Print 55 comment(s) - last by Adonlude.. on May 28 at 5:18 PM

Critics fear that citizens sleepwalk into the arms of Big Brother

The UK government wants a massive database to store the web, e-mail, and phone histories of every person in the country – and is unveiling new telecommunications legislation to implement it.

Technology is changing too fast, said a spokeswoman for the UK Home Office, and current progress is undermining law enforcement’s ability to obtain data and “use it to protect the public.”

Such legislation would update the country’s laws, giving the government and law enforcement officials an expanded ability to obtain communications records essential for counter-terrorism and fighting crime. Under the new legislation, law enforcement would receive a brand new, centralized database of communications records, giving officers a one-stop shop for comprehensive reports on a person’s communications activities.

Ross Anderson, chairman of think-tank Foundation for Information Policy Research, thinks that such a database would require network providers to undergo substantial redesigns of their networks. As a result, service providers “would simply move abroad” rather than play ball with the government.

“It's an enormous power grab by the Home Office, and to think it will become a reality is wishful thinking,” said Anderson.

Such a database would add a considerable amount of information to the country’s already large surveillance program, complementing controversial plans for a national Identity Register and corresponding ID card that were delayed to 2012.Together, with new face-recognition technology in surveillance cameras, and comprehensive national ID and communications databases, government officials would have the ability to take a seemingly intimate view into ordinary citizens’ lives, documenting previously anonymous data with startling efficiency.

Naturally, civil rights groups, IT experts, activists, and security professionals are concerned about the initiative – particularly given previous programs’ lack of effectiveness and the government’s spotty security record.

“This would give us serious concerns and may well be a step too far. We are not aware of any justification for the State to hold every UK citizen’s phone and internet records,” said assistant Information Commissioner Jonathan Bamford. “We have warned before that we are sleepwalking into a surveillance society.”

A communications database created per the proposal would be forced to record the almost 57 billion text messages and 3 billion e-mails sent annually in the UK, a security prospect that industry officials are concerned about attracting abuse.

“Given [ministers’] appalling record at maintaining the integrity of databases holding people’s sensitive data, this could well be more of a threat to [national] security, than a support,” said Shadow Home Secretary David Davis.

“Holding large collections of data is always risky - the more data that is collected and stored, the bigger the problem when the data is lost, traded or stolen,” said Bamford.

Government police and security forces would be able to access the database only for records authorized by court warrant.

Jamie Cowper, director of European marketing at security company PGP Corp., panned the idea.

“You've got to admire the government's gall in attempting to bring in yet another 'super-database' with public confidence still in tatters over recent lapses in data protection,” said Cowper.

PC World reports that the Internet Service Providers’ Association is taking a “wait-and-see” approach before it weighs in, but it expressed concern about modifications that ISPs would have to make to their businesses and infrastructure.

Home Office officials note that much of the information desired is already available, albeit spread across different companies. This creates an unnecessary time sink and hampers investigations, it said, and a new, central database would allow law enforcement and security officials to work more efficiently.

Full details will be released as part of a data communications bill set to be announced this November. Ministers have yet to see or approve the plans for inclusion in upcoming drafts.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Rediculous invasion of privacy
By Adonlude on 5/21/2008 9:17:00 PM , Rating: 5
Current progress [in technology] is undermining law enforcement’s ability to obtain data and “use it to protect the public.”

That is what I like to call a "your problem" not a "my problem". Stay out of my private life or my guns start pointing in your general direction. Of course in the UK you can't have privacy or guns... thats how it always starts. First they disarm you.

Thank god for the 2nd and 4th, though even in the US they are weakening.

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By LumbergTech on 5/21/2008 9:49:07 PM , Rating: 5
i dont know what kind of guns you own, but if they claim to need your information in the name of national security i can assure you that theirs will be bigger than yours

By SiliconJon on 5/26/2008 5:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed - if you're using the right to bear arms <sic> as your primary line of defense, you're setting yourself up for an ambush. There's a great many battles to be had well before that point, and if they're not fought, it's a loss all the way to your last stand as a terrorist (which is what you'll be if you try to shoot down police, IRS, ATF, FBI, Blackwater, regardless of their intentions).

