Thread View: uk.net.regulation
31 messages
31 total messages
Started by pisces
Fri, 14 Dec 2001 22:47
Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: pisces
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 22:47
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 22:47
95 lines
7264 bytes
7264 bytes
(you must be logged in to vote) For Against Abstain http://www.yougov.com/pp.jsp;jsessionid=1wb2pvn8k2?news.id=20016033 Blunkett's proposals on internet privacy: for or against The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, last month proposed that Internet Service Providers should be "enabled" to track and store the broad communications data of their customers including addresses of e-mails, sites browsed, articles read and use of newsgroups. Part 11 of the emergency anti-terrorism, crime and security bill will allow internet service providers (ISPs) to keep a year's worth of information on their customers' internet activity. Two reasons are given: safeguarding national security, and the prevention and detection of crime. Importantly, clause 102 allows the home secretary to force traffic data retention if he feels the voluntary code is failing to work. He would force compulsory retention through a statutory instrument, a relatively easy procedure compared with getting a bill through parliament. So although Mr Blunkett used the term "enable", it is a very real possibility that data retention could be made compulsory and enforced through civil law. No new legislation will be necessary for authorities and intelligence agencies to obtain the data once it is recorded by ISPs and telephone companies; the regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 allows such "communications data" to be collected for a number of purposes including tax, public order and minor crime investigations. This process is effectively self-regulated, as it requires only the say-so of a police superintendent or equivalent rank to gather the data. Current data protection legislation protects individuals' privacy by prohibiting blanket storage by ISPs of data such as websites browsed, addresses of e-mails and which 'newsgroup' articles a subscriber reads. Other communications data, such as the telephone number used to dial-up the Internet, may be kept so long as it is relevant to billing or fraud control. The Government intends to establish a Code of Practice - developed in consultation with ISPs - which will specify exactly what data can be gathered and for how long it can be kept. The terms of the debate so far suggests that the electronic communications data to be recorded is best understood in a wide sense and can provide a complete map of an individual's private life. If a government agency wanted to read the contents of an individual e-mail it would require a warrant from a Secretary of State; if a government agency wanted to search for entire documents it would require a court order. Supporters of the proposal argue that the data should be collected to safeguard national security and prevent misuse of the Internet. The proposals were included as part of anti-terrorist legislation to prevent subversive groups or individuals operating effectively in the UK and also to prevent cyber terrorism. Supporters of the plans maintain that law-abiding individuals have nothing to fear provided they are not abusing the Internet. Indeed, they argue that the new measures will provide a comprehensive deterrent to paedophiles using the Internet to circulate pornographic material and will allow police to gather important evidence in catching such criminals. Those opposing the new and as yet undefined measures argue that the Mr Blunkett's proposals will in fact only be efficient at tracking law-abiding individuals because terrorists and those with something to hide will take steps to avoid detection. Furthermore, they maintain that the Government is cynically using the events of September 11 to establish a policy of blanket data surveillance. It has also been suggested that forcing ISPs to record data on Internet use will inhibit the use of the medium as a means of business and personal communication. ISPs have suggested that they will be forced to move if the proposals are implemented for both privacy and cost reasons. The cost of a year's worth of traffic data retention could soar into the millions for some ISPs. Steve Rawlinson, managing director at London-based ISP ClaraNet claims the sweeping powers will force ISPs to locate more hosting infrastructure outside the UK to guarantee confidentiality of communications data for business customers. FOR Tracking and storing data on Internet use for extended periods of time will help in the fight against terrorism and crime. Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear and should not oppose the new measures. We must be prepared to accept to accept some limited restriction on liberty of privacy if we are to combat the threat of terrorism. The mere existence of the security measures will inhibit the spread of crime, such as paedophile rings, over the Internet. The costs to ISPs are negligible compared to the benefits of ensuring national security. AGAINST Tracking and storing data on internet use will be ineffective in the fight against terrorism and crime and will serve only to record information on law-abiding citizens. This information can then be used for a multiplicity of purposes; the individuals being investigated could deem many of these purposes illegitimate. Legitimate groups whose policies or attitudes conflict with the State's could be tracked and illegitimately discriminated against. ISP' s will incur greater costs and are more likely to move their hosting infrastructures abroad.
