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

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.

"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

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