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By Polynikes on 5/21/2008 10:43:19 PM , Rating: 3
Seriously. And Europeans think Americans are crazy for supporting personal gun ownership.

"When would you ever need one?" they ask.

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By TomCorelis on 5/21/2008 11:08:24 PM , Rating: 3
They certainly could have used more when the Germans came, so they called us!

Switzerland has very nice gun laws though... everyday citizens walking around the streets with automatics strapped to their backs. I read somewhere that they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Makes me want to live in Switzerland.

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By deeznuts on 5/22/2008 12:58:26 AM , Rating: 2
Their liberal gun laws make you want to live in Switzerland? Pfft, for me it's the national bikini team!

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By deeznuts on 5/22/2008 12:59:14 AM , Rating: 2
Oops, wrong country. That would be sweden. Sveden, svitzerland, what's the difference?

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By BarkHumbug on 5/22/2008 5:17:54 AM , Rating: 5
Sveden, svitzerland, what's the difference?

To those who live there: Humongous.
To an American idiot: None at all.

Americans are far from alone in the world, but from the perspective of many young Americans, we might as well be. Most young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 demonstrate a limited understanding of the world , and they place insufficient importance on the basic geographic skills that might enhance their knowledge.

By AlphaVirus on 5/22/2008 12:43:54 PM , Rating: 4
In total, 510 interviews were conducted with a representative sample of 18- to 24-year old adults in the continental United States, using an in-home, in-person methodology.

You are going to tell me 510 people can judge what over 15mil people 18-24 know?

Barkhumbug, you should reconsider who you call the idiot.

I will admit some of the things they failed to know is astonishing but at the same time they show no record where they found these people. For all we know, they picked some retarded, homeless people from some booney town in Idaho.

While it does shock me that only 75% of the people could not find Iran on a map, if it was not for the Iraq War most people would not care. Of course this is the problem but you can not force anyone to learn something that is mostly useless to them.

Try telling a doctor to learn physics, what do you think he would respond? Probably, why bother. Or tell a Physicist to learn how to give a lobotomy...

How about this, tell me where Libera is, what about Suriname, or even Manitoba.
And don't literally list where they are, I was simply using an example of places the average person (that does not live there) won't care to know about.

Until things are put on every tv station, your average person has other things to think about. Like how are they going to pay their bill in a few days, has their child been well fed, how is their sickly grandma doing, what foolishness is George Bush up to now?, and then of course they need to tend to their entertainment needs.

Everyone's world does not revolve around the world as much as their own lives.

By geddarkstorm on 5/22/2008 1:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
So where did you lose your ability to realize an off hand joke when you hear one? Cripes. Obvious he does know the difference quite well, or he wouldn't have realized his mistake. I doubt you know anything about the cultural/law differences between US states like Missouri verses Vermont.

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By mindless1 on 5/22/2008 10:01:49 PM , Rating: 3
The idiotic part is you fail to understand why. Like any other people, americans spend time learning what they perceive to benefit them most. If an american has no desire to travel via navigation (vs getting on an airplane and being delivered), why would they need to know where some far off place was? It would be a foolish trivial pursuit like memorizing the street number on some building you pass on the way to work - yet never plan to visit for any reason.

Randomly memorizing things is the folly of those who aren't productive, to think they are smart instead of accepting intelligence comes from applying what one knows instead of how much they know.

Basic geographic skills are about as important as me knowing where the cereal isle is in a supermarket 1000 miles away, and yet I do (did at that age) know where those locations are on a map - I just recognize that knowing it has had no useful purpose.

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By jabber on 5/23/2008 6:58:28 AM , Rating: 2
Ignorance is bliss. Is that it?