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: Denis Mcmahon
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 04:03
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 04:03
49 lines
3963 bytes
3963 bytes
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, and it makes sense for those who wish to discuss them to subscribe to that group. "pisces" <pisces48@yahoo.com> wrote: >(you must be logged in to vote) > For Against Abstain > >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. Anyway, as I reserve the right to be paranoid, and as this post looks almost as evocative as those fax scams that I keep receiving that are designed to make me spend a tenner on faxing back a response, I decline to respond using your selected method, as I don't trust it one bit! >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. 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. However, it does amuse me to see ll the little paranoid androids running around in circles imagining that PC plod down the local nick has got time to and can read all their email. Rgds Denis -- Denis McMahon / +44 7802 468949 / denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk Entry conditions for killfile include top-post, advert, bin I block the [a.b.*.*] of any UC/BE relay. Usenet posts > 100 lines are not retrieved.
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: pisces
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 12:24
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 12:24
65 lines
5048 bytes
5048 bytes
"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
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: Richard Clayton
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 15:24
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 15:24
16 lines
2439 bytes
2439 bytes
In article <jlHS7.107$7v6.186801@monolith.news.easynet.net>, pisces <pisces48@yahoo.com> writes >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". he will also need to have the budget to pay for this ... so the accountants may help to keep his sense of proportion in check -- richard Richard Clayton They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: David G. Bell
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 19:17
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 19:17
30 lines
3012 bytes
3012 bytes
Richard Clayton wrote: > > In article <jlHS7.107$7v6.186801@monolith.news.easynet.net>, pisces > <pisces48@yahoo.com> writes > > >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". > > he will also need to have the budget to pay for this ... so the > accountants may help to keep his sense of proportion in check But the technology keeps getting more powerful for the same money, so the accountants may have less control as time passes. Relying on that to safeguard your rights is stupid. Reading mail is still expensive for physical items, because you have to somehow get past the envelope, but there's no envelope for email. The cost of sending email doesn't protect us from spammers. Whu should the costs protect up from these snoops? -- David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger. The singer who is no longer, and no shorter, than he was last week. He's about the same length in his stocking moolies.
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: John Underwood
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 23:30
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 23:30
15 lines
2485 bytes
2485 bytes
On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 at 19:17:54, David G. Bell wrote in demon.service (Reference: <3C1BA1E2.D4EFAA5D@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>) > there's no envelope for email. PGP? The cost of getting round that is pretty phenomenal, steaming an envelope open is trivial in comparison - spending a few million to ensure you do it without detection is still cheap in comparison. (It also takes a little less time). -- John Underwood Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days After that write to john@the-underwoods.org.uk Do not send anything to the From: address
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: DarkLady
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 14:32
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 14:32
20 lines
1773 bytes
1773 bytes
"pisces" <pisces48@yahoo.com> writes: > (you must be logged in to vote) > For Against Abstain If I got to be logged in then I'll not vote.... If you that bothered about it all why you not using Anonymous Remailer services, Tsch tsch..... [snipped] > > > --
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: Richard Clayton
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 21:56
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 21:56
31 lines
3164 bytes
3164 bytes
In article <3C1BA1E2.D4EFAA5D@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>, David G. Bell <dbell@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> writes >Richard Clayton wrote: >> >> In article <jlHS7.107$7v6.186801@monolith.news.easynet.net>, pisces >> <pisces48@yahoo.com> writes >> >> >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". >> >> he will also need to have the budget to pay for this ... so the >> accountants may help to keep his sense of proportion in check > >But the technology keeps getting more powerful for the same money, the cost is for access to the stored data ... which, where there are low volumes of requests, is mainly a manual process hence the cost of suddenly asking for millions of records will be many millions ... and I do appreciate your point that over time you'll get more data for your Euro -- but in the short term this is likely to be a significant brake on the expansion of activities -- richard Richard Clayton They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: pisces
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 22:02
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 22:02
40 lines
3171 bytes
3171 bytes
<DarkLady@basement.org> wrote in message news:FGAT5LHQ37241.3972916667@anonymous.poster... > "pisces" <pisces48@yahoo.com> writes: > > > (you must be logged in to vote) > > For Against Abstain > > If I got to be logged in then I'll not vote.... > > > If you that bothered about it all why you not using > Anonymous Remailer services, Tsch tsch..... Hello.ooo..oo. You just made my case for me spectacularly in all of three lines. You said you would not vote because you didn't want to log in to vote, presumably either because : a) you couldn't be arsed at all, or if you could b) you didn't want the website to know your IP address, and didn't realise, rather than c) you couldn't be arsed, to vote through an anonymising proxy, or you are sufficiently paranoid that d) you don't trust anonymity machinery technically, and possibly also you believe e) its the people who actually try to be anonymous who are most noticed Whatever the reason, you chose effectively to disenfranchise (in sense of one-person one-vote) yourself, rather than vote traceably. Yet you claim that the loss of liberty and democracy entailed by the state maintaining total practicable traceability is compensated for by the existence of remailers, when you either can't be arsed or don't trust them yourself ? Come off it. If everybody did that (and if they are like you they will) then they won't participate in any democratic political expression online. It's no comfort to say in some ideal world we could all use double-spend-detecting blind signatures, because that just isn't very likely to happen...
