TOT: Snooper's Charter

Discussion in 'Broadband' started by Java Jive, Oct 9, 2015.

  1. Java Jive

    Roland Perry Guest

    Which "Basic law" means I don't have to worry about people poking around
    my internal network, having been given the wifi password by Win10?
     
    Roland Perry, Oct 10, 2015
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. brightside S9, Oct 10, 2015
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Java Jive

    Robin Guest

    Parking companies *and other private landholder* with a problem with
    parking can obtain the name and address of the registered keeper. The
    law providing for this was widely publicised and debated[1]. It banned
    clamping/removal on (broadly) private land and instead extra powers for
    private landholders to chase registered keepers for unpaid parking.
    Without some such provision people would not be able to deal with
    unauthorised parking in all sorts of places - many where barriers are
    simply not practicable.

    Of course there are other options which protect privacy. Eg I wager
    many people could get by using DIY methods, without access to the DVLA
    data, to deal with unauthorised parking on private land in Roseburg,
    Oregon. But the pros and cons have to be judged :)

    [1] Section 56 and Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
     
    Robin, Oct 10, 2015
    #43
  4. I know that, but Rod said that number plate recognition has been
    around for a hell of a long time and hasn't ben used for that (parking
    fines).

    I just want him to explain how the registered keeper is obtained by
    (legitimate) private parking companies if they aren't using government
    held data.

    i await his reply.
     
    brightside S9, Oct 10, 2015
    #44
  5. Java Jive

    tim..... Guest

    common sense

    The idea that TPTB can usefully monitor 60 million citizens in near real
    time, in order to spot that one of them is planning on being "naughty"
    giving you an opportunity to stop them is nonsense.

    Just where are the 240 million other people necessary to process all that
    data 24-7, living? Mars?

    (And know that they use "computer" monitoring looking for key-words, but
    that is easy to circumvent. Subversives have always used euphemisms to
    avoid that. Any hits you might get about people talking about e.g. "bombs"
    are unlikely to be the people that you want)

    Retrospectively claiming, after an event, that "we had the data all the
    time, if only...." is just wishful thinking, the chances that of all the
    data that you "had at the time" you would have selected the salient part, at
    the time, is ludicrous

    No, the only way that you can catch the bad guys is if you have some sort of
    "in" in the first place.

    tim
     
    tim....., Oct 10, 2015
    #45
  6. Java Jive

    Robin Guest

    Sorry. My misunderstanding - arising from my blocking Rod so not seeing
    what he posted.

    And thanks for confirming that he still belongs in the block list.
     
    Robin, Oct 10, 2015
    #46
  7. Java Jive

    tim..... Guest

    That might have been true when the only "device" talking on your wi-fi was
    you internet browser,

    but now that we have IoT and your fridge/washing machine/home heating
    system/electricity meter/alarm system etc etc are sending message "home"
    24/7 there are potential risks if someone taps into your system

    tim
     
    tim....., Oct 10, 2015
    #47
  8. Java Jive

    Robin Guest

    Imagine that you have gained that "in" - eg the name and mobile number
    of an extremist (X) with evidence to suggest a plan to explode bombs on
    the London underground.

    Do you think it might help the investigation to find out who X had been
    in touch with over the preceding weeks or months by phone, email, etc?
    And what sites X had visited (given the ease by which messages can be
    passed using websites without any email etc being transmitted)? All
    examples of lines of enquiry which can only be followed up if the data
    from past periods are available.

    ISTM what you are promoting is typical of what David Anderson QC
    described as "the wilder allegations that came out of the Snowden
    affair-I would say unfounded wild allegations that the state is reading
    into people's emails the whole time when patently it isn't."
     
    Robin, Oct 10, 2015
    #48
  9. Java Jive

    Graeme Wall Guest

    That's not evidence.
    Never occurred to you that they look for euphemisms as well?
    Really?
     
    Graeme Wall, Oct 10, 2015
    #49
  10. Java Jive

    Bill Guest

    Nobody is being bluffed, at least not here, but it's interesting to see
    what they are claiming.
    The accuser is saying that they have the raw capture of the packets sent
    by a torrent over 2 years ago and thus can analyse the data involved.

    If this were not a bluff, I think it would raise huge questions over
    what some self-appointed "forensic investigator" was doing and how legal
    it was.

    I just think there needs to be some thought given to data privacy.

    In the context of this, I have searched about dodgy law firms. How can I
    be sure that Amazon won't point me to one or vice versa?
     
    Bill, Oct 10, 2015
    #50
  11. Java Jive

    Rod Speed Guest

    They can't do that.
     
    Rod Speed, Oct 10, 2015
    #51
  12. Java Jive

    Rod Speed Guest

    Same way they did long before number plate recognition
    after an accident. Nothing whatever to do with the snooping
    that is being attempted to be expanded somewhat.
     
    Rod Speed, Oct 10, 2015
    #52
  13. Java Jive

    Rod Speed Guest

    That's not number plate RECOGNITION, that's just access
    to who is the registered keeper of a particular car.
     
    Rod Speed, Oct 10, 2015
    #53
  14. Java Jive

    Rod Speed Guest

    That's a lie. Some terrorist and criminal activity has been thwarted that
    way.

    You don’t have to monitor the activitys of anything like
    60M to get some useful results, just a tiny subset of them.

    Same with surveillance cameras, you don’t have to
    have them in every room in everyone's house, just
    in a tiny subset of places to get some useful results.
     
    Rod Speed, Oct 10, 2015
    #54
  15. Java Jive

    Rod Speed Guest

    That was never the case.
    The worst they can do is turn a few things off and on and
    completely trivial to ensure that they can't even do that.
     
    Rod Speed, Oct 10, 2015
    #55
  16. Java Jive

    Rod Speed Guest

    Plenty are.
    You don't know that either, particularly
    with the ones who have not commented.
    Says nothing useful about who actually did that.
    You mean lie there.
    Sure, but that is an entirely separate question to the
    bluff where they claim that because it happened on
    your system, you are legally liable for what happened.
    I don't understand that question.
     
    Rod Speed, Oct 10, 2015
    #56
  17. Java Jive

    John Rumm Guest

    The problem with the "nothing to hide" line of argument, is three fold...

    first it assumes that the only reason you may want to hide something is
    if you have done wrong. It does not take much thought to dismiss that,
    as there is plenty of information that could be used to harm one's
    interests that has nothing to do any wrongdoing.

    Second it makes the assumption that the people[1] holding information on
    you are actually competent to keep it secure themselves. The number of
    times various branches of government have mailed out CDs, or left
    laptops on trains etc, ought to highlight the fallacy of that. (and that
    is before we get to all the high profile hacks that have compromised
    personal data).

    Lastly you assume that the people[1] holding your data will not use it
    for malign intent now or in the future.

    [1] and in "people" you need to include all the current staff of the
    organisation, all the future staff, all the sub contractors, and anyone
    else ever granted access to the data for whatever reason.

    --
    Cheers,

    John.

    /=================================================================\
    | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
    |-----------------------------------------------------------------|
    | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
    \=================================================================/
     
    John Rumm, Oct 11, 2015
    #57
  18. Java Jive

    Hanny Z Guest

    No it does not.
    I have no information that can be used like that that can be
    discovered by the new approach, I literally have nothing to hide.
    No it does not.

    The number of
    Sure, but I have no data like that that would be any problem
    for me it that happens to it.
    No I do not;. I know that there is none of my data that can be used like
    that.
     
    Hanny Z, Oct 11, 2015
    #58
  19. Java Jive

    Graeme Wall Guest

    Actually very few occasions; it just makes massive headlines when it
    happens. The reason it makes massive headlines is that it is a rare and
    newsworthy event. If it happened frequently it wouldn't make a para on
    page 6. Compare rail and road accidents.
     
    Graeme Wall, Oct 11, 2015
    #59
  20. Java Jive

    Roland Perry Guest

    It's a slightly old story, but mentions losses in the thousands:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/mar/04/2

    And what I hear, it's getting worse, now there are so many smartphones
    and tablets in circulation.
     
    Roland Perry, Oct 11, 2015
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.