The world is very very small these days.

By mindless1 on 5/24/2008 1:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
Which means nothing. If you were in the US, would you be walking to the other side of the world? Would you be navigating in any way, shape or form by using a globe?

I doubt it. I'm not saying we should reject learning such things, rather that pretending this is somehow important relative to other things is a mistaken notion. American kids are lacking in so many areas of education that it's nearly the last thing they need, to know where someplace is on a map.

Ultimately the question is not "be ignorant" or don't, it's "don't pretend trivial things are as important as useful things". Spend the time encouraging the kids to learn what they need to know instead of things they don't, tackle the more important deficits in their education first and only then should more attention be paid to geographic locations on the other side of the world.

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By P4blo on 5/22/2008 7:19:33 AM , Rating: 5
Are you serious? You confuse a small, mountainous tax haven in central Europe (surely famous in every history lesson for stashing Hitler's loot) for a large, north European Scandinavian country with a world famous reputation for fit blonde chicks?

They dont even sound the same, congratulations, you are a brain donor.

By PlasmaBomb on 5/22/2008 7:52:33 AM , Rating: 3
You are a brain donor

Do not want... RMA

By larson0699 on 5/22/2008 12:17:46 PM , Rating: 3's_law

People, learn to use other means to make your points! (...EVERY time!!)

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By niaaa on 5/22/2008 6:16:54 AM , Rating: 2
They certainly could have used more when the Germans came, so they called us!

You're an history expert ain't you ? Nice Fox NEWS history analysis.

veryday citizens walking around the streets with automatics strapped to their backs

Did you ever go to switzerland ? Do you think they actually walk in the streets with their automatic rifles in their back ?

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By MrBlastman on 5/22/2008 10:35:44 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know where you've been but last time I checked the history books, talked to war veterans and looked at old film footage... Europe definitely was in shambles and they sure as heck called on us to save their behinds.

To deny that is to be living under a rock. Tout Faux News all you want (yes, we all know that certain people love to point the finger and pull the Faux card), but to deny reality of past history is amazing.

Perhaps I ought to introduce you to Ahmadinejad - he thinks that the Holocaust was made up!

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By LyCannon on 5/22/2008 12:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
But how does our gun laws and rights make us 'the' country to call on for aid?

They call on our military for aid, not for the red necks with riffles and handguns.

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By MrBlastman on 5/22/2008 12:47:12 PM , Rating: 2
Simple. The very fact that we, Americans, can bear arms is the very insurance that protects our lands from being invaded and overthrown.

It isn't our Army.

It isn't our government.

It isn't our Canadian or Mexican neighbors.

It isn't our allies abroad.

It certainly is not our local police department or militia.

No, it is US, the citizens of America, and our arms that we rightfully bear with our Constitutionally given right, that keeps our nation safe and free from foreign invasion. We are the sole deterrent for any country that wishes to take us over. No army of any size could easily invade a nation with 50+ million citizens that bear their own weapons and confidently know that they will succeed in their venture.

This is what makes us, or made us "the" country to call on for aid. The Japanese knew darned well they couldn't succeed in a full scale invasion and this alone kept our war factories running, our production lines churning our ammunition and our farms growing food to allow us to be the great war machine we were that would go on to save the rest of the world.

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By DASQ on 5/22/2008 3:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
Just a question of curiosity, do you salute an American flag every morning?

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By MrBlastman on 5/22/2008 3:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
Quite honestly I am very proud of our nation and all the men and women that sacrificed their lives for my privilege to live on this soil.

Notice that I did not say right - as it is not a right. It was their right (the men and women) that they gave up for the rest of us to give us the opportunity to live our lives here in one of the greatest places in the world despite issues we might have in our government or other places.

If it weren't for all of them, and the sacrifice of other foreign nations that helped us earn our freedom, we would not be here today.