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: Clive D. W. Feather
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:22
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:22
20 lines
2876 bytes
2876 bytes
In article <jlHS7.107$7v6.186801@monolith.news.easynet.net>, pisces <pisces48@yahoo.com> writes >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. The relevance of demon.service is ? The relevance of uk.gov.social-security is ? I would also argue that uk.politics.censorship is not relevant, since this is regulation, not censorship, and that is *exactly* why uk.net.regulation exists. -- Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <clive@davros.org> Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org> Fax: +44 20 8371 4037 (D-fax) | Work: <clive@demon.net> Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: anthonyberet
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 00:39
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 00:39
18 lines
2052 bytes
2052 bytes
<DarkLady@basement.org> wrote in message news:FGAT5LHQ37241.3972916667@anonymous.poster... > "pisces" <pisces48@yahoo.com> writes: > > > (you must be logged in to vote) > > For Against Abstain > > If I got to be logged in then I'll not vote.... > > > If you that bothered about it all why you not using > Anonymous Remailer services, Tsch tsch..... > > > [snipped] > remailers are no defence against ISP caches and keystroke recorders....
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: pisces
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 01:34
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 01:34
45 lines
3857 bytes
3857 bytes
"Clive D. W. Feather" <clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:+5jhP3MRtaH8Ew1O@romana.davros.org... .. > The relevance of demon.service is ? The recent voluminous thread on "NTK on NCS on NNTP". 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. > 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 (and RIP gives power to access) 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. (The Tories wanted Social Security snoopers actually to be included in list of agencies authorised to obtain) > 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 ? Even if this group *is* the most appropriate group, why do you think discussion should *only* occur there ? 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* ?
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: karen
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:11
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:11
35 lines
2692 bytes
2692 bytes
In article <7DwT7.23056$4e3.3036669@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "anthonyberet" <Reply@newsgrouponly.net> wrote: > <DarkLady@basement.org> wrote in message > news:FGAT5LHQ37241.3972916667@anonymous.poster... >> "pisces" <pisces48@yahoo.com> writes: >> >> > (you must be logged in to vote) >> > For Against Abstain >> >> If I got to be logged in then I'll not vote.... >> >> >> If you that bothered about it all why you not using Anonymous Remailer >> services, Tsch tsch..... >> >> >> [snipped] >> > remailers are no defence against ISP caches and keystroke recorders.... All my ISP will get is a multi PGP encrypted mail, they can store my outgoing mail but will not be able to read it. As for keystroke recorders there are rumours, well a little more than rumour now that the FBI are doing this sort of thing but you would have to have little control and or knowledge about your system for them to get away with it, not very likely, at least on a linux/unix system, I cant comment on windows, except that I know windows seems to be full of holes and bugs!. > >
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: karen
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:23
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:23
8 lines
1832 bytes
1832 bytes
In article <20011218.141113.1626276121.169@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk>, "karen" <karen@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote: > [Snipped] Also have a read of the, "Magic Lantern, The FBI Confirms It", thread in alt.privacy.anon-server, it's rather interesting.
