back to article In-a-spin Home Sec: 'We won't be rifling through people's web history'

The Tory government's draft Investigatory Powers Bill is expected to land in Parliament with a thud on Wednesday. However, over the weekend, Home Secretary Theresa May once again rejected claims that the latest attempt to legislate to massively ramp up surveillance of Brits' online activity would lead to authorities being able …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Kite flying

    The same old routine. Put out an totally unacceptable idea and wait for the public outrage. Then row back a bit until the Stupids think the government have caved in. Then make a law with what's left.

    The problem is that what's left is all they wanted in the first place but if they put that on the table there would also have been outrage.

    And the Stupids fall for it every time.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Kite flying

      By "Stupids", I presume you mean "voters"?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Kite flying

        yeah, stupids, voters, plebs, sheep, the little people on the street, i.e. us. Those who needn't worry, the goverment knows best, move on, nothing to see here or hang on, why are you asking, can I see some form of identification?

    2. Tom Chiverton 1

      Re: Kite flying

      Don't. Go talk to your MP about your concerns. Sign up to the Open Rights Group. Do something !

      1. Oli 1

        Re: Kite flying

        Yeah alight, the last time i did that i got told why i was wrong and why i should just trust the government, delivered on some of the most expensive looking (and feeling) stationary ever to grace my letterbox.

        Wasted hours, achieved nothing.

        Democracy in action.

        1. Marketing Hack Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: Kite flying

          @Oli 1

          Don't you mean "democracy inaction"? FTFY!!!

          (We need a "cynical SOB" icon)

      2. Tony S

        Re: Kite flying

        "Go talk to your MP about your concerns"

        I did exactly that (two MPs as I had two addresses). The responses I received did not actually specifically deal with my concerns, they merely re-iterated government proposals (both from the same party) and were almost word for word identical.

        I didn't want to put up with that and so then sent a second letter, highlighting the key issues and pointing out that what they were saying was factually incorrect; and asked for their comments on those points, rather than the spin that I had previously received.

        I did then receive a second letter from each; and again, they were so similar, that they could have been written by the same person. Neither really dealt with the original concern.

        Currently waiting for a letter from a new MP; different issue. Didn't respond to the original letter, so this is my second letter to her. If I don't hear anything in the next month, I'll probably be passing it on to the local press for them to chase; but I doubt that it will achieve a damned thing.

        Time to get out the pitchforks and torches!

      3. Fraggle850

        Re: Kite flying

        > Don't. Go talk to your MP about your concerns. Sign up to the Open Rights Group. Do something !

        It's exactly this sort of thing we need to put a stop to, bloody anarchists. The sooner our dear leaders have turned the country into a panopticon the better.

        Nothing to see here obersturmbannführer May, you can see that I'm loyal to the cause. No need to go sniffing around my Internet history, although it is my patriotic duty to report my concerns about Tom Chiverton 1.

    3. Roger Varley

      Re: Kite flying

      Not necessarily, they've always got the the choice of a minor tweak via the 2016 IPB Amendment Act, followed by another tweak via the 2017 IPB Amendment Act etc etc

      1. alain williams Silver badge

        Re: Kite flying

        Not necessarily, they've always got the the choice of a minor tweak via the 2016 IPB Amendment Act, followed by another tweak via the 2017 IPB Amendment Act etc etc

        Or even better a statutory instrument - which will sail through virtually unseen.

        1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Unhappy

          Or even better a statutory instrument - which will sail through virtually unseen.

          Indeed.

          Much favored by the the Dark Lord Mandelsohn under Blair*

          *But no Conservative should feel too smug about that.

    4. phuzz Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: Kite flying

      I'm not sure if people are falling for it every time, this is about the third or fourth time they've tried to get the snooper's charter in as law and it's been shelved every time.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Gimp

        "this is about the third or fourth time they've tried to get the snooper's charter in as law"

        Possibly more.

        Governments come and governments go and yet after a few months in post the new sock puppet Home Secretary asks for this to be included.

        So what's the common denominator between (by my count) eight Home Secretaries?

        I think it's time the Senior Civil Servants should start to be identified.

        They seem to be remarkably reluctant to step into the limelight

        I remain convinced this is not a policy, it's a disease.

        1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

          Re: "this is about the third or fourth time they've tried to get the snooper's charter in as law"

          "I think it's time the Senior Civil Servants should start to be identified. They seem to be remarkably reluctant to step into the limelight."

