Nice legislation

[Suff]

If you work at GCHQ

The draft investigatory powers bill will also enshrine in statute GCHQ’s licence to hack into computers worldwide, including powers to sweep up content of a computer or smartphone, listen to phonecalls, track locations or even switch on the microphones or cameras on mobile phones. The powers, known as “computer network exploitation”, even allow them to record conversations or snap pictures of anyone nearby the device.

[Workingman]

I know, I know.....

But are they going to log Joe the binman from Telford?

The security services will have targets, just as they had with posted mail, telephones or telegrams.

Does anybody really think that they have the manpower, that especially, to monitor every one of our so interesting communications every minute of every day?

"Hi mum, I'm on me way 'ome. Want some fish'n'chips or jus pie an' peas? Love ya, Champers."

They can, but they won't.

[victor]

they can and they will-eventually

[cruiser2]

Who knows if they are not already doing it?

[Kaz]

What Frank said, spot on

[Suff]

Does anybody really think that they have the manpower, that especially, to monitor every one of our so interesting communications every minute of every day?

This presumes that people are doing the checking.

In fact it will not be people it will be computers and a list of keywords. Those computers will then log any communication which hits the keywords for further review. But and here is the big but, who sets the threshold for the keywords… Are they all terrorist related or are there other agendas.

Also and here is the other kicker. If they have control of your phone, then they have the right to track you wherever you go whatever you are doing. Who is to say the people who might “demand” that information? DSS? The local council?

I have been mulling a RFID blocking device to kill any RFID trackers for some time now.

Just remember, the last thing anyone will see or hear will be the actual source media from your conversation. In the first instance it will be a tagged and summarised synopsis of what the software tagged. After it will be a summary of the actual data. If that is still of interest, then the person who requested the data on you will get the actual original source conversation in its native form, whether text message, phone conversation, chat, email or website accessed.

Now we talk about “can they”. The average business server, today, can track a thousand of these conversations per second, even the phone one’s with the voice processing. Then there comes storage. Yes the voice is slightly bulky, but they can store emails, voice, texts and websites visited fairly easily. We now have multi petabyte storage infrastructures and they are working on multi Exabyte infrastructures. That’s enough to cover everyone in the UK for every phone call for every person. All landline or mobile calls go through a computer and are translated into digital. The rest is software…

I come back to the point. Who decides exactly “what” to track and why. As I tell all the people I know who use “registered” tax avoidance services, all of which are illegal outside of the UK. The only avoidance which works is visibility. This is also true of public surveillance. The only way to be sure that they are not doing something you don’t want them to or creating a false reality of your intentions; is not to be visible to them in the first place…

That just became harder.

[pederito1]

I am sure the CIA has been doing this for a long time and probably we have too. Not an enormous requirement of personnel, just a filtration system by computer to look for suspicious addresses messages and code, bringing the number down to a manageable total to look at.

[Workingman]

I was not saying that the technology canot do the tracking, nor was I saying that key words and phrases would not be used. I imagine that some of it is already happening to some extent.

However, when checking everything every second of the day the number of potential "hits" will be enormous. Even with the best algorithms doing the most efficient filtering there will still be goodness knows how many false positives. In fact the more hits the more false positives there will be. Eventually the men in black will have to make a move, and there will need to be plenty of them.

My other thoughts are along the lines that high-level real terrorists or criminals are not stupid. By and large they will not use an ISP account registered to their home address and paid by DD from their own bank account. They will not use a phone and SIM bought on their CC from Carphone Warehouse. They will use cash for a lot of things and will not have store loyalty cards. Batteries will be taken out of devices and those devices will be carried in Faraday Bags. They might not be totally invisible, but the government storing everyone's website visits isn't going to worry them too much.

They could actually get lost in all the fog.

[Aggers]

There is so much cyber crime and anti-social messaging by extremists taking place
on the Internet now that there is patently need for more surveillance, and control,
of what is taking place on it. In fact, I consider that such measure are long overdue.

I have often thought that I.T. and the WWW, might well prove to be the ultimate
downfall of the human race.

[Suff]

Pretty much my point about who sets the search parameters.

Because this kind of intrusion is not going to impact that many of the hardcore terrorists. However it is going to impact the day to day lives of the average joe citizen.

I’ve always thought these laws were more about control of the general population than about combatting terror. A case of a shortcut to a Politically Correct legal system.

If I recall correctly the cross border anti terror rules have been mainly used to grab husbands in arrears of child maintenance to the CSA. Just what they were designed for… Not. Our confidence that the same will not happen with these laws?

Nil.