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: anthonyberet
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:57
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:57
34 lines
3067 bytes
3067 bytes
karen <karen@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:20011218.141113.1626276121.169@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk... > In article <7DwT7.23056$4e3.3036669@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, > "anthonyberet" <Reply@newsgrouponly.net> wrote: > > > <DarkLady@basement.org> wrote in message > > news:FGAT5LHQ37241.3972916667@anonymous.poster... > >> "pisces" <pisces48@yahoo.com> writes: > >> > >> > (you must be logged in to vote) > >> > For Against Abstain > >> > >> If I got to be logged in then I'll not vote.... > >> > >> > >> If you that bothered about it all why you not using Anonymous Remailer > >> services, Tsch tsch..... > >> > >> > >> [snipped] > >> > > remailers are no defence against ISP caches and keystroke recorders.... > > All my ISP will get is a multi PGP encrypted mail, they can store my > outgoing mail but will not be able to read it. As for keystroke > recorders there are rumours, well a little more than rumour now > that the FBI are doing this sort of thing but you would have to have > little control and or knowledge about your system for them to get > away with it, not very likely, at least on a linux/unix system, I cant > comment on windows, except that I know windows seems to be > full of holes and bugs!. > http://www.google.com/search?q=keystroke+recorder
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: Richard Clayton
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:48
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:48
87 lines
5262 bytes
5262 bytes
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
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: karen
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:51
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:51
50 lines
3716 bytes
3716 bytes
In article <51PT7.35695$pU3.4264864@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "anthonyberet" <Reply@newsgrouponly.net> wrote: > karen <karen@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message > news:20011218.141113.1626276121.169@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk... >> In article <7DwT7.23056$4e3.3036669@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, >> "anthonyberet" <Reply@newsgrouponly.net> wrote: >> >> > <DarkLady@basement.org> wrote in message >> > news:FGAT5LHQ37241.3972916667@anonymous.poster... >> >> "pisces" <pisces48@yahoo.com> writes: >> >> >> >> > (you must be logged in to vote) >> >> > For Against Abstain >> >> >> >> If I got to be logged in then I'll not vote.... >> >> >> >> >> >> If you that bothered about it all why you not using Anonymous >> >> Remailer services, Tsch tsch..... >> >> >> >> >> >> [snipped] >> >> >> > remailers are no defence against ISP caches and keystroke >> > recorders.... >> >> All my ISP will get is a multi PGP encrypted mail, they can store my >> outgoing mail but will not be able to read it. As for keystroke >> recorders there are rumours, well a little more than rumour now that >> the FBI are doing this sort of thing but you would have to have little >> control and or knowledge about your system for them to get away with >> it, not very likely, at least on a linux/unix system, I cant comment on >> windows, except that I know windows seems to be full of holes and >> bugs!. >> > http://www.google.com/search?q=keystroke+recorder Thats slightly different from what I thought you meant, what the FBI seem to be up to is trying to install such progs by virus means. not an easy feat to do without the operator knowing about it. Windows users dont have access to windows source code, how sure can you be that there not code in built in windows to do the FBI's job for them!. If not they do it already then maybe they will in future. There are new version of PGP that have been released without the source code now and poeple are advising not to use these releases just in case they been tampered with. > >
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: Chris Croughton
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 08:06
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 08:06
26 lines
2878 bytes
2878 bytes
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:57:27 -0000, anthonyberet <Reply@newsgrouponly.net> wrote: >karen <karen@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message >news:20011218.141113.1626276121.169@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk... >> >> All my ISP will get is a multi PGP encrypted mail, they can store my >> outgoing mail but will not be able to read it. As for keystroke >> recorders there are rumours, well a little more than rumour now >> that the FBI are doing this sort of thing but you would have to have >> little control and or knowledge about your system for them to get >> away with it, not very likely, at least on a linux/unix system, I cant >> comment on windows, except that I know windows seems to be >> full of holes and bugs!. >> >http://www.google.com/search?q=keystroke+recorder All the ones I see there are (a) for Windoze or Mac and (b) voluntarily installed (and you have to pay for most of them). Since I (a) don't use Windoze or Mac for anything sensitive (the only path my Windoze machines -- which I have for doing music editing -- have to the net is via my server/firewall running Squid as a proxy) and (b) would not voluntarily install anything of that nature (much less pay for it) there are no 'key grabbers' which will affect me. Chris C
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: karen
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:16
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:16
35 lines
3211 bytes
3211 bytes
In article <slrna20ijg.tjm.chris@ccserver.keris.net>, "Chris Croughton" <chris@keristor.org> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:57:27 -0000, anthonyberet > <Reply@newsgrouponly.net> wrote: > >>karen <karen@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:20011218.141113.1626276121.169@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk... >>> >>> All my ISP will get is a multi PGP encrypted mail, they can store my >>> outgoing mail but will not be able to read it. As for keystroke >>> recorders there are rumours, well a little more than rumour now that >>> the FBI are doing this sort of thing but you would have to have little >>> control and or knowledge about your system for them to get away with >>> it, not very likely, at least on a linux/unix system, I cant comment >>> on windows, except that I know windows seems to be full of holes and >>> bugs!. >>> >>http://www.google.com/search?q=keystroke+recorder > > All the ones I see there are (a) for Windoze or Mac and (b) voluntarily > installed (and you have to pay for most of them). Since I (a) don't use > Windoze or Mac for anything sensitive (the only path my Windoze machines > -- which I have for doing music editing -- have to the net is via my > server/firewall running Squid as a proxy) and (b) would not voluntarily > install anything of that nature (much less pay for it) there are no 'key > grabbers' which will affect me. Horay, a fellow Unix user, watchout there a guy in here who will readily acuse us of being one and the same person!... > > Chris C
