although the data may be stored, there is no open
> access to the stored data by the police, security forces, tax office
> etc. Investigators will still need to identify persons whom they wish
> to investigate prior to requesting data relevant to those persons
> activities.

Bollocks. There is no requirement to identify individuals (read the draft
Code of Practice on Pt.1 Ch.2, and indeed RIP itself). A police Super (or
equivalent spook or Customs), can on his own authority without a warrant,
order up traffic data on one person or a million, if HE thinks that is
"proportionate".

> Not only that, but in many cases, the logging carried out by ISPs will
> be little more than that already carried out to prevent fraudulent
> use, and abuse of, their networks and the internet.

One ISP with about 30% UK market share, keeps full records of what each user
browses (culled from it's transparent web cache), probably only for a few
days at the moment.

Now under "Anti-Terrorism" law any ISP (or private comms service, even P2P
clients taken literally - sic - read the debate in Hansard) can be
arm-twisted to log any traffic data, for any length of time, and that data
can be got at under RIP for purposes connected with public order (i.e. demos
& protests), tax, health and safety, and any minor crime from dropping
litter upwards.

> However, it does amuse me to see ll the little paranoid androids

What, you mean like you, taking an on-topic post of relevant news article to
be spam trawl ?

> running around in circles imagining that PC plod down the local nick
> has got time to and can read all their email.

Well it won't be plod down the local nick, it will hbe National Criminal
Intelligence Service globbing data from seperate investigations into a
national traffic database of people (and their associates) they consider
dodgy for the rather broad purposes allowed by RIP