I stand by our Flag and respect what the Constitution has bestowed upon us. However, I do not and will not blindly listen to anything our Government, or commander-in-chief tells us to do. Question everything is my motto.

What is the harm in all of that?

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By jabber on 5/22/2008 3:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
Ok so say for instance your Govt decides to introduce the same measures as in the UK.

What are you going to do to stop it?

Storm your local Govt buildings Uzis ablaze? Or write to your congressman and let 'democracy' take its course? Or moan to your buddies about it over a beer?

You dont really have a lot of choices other than punching a hole in a piece of paper every few years and hope for the best. Guns are not going to help at all, they have bigger ones than you for a start.

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By MrBlastman on 5/23/2008 9:55:26 AM , Rating: 2
Ya know, we do have a choice every four years to make which determines which dooflatch gets into office.

Unfortunately, as of late (last 16 years), we haven't had any good choices on the ballot to vote for from either party. It seems we get one load of crusty stuff after another to vote for.

We also have this little thing known as Federal and State governments, and the power of the individual states. Our nation was founded years ago to keep the Federal Government from having too much power. Unlike the UK, the Federal Government could try to do what the UK is doing but they would be limited in their ability to implement such measures. Likewise the same would apply with states. You could simply move to another state. This is the very reason many of us choose to never move to California despite it being a beautiful place to live.

Also, unlike the UK, any normal citizen can run for office. However, without significant campaign finance reform (aka severe limitiations on personal money being spent on a campaign), unless you have a great deal of money right now you don't have much of a chance. Perhaps some day we will see rules which will limit a candidates funding to perhaps only a Federally alloted escrowed pool, preventing any personal finances from being used.

As for your comment on - "they have bigger ones than you for a start," you underestimate the resolve of your average American. It is as if Napolean came back and through you, made that statement. Do not discredit gun-toting Americans fortitude and willingness to stand up and fight when their freedoms are threatened in their homeland.

You can have big guns, but when you're severely outnumbered by millions of smaller guns, it is like a swarm running you over.

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By jabber on 5/23/2008 1:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
"Also, unlike the UK, any normal citizen can run for office. However, without significant campaign finance reform (aka severe limitiations on personal money being spent on a campaign), unless you have a great deal of money right now you don't have much of a chance. Perhaps some day we will see rules which will limit a candidates funding to perhaps only a Federally alloted escrowed pool, preventing any personal finances from being used."

So in other words a 'normal' citizen cant become president. It is the preserve of a select few. So that arguement doesnt wash. I doubt the establishment/ruling corporations will want that to change anytime soon.

"As for your comment on - "they have bigger ones than you for a start," you underestimate the resolve of your average American. It is as if Napolean came back and through you, made that statement. Do not discredit gun-toting Americans fortitude and willingness to stand up and fight when their freedoms are threatened in their homeland."

You would have to get them off their couches first. I think you would find a very small group storming the barricades. Folks have changed a lot since the early 19th Century.

I think you live in a little bit of a bygone fantasy world but if thats your choice so be it.

I do however agree that the choices we get to vote for every few years are appalling. We deserve better but the forces that be wont allow that.

By kyleb2112 on 5/24/2008 7:33:28 AM , Rating: 2
They have bigger guns, but a government has to ultimately decide if it wants an armed conflict with it's own citizens and all the political fallout that will follow. Private gun ownership pushes the stakes way up; that's where the leverage is, not in the force itself. The alternative is government doing what it wants quietly without conflict, but also without the damaging headlines or public outrage of a bloodbath.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-Thomas Jefferson
(fellow "stupid" American).

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By sporr on 5/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By Klober on 5/23/2008 10:24:24 AM , Rating: 2
QFMFT. Thank you MrBlastman.