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: Chris Croughton
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:31
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:31
29 lines
2980 bytes
2980 bytes
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:16:11 +0000, karen <karen@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote: >In article <slrna20ijg.tjm.chris@ccserver.keris.net>, "Chris Croughton" ><chris@keristor.org> wrote: > >> All the ones I see there are (a) for Windoze or Mac and (b) voluntarily >> installed (and you have to pay for most of them). Since I (a) don't use >> Windoze or Mac for anything sensitive (the only path my Windoze machines >> -- which I have for doing music editing -- have to the net is via my >> server/firewall running Squid as a proxy) and (b) would not voluntarily >> install anything of that nature (much less pay for it) there are no 'key >> grabbers' which will affect me. > >Horay, a fellow Unix user, watchout there a guy in here who will readily >acuse us of being one and the same person!... But I am the same person! Oh, you mean as each other <g>... Between 3 and 7 Linux machines at home (depending on whether I have either of the Alphas hooked up), one of which is my main gateway machine (which I'm using, via ssh, right now for this). The Windoze machines are only used for music editing (there being no equivalents on *nix to applications like Noteworthy Composer and Cubase yet). (Which newsgroup are you reading this? So I can trim the cross-posts. I'm reading it in uk.net.regulation) Chris C
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: pisces
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:44
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:44
79 lines
5404 bytes
5404 bytes
"Richard Clayton" <richard@highwayman.com> wrote in message news:TI13kiPlX9H8EAzE@turnpike.com... > 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. That is indeed arguable - but on the face of it, government must believe it broadens the kind of data and length of time for which it can be retained, and allows them to insist that data which is not currently retained by a particular ISP will be in future - if not, what is the point of this legislation ? ... > >(and RIP gives power to access) > > nope :( it's still not in force (middle of 2002 at the earliest) True - but if we are being pedantic, what I said was literally true also. ... > 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 ...depending of course on whether ISPs are aware of this, and choose to interpret it in this way ... > because crossposting is evil - and at this width, affects how far > articles travel :( Why is cross-posting evil ? Do you think that every cross-post is a troll ? Surely, it depends on the nature of the subject matter is (whether intrinsically of interest to a number of groups), and whether the cross-posted groups are relevant in that context. > >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. It can be. But what you don't seem prepared to acknowledge is the that the justification for crossposting is intrinsically a gray area. Nobody devised the Usenet hierarchy with any kind of cladistic plan, and the following each group attracts may or may not be familiar with subject matter usual in other groups. Nevertheless a single post may be quite genuinely be of interest and relevance to several groups, and fruitful discussion may occur as a result of cross-posting, that wouldn't have occured by posting to a single group, or using multiple separate posts. > Removing cross-posting thereafter compounds that mischief :( I don't agree with that either. If somebody wants to pursue a particular line of argument relevant only a subset of the original groups, that seems fine to me (and considerate) What I object to is "thou shalt not cross-post" apparatchiks trying to chop off somebody else's cross-post at the knees by pre-emptively replying with a restricted Follow Up, and claiming some sort of moral netiquette high ground in doing so. Sure most cross-posts degenerate into rambling irrelevance - but so what ? Usenet was ever thus - no amount of finger-wagging will stop this, and it's plain unhealthy to try and inculcate the view "crossposting is evil". It depends on the intent.
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: karen
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 17:23
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 17:23
42 lines
3467 bytes
3467 bytes
In article <slrna21cmq.9rl.chris@ccserver.keris.net>, "Chris Croughton" <chris@keristor.org> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:16:11 +0000, karen > <karen@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote: > >>In article <slrna20ijg.tjm.chris@ccserver.keris.net>, "Chris Croughton" >><chris@keristor.org> wrote: >> >>> All the ones I see there are (a) for Windoze or Mac and (b) >>> voluntarily installed (and you have to pay for most of them). Since I >>> (a) don't use Windoze or Mac for anything sensitive (the only path my >>> Windoze machines -- which I have for doing music editing -- have to >>> the net is via my server/firewall running Squid as a proxy) and (b) >>> would not voluntarily install anything of that nature (much less pay >>> for it) there are no 'key grabbers' which will affect me. >> >>Horay, a fellow Unix user, watchout there a guy in here who will readily >>acuse us of being one and the same person!... > > But I am the same person! Oh, you mean as each other <g>... > > Between 3 and 7 Linux machines at home (depending on whether I have > either of the Alphas hooked up), one of which is my main gateway machine > (which I'm using, via ssh, right now for this). The Windoze machines > are only used for music editing (there being no equivalents on *nix to > applications like Noteworthy Composer and Cubase yet). I only got the one machine but do have an older 486 that I dont use. The only windoze prog I use a lot is Mathcad and it works just fine under WINE. > > (Which newsgroup are you reading this? So I can trim the cross-posts. > I'm reading it in uk.net.regulation) uk.gov.social-security > > Chris C
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: Roland Perry
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 17:36
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 17:36
24 lines
3008 bytes
3008 bytes
In message <MD2U7.50$ff4.47441@monolith.news.easynet.net>, pisces
<pisces48@yahoo.com> writes
>on the face of it, government must believe it
>broadens the kind of data and length of time for which it can be retained,
It doesn't broaden the kinds of data, at least while the CoP is
voluntary. I have a feeling that people think more kinds of data are
being kept than is actually the case.
