Online Privacy: A thing of the past

[Bluebird since 1948]

do you think its funny to joke about Alzheimers ??

Just ignore it. I have a relative who is in the early stages of Alzheimers, wandering off in shops, getting ready to go out for no reason etc. It's awful to think that very soon she won't have a clue who I am and I am dreading the moment that first happens.

Mrs Steve R - The obvious reasons are that I have a long term girlfriend so I know I wouldn't have told her my name. If she was a bunny boiler I could have been in a lot of trouble thanks to Facebook. Perhaps it's a good thing I can't get it up when I am pissed up otherwise this Gloucester girl would have added me hankering for second helpings.

[Kris]

Yes, they have been secretly collecting my data for years and I didn't want them to
Do I have to be mugged to be against mugging? I don't have anything to hide and probably never will have but it's still not the point, it's not where it starts it's where it's going to end up.
I'm one of the ones who's been moaning for 10 years and I will continue to moan because look what's happened in those 10 years, I'm an extremist apparently, they can now legally spy on us and thanks to the FTAC they can legally detain people for an indefinite period without trial, criminal charges or even evidence of a crime being committed if they consider them to be “fixated” with government or public figures, being fixated can go from constantly criticising them to full on obsession, of course when they introduced this they only told people the good side of it, how it will protect the pope ect but in my opinion this is a dangerous law just sitting there waiting to be used..
What do the next 10 years have in store? forced microchips? mandatory vaccinations? fema camps for those of us who are "fixated" with the government? you can argue that it's not wrong but I will never agree that it's right.

Your first few sentences are exactly correct. My freedom to privacy has been infringed. True, no-one has probably looked at my internet browsing history despite having access. But they've looked at someone else's, and often with very little justification.

Just because it is recorded somewhere that I visit this site or that, does it mean it should be freely accessible to the Ministry of Silly Walks?

This last 6 months I have been tracking stories and information about a particular terrorist group in a particular country. That could quite easily be misconstrued as me being a sympathiser if certain people want it to be.

Millions of people watch porn on the internet, years ago it would be kept under the mattress or thrown away in the woods. Now, certain people can find out what gets you going and, in almost all cases, even the most innocent of fetishes could be miscontrued as a person being a psychological head case.

As you say, where will it end? Some of your suggestions are fanciful, but the point is there. Where does it end? You can expect that list to grow for a start. You can also expect a person's browsing history to be brought up in Court cases - even if that browsing history does not imply guilt, it could be misinterpreted as a person being obsessed on, say, blonde haired girls and that could sway any jury to make the wrong decision when a defendant is defending himself against the crime of rape where the victim is blonde.

Yes, it's not going to happen to you, or me, or your nephew, or your next door neighbour. But it WILL happen to some poor sod. And, because of that, we should all be concerned about the possible ramifications of this act.

I would say a large percentage of people have things they have looked at on the internet that they don't want other people to know. And that is the point. Just because it is available, should it be open to interpretation?

[Mrs Steve R]

There's 195 countries in the world and this country easily has the most CCTV cameras trained on the population. We are the most watched people on earth. The likes of the ultra complacent Barry doesn't think this is unusual nor will ponder why countries we're constantly told are evil and totalitarian (China, North Korea, Iran, Russia) are nowhere near as keen on keeping their citizens under such widespread observation.

Got through with hardly a whimper too.

Mrs Steve R - The obvious reasons are that I have a long term girlfriend so I know I wouldn't have told her my name. If she was a bunny boiler I could have been in a lot of trouble thanks to Facebook. Perhaps it's a good thing I can't get it up when I am pissed up otherwise this Gloucester girl would have added me hankering for second helpings.

Tut tut

Your first few sentences are exactly correct. My freedom to privacy has been infringed. True, no-one has probably looked at my internet browsing history despite having access. But they've looked at someone else's, and often with very little justification.

Just because it is recorded somewhere that I visit this site or that, does it mean it should be freely accessible to the Ministry of Silly Walks?

This last 6 months I have been tracking stories and information about a particular terrorist group in a particular country. That could quite easily be misconstrued as me being a sympathiser if certain people want it to be.

Millions of people watch porn on the internet, years ago it would be kept under the mattress or thrown away in the woods. Now, certain people can find out what gets you going and, in almost all cases, even the most innocent of fetishes could be miscontrued as a person being a psychological head case.

As you say, where will it end? Some of your suggestions are fanciful, but the point is there. Where does it end? You can expect that list to grow for a start. You can also expect a person's browsing history to be brought up in Court cases - even if that browsing history does not imply guilt, it could be misinterpreted as a person being obsessed on, say, blonde haired girls and that could sway any jury to make the wrong decision when a defendant is defending himself against the crime of rape where the victim is blonde.