What would scare you more while trying to take over a country - 50+ million citizens who may pull out a gun at any time and shoot you while patrolling the streets, or an army who you can see coming a mile away and know every one has a gun? Also, how did we win the Revolutionary War? That's right - guerilla warfare. What's more conducive to that type of warfare than citizens throughout the country owning their own guns? As long as American citizens can own firearms, and have the will to remain free, I'm not worried about the US being occupied. :)

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By gevorg on 5/21/2008 10:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, what a big step backwards for UK to be more totalitarian regime than democratic. And they dare to criticize and intervene in Russia's internal affairs. Whats next, UK invades other countries and make them their colonies (again) to prevent "terrorist groups" from developing there?

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By nstott on 5/22/2008 1:27:24 AM , Rating: 2
They've done worse things:

Father of four taken to court and fined ... because he overfilled his wheelie-bin by just four inches

A Pound of Flesh

Meet the shopkeeper who is the latest to have been penalised for her imperial measures

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By P4blo on 5/23/2008 8:09:20 AM , Rating: 2
Hah, you wish. Firstly it's never going to happen but the media's jumped on it.

Secondly, please dont insult the politics of my country by comparing it to your puppet regime that you call a democratic party!

Russia is about a million million miles from the UK's politics. If you're referring to the fuss that was created over your insane *intelligence* services poisoning its AWOL operatives with highly traceable radio active Pullonium then I think we had a point! If you want to murder your people do it on your own soil.

Just dont try to claim the moral high ground as using this analogy your country currently sits somewhere at the bottom of the Mariana's trench. Ask the Chechens.

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By Pneumothorax on 5/22/2008 12:49:15 AM , Rating: 3
I guess the UK needs a "V" soon....

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By Aloonatic on 5/22/2008 4:24:36 AM , Rating: 4
The only saving grace for UK citizens is the gross incompetence of our government and civil service.

There argument for these measures is because of this Al Quida bloke?

In 5 years (in the UK) Al has managed 1 successful attack on 7/7. Apart from that some muppets setting fire to them selves in Scotland and got the kicking they deserved from the natives and other tried to copy the 7/7 bombers in the underground and only ended up making bread.

I know I'm going to sound like one of the "tin-foil hat brigade" but does anyone take this Al-Quida thing seriously?

I know that you will if you lost someone in their few and far between attacks, and I feel for you, but they really haven't been that great a terror group.

The IRA managed to do things much better and more frequently.

If you were a terrorist and wanted to bring a country to a halt wouldn't you go about sabotaging the railways and motorways with the strategic use of concrete blocks and explosions on bridges and signalling gear?

And even if you want to go the old school blowing up buildings route, 15 year old girls are out doing you Al-Quida, over here in the UK.

Boy must Osama's face be red when he looks at the score board of terror as we near the half way point of 2008:

Teenage girls 1
The uber international terror group Al-Quida 0

And then my final point (this has turned into a longer rant than I expected, sorry)

What happens when all electronic coms are monitored completely?

"Terrorists" are going to stop using them, and the lack of information being found using this surveillance stream will be seen this way, not that they were never there, but that they have stopped using e-mail.

So they will have to assume that terrorists are meeting in public places, bars, cafes and such, so these places will have to be monitored, every public place wired for video and sound.

Then when this doesn't show up anything they must be meeting up in private and therefore every home will have to have video cameras and microphones installed.

I'm not going to hang around too much longer to find out what the next civil liberty that is going to be taken away from me in the name of the fight against terror but this is by no means the only reason to leave this once great now rather sad and pathetic cowering little country.

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By jabber on 5/22/2008 7:52:41 AM , Rating: 4
I agree. I dont beleive in this Al-Q crap either. Its the big excuse the UK Govt has been looking for for taking away our rights.

Did we worry when the IRA was bombing us every other week? NO. We just ignored it and carried on as if nothing happened as best we could. A couple of days outrage in the papers and then back to normal. I dont give a stuff what Al-Q are up to. I dont care. Someone always has an axe to grind. If it wasnt them it would be someone else.