>and allows them to insist that data which is not currently retained by a
>particular ISP will be in future -
Let's be careful not to confuse "starting to log things you didn't
before" with "retaining a log that churned off rather rapidly before".
> if not, what is the point of this
>legislation ?
It stems largely from a feeling that "evidence is being destroyed",
because it's not being kept long enough.
--
Roland Perry | tel: +44 1733 207705 | roland@linx.org
Director of Public Policy | fax: +44 1733 207729 | http://www.linx.net
London Internet Exchange | mbl: +44 7050 604080 | /contact/roland
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: Richard Clayton
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 23:09
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 23:09
50 lines
3976 bytes
3976 bytes
In article <MD2U7.50$ff4.47441@monolith.news.easynet.net>, pisces <pisces48@yahoo.com> writes >"Richard Clayton" <richard@highwayman.com> wrote in message >news:TI13kiPlX9H8EAzE@turnpike.com... >> In article <o4xT7.1414$8%.418515@monolith.news.easynet.net>, pisces >> <pisces48@yahoo.com> writes >> >> >Under "Anti-Terrorism" Act, ISPs can now be compelled to log the kind of >> >data that would enable NCS actually to do what they initially said they >were >> >doing. >> >> nope :( >> >> under ATCS ISPs will now negotiate a Code of Practice that relates to >> keeping data .. since I doubt that many ISPs would have any necessity to >> be logging the type of data referred to (records of downloads from news >> servers) the question of retention wouldn't arise anyway. > >That is indeed arguable - but on the face of it, government must believe it >broadens the kind of data and length of time for which it can be retained, >and allows them to insist that data which is not currently retained by a >particular ISP will be in future - if not, what is the point of this >legislation ? IMO, to ensure that the telcos do not delete the data that they've been holding for the past few years I think they included ISPs in the interests of being "fair" to the telcos by creating technology independent legislation. The Home Office gets enough parliamentary time each year to have no real practical need to "future-proof" their statutes. >> because crossposting is evil - and at this width, affects how far >> articles travel :( > >Why is cross-posting evil ? I gave several reasons in my previous article >Do you think that every cross-post is a troll ? no -- richard Richard Clayton They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: anthonyberet
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 23:50
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 23:50
59 lines
4551 bytes
4551 bytes
karen <karen@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:20011218.235128.352118606.168@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk... > In article <51PT7.35695$pU3.4264864@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, > "anthonyberet" <Reply@newsgrouponly.net> wrote: > > > karen <karen@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:20011218.141113.1626276121.169@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk... > >> In article <7DwT7.23056$4e3.3036669@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, > >> "anthonyberet" <Reply@newsgrouponly.net> wrote: > >> > >> > <DarkLady@basement.org> wrote in message > >> > news:FGAT5LHQ37241.3972916667@anonymous.poster... > >> >> "pisces" <pisces48@yahoo.com> writes: > >> >> > >> >> > (you must be logged in to vote) > >> >> > For Against Abstain > >> >> > >> >> If I got to be logged in then I'll not vote.... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> If you that bothered about it all why you not using Anonymous > >> >> Remailer services, Tsch tsch..... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> [snipped] > >> >> > >> > remailers are no defence against ISP caches and keystroke > >> > recorders.... > >> > >> All my ISP will get is a multi PGP encrypted mail, they can store my > >> outgoing mail but will not be able to read it. As for keystroke > >> recorders there are rumours, well a little more than rumour now that > >> the FBI are doing this sort of thing but you would have to have little > >> control and or knowledge about your system for them to get away with > >> it, not very likely, at least on a linux/unix system, I cant comment on > >> windows, except that I know windows seems to be full of holes and > >> bugs!. > >> > > http://www.google.com/search?q=keystroke+recorder > > Thats slightly different from what I thought you meant, what the FBI > seem to be up to is trying to install such progs by virus means. not an > easy feat to do without the operator knowing about it. Windows users > dont have access to windows source code, how sure can you be that > there not code in built in windows to do the FBI's job for them!. If not > they do it already then maybe they will in future. There are new version > of PGP that have been released without the source code now and poeple > are advising not to use these releases just in case they been tampered > with. > I do believe the FBI have developed a trojan which acts as a keylogger, and can record/mail the results. It was used in one case to record the password to a target's PGP. I got the impression it could be installed remotely. McCaffee said that if software like this was being used by the FBI they would not introduce software to detect it. Can't find a link though, and trojans are hard to plant remotely....but...........
