and we think england is getting bad...
wtf? i mean how much terrorism does Sweden face? is this something we have missed on the news?
The chief of Sweden's defense intelligence agency admitted Thursday that about 20 of its staff members have had personal information about themselves posted on the internet as part of a mud-slinging campaign. According to Swedish blog Politikerbloggen the information included addresses, phone numbers and even credit card numbers …
wtf? i mean how much terrorism does Sweden face? is this something we have missed on the news?
Does the UK monitor all external communications?
Broadly speaking, RIPA divides communication interceptions into three types - domestic, external, and foreign.
Interception of domestic (where both sender and intended recipient are in the UK) communications requires a warrant. Warrants are signed by the Home Secretary, and must be fairly specific - warrants are limited in duration, and each warrant covers only one person or location.
Interception of external (where one party is in the UK and the other is abroad) communications also requires a warrant, notionally signed by the Foreign Secretary - but there is no requirement to be specific, one single warrant can cover *all* external communications.
Has the Foreign Secretary, or some previous foreign Secretary, signed such a warrant? We don't know, and nobody's telling. But legally, he certainly could do. These interceptions are not included in the Interception's Commissioner's annual report, or at least the public part of it.
Britain has had a law allowing unrestricted interception of external communications since 2000 - if not earlier.
Interception of foreign (where neither sender or intended recipient is in the UK) communications is entirely legal, and requires no warrant. This happens, though again we don't know the extent of it. It isn't included in the IC's report either.
BTW, Britain has been intercepting foreign communications since the early 1900's when Britain had a near-monopoly of telegraphy cables - if not before.
There is a story that the UK and US have (or had) an agreement whereby the UK tapped US communications, and vice versa - foreign interception being legal in both countries, but domestic interception being illegal - and swapped the product. It happened at least sometimes, but no-one knows how often.
Strange that I can still read this story here in Norway, considering that IP traffic to the UK is routed through Stockholm by my ISP. I expect these stories to be replaced by reviews of Volvo in car navigation systems shortly. It was fun while it lasted though.
If "our" info is available to you, then let's see the boot on the other foot. I'm not condoning hacking, but some people obviously feel that "needs must" I suppose.
Telco's not happy about wiretaps, not surprised about that either. They will be under obligation to ensure that they route every single tiny fragment of data through the government kit before going on to the consumers, lose it or refuse and you will be up in court accused of aiding the phantom terrorists, possibly losing your operating license.
Feed the snoopers with sensitive information that they can metadatamine/phish/plagiarise and they will be Following and Energising Underground Leads...... in Establishment Systems/Core Communications InfraStructure....... which is Future Perfect ARG Space ..... and Virgin Territory to IT Great Games Players.
The SMART Systems then can just Buy into the ProgramMIng that Permits their AI Beta Systems 42 Run Better in Quantum and NIRobotIQs.
that the rest of the world have to redirect commercial traffic away from Sweden? Either that or ensure it's encrypted- and I can imagine that encrypted traffic will shortly be made illegal to help with the "detection of terrorists".
We can only hope that this is successfully challenged and stopped- giving us a nice precedent to latch onto for similar schemes in the UK being axed.
Good thing that their identities have been put on the 'net- with a bit of searching I'm sure more personal information could be dug out and we could show them just how invasive this tech is!
Do the Swedes have the capability to actually perform their little tricks in place: equipment and personnel? But assuming they do, what happens to this capability if the European Court of Human Rights rules it illegal? Looks like an opportunity for rogue spys to have a field day.
...oh wait, so THAT's what PHORM's all about!
Every government has been doing this since it was possible to listen in to a communication of any kind
Why are you all up in arms now?
The current government in power was voted in by you lot anyway, so its your own fault.
Then again you could argue that it makes no difference who is in number 10, the administration is still the same.
Thats your own fault too.
Why do people accept this sort of stuff? All we get is lots of moaning and noone actually doing anything about it.
90% of the population don't care and even if they did, they would only care because you told them to. We have ruined our DNA and turned the world/county into a holding area for sheep and morons
I don't see the problem, surely they have nothing to hide? What's the problem with us seeing what they're up to, if they get to see what we're up to?
"Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
Once you create this snooping department, you can never UNcreate it, because no politician would dare challenge the power of this committee lest they turn that power on the politician or his family. This was a lesson learned from J Edgar Hoover, a law enforcement head who was elevated to a position of such power that Presidents didn't dare challenge his decisions. They had to wait for him to die to loosen his grip and thank god he didn't name an heir to his position!
Committees never die like Hoover did.
This is a lesson Britain is learning, with ACPO, where it's elevated the role of the enforcement officer to such a high extent that no politician dares tell ACPO it's demands for more powers are unwanted and overreaching. ACPO demands, politicians cower, even when they know it's wrong.
When you reduce the gap between how innocent people are treated and how guilty people are treated, you give them less to lose by doing bad things. What do they have to lose? Their privacy? No longer.
Sweden this is not right.
Are there some Norwegieans that think independence wasn't enough?
What Al-Qaeda/Islamic/Scary-Beard terrorist is going to trek all the way to Sweden when there are so many other juicy targets in closer and warmer places?
Um, can I have some of what you're drinking please? Do you really think there's any hope for this "... giving us a nice precedent to latch onto for similar schemes in the UK being axed"??
**THREE** EU nations said 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty (okay, so two were eventually made to say yes) but Gordon Brown is still going to go ahead with forcing it on the UK, even after promising us a referendum on it (and, as usual, "being economical with the truth"). Somehow I doubt that he would take any notice of what other nations do when he appears to believe he can screw over his own electorate time and time again.
Doesn't matter what happens anywhere else, the parallels between Germany circa 1937 and the UK today are frightening.
The only real difference is that Hitler was doing it for the betterment of (his somewhat twisted vision of) Germany, whereas the only people who really appear benefit from NuLabour's increasingly draconian and restrictive ideas seem to be Gordon Brown and his friends...
(Oh, and at least Hitler waited for the introduction of ID cards to enforce travel restrictions. The Government gets about 95p for a litre of petrol at £1.20/l, so saying it's all the fault of the money-grubbing petrol companies isn't quite accurate either. But if you can't afford petrol/diesel, you can't drive your car. And they are not exactly rushing out to improve public transport either, are they? So *exactly* how are you supposed to travel? You can't? Oh look, travel restrictions without them being obvious about it...)
"Just because I'm paranoid don't mean they're not after me"
"There is a story that the UK and US have (or had) an agreement whereby the UK tapped US communications, and vice versa ..."
"Google's global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer believes the Swedish government is following the examples set by governments ranging from China to Saudi Arabia."
Doesn't he mean the US? Oh and congratulations go to Congress on getting yourselves unelected. You were put in office because people were fed up of being spied on, fed up with the corruption and wanted them to pull US troops out of Iraq.
They've delivered nothing, in fact they've continued to support all of the things that they were asked to stop. Maybe the next lot we vote in will finally get it.
And if the next lot don't get it, they won't get re-elected either.
BTW when will people understand that when you say you want these laws to go after terrorists, the public is actually intelligent enough to understand you're full of shit. If you wanted to spy on terrorists, why do you need laws that help you spy on your own people? You think your own people are terrorists? Tell me, what kind of regime is frightened of it's own people? Dictatorships? Communists?
The US isn't a totalitarian dictatorship? Hmm let's see.. spies on it's own people, torture, locks up people in a military prison for years without charging them of any crime, restricts movement to those that have the necessary papers and the necessary permission to travel.. what am I missing here?
Look at what this site is filled with. Has it been infiltrated by a bunch of people trying to make it look like everyone believes this stuff? I do think the people who say "get rid of the human rights act" have been shouted down by all the ones who say NO to 42 days. The same seems to be true in the newspaper forums, probably the same small group of people spouting the same stuff and shouting down all the 'lock up all the terrorists without charge' people. Possibly also censureship by the website.
On the other hand maybe The Register is representitive of the majority view, at least of those who have thought about it and pay attention to what's happening.
Even to someone with no clue, mention Health 'n' Safety then stand back and listen.
elf & Safety goggles.
"what am I missing here?"
Locks up criminals under conditions that are known to drive them mad.
In Texas, solitary confinement with 24 hour a day lights on and no human contact, leading to babbling and smearing of feces.
Guess which state Bush is from?
"Home of the free". Yeah, sure, tell me another one.
"Good thing that their identities have been put on the 'net- with a bit of searching I'm sure more personal information could be dug out and we could show them just how invasive this tech is!" .... By Adam Foxton Posted Friday 20th June 2008 11:23 GMT
Even the Wisest of Fools can Ensure that Relevant Information is freely available and would so Ensure. Imagine what Sages can leave scattered about for Discovery. And should they Gather All their Combined Thoughts, what do you Imagine IT would dDeliver.
That's perhaps our only get out in this Brave New World, this is sort of ethical cracking.
Still illegal, but ethical, which is the worrying thing about the legal system nowadays when it is more about bad rules, than it is about being based on morality and what works well for a society as whole.
The current generation in power is the 60's generation, bunch of bloody hypocrites, just scared of new technology or looking to abuse it, rather than use it in an ethical manner, they just don't dig it man.
Sure you can sniff all the data - but a lot of it is going to end up encrypted, thereby making it easier for the terrorists from pixie land who already probably encrypt if they actually existed. In the end all that is achieved is the slowing down of the net, and the chance to snoop on some proxied poxy coming home for dinner stuff.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017