          ^^ This. I was thinking much the same just last night - the snivel serpents are at the back of this, pushing their own agenda. There needs to be some light shed on the bastards, and a large amount of spring-cleaning to rid the Home Office of the people-haters that have taken root there.

  2. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. Tom Chiverton 1
    Stop

    Someone mis-read

    Because CW reckon the Government wants the GET part kept :

    http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500256476/UK-surveillance-bill-to-give-police-access-to-web-history

    Watch out for the fun definition of 'journalist' too. Because they get special treatment.

    1. dogged

      Re: Someone mis-read

      > Watch out for the fun definition of 'journalist' too. Because they get special treatment.

      Do you have a link to this definition?

      And is that the usual special treatment with the length of rubber hose and the seized laptop?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Someone mis-read

      http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500256476/UK-surveillance-bill-to-give-police-access-to-web-history

      "Under the Investigatory Powers Bill expected to be introduced by home secretary Theresa May on 4 November 2015, telecoms and internet service providers (ISPs) will be required to retain their customers' web browsing history for 12 months, but they will be paid to cover the costs."

      If the ISPs will be paid to keep that data they'll no doubt do it, but can they resist mining it for their own gain?

      1. Otto is a bear.

        Re: Someone mis-read

        That will depend on the Data Protection Act registration for the data, and who the data owner is. I think our government would be upset, if this was done, and it would also be illegal, if not part of your Ts & Cs. I suspect that telcos and ISPs do this anyway, best check your Ts & Cs to find out.

        If a company gathers data they must tell you why they are doing it, and what it will be used for, any use outside that is an offence under the DPA.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What will the Plod do with their new powers?

    Visited a torrent site to download something legal - Computer taken away and an arrest for copyright.

    Visited a website over concerns about your child being suicidal or taking drugs? - Information passed to social service, say goodbye to your kids.

    Annoyed a Plod by pulling out in front of them or just they weren't having a good day - All information scrutinised and you get arrested or it's passed on to others.

    Also if you think this information won't sold to companies think again, I would say health data was more important than your web history but that's getting sold anyway.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The bureaucratic mindset is the one constant in the universe. Embarrass them even slightly and they'll do everything in their power to find something they can pin on you as punishment.

      In my case the local council confused me with my dad and made some mistakes on a council tax bill. After the mistake was pointed out to them they spent the next decade "investigating" me for a variety of things that were crimes only in their own minds. The best one was that I didn't declare a regular loyalty discount on retail purchases as taxable income when I was claiming benefits. I wish I was making this up.

      Anon because this is still an ongoing legal issue.

      These powers are being sold as for the police, but then as I recall, so was RIPA. Once it was passed, RIPA was mostly used by local government to fish for dirt on people they didn't like. This will be no different. Arguably it will be worse, because people can accidentally "visit" naughty sites all the time.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          This is what you get Shademeister

          when idiots vote busybody Socialist "do gooders" into any office. They can't just do what is expected of them, they always have to insinuate themselves into every aspect of your life. These people are exactly like those in China or Russia or East Germany! They only exist to rat you out to the Politburo or Stasi. Or in this case, the equivalent in Britain. Different names, same type of people.

          SINCE WHEN is it anybody's damned business whether you live alone or not? As far as I am concerned, Politicians are ALL criminals and should be treated as such. The fact that they pay no attention to the FOI proves it.

          Time to leave for less interfering pastures, I think.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: This is what you get Shademeister

            "SINCE WHEN is it anybody's damned business whether you live alone or not? As far as I am concerned, Politicians are ALL criminals and should be treated as such. The fact that they pay no attention to the FOI proves it."

            Well, if you don't want your council to care, don't apply for the Council Tax rebate for single occupancy.

            Although, the problem is that unless you arrange your own rubbish collection, the number of people in a household is important for the rubbish collection budget.

          2. Graham Marsden
            WTF?

            Re: This is what you get Shademeister

            > idiots vote busybody Socialist "do gooders" into any office.

            What the hell are you talking about? It's the *TORIES* that are pushing this legislation. Do you honestly think that their Councils are going to be *any* different when they get powers like this?

            Take off your political blinkers and call a pox on ALL their houses!

            1. Fraggle850

              Re: This is what you get Shademeister

              Yup, they all shit in the same pot. Wouldn't trust any of them.

              You are wrong to attribute this particular occurrence to the left but they have their own shameful episodes.

  5. frank ly

    "world leading oversight arrangements"

    There's not much competition so that _should_ be easy.

    1. Doctor_Wibble
      Black Helicopters

      Re: "world leading oversight arrangements"

      And aside from the typo possibilities relating to 'oversight' and 'an oversight' we end up with a distinct risk of having an 'oversight oversight'.

      Not to mention the other rather significant risk that the method of oversight might just be to take a copy of everything and drop it at the nearest NSA office just so they can double-check everything against what they already have on you.

    2. splodge

      Re: "world leading oversight arrangements"

      "world leading oversight arrangements"

      There's not much competition so that _should_ be easy.

      Also depends on the direction you wish to lead the world

  6. SVV Silver badge

    Read the story in the Telegraph today

    Apparently 38 different public bodies will have access to the data, including local councils.

    "Town halls were granted permission to access private communications data 2,110 times last year, more than GCHQ and MI6 combined. "

    Now, excuse me for being a bit thick, but doesn't this look a bit more suspect than the "protecting us from evil" line that is being used to sell this particular piece of legislation?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Read the story in the Telegraph today

      Councils will need the approval of a magistrate for at least some of the access to web history. Hardly a major hurdle. The DT article also notes that councils last year were granted more access requests under the current provisions than GCHQ and MI6 combined.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11968999/Councils-and-taxman-to-be-given-power-to-view-your-internet-history.html

      There is a poll on that page which is currently showing over 10,000 votes (96%) against the proposals. That is an unusually high response for the DT on a poll about a Government Law & Order proposal.

      1. choleric

        Re: Read the story in the Telegraph today

        And the same organ is reporting that browsing history WILL be required to be recorded and retained by ISPs for 1 year. So who's telling the truth May or the Telegraph?

    2. Warm Braw Silver badge

      Re: Read the story in the Telegraph today

      Given that any retention by UK ISPs can be defeated by the simple expedient of using a VPN, I think there is good reason to doubt that this legislation exists for the purpose of defeating terrorism.

      I'm not sure it's even for the purpose of mass-surveillance.

      I think Ms. May is performing the Tory equivalent of pole-dancing in order to draw attention to her, er, potential and she isn't concerned about any collateral damage.

      1. Chris 3

        Re: Read the story in the Telegraph today

        It's nice that you trust your VPN provider so fully.

        1. Warm Braw Silver badge

          Re: Read the story in the Telegraph today

          >It's nice that you trust your VPN provider so fully

          You've missed the point. This legislation isn't about the "under the counter" data slurping of the security services, it's supposed to be about the "above board" lawful activities of Mr. Plod. The fact that Mr. Plod's lawful access can so readily be circumvented implies that the legislation has some different purpose.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Read the story in the Telegraph today

          It's trivial to set up your own VPN is you have a server (virtual or hardware) in another country.

          1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

            Re: It's trivial to set up your own VPN

            And if you don't have a server in another country ?

            1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

              Re: It's trivial to set up your own VPN

              "And if you don't have a server in another country ?"

              Get one.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re Pascal Monett: It's trivial to set up your own VPN

              VM's are very cheaply available in various non-UK countries. eg Linode for example let you choose where to place your VM. Some of the options are in non-5-eyes countries, if that helps (which I doubt that does, as Linode is US owned :<).

    3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Read the story in the Telegraph today

      "Town halls were granted permission to access private communications data 2,110 times last year, more than GCHQ and MI6 combined. "

      This, of course, takes no account of the number of accesses without permission.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Read the story in the Telegraph today

      Thats because GCHQ routes data in such a way to avoid having to ask for permission

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    face it.

    The simple fact is that until Camoron and May get access to EVERYTHING we do on line they will never be satisfied. There will be subtle changes and acts brought in to accomplish this every year.

    And don't think liebour will be any different. Given the amount and scope of the collected data they wont complain if they receive the data. Privacy, as we know it, will soon be a distant memory and the youngsters will grow up in a world where everything you do,read,write and say will be logged,filed,indexed and cross referenced.....And no one will be left to fight the democratic right to a private life...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: face it.

      "And don't think liebour will be any different. "

      Even under new management one suspects that the totalitarian streak of Labour's left or right wing groups is their common factor.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: face it.

      It's not the parties - they go along with it for their own reasons - but rather the sir humphries who are the source of this constant barrage of privacy-invading nonsense. They see themselves as superior to the plebian mass. The Ministers are just the current mask they wear to push their "enlightened" consensus dictatorship.

    3. Measurer

      Re: face it.

      Gasp... You mean the world of Google!

      We're already there, it's just if Google know your dirty little online secrets, they'll just try to sell more of it to you, until heart failure or friction burns kill you. They won't be holier than thou about it.

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

        Re: face it.

        you can choose not to use Google (most people could manage that). It's a bit harder to not use your ISP for internet access.

  8. Fading Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Time for operation haystack

    All I need is a nice little worm that will spoof IP addresses and create a bogus random browsing history. Infect a couple of more popular ISPs used by MPs and bob's your man from uncle. Plausible deniability for all.......

  9. Big_Ted
    Black Helicopters

    You all missed the most important part

    "for example, we won’t be requiring communication service providers from the UK to store third party data, we won’t be making the same requirements in relation to data retention on overseas CSPs [such as Facebook, Google, et al].".....

    Well that's its then, they don't need to bother about facebook etc because the NSA have all the info and will transfer it to GCHQ so its on their servers any time they want it.

    Or am I being paranoid because they are out to get me . . . .

  10. Fraggle850

    Re: "world leading oversight arrangements"

    So that will be 'everything the police ask for is signed off by the home secretary as a matter of course' then? The involvement of judges will only come after they've made free with our data, and then only in cases where you find out what they've been up to.

    1. Teiwaz Silver badge

      Re: "world leading oversight arrangements"

      > "'everything the police ask for is signed off by the home secretary "

      There'll not be enough hours in the day to sign off all the police requests, including the irrelevant, the unnecessary or just plain 'gone fishing'.

      The really dangerous people will go unnoticed among all this dross and irrelevance until they perpetrate...

      1. Justicesays

        Re: "world leading oversight arrangements"

        "There'll not be enough hours in the day to sign off all the police requests, including the irrelevant, the unnecessary or just plain 'gone fishing'."

        That isn't an issue, the kind of stuff that the HomeSec signs off now are things like "We need to spy on everyone in UK in case Ter'ists"

        Those 1400 warrants she signs off a year sounds like a small number until you realize each of them is a request like that.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Isn't judicial oversight supposed to come first? I thought we sorted these things out a couple of centuries ago.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Isn't judicial oversight supposed to come first? I thought we sorted these things out a couple of centuries ago."

      Yes we did sort them out a long long time ago. More recently they seem to have become "unsorted" again. Funny that.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    All of this against a backdrop

    of a country whose police force may soon have problems catching a cold (unless it's on Skype).

    As another poster mentioned elsewhere, we get the laws we can afford .....

  13. Camilla Smythe

    Go Girl...

    We won't try to enforce stuff on people who are likely to forcibly tell us to Fuck Off and over whom we have no expectation of influence because we will get comprehensibly Fucked Over if we try... So we will pick on someone else.

    Anything else we do not understand and is almost within our reach is fair game as long as you minging bastards let me and my fold have my way.

    Why doesn't she go chat up Nick Stringer at the IAB? She obviously needs a, similarly warped, Toy Boy. Maybe someone can toss a Grenade under the bed when they are doing the two backed beast.

    Silly me, that's incitement to do something, violent, about the problem. Presumably Dancing Bears do not have access to Grenades..

    Maybe she will realise Nick, along with the rest of her attempted sexual conquests, is simply not evil enough to Father her spawn and, having ripped him to shreds in another orgasmic frenzy of powerlust, go into an extreme sulk and vaporize herself.

    Something like that anyway. Hopefully there are better people on the case than myself.

  14. IsJustabloke
    Stop

    TBH I don't have too much of a problem with GCHQ and chums having access to this kind of information, slightly more concerns about plod but I really can see no reason why my local council need this information. Is it in case I'm visiting a website to learn how to avoid their increasingly stupid parking regs?

  15. captain veg

    at least

    We now know what the Lib Dems were for. Pity they had to be put down.

    -A.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So so so close...

    With Wednesday being the 4th of November...

    (posted anonymous just to get the icon :) )

  17. Marketing Hack Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Promises....promises....

    This year: "No, we would never use this law to look at your web-browsing history"

    Next Year: "Leaked government documents show that the Greater Liverpool Environmental Authority has examined the web-browsing habits of over 10,000 residents based on demonstrated anti-social behavior such as not separating recyclable glass out of their garbage bins."

    1. Dadmin
      Meh

      Re: Promises....promises....

      Typical vagaries designed to direct your attention away from what they can do. This "never look at your browsing history" is complete and utter bullshit. What they mean to say, and won't, is; "We won't break into your home computer, without probable cause anyway, to grab your browser/search history, when we can fully recreated it from other data we steal, I mean; gather with lawful need." THIS is what is cleverly missing from their narrative.

  18. Fonant

    Squid proxy via SSH tunnel.

    I've just installed squid as a proxy server on one of my web servers, and configured an SSH tunnel to it using PuTTY.

    So I'd like to thank Mrs May and the Tory government for prompting me to find out more about my internet access and ways to prevent the government from monitoring my activities via ISP records.

    Clearly this is only security theatre: any terrorist/freedom fighter doing anything non-trivial can do this. Rent a server somewhere outside the UK, install squid, and use it as a proxy with the connection tunnelled over SSH. All the government can find out from the ISP is the fact that they connected to a specific IP address using an encrypted connection at a specific time.

    Forcing the big ISPs to log connection information allows the government to spy on the majority unsuspecting law-abiding population, but anyone who knows what they're doing can quite easily avoid this spying while still communicating via the internet.

    1. choleric

      Re: Squid proxy via SSH tunnel.

      That works until they do very easy traffic analysis and realise that your SSH connection is carrying vast quantities of data and that you're trying to hide what you're looking at. At which point you have nothing to fear, right?

    2. Rod 6

      Re: Squid proxy via SSH tunnel.

      I was thinking of doing this on my DO droplet in Frankfurt, but WHY SHOULD I? I don't want my country to be some sort of gulag, I want it to be a free democratic place where the police (and security services) GET A WARRANT before searching through my stuff. She is scum.

      1. choleric

        Re: Squid proxy via SSH tunnel.

        I was going to upvote your comment right up until the last sentence.

  19. This post has been deleted by its author

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fairly balanced report

    A Question of Trust

    REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS REVIEW

    by DAVID ANDERSON Q.C.

    Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/434399/IPR-Report-Web-Accessible1.pdf

    I only had time to read the first third or so of this last night (it's a weighty 380 pages), but it seems fairly balanced.

    What I don't know is how the draft bill squares up to this...

  21. Cynic_999 Silver badge

    Is it really OK for Police but not LA?

    I see a couple of comments saying, "I don't mind GCHQ and the police spying on me, but not my Local Authority."

    What makes you think that police officers or the bods at GCHQ are any more trustworthy than you local council office worker? They aren't. The only thing that makes you feel that way is that you do not believe you are doing anything that would be of interest to GCHQ or the police, while you may be doing stuff that your local council won't like. Well, spare a thought for the many people who are in a similar vulnerable position wrt the police or government. Such as journalists exposing corrupt politicians or whistle-blowers fingering corrupt police practises.

  22. HAL-9000
    Big Brother

    Kite flying, fishing expedition?

    Probably aimed at the same idiots who appear to have voted for this bunch of clowns. Probably the same Camorons who buy the arguments offered up by the recent rash of MI5 6 7's (I've lost count) PR officers giving interviews in the 'independent' press of late.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Liar!

    That is all

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I absolutely support the police and similar bodies having the access to all the communications of targeted individuals that they believe may be up to no good. What I don't like is the idea that they want to slurp up everyone's data in the hope of finding one bad apple. The danger is that an individual who is no danger accidentally triggers whatever a algorithm they are using and before you know it their life is ruined. For example, once upon a time I was a fairly decent organic chemist and, like most chemists, I could rustle up half a dozen different things that go bang using just what's under under your kitchen sink. Combine that knowledge with a new found interest in electronics and before you know it there's a red flashing light next to my name. Stop the world I want off!

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Surely Windows 10 will allow the Government to know everything that is on your computer, no warrants needed.

  26. Graham Marsden
    Big Brother

    Weasel words...

    "we will not be giving powers to go through people’s browsing history"

    Note that that does *NOT* mean that they won't be recording and storing all that history, just that they (supposedly) won't be looking through it all the time.

    It's like saying "We're not tracking you everywhere you go, but we're storing the data from ANPR cameras, so if we *want* to find out where you've been, we can..."

  27. Peter Stone
    Facepalm

    Eyes bigger than stomachs (as my mum used to say)

    If the security services want to store every GET request generated, have they actually worked out the logistics?

    When I last worked in schools back in 2006/7 we had a proxy server that kept logs of the type required, with 1,500 users generating a 250MByte file daily. (In round numbers). Bearing this in mind, let's do some working out.

    The population of the UK in 2015 is 64 Million in round numbers. If only 95% of the population uses the internet, then this produces a figure of 60.8 Million users.

    Using the log figure I mentioned above, then a file of (60.8*10^6) * (250*10^6)/(1.5*10^3) is generated, which gives a figure of 10.3 TBytes per day, which over the year gives a figure of 659 TBytes.

    From when I had to search the 250MByte log files for details of sites that had been visited by pupils was a pain, & could easily take half a day.

    Storage wise, this may not be a problem, but searching such an amount of data is going to be a headache, & somehow I don't think log parser is going to be much use. Then there is the problem of getting all the log files in the same format.

    One final thing, take my internet usage. Sometimes I tether my computer to my mobile phone, other times I use the local library & connect to the citywide network, (best of luck unraveling that) & then sometimes I use family internets. So putting together a comprehensive browsing history for me could be a nightmare :)

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Re: Eyes bigger than stomachs (as my mum used to say)

      Everyone knows that the best way to find needles in haystacks is to make the haystack at least a billion times bigger.

      The only possible use for any of the proposed mass-collection of personal data is to make targeted fishing and phishing expeditions easier.

      It's so much easier to frame or defraud someone when you know their communication history.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Eyes bigger than stomachs, or just needles and haystacks...

      With many internet capable phones, 2 offering tethering, a few open wireless networks (4 blocks of flats nearby plus houses etc) and more than one landline with internet (oooh, plus several thousand mail addresses, and use of multiple VPN services)...

      We will happily tie up some parts of LA, Police, or security services, trying to patch together our communications, hopefully for weeks or months, as they wade through around 1 TB of traffic, much of it from random webcams, worldwide {World Wide Webcam running on 4 Android mobiles, for example}, traffic from browsers claiming to be Safari (on Android), Safari (on neghbors' iPhones using our connections), plus various TV streaming services, plus the odd 'dodgy' p0rn video which our neghbors may click on, plus lots of streaming audio too, oh and a dozen or more tablets, laptops, iMacs + Windows systems, and another collection of cellphones (PAYG with low credit, so using wi-fi for internet).

      So long as they don't try to bill for their waste of time, we will be happy giving them plenty of haystack to sift through.

      Yes, dear ElReg reader (and those of the public who are equally innocent bystanders):

      "You're very welcome!" :)

  28. This post has been deleted by its author

  29. Frumious Bandersnatch Silver badge

    "world leading oversight arrangements"

    For if this negligee is fit for the UK queen, then other leaders would scarce deign but to try it on.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Explained in one sentence

    The Man gets your data, you get screwed.

  31. Rod 6

    They are utter scum. She would fit in very well in the old East Germany. And it's not just Dave and friends - those Labors were up to this sort of thing too.

  32. Alan Brown Silver badge

    1: https everywhere is your friend (and not just because of spooks)

    2: So are those packages which fill up ISP logfiles with spurious gets.

    Civil disobedience can take many forms and making it too expensive to keep monitoring is at least one of the options open.

  33. s. pam
    Boffin

    Liar Liar, pants on Fire

    Sorry but anyone who believes Teflon Theresa May be sectioned at no notice!

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Anyone getting sick of seeing her smug face all over the place? they should just use the logo of home sec instead.

  35. heyrick Silver badge

    claims draft bill will have robust oversight, judicial approval

    Well, that would be a first.

  36. Panicnow
    Big Brother

    Fearing the wrong party

    Why does everyone trust the ISPs, Facebook at al with their life data? It has been repeatedly demonstrated that they are poor custodians. Ashley Madison is an excellent example of how that trust can be abused.

    The politicians who are allowing these corporations to accumulate the power are the very ones who will be most at risk. I remember the scandal when Gordon Brown's Visa bill with Champagne from Oddbins was disclosed. Imagine what an unscrupulous employee, or exec could do, knowing where the President is by the minute. " So he did meet that terrorist to negotiate whilst claiming no negotiations" could easily lead to "Now Mr President, about the regulation of data centres..."

    Its not that governments should have access, it that these corporations shouldn't have (and keep) the data in the first place!!!

    Did you know that most messaging apps report to the server your location every time you send a message, which they store.

    An Siri is now always listening...

    Get your tIn foil hats now!

  37. Graham Cobb

    Bitmessage

    Well, at least this means that Bitmessage will get some of the TLC it needs. Plenty of UK-based coders will become interested in helping improve and test it.

  38. s5PGmU
    Trollface

    "World leading oversight arrangements"

    I guess that means the Home Secretary and Porky PM Cameron will be conducting the oversight?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019