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: anthonyberet
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 23:54
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 23:54
36 lines
3650 bytes
3650 bytes
Chris Croughton <chris@keristor.org> wrote in message news:slrna20ijg.tjm.chris@ccserver.keris.net... > On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:57:27 -0000, anthonyberet > <Reply@newsgrouponly.net> wrote: > > >karen <karen@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message > >news:20011218.141113.1626276121.169@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk... > >> > >> All my ISP will get is a multi PGP encrypted mail, they can store my > >> outgoing mail but will not be able to read it. As for keystroke > >> recorders there are rumours, well a little more than rumour now > >> that the FBI are doing this sort of thing but you would have to have > >> little control and or knowledge about your system for them to get > >> away with it, not very likely, at least on a linux/unix system, I cant > >> comment on windows, except that I know windows seems to be > >> full of holes and bugs!. > >> > >http://www.google.com/search?q=keystroke+recorder > > All the ones I see there are (a) for Windoze or Mac and (b) voluntarily > installed (and you have to pay for most of them). Since I (a) don't use > Windoze or Mac for anything sensitive (the only path my Windoze machines > -- which I have for doing music editing -- have to the net is via my > server/firewall running Squid as a proxy) and (b) would not voluntarily > install anything of that nature (much less pay for it) there are no > 'key grabbers' which will affect me. > > Chris C Remember that any software installed in you machine can mess with a personal firewall's code to prevent being blocked. -though proxys should be safe. You are right about remote installation of keyloggers though....I would expect hackers to get to it before the old farts at the govt. I wouldn't be completely confident though, who knows what deals the US (at least) govt has with software developers...
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: Chris Croughton
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 09:56
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 09:56
34 lines
3336 bytes
3336 bytes
On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 23:54:11 -0000, anthonyberet <Reply@newsgrouponly.net> wrote: >Chris Croughton <chris@keristor.org> wrote in message >news:slrna20ijg.tjm.chris@ccserver.keris.net... >> >> All the ones I see there are (a) for Windoze or Mac and (b) voluntarily >> installed (and you have to pay for most of them). Since I (a) don't use >> Windoze or Mac for anything sensitive (the only path my Windoze machines >> -- which I have for doing music editing -- have to the net is via my >> server/firewall running Squid as a proxy) and (b) would not voluntarily >> install anything of that nature (much less pay for it) there are no >> 'key grabbers' which will affect me. > >Remember that any software installed in you machine can mess with a personal >firewall's code to prevent being blocked. -though proxys should be safe. The proxy runs as a different user, so nothing else running is going to interfere with it (unless I was stupid enough to have an untrusted process running as root!). This is Linux, not Windoze. Plus I have a hardware router/firewall and nothing messes with that. >You are right about remote installation of keyloggers though....I would >expect hackers to get to it before the old farts at the govt. >I wouldn't be completely confident though, who knows what deals the US (at >least) govt has with software developers... They don't have any deals with the developers of the software I use, other developers in different countries would soon notice (and in the extreme I can look at the source myself). Except, possibly, the music software but I would quickly notice if that started trying to do net accesses outside my home network... Chris C
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: karen
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:24
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:24
86 lines
5771 bytes
5771 bytes
In article <zWuU7.9073$US4.900744@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "anthonyberet" <Reply@newsgrouponly.net> wrote: > karen <karen@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message > news:20011218.235128.352118606.168@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk... >> In article <51PT7.35695$pU3.4264864@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, >> "anthonyberet" <Reply@newsgrouponly.net> wrote: >> >> > karen <karen@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message >> > news:20011218.141113.1626276121.169@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk... >> >> In article <7DwT7.23056$4e3.3036669@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, >> >> "anthonyberet" <Reply@newsgrouponly.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> > <DarkLady@basement.org> wrote in message >> >> > news:FGAT5LHQ37241.3972916667@anonymous.poster... >> >> >> "pisces" <pisces48@yahoo.com> writes: >> >> >> >> >> >> > (you must be logged in to vote) >> >> >> > For Against Abstain >> >> >> >> >> >> If I got to be logged in then I'll not vote.... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If you that bothered about it all why you not using Anonymous >> >> >> Remailer services, Tsch tsch..... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [snipped] >> >> >> >> >> > remailers are no defence against ISP caches and keystroke >> >> > recorders.... >> >> >> >> All my ISP will get is a multi PGP encrypted mail, they can store my >> >> outgoing mail but will not be able to read it. As for keystroke >> >> recorders there are rumours, well a little more than rumour now that >> >> the FBI are doing this sort of thing but you would have to have >> >> little control and or knowledge about your system for them to get >> >> away with it, not very likely, at least on a linux/unix system, I >> >> cant comment on windows, except that I know windows seems to be full >> >> of holes and bugs!. >> >> >> > http://www.google.com/search?q=keystroke+recorder >> >> Thats slightly different from what I thought you meant, what the FBI >> seem to be up to is trying to install such progs by virus means. not an >> easy feat to do without the operator knowing about it. Windows users >> dont have access to windows source code, how sure can you be that there >> not code in built in windows to do the FBI's job for them!. If not they >> do it already then maybe they will in future. There are new version of >> PGP that have been released without the source code now and poeple are >> advising not to use these releases just in case they been tampered >> with. >> > I do believe the FBI have developed a trojan which acts as a keylogger, > and can record/mail the results. > It was used in one case to record the password to a target's PGP. I got > the impression it could be installed remotely. Yes I think it is that Magic Lantern thingy they were on about in that thread I mentioned earlier. McCaffee said that if > software like this was being used by the FBI they would not introduce > software to detect it. Can't find a link though, and trojans are hard to > plant remotely....but........... Just saw on Ceefax about windoze XP, suposed to be very good at security but a bug in it just found would enable a hacker to take over your system, he he, I would demand my money back not that I would pay money for such buggy software of course!. It's odd isnt it, America has the constitution, we have nothing like that, I think it just that governments dont really like the idea of people being able to mass communicate with each other, this whole idea of protecting 'us' from terrorists is a load of twaddle, I read somewhere, may have been here that with all the snooping already going on even the might of the FBI, CIA, NSA etc etc didnt even have a whiff of Sept 11, makes you wonder what the real agenda to all this snooping is!.......I mean we have known for years who the IRA are and where they live but knowing their names and addresses didnt stop the bombs and murders continuing. > >
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: Clive D. W. Feather
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 19:15
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 19:15
35 lines
3333 bytes
3333 bytes
In article <o4xT7.1414$8%.418515@monolith.news.easynet.net>, pisces <pisces48@yahoo.com> writes >> The relevance of demon.service is ? > >The recent voluminous thread on "NTK on NCS on NNTP". Much of which had nothing to do with demon.service. And, even so, that's not justification. >> 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. Arguably. >> and that is *exactly* why >> uk.net.regulation exists. > >Why is there some imperative to confine discussion to the most tightly >defined single group ? Even if this group *is* the most appropriate group, >why do you think discussion should *only* occur there ? Because it stops the thread forking in fifteen different directions, as this one already seems to be doing. The *polite* approach is to set followups to a single group in your original posting and tell people you've done so. -- Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <clive@davros.org> Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org> Fax: +44 20 8371 4037 (D-fax) | Work: <clive@demon.net> Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: pisces
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:34
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:34
7 lines
2331 bytes
2331 bytes
"Clive D. W. Feather" <clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:+zlBtis3o4I8EwNn@on-the-train.demon.co.uk... ... > The *polite* approach is to set followups to a single group in your > original posting and tell people you've done so. That is true. I apologize.
Re: Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
Author: Dave J.
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 01:47
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 01:47
28 lines
2849 bytes
2849 bytes
"karen" <karen@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote :
> It's odd isnt it, America has the constitution, we have nothing like
> that, I think it just that governments dont really like the idea of
> people being able to mass communicate with each other, this whole
> idea of protecting 'us' from terrorists is a load of twaddle, I read
> somewhere, may have been here that with all the snooping already
> going on even the might of the FBI, CIA, NSA etc etc didnt even
> have a whiff of Sept 11, makes you wonder what the real agenda
> to all this snooping is!.......I mean we have known for years who the
> IRA are and where they live but knowing their names and addresses
> didnt stop the bombs and murders continuing.
I doubt if you'll get a reply - sounds too much like conspiracy
theory..
Or does it sound too much like _the_ conspiracy? ;-)
See
news:oriq1u8mu81jpccfka0js6m0c6co1bqmlf@4ax.com
("Is Denis Mcmahon the big brother?") <G>
--
Dave Johnson :- requiem@freeuk.com
The problem with Win XP - http://www.arachnoid.com/boycott/
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads