TOT: Snooper's Charter

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?

 

Wrong Rod.

Read this.
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/8112840.Driver_in_row_over_parking_fine_at_Focus_in_Dorchester/
and then this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...on-drivers-get-private-car-parking-fines.html

Then explain how the parking company got the name and address of the
car owner, other than from the DVLA

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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."

 

That's not evidence.

Never occurred to you that they look for euphemisms as well?

Really?

 

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?

 

They can't do that.

 

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.

 

That's not number plate RECOGNITION, that's just access
to who is the registered keeper of a particular car.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 |
\=================================================================/

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.