Yes, it's not going to happen to you, or me, or your nephew, or your next door neighbour. But it WILL happen to some poor sod. And, because of that, we should all be concerned about the possible ramifications of this act.

I would say a large percentage of people have things they have looked at on the internet that they don't want other people to know. And that is the point. Just because it is available, should it be open to interpretation?

Indeed

[MacAdder]

Not sure why this is allowed in this forum but glad it is not.
Mrs R and Kris, good debate.
OP good poser and a side I have agreed with for a long time.

[welshyoot]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-n...ing-1480351590

This is just crazy... Nothing to hide, nothing to fear hasn't worked well in China! Who incidentally point to this new law as support for their mass surveillance.

"The Chinese government late last year pointed to the U.K.’s draft in defending its own anti-terror law, which in part requires Internet and phone companies to decrypt data.

“Does the U.K. really want the dubious honor of introducing powers deemed to intrusive by all other major democracies, joining the likes of China and Russia in collecting everyone’s browsing habits?” said Anne Jellema, the head of the World Wide Web Foundation, a non-profit set up by Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee to promote free access to the Internet."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ed-upon-people

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...oopers-charter

[welshyoot]

https://www.facebook.com/openrightsg...57897888505436

If you click the wsj journal from this facebook post it gives you access to the article rather than telling you to subscribe/sign in for full access I believe (for those interested!).

[Vimana.]

Bingo.

Happened for 25 years. But couldn't be used in court as was not quite legal. Now they need to use it in court, so they need legislation.

Anyone thinking this is a new threat is way behind the reality.

Neither the technology, nor the resource, nor the infrastructure, nor the conditions in which to operate has been around for "25 years".

[Vimana.]

Can anyone give me evidence that their own personal liberties have been infringed. You have been moaning about it for 10 years or so, so surely someone must have had their own liberties infringed. Come tell us your story.

Other than CC blocking his own camera there must be someone.

Surely the whole premise is that it has been a clandestine activity.
I doubt anybody will be officially informed that they have been spied upon and the info used against them.

However, seeing as so few people are bothered about the notion, all that may change soon enough.

[William Treseder]

The world is closing in on us Colonel. The majority of us have been nothing more than no's for yrs, with our birth certificates, NI numbers , bank account details, passports, medical records, addresses etc. Now with the internet and online options, we are in an ever decreasing gold fish bowl.
Trying to halt the runaway train though, is like trying to nail blancmange to a ceiling.
If the security picture is really as bad and as worrying as you are trying to paint, then you could be one of the 1st to "mysteriously disappear" after starting this thread. !!!

[Baloo]

Bingo.

Happened for 25 years. But couldn't be used in court as was not quite legal. Now they need to use it in court, so they need legislation.

Anyone thinking this is a new threat is way behind the reality.

Is not quite legal a new way of saying illegal?

People know now that illegal surveillance activities have been carried out for years, but it was intended to remain secret and with disregard to the law.

[Wales-Bales]

The world is closing in on us Colonel. The majority of us have been nothing more than no's for yrs, with our birth certificates, NI numbers , bank account details, passports, medical records, addresses etc. Now with the internet and online options, we are in an ever decreasing gold fish bowl.
Trying to halt the runaway train though, is like trying to nail blancmange to a ceiling.
If the security picture is really as bad and as worrying as you are trying to paint, then you could be one of the 1st to "mysteriously disappear" after starting this thread. !!!

We have been under Admiralty Law for quite some time.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

It's not just governments that will tap into such data, of course.

[Thoth]

You need one of those Amazon Echo thingies.

What's that?

It's a shit 2 bob publication for South American Rainforest residents.

[blue matt]

It's a shit 2 bob publication for South American Rainforest residents.

whats the football reporter like ? ? ? ? any good ? ? ?

[whofan]

As I understand it, anyone who wishes to examine electronic and browsing history has to make an application under RIPA to specify the "target" they are investigating. Fishing investigations are not allowed under RIPA.

The information is not being examined in real time by Police or the other agencies - and you are qquite right, the full list is extraordinarily wide, but an awful lot of those agencies - eg Gambling Commission - carry out prosecutions, and in their case examination of data held by ISP's etc.. can be useful to prove a case.

The information held is not being accessed in real time. That would still need an Interception warrant from the Home Secretary.

I would also point out that the trigger for an examination of data would normally come from a already occuring investigation, or in the case of intecepts by GCHQ, from trigger words or phrases. These would not go to agencies but to Law Enforccement and Security and intellgience services.

Telephone data (mobile and landline) has been subject to applications for access by the assigned law enforcement agencies for a number of years before this law came into being.

I understand the unease people feel about this, but in all honesty if the Government had explained it better, had explained the mechanics better, I don't think it would cause so much suspicion.

As to the argument that says "if you've got nothing to hide, so go on, post your bank account details to this forum, or let the window cleaner film you in your bathroom" it's wrong to manipulate the average person's normal security concerns against their confidence that they are not doing anything illegal which is what people mean.

In other words people can say "I am not a criminal, I am not a terrorist, I do not hold extreme views on politics, so yes, I have nothing to hide, but of course my bank account details are my business, and I am confident no one is going to fish for details of my private business"

It's not perfect. I'd be a fool to say so. But it's not the utter diaster that some peope in organisations opposed to it are making out.

[blue matt]

As I understand it, anyone who wishes to examine electronic and browsing history has to make an application under RIPA to specify the "target" they are investigating. Fishing investigations are not allowed under RIPA.

The information is not being examined in real time by Police or the other agencies - and you are qquite right, the full list is extraordinarily wide, but an awful lot of those agencies - eg Gambling Commission - carry out prosecutions, and in their case examination of data held by ISP's etc.. can be useful to prove a case.

The information held is not being accessed in real time. That would still need an Interception warrant from the Home Secretary.

I would also point out that the trigger for an examination of data would normally come from a already occuring investigation, or in the case of intecepts by GCHQ, from trigger words or phrases. These would not go to agencies but to Law Enforccement and Security and intellgience services.

Telephone data (mobile and landline) has been subject to applications for access by the assigned law enforcement agencies for a number of years before this law came into being.

I understand the unease people feel about this, but in all honesty if the Government had explained it better, had explained the mechanics better, I don't think it would cause so much suspicion.

As to the argument that says "if you've got nothing to hide, so go on, post your bank account details to this forum, or let the window cleaner film you in your bathroom" it's wrong to manipulate the average person's normal security concerns against their confidence that they are not doing anything illegal which is what people mean.

In other words people can say "I am not a criminal, I am not a terrorist, I do not hold extreme views on politics, so yes, I have nothing to hide, but of course my bank account details are my business, and I am confident no one is going to fish for details of my private business"

It's not perfect. I'd be a fool to say so. But it's not the utter diaster that some peope in organisations opposed to it are making out.

take your sense and please leave this thread

[Penarth Blues]

As I understand it, anyone who wishes to examine electronic and browsing history has to make an application under RIPA to specify the "target" they are investigating. Fishing investigations are not allowed under RIPA.

The information is not being examined in real time by Police or the other agencies - and you are qquite right, the full list is extraordinarily wide, but an awful lot of those agencies - eg Gambling Commission - carry out prosecutions, and in their case examination of data held by ISP's etc.. can be useful to prove a case.

The information held is not being accessed in real time. That would still need an Interception warrant from the Home Secretary.

I would also point out that the trigger for an examination of data would normally come from a already occuring investigation, or in the case of intecepts by GCHQ, from trigger words or phrases. These would not go to agencies but to Law Enforccement and Security and intellgience services.

Telephone data (mobile and landline) has been subject to applications for access by the assigned law enforcement agencies for a number of years before this law came into being.

I understand the unease people feel about this, but in all honesty if the Government had explained it better, had explained the mechanics better, I don't think it would cause so much suspicion.

As to the argument that says "if you've got nothing to hide, so go on, post your bank account details to this forum, or let the window cleaner film you in your bathroom" it's wrong to manipulate the average person's normal security concerns against their confidence that they are not doing anything illegal which is what people mean.

In other words people can say "I am not a criminal, I am not a terrorist, I do not hold extreme views on politics, so yes, I have nothing to hide, but of course my bank account details are my business, and I am confident no one is going to fish for details of my private business"

It's not perfect. I'd be a fool to say so. But it's not the utter diaster that some peope in organisations opposed to it are making out.

Sorry, but it is an utter disaster. It requires no imagination at all to realize how this will be abused in the not too distant future to suppress dissent - all in the name of the public good of course.

If you were designing a tool for the few to control the masses I can think of nothing more perfect.

[Kris]

Sorry, but it is an utter disaster. It requires no imagination at all to realize how this will be abused in the not too distant future to suppress dissent - all in the name of the public good of course.

If you were designing a tool for the few to control the masses I can think of nothing more perfect.

In an ideal world, the data will only be accessed when there is a justification for it, and when access is required.

I was just reading about the terrible story of the low-life who left his son to die in a hot car in the US. It is an open and shut case, and some of the evidence that led to his conviction included nude photographs he sent at the time to some women, and an underage girl. Other evidence included Google searches on "How long does it take a child to die in a hot car" and something else (I have forgotten what).

This is an example of how the data used can help to convict people of crimes where, perhaps, it would have been difficult to prove that the child didn't die as a result of forgetfulness. If this is what the UK agencies are going to use the data for, then fair enough.

However, as I have pointed out, it is quite easy to misinterpret anyone's internet history to make them appear to be sick individuals who could be guilty of committing whatever crimes they need solved.

Also, it is possible that this data will get hacked, or go missing, or end up in the wrong hands.

If there is a potential that this data could be used to, say, jail an innocent person or to misrepresent a person - then I am absolutely opposed to it. Is "whofan" confident that the data being held cannot be misused at all?

[whofan]

No, I said it wasn't perfect and I'd be a fool to say so.

of course data can be hacked or misused. And given the expanded number of agencies who will be allowed access to this material I have no doubt that some, like the Council who misused RIPA to follow parents to see if they lied on their applications for school places for their children, will do something similar. But, like that Council, they wil be picked up on it.


I was trying to make the point that this act is not an invitation to what is it 43 agencies to sit down and start browsing quite literally billions of website accesses or phone calls or text messages or emails per week, if not daily just to see if they can find someone who'se being naughty or they want to stitch someone up for the fun of it.

[Penarth Blues]

No, I said it wasn't perfect and I'd be a fool to say so.

of course data can be hacked or misused. And given the expanded number of agencies who will be allowed access to this material I have no doubt that some, like the Council who misused RIPA to follow parents to see if they lied on their applications for school places for their children, will do something similar. But, like that Council, they wil be picked up on it.


I was trying to make the point that this act is not an invitation to what is it 43 agencies to sit down and start browsing quite literally billions of website accesses or phone calls or text messages or emails per week, if not daily just to see if they can find someone who'se being naughty or they want to stitch someone up for the fun of it.

You seem to be able to compose a point of view clearly, so will have no difficulty in understanding that despite the potential for good in this unwanted surveillance there is not the slightest doubt that it will hinder freedom of speech and action simply by its presence. Lots of people died to give us this right, and this law is the continuation of taking that right away in my opinion.

Who is to say that what is considered acceptable behaviour now - and which is being recorded forever - will at some stage in the future not be considered subversive or socially unacceptable and used to show just cause for some form of punishment?

Everything is capable of being taken out of context if a need requires it, and I'd prefer not to have my life defined and recorded by people I do not know.

[William Treseder]

Sorry, but it is an utter disaster. It requires no imagination at all to realize how this will be abused in the not too distant future to suppress dissent - all in the name of the public good of course.

If you were designing a tool for the few to control the masses I can think of nothing more perfect.

The masses have been controlled by a few since time began.

[Colonel Cærdiffi]

The masses have been controlled by a few since time began.

But never have they been allowed such insight into people's personal business.

And we're supposed to just 'trust' them with this info, as if they've done anything to earn that kind of trust.

The fact they've been surveilling the public for years illegally should be setting alarm bells ringing.

[William Treseder]

But never have they been allowed such insight into people's personal business.

And we're supposed to just 'trust' them with this info, as if they've done anything to earn that kind of trust.

The fact they've been surveilling the public for years illegally should be setting alarm bells ringing.

Trouble is though. The average man/woman/child in the street are really not bothered by it. They just swarm to social media sites like bees to a homey pot.
The majority of people in the world are pretty docile when it comes to being manipulated by higher powers and will accept many levels of abuse and tyranny from their governments without fighting back.
Maybe Ned Ludd was right all along!

[jon1959]

In an ideal world, the data will only be accessed when there is a justification for it, and when access is required.

I was just reading about the terrible story of the low-life who left his son to die in a hot car in the US. It is an open and shut case, and some of the evidence that led to his conviction included nude photographs he sent at the time to some women, and an underage girl. Other evidence included Google searches on "How long does it take a child to die in a hot car" and something else (I have forgotten what).

This is an example of how the data used can help to convict people of crimes where, perhaps, it would have been difficult to prove that the child didn't die as a result of forgetfulness. If this is what the UK agencies are going to use the data for, then fair enough.

However, as I have pointed out, it is quite easy to misinterpret anyone's internet history to make them appear to be sick individuals who could be guilty of committing whatever crimes they need solved.

Also, it is possible that this data will get hacked, or go missing, or end up in the wrong hands.

If there is a potential that this data could be used to, say, jail an innocent person or to misrepresent a person - then I am absolutely opposed to it. Is "whofan" confident that the data being held cannot be misused at all?

It was alleged in the trial (or reporting of the trial) but it seems that bit at least was not true. False news again or the MSM with an agenda? I'll go with 'false news':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38215954

However, he has been convicted of murder and child sex crimes (exposed by the search of his online activities) so the arguments about personal privacy and finding online evidence of criminality are still captured by the case.

[Mrs Steve R]

But never have they been allowed such insight into people's personal business.

And we're supposed to just 'trust' them with this info, as if they've done anything to earn that kind of trust.

The fact they've been surveilling the public for years illegally should be setting alarm bells ringing.

I forgot to ask, do you still think that Snowden leaking all that info to start with was in our interests?