Has Al-Q taken away any of my rights? NO. Only the Govt has. We had the 7/7 attack and for a day or two the Govt was all about "they will never change our way of life and they will never take our freedom. About two weeks later a whole raft of restrictive and invasive legislation is drafted in. Would it stop terrorism? No. Would any of it stop a bomb? No. Would it give them far more powers and ability to delve into our private lives? Yes.

I personally dont know anyone in the UK that wakes up worried every morning about Al-Q. I worry more about getting stabbed by a ill-educated teenager in the street but nothing gets done about stopping that.

Its all a sham. Trouble is I dont think any of the political parties in the UK would want to dissolve all those powers if they managed to take over govt in the next election. Its too intoxicating.

It will start to happen elsewhere eventually. Guns wont stop it this time either.

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By P4blo on 5/22/2008 7:14:13 AM , Rating: 2
No we need to get rid of this stupid labour government. Seriously though, this legislation will NEVER get through. This is hot air. I also notice the first link in the article detailing the legislation - is dead?

Nobody would stand for having all our emails and sms messages held. This is a flight of big brother fancy. Whoever even conceived of this was a fool that knew nothing of the true IT implications, probably someone in the pocket of a huge IT contractor who licks their lips every time a juicy public sector gravy train comes their way so they can over spend by billions and fail to deliver on time.

Besides, the labour party have come up with so many junk policies lately (many to help them deal with the terrorist nightmare they created) that they're as good as history at the next election.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By Misty Dingos on 5/22/2008 7:38:51 AM , Rating: 2
I would be lying if I said that the proposed actions of the British government surprise me in the least. Years ago when the populace allowed themselves to be disarmed through shameful scare tactics it became inevitable. I am not saying that because I am some gun toting fanatic. Far from it in fact. But this disarmament was the benchmark to which leads you to the oppressive police state the British people find themselves in now.

Today you can be stopped on the streets of London and subjected to a search by a metal detector (either hand held or one similar to those in use in the airports). This public harassment is brought to you to curb “knife” crimes. Perhaps the people of England should have their hands covered by boxing gloves to prevent them from holding any weapon.

England is now the most surveilled country in the history of mankind. All this surveillance has brought no real reduction in crime. Only the prosecution of crime has been enabled by this heavy handed police state. Prosecution of petty crimes that the cameras were never meant to be used for. Or so they were told. No one can be surprised that the surveillance system is abused by those who use it. And it will only get worse.

So the next security upgrade will be the email of every man woman and child in the country along with the details of every cell phone conversation. They are told only to be stored for a year but does the government really have to stick to that little detail? I doubt it. The people are now chattel of the powers that be.

It is inevitable that at some point in time a government will come to power in England that will abuse the human rights the British people have given up (in a blind need for perceived safety). Their freedoms gone they will suffer long under the watchful eye of a less than benevolent government. The people of England have long since lost sight of the slippery slope we hear talk of. Now they look into the abyss.

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By nbachman on 5/22/2008 10:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who watches the watchers?)

RE: Rediculous invasion of privacy
By Adonlude on 5/28/2008 5:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent post. Wish I could rate you up but I am the OP.

It will be very interesting to watch England over my lifetime to see if the downward sprial continues and if the US follows suit in some manner.

Its a shame....
By jabber on 5/22/2008 8:02:01 AM , Rating: 1
...that a lot of our American cousins feel that freedom and democracy can only ever be achieved and held constantly at the end of a gun barrel. If that is the case, its a hollow victory really.

It might be time to try to look beyond that. I don't pretend to know what that solution is myself.

Similar policies are already in action or on the way in the USA I suspect. Its just our Govt is more incompetant/open (delete as applicable) about it than yours.

If for one minute your Govt could find out what you were all doing/thinking, that it wouldnt want that info?

Knowledge is power after all.

RE: Its a shame....
By jabber on 5/22/2008 9:03:39 AM , Rating: 2
As for the notion that our Govt. 'took away our guns' I think shows a big misunderstanding of how gun ownership in the UK worked before the ban in the early 90's.

We never did have gun ownership like you do in the USA. I did not know anyone that owned a Mach10/AK47/Uzi/M16/Colt 1911/Colt Python/.38 special/Ruger Blackhawk/Glock etc. etc. folks just didnt have them. The only guns I knew about were shotguns and air rifles and that was because I lived in the country. Thats was it, a few folks with shotguns.

If anyone had handguns they were usually enthusiasts that belonged to gun clubs (most of the guns would have been kept there) or collectors. It just was NOT the norm for a average familiy to have any type of handgun in the home. It just never happend like that.

So when the ban came it only really affected collectors and club members. Most of the population didnt rise up in anger due to the fact that 99.9% of them didnt have a gun and the deaths of 20+ little kids in a primary school called private ownership into question. Fair enough.

Since then however, with the fall of the iron curtain and the rise of gang culture possession of illegal firearms has skyrocketed. There are probably far more handguns and automatic weapons in circulation now than before the ban. Its just that now we don't know who has them.

So we never just 'gave up our guns'. We never had them in the first place.

RE: Its a shame....
By jgigz on 5/22/2008 11:41:05 AM , Rating: 1
So when the ban came it only really affected collectors and club members. Most of the population didnt rise up in anger due to the fact that 99.9% of them didnt have a gun and the deaths of 20+ little kids in a primary school called private ownership into question. Fair enough.

So just because only a few people exercised their right means its ok?

RE: Its a shame....
By jabber on 5/22/2008 3:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
What right was that? Possesing firearms has never been a right in the UK, it was a strictly controlled priviledge.

Someone abused that in a quite outrageous way and the very small minority paid the price. Thats the way it goes.

Again a lack of understanding of how things happen in another country.

RE: Its a shame....
By larson0699 on 5/22/2008 1:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
The real shame lies within the constant finger-pointing between US and EU. As if certain sentiments stand ONLY with us in America. I'm sorry, but the bad batch of us doesn't equal ALL of us. And I would not be dumb to assume the same of any other nation.

The similar policy here is known as the Patriot Act. If Bush wants your records, all he's gotta do is call you a terrorist. Your right to privacy exists only as much as you've avoided electronic transactions.

A lot of things have been achieved (and lost, to be fair) with force. I don't think that every one of us is the gun-wielding democracy zealot that you might (because if that were really the case, cat-rescue stories wouldn't stand a chance at the news as is now) but when dealing with your power-hungry adversaries, Gandhi is out and guns are in--persuasion does not come cheap.

Personally, I would rather die fighting for my rights (though the ever-more-practical solution is moving north) than to passively relinquish them and STILL pay higher taxes.

Our extinction nears at the passing of every minute that natural resource-based economy precedes the race that drives it, all while the planet burns up. So moving really isn't a solution but a hiding game to be played over as many lifetimes as liberty remains in the world UNTIL that time.

Knowledge IS power, but power seldom acts permanently in the best interest of life.


Different Approach
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2008 10:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
Government police and security forces would be able to access the database only for records authorized by court warrant.

So they are going to store every single piece of electronic data being transmitted in the country, store it, and only access it if they get a court warrant to view the specific data ?

Call me an ignorant American, but why not just get warrants to wiretap suspected terrorists FIRST, and THEN monitor them ? Like how we do it here ? Its more efficient. Cheaper. Doesn't put a massive and expensive workload in the lap of ISP's. And most important, it doesn't put EVERY single citizens private information at risk by being stored.

I don't even live in the UK and I'm angry for its citizens. This is a terrifying proposal. If the UK was under siege by constant terrorist attacks I would almost understand the motivation for such an act, but this measure is entirely too extreme in my opinion. Violates everyones privacy. And puts an unnecessary burden on ISP's and the telecom industry . Not to mention the very real possibility that your personal information could get leaked, stolen or misused.

RE: Different Approach
By Polynikes on 5/21/2008 10:48:13 PM , Rating: 3
Every hacker in the world would be working on breaking into that database. Just imagine, an entire nation's identities stolen.

RE: Different Approach
By mcq01 on 5/22/2008 3:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
Why go to all that trouble? It'll be broken to start with and the entire database will be posted, and thus lost, by unrecorded mail. Oh, and several people will no doubt lose their laptops with the database on and paper copies will be left in the street incase someone hasn't got their copy yet.

57 Billion text messages alone in 2007
By xphile on 5/21/2008 8:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
were sent in the UK. Emails estimated at 3 BILLION a DAY.

Even IF they could find the storage to do it we all know its only a matter of time before practically EVERYTHING stored would become public information - I mean the UK government cant even keep a safe hold of a mere 25 million personal tax records:

how the hell are they going manage to do it with potentially trillions of items of data?

RE: 57 Billion text messages alone in 2007
By Polynikes on 5/21/2008 10:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, I see a lot of technical hurdles. I can't imagine telcos being even remotely interested in supporting this.

That said, it's still ridiculous and scary that such a thing is even being proposed. I guess everyone in the UK missed V for Vendetta.

By P4blo on 5/22/2008 7:23:50 AM , Rating: 2
They're not going to manage it. It's a joke. It should never even have been mentioned. It's a sign of a sad, pathetic and stupid government to even let a story like this get out. They're digging a large grave for themselves. We'll gladly put them in it at the next elections.

Sort your own side out before you criticise ours.
By sporr on 5/22/2008 6:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
For all the americans having a go at the way it is in the UK i say this to you;

Have a good long hard research into your own governments ways and practices in terms of national "security", what they do and how they do it, you may just find you have bigger and more worrying issues to deal with yourselves.

This is half cocked bs story that some fool of an MP decided might be a good idea to implement. It is not something that will happen in the near future.

The opposition party would destroy the idea, the public would agree, and the public would then vote massively in favour of the party who would abolish it.

It just would not happen. Its not even feasable anwyay.


By jabber on 5/22/2008 6:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
The scene - A MP's Office at Whitehall.

MP gets a call from an IT consultancy firm. MP is not really that IT savvy (few of them are, no interest in stuff thats vaguely important other than their careers)and the IT firm are counting on that. They spin him a horror story and state that they think they can come up with an amazing system that would be a major force against terrorism etc. IT firm knows its impossible but they are not worried about that. They have no intention of delivering.

MP gets some of the backing and IT firm are given the go ahead to do a feasability study and white paper. It takes a year but in the meantime IT firm creams about £4 million of tax payers cash before it delivers next to nothing and the whole thing is scrapped and forgotten. IT firm is happy, MP is left looking stupid and the tax payer out of pocket.

A few months later another MP gets a call....

Rinse and repeat.

By sporr on 5/24/2008 8:12:58 AM , Rating: 2
Dont you just love the system.

ALL UK emails?
By kattanna on 5/22/2008 11:29:45 AM , Rating: 2
what about businesses? does this mean that all businesses in the UK have to forward a copy of all their emails to this thing?

and since currently for me here, a good 90% is spam, would that makes this the largest collection of viagra and porn emails in the world?

but seriously, is this only for public ISPs emails, or are they also talking about private business emails as well?

RE: ALL UK emails?
By Major HooHaa on 5/25/2008 8:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
I would have thought that businesses wouldn't have to forward their E-Mails, as they would be already monitored by this new system.

Good point about the spam though. All the terrorist would have to do to avoid detection, is label the E-mail "Buy my Viagra". Or "Rachel wants to add you to her MySpace Friends list".

I don't know any Rachel, WHAT'S GOING ON!!?

By otispunkmeyer on 5/23/2008 5:08:22 AM , Rating: 2
so long as its wrapped up in the context of "counter terrorism", the majority of joe public will just accept it.

"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki