Poll: for/against Net surveillance in UK Anti-Terrorism law ?
pisces
For Against Abstain
http://www.yougov.com/pp.jsp;jsessionid=1wb2pvn8k2?news.id=20016033
Blunkett's proposals on internet privacy: for or against
The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, last month proposed that Internet
Service Providers should be "enabled" to track and store the broad
communications data of their customers including addresses of e-mails, sites
browsed, articles read and use of newsgroups.
Part 11 of the emergency anti-terrorism, crime and security bill will allow
internet service providers (ISPs) to keep a year's worth of information on
their customers' internet activity. Two reasons are given: safeguarding
national security, and the prevention and detection of crime. Importantly,
clause 102 allows the home secretary to force traffic data retention if he
feels the voluntary code is failing to work. He would force compulsory
retention through a statutory instrument, a relatively easy procedure
compared with getting a bill through parliament. So although Mr Blunkett
used the term "enable", it is a very real possibility that data retention
could be made compulsory and enforced through civil law.
No new legislation will be necessary for authorities and intelligence
agencies to obtain the data once it is recorded by ISPs and telephone
companies; the regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 allows such
"communications data" to be collected for a number of purposes including
tax, public order and minor crime investigations. This process is
effectively self-regulated, as it requires only the say-so of a police
superintendent or equivalent rank to gather the data.
Current data protection legislation protects individuals' privacy by
prohibiting blanket storage by ISPs of data such as websites browsed,
addresses of e-mails and which 'newsgroup' articles a subscriber reads.
Other communications data, such as the telephone number used to dial-up the
Internet, may be kept so long as it is relevant to billing or fraud control.
The Government intends to establish a Code of Practice - developed in
consultation with ISPs - which will specify exactly what data can be
gathered and for how long it can be kept. The terms of the debate so far
suggests that the electronic communications data to be recorded is best
understood in a wide sense and can provide a complete map of an individual's
private life. If a government agency wanted to read the contents of an
individual e-mail it would require a warrant from a Secretary of State; if a
government agency wanted to search for entire documents it would require a
court order.
Supporters of the proposal argue that the data should be collected to
safeguard national security and prevent misuse of the Internet. The
proposals were included as part of anti-terrorist legislation to prevent
subversive groups or individuals operating effectively in the UK and also to
prevent cyber terrorism. Supporters of the plans maintain that law-abiding
individuals have nothing to fear provided they are not abusing the Internet.
Indeed, they argue that the new measures will provide a comprehensive
deterrent to paedophiles using the Internet to circulate pornographic
material and will allow police to gather important evidence in catching such
criminals.
Those opposing the new and as yet undefined measures argue that the Mr
Blunkett's proposals will in fact only be efficient at tracking law-abiding
individuals because terrorists and those with something to hide will take
steps to avoid detection. Furthermore, they maintain that the Government is
cynically using the events of September 11 to establish a policy of blanket
data surveillance. It has also been suggested that forcing ISPs to record
data on Internet use will inhibit the use of the medium as a means of
business and personal communication.
ISPs have suggested that they will be forced to move if the proposals are
implemented for both privacy and cost reasons. The cost of a year's worth of
traffic data retention could soar into the millions for some ISPs. Steve
Rawlinson, managing director at London-based ISP ClaraNet claims the
sweeping powers will force ISPs to locate more hosting infrastructure
outside the UK to guarantee confidentiality of communications data for
business customers.
FOR
Tracking and storing data on Internet use for extended periods of time will
help in the fight against terrorism and crime. Law-abiding citizens have
nothing to fear and should not oppose the new measures. We must be prepared
to accept to accept some limited restriction on liberty of privacy if we are
to combat the threat of terrorism. The mere existence of the security
measures will inhibit the spread of crime, such as paedophile rings, over
the Internet. The costs to ISPs are negligible compared to the benefits of
ensuring national security.
AGAINST
Tracking and storing data on internet use will be ineffective in the fight
against terrorism and crime and will serve only to record information on
law-abiding citizens. This information can then be used for a multiplicity
of purposes; the individuals being investigated could deem many of these
purposes illegitimate. Legitimate groups whose policies or attitudes
conflict with the State's could be tracked and illegitimately discriminated
against. ISP' s will incur greater costs and are more likely to move their
hosting infrastructures abroad.
Denis Mcmahon
of reading all this crap in multiple ngs, uk.net.regulation was set up
specifically for the discussion of such issues, and it makes sense for
those who wish to discuss them to subscribe to that group.
"pisces" <pisc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>(you must be logged in to vote)
> For Against Abstain
>
>http://www.yougov.com/pp.jsp;jsessionid=1wb2pvn8k2?news.id=20016033
>Blunkett's proposals on internet privacy: for or against
Oh right, so I have to add my email address to your "live spammables"
collection before I vote eh? Are you sure this isn't an email address
harvesting exercise.
Anyway, as I reserve the right to be paranoid, and as this post looks
almost as evocative as those fax scams that I keep receiving that are
designed to make me spend a tenner on faxing back a response, I
decline to respond using your selected method, as I don't trust it one
bit!
>Part 11 of the anti-terrorism, crime and security bill will allow
>the SoS to require that internet service providers (ISPs) keep a
>record of their customers' internet activity.
However, access to the stored records will still be subject to RIPA,
which means that although the data may be stored, there is no open
access to the stored data by the police, security forces, tax office
etc. Investigators will still need to identify persons whom they wish
to investigate prior to requesting data relevant to those persons
activities.
Not only that, but in many cases, the logging carried out by ISPs will
be little more than that already carried out to prevent fraudulent
use, and abuse of, their networks and the internet.
However, it does amuse me to see ll the little paranoid androids
running around in circles imagining that PC plod down the local nick
has got time to and can read all their email.
Rgds
Denis
--
Denis McMahon / +44 7802 468949 / de...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk
Entry conditions for killfile include top-post, advert, bin
I block the [a.b.*.*] of any UC/BE relay.
Usenet posts > 100 lines are not retrieved.
pisces
news:7shl1u04alrar0oio...@4ax.com...
> fu set to uk.net.regulation, for the simple reason that I'm pissed off
> of reading all this crap in multiple ngs, uk.net.regulation was set up
> specifically for the discussion of such issues,
Nobody is forcing you - does it offend some conformist sensibility ? The
idea of cross-posting is cross-fertilisation of ideas and communities - if
you can't see the relevance to each of the groups chosen, I suggest you
re-read the original post. It's not just regulation, it's surveillance, and
the groups chosen were chosen for that reason.
> >http://www.yougov.com/pp.jsp;jsessionid=1wb2pvn8k2?news.id=20016033
> >Blunkett's proposals on internet privacy: for or against
>
> Oh right, so I have to add my email address to your "live spammables"
> collection before I vote eh? Are you sure this isn't an email address
> harvesting exercise.
I've no idea - why not read the site's privacy policy ?
> >Part 11 of the anti-terrorism, crime and security bill will allow
> >the SoS to require that internet service providers (ISPs) keep a
> >record of their customers' internet activity.
>
> However, access to the stored records will still be subject to RIPA,
> which means that although the data may be stored, there is no open
> access to the stored data by the police, security forces, tax office
> etc. Investigators will still need to identify persons whom they wish
> to investigate prior to requesting data relevant to those persons
> activities.
Bollocks. There is no requirement to identify individuals (read the draft
Code of Practice on Pt.1 Ch.2, and indeed RIP itself). A police Super (or
equivalent spook or Customs), can on his own authority without a warrant,
order up traffic data on one person or a million, if HE thinks that is
"proportionate".
> Not only that, but in many cases, the logging carried out by ISPs will
> be little more than that already carried out to prevent fraudulent
> use, and abuse of, their networks and the internet.
One ISP with about 30% UK market share, keeps full records of what each user
browses (culled from it's transparent web cache), probably only for a few
days at the moment.
Now under "Anti-Terrorism" law any ISP (or private comms service, even P2P
clients taken literally - sic - read the debate in Hansard) can be
arm-twisted to log any traffic data, for any length of time, and that data
can be got at under RIP for purposes connected with public order (i.e. demos
& protests), tax, health and safety, and any minor crime from dropping
litter upwards.
> However, it does amuse me to see ll the little paranoid androids
What, you mean like you, taking an on-topic post of relevant news article to
be spam trawl ?
> running around in circles imagining that PC plod down the local nick
> has got time to and can read all their email.
Well it won't be plod down the local nick, it will hbe National Criminal
Intelligence Service globbing data from seperate investigations into a
national traffic database of people (and their associates) they consider
dodgy for the rather broad purposes allowed by RIP
Richard Clayton
<pisc...@yahoo.com> writes
>A police Super (or
>equivalent spook or Customs), can on his own authority without a warrant,
>order up traffic data on one person or a million, if HE thinks that is
>"proportionate".
he will also need to have the budget to pay for this ... so the
accountants may help to keep his sense of proportion in check
--
richard Richard Clayton
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
David G. Bell
Richard Clayton wrote:
>
> In article <jlHS7.107$7v6.1...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, pisces
> <pisc...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >A police Super (or
> >equivalent spook or Customs), can on his own authority without a warrant,
> >order up traffic data on one person or a million, if HE thinks that is
> >"proportionate".
>
> he will also need to have the budget to pay for this ... so the
> accountants may help to keep his sense of proportion in check
But the technology keeps getting more powerful for the same money, so
the accountants may have less control as time passes. Relying on that
to safeguard your rights is stupid. Reading mail is still expensive for
physical items, because you have to somehow get past the envelope, but
there's no envelope for email.
The cost of sending email doesn't protect us from spammers. Whu should
the costs protect up from these snoops?
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
The singer who is no longer, and no shorter, than he was last week.
He's
about the same length in his stocking moolies.
John Underwood
(Reference: <3C1BA1E2...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>)
> there's no envelope for email.
PGP? The cost of getting round that is pretty phenomenal, steaming an
envelope open is trivial in comparison - spending a few million to
ensure you do it without detection is still cheap in comparison. (It
also takes a little less time).
--
John Underwood
Use the Reply To: address for the next 30 days
After that write to jo...@the-underwoods.org.uk
Do not send anything to the From: address
Dark...@basement.org
> (you must be logged in to vote)
> For Against Abstain
If I got to be logged in then I'll not vote....
If you that bothered about it all why you not using
Anonymous Remailer services, Tsch tsch.....
[snipped]
>
>
>
--
Richard Clayton
<db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> writes
>Richard Clayton wrote:
>>
>> In article <jlHS7.107$7v6.1...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, pisces
>> <pisc...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> >A police Super (or
>> >equivalent spook or Customs), can on his own authority without a warrant,
>> >order up traffic data on one person or a million, if HE thinks that is
>> >"proportionate".
>>
>> he will also need to have the budget to pay for this ... so the
>> accountants may help to keep his sense of proportion in check
>
>But the technology keeps getting more powerful for the same money,
the cost is for access to the stored data ... which, where there are low
volumes of requests, is mainly a manual process
hence the cost of suddenly asking for millions of records will be many
millions ... and I do appreciate your point that over time you'll get
more data for your Euro -- but in the short term this is likely to be a
significant brake on the expansion of activities
pisces
news:FGAT5LHQ3724...@anonymous.poster...
Hello.ooo..oo. You just made my case for me spectacularly in all of three
lines.
You said you would not vote because you didn't want to log in to vote,
presumably either because :
a) you couldn't be arsed at all, or if you could
b) you didn't want the website to know your IP address, and didn't realise,
rather than
c) you couldn't be arsed, to vote through an anonymising proxy, or you are
sufficiently paranoid that
d) you don't trust anonymity machinery technically, and possibly also you
believe
e) its the people who actually try to be anonymous who are most noticed
Whatever the reason, you chose effectively to disenfranchise (in sense of
one-person one-vote) yourself, rather than vote traceably.
Yet you claim that the loss of liberty and democracy entailed by the state
maintaining total practicable traceability is compensated for by the
existence of remailers, when you either can't be arsed or don't trust them
yourself ? Come off it.
If everybody did that (and if they are like you they will) then they won't
participate in any democratic political expression online. It's no comfort
to say in some ideal world we could all use double-spend-detecting blind
signatures, because that just isn't very likely to happen...
Clive D. W. Feather
>idea of cross-posting is cross-fertilisation of ideas and communities - if
>you can't see the relevance to each of the groups chosen, I suggest you
>re-read the original post. It's not just regulation, it's surveillance, and
>the groups chosen were chosen for that reason.
The relevance of demon.service is ?
The relevance of uk.gov.social-security is ?
I would also argue that uk.politics.censorship is not relevant, since
this is regulation, not censorship, and that is *exactly* why
uk.net.regulation exists.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 20 8371 4037 (D-fax) | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
uk.net.regulation]
In article <1OaT7.245$8%.136954@monolith.news.easynet.net>
pisc...@yahoo.com "pisces" writes:
> "Denis Mcmahon" <den...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eubq1u0ktqlrj558b...@4ax.com...
> ...
> > >i.e. a discussion would be a much better discussion if certain people
> were
> > >excluded ?
> >
> > Not at all, those who wish to follow the threads are not prevented
> > from doing so
>
> You are missing the point. How do you know that the threads don't owe their
> existence to the clash of cultures between the different groups ? If a
> thread seems to peter out in the group someone is in, how many people will
> go hunting to see if it continues in crossposted groups ? Very few. What
> netiquette are you proposing exactly - that somebody should say
> prima-donnishly "Well I have views on this subject, but I'm only going to
> discuss it in the following groups".
No; what he said was "For those reading the original posting in group
x.y.z, please note that it was also cross-posted to uk.net.regulation.
That latter group was created explicitly for such discussions, and a more
focussed debate will result if you subscribe to that group, of which you
perhaps were unaware. The original poster obviously knew of it too, but
was insufficiently experienced in the use of network.news to have set
things to take the debate automatically to that forum. So please, if you
have anything to contribute to this topic, please add uk.net.regulation
to your list of subscribed newsgroups."
OWTTE.
> I suppose so, because that is exactly what you did.
Which was the correct thing to do: it's not as if he set Followup-To
without notice.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of
distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr-
easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs
anthonyberet
pisces
news:+5jhP3MR...@romana.davros.org...
..
> The relevance of demon.service is ?
The recent voluminous thread on "NTK on NCS on NNTP".
Under "Anti-Terrorism" Act, ISPs can now be compelled to log the kind of
data that would enable NCS actually to do what they initially said they were
doing.
> The relevance of uk.gov.social-security is ?
The government has already taken powers in Social Security Fraud Act 2001
(http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/10011--a.htm#1) to get direct
electronic access to data from colleges, utilities, banks, credit providers
and credit reference agencies, and other organisations to be used for
data-matching to catch suspected benefit fraudsters.
Under "Anti-Terrorism" Act, subject to data protection law, ISPs can now be
compelled to log (and RIP gives power to access) traffic data - potentially
in bulk, subject to 'proportionality' in pursuit of any crime including
benefit fraud.
Not very far away from traffic analysis of a person's web activity being
matched for being unsuitable or inconsistent with being a benefit claimant.
(The Tories wanted Social Security snoopers actually to be included in list
of agencies authorised to obtain)
> I would also argue that uk.politics.censorship is not relevant, since
> this is regulation, not censorship,
Surveillance and intrusions of privacy that chill free-speech are a form of
censorship.
> and that is *exactly* why
> uk.net.regulation exists.
Why is there some imperative to confine discussion to the most tightly
defined single group ? Even if this group *is* the most appropriate group,
why do you think discussion should *only* occur there ? There are many
interests peripheripherally or centrally affected by Net regulation. Why
should they all be subsumed into discussion in uk.net.regulation ? That is
exactly what cross-posting is *for* ?
karen
"anthonyberet" <Re...@newsgrouponly.net> wrote:
All my ISP will get is a multi PGP encrypted mail, they can store my
outgoing mail but will not be able to read it. As for keystroke
recorders there are rumours, well a little more than rumour now
that the FBI are doing this sort of thing but you would have to have
little control and or knowledge about your system for them to get
away with it, not very likely, at least on a linux/unix system, I cant
comment on windows, except that I know windows seems to be
full of holes and bugs!.
>
>
karen
"karen" <ka...@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
[Snipped]
Also have a read of the, "Magic Lantern, The FBI Confirms It", thread
in alt.privacy.anon-server, it's rather interesting.
anthonyberet
karen <ka...@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:20011218.141113...@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk...
karen
"anthonyberet" <Re...@newsgrouponly.net> wrote:
Thats slightly different from what I thought you meant, what the FBI
seem to be up to is trying to install such progs by virus means. not an
easy feat to do without the operator knowing about it. Windows users
dont have access to windows source code, how sure can you be that
there not code in built in windows to do the FBI's job for them!. If not
they do it already then maybe they will in future. There are new version
of PGP that have been released without the source code now and poeple
are advising not to use these releases just in case they been tampered
with.
>
>
Richard Clayton
<pisc...@yahoo.com> writes
>Under "Anti-Terrorism" Act, ISPs can now be compelled to log the kind of
>data that would enable NCS actually to do what they initially said they were
>doing.
nope :(
under ATCS ISPs will now negotiate a Code of Practice that relates to
keeping data .. since I doubt that many ISPs would have any necessity to
be logging the type of data referred to (records of downloads from news
servers) the question of retention wouldn't arise anyway.
Of course, if the CoP was seen to be insufficient in practice the SoS
has powers to do some compulsion - but this again relates to the
retention of logs and not to creating logs in the first place.
>> The relevance of uk.gov.social-security is ?
>
>The government has already taken powers in Social Security Fraud Act 2001
>(http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/10011--a.htm#1) to get direct
>electronic access to data from colleges, utilities, banks, credit providers
>and credit reference agencies, and other organisations to be used for
>data-matching to catch suspected benefit fraudsters.
>
>Under "Anti-Terrorism" Act, subject to data protection law, ISPs can now be
>compelled to log
nope :( [see above]
>(and RIP gives power to access)
nope :( it's still not in force (middle of 2002 at the earliest)
>traffic data - potentially
>in bulk, subject to 'proportionality' in pursuit of any crime including
>benefit fraud.
>
>Not very far away from traffic analysis of a person's web activity being
>matched for being unsuitable or inconsistent with being a benefit claimant.
you should probably note the "Big Browser" aspects of the RIP Act which
means that gathering information on "web activity" is likely to be hard
>(The Tories wanted Social Security snoopers actually to be included in list
>of agencies authorised to obtain)
correct; but they failed
>> I would also argue that uk.politics.censorship is not relevant, since
>> this is regulation, not censorship,
>
>Surveillance and intrusions of privacy that chill free-speech are a form of
>censorship.
>
>> and that is *exactly* why
>> uk.net.regulation exists.
>
>Why is there some imperative to confine discussion to the most tightly
>defined single group ?
because the people who created u.n.r are desperate for it to be
relevant. Warnings were given, but not heeded, before the group was
created that it would just end up one more place to crosspost to :(
that said, it does make sense to avoid cross-posting
>Even if this group *is* the most appropriate group,
>why do you think discussion should *only* occur there ?
because crossposting is evil - and at this width, affects how far
articles travel :(
>There are many
>interests peripheripherally or centrally affected by Net regulation. Why
>should they all be subsumed into discussion in uk.net.regulation ? That is
>exactly what cross-posting is *for* ?
Cross-posting at the start of threads is usually done to cause mischief.
Removing cross-posting thereafter compounds that mischief :(
Chris Croughton
<Re...@newsgrouponly.net> wrote:
>karen <ka...@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:20011218.141113...@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk...
>>
>> All my ISP will get is a multi PGP encrypted mail, they can store my
>> outgoing mail but will not be able to read it. As for keystroke
>> recorders there are rumours, well a little more than rumour now
>> that the FBI are doing this sort of thing but you would have to have
>> little control and or knowledge about your system for them to get
>> away with it, not very likely, at least on a linux/unix system, I cant
>> comment on windows, except that I know windows seems to be
>> full of holes and bugs!.
>>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=keystroke+recorder
All the ones I see there are (a) for Windoze or Mac and (b) voluntarily
installed (and you have to pay for most of them). Since I (a) don't use
Windoze or Mac for anything sensitive (the only path my Windoze machines
-- which I have for doing music editing -- have to the net is via my
server/firewall running Squid as a proxy) and (b) would not voluntarily
install anything of that nature (much less pay for it) there are no
'key grabbers' which will affect me.
Chris C
karen
<ch...@keristor.org> wrote:
Horay, a fellow Unix user, watchout there a guy in here who will readily
acuse us of being one and the same person!...
>
> Chris C
pisces
news:TI13kiPl...@turnpike.com...
> In article <o4xT7.1414$8%.418515@monolith.news.easynet.net>, pisces
> <pisc...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >Under "Anti-Terrorism" Act, ISPs can now be compelled to log the kind of
> >data that would enable NCS actually to do what they initially said they
were
> >doing.
>
> nope :(
>
> under ATCS ISPs will now negotiate a Code of Practice that relates to
> keeping data .. since I doubt that many ISPs would have any necessity to
> be logging the type of data referred to (records of downloads from news
> servers) the question of retention wouldn't arise anyway.
That is indeed arguable - but on the face of it, government must believe it
broadens the kind of data and length of time for which it can be retained,
and allows them to insist that data which is not currently retained by a
particular ISP will be in future - if not, what is the point of this
legislation ?
...
> >(and RIP gives power to access)
>
> nope :( it's still not in force (middle of 2002 at the earliest)
True - but if we are being pedantic, what I said was literally true also.
...
> you should probably note the "Big Browser" aspects of the RIP Act which
> means that gathering information on "web activity" is likely to be hard
...depending of course on whether ISPs are aware of this, and choose to
interpret it in this way
...
> because crossposting is evil - and at this width, affects how far
> articles travel :(
Why is cross-posting evil ? Do you think that every cross-post is a troll ?
Surely, it depends on the nature of the subject matter is (whether
intrinsically of interest to a number of groups), and whether the
cross-posted groups are relevant in that context.
> >There are many
> >interests peripheripherally or centrally affected by Net regulation. Why
> >should they all be subsumed into discussion in uk.net.regulation ? That
is
> >exactly what cross-posting is *for* ?
>
> Cross-posting at the start of threads is usually done to cause mischief.
It can be. But what you don't seem prepared to acknowledge is the that the
justification for crossposting is intrinsically a gray area. Nobody devised
the Usenet hierarchy with any kind of cladistic plan, and the following each
group attracts may or may not be familiar with subject matter usual in other
groups.
Nevertheless a single post may be quite genuinely be of interest and
relevance to several groups, and fruitful discussion may occur as a result
of cross-posting, that wouldn't have occured by posting to a single group,
or using multiple separate posts.
> Removing cross-posting thereafter compounds that mischief :(
I don't agree with that either. If somebody wants to pursue a particular
line of argument relevant only a subset of the original groups, that seems
fine to me (and considerate)
What I object to is "thou shalt not cross-post" apparatchiks trying to chop
off somebody else's cross-post at the knees by pre-emptively replying with a
restricted Follow Up, and claiming some sort of moral netiquette high ground
in doing so.
Sure most cross-posts degenerate into rambling irrelevance - but so what ?
Usenet was ever thus - no amount of finger-wagging will stop this, and it's
plain unhealthy to try and inculcate the view "crossposting is evil". It
depends on the intent.
Chris Croughton
But I am the same person! Oh, you mean as each other <g>...
Between 3 and 7 Linux machines at home (depending on whether I have
either of the Alphas hooked up), one of which is my main gateway machine
(which I'm using, via ssh, right now for this). The Windoze machines
are only used for music editing (there being no equivalents on *nix to
applications like Noteworthy Composer and Cubase yet).
(Which newsgroup are you reading this? So I can trim the
cross-posts. I'm reading it in uk.net.regulation)
Chris C
karen
<ch...@keristor.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:16:11 +0000, karen
> <ka...@redshift1.worldonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <slrna20ijg...@ccserver.keris.net>, "Chris Croughton"
>><ch...@keristor.org> wrote:
>>
>>> All the ones I see there are (a) for Windoze or Mac and (b)
>>> voluntarily installed (and you have to pay for most of them). Since I
>>> (a) don't use Windoze or Mac for anything sensitive (the only path my
>>> Windoze machines -- which I have for doing music editing -- have to
>>> the net is via my server/firewall running Squid as a proxy) and (b)
>>> would not voluntarily install anything of that nature (much less pay
>>> for it) there are no 'key grabbers' which will affect me.
>>
>>Horay, a fellow Unix user, watchout there a guy in here who will readily
>>acuse us of being one and the same person!...
>
> But I am the same person! Oh, you mean as each other <g>...
>
> Between 3 and 7 Linux machines at home (depending on whether I have
> either of the Alphas hooked up), one of which is my main gateway machine
> (which I'm using, via ssh, right now for this). The Windoze machines
> are only used for music editing (there being no equivalents on *nix to
> applications like Noteworthy Composer and Cubase yet).
I only got the one machine but do have an older 486 that I dont use.
The only windoze prog I use a lot is Mathcad and it works just fine
under WINE.
>
> (Which newsgroup are you reading this? So I can trim the cross-posts.
> I'm reading it in uk.net.regulation)
uk.gov.social-security
>
> Chris C
Roland Perry
<pisc...@yahoo.com> writes
>on the face of it, government must believe it
>broadens the kind of data and length of time for which it can be retained,
It doesn't broaden the kinds of data, at least while the CoP is
voluntary. I have a feeling that people think more kinds of data are
being kept than is actually the case.
>and allows them to insist that data which is not currently retained by a
>particular ISP will be in future -
Let's be careful not to confuse "starting to log things you didn't
before" with "retaining a log that churned off rather rapidly before".
> if not, what is the point of this
>legislation ?
It stems largely from a feeling that "evidence is being destroyed",
because it's not being kept long enough.
--
Roland Perry | tel: +44 1733 207705 | rol...@linx.org
Director of Public Policy | fax: +44 1733 207729 | http://www.linx.net
London Internet Exchange | mbl: +44 7050 604080 | /contact/roland
Richard Clayton
<pisc...@yahoo.com> writes
>"Richard Clayton" <ric...@highwayman.com> wrote in message
>news:TI13kiPl...@turnpike.com...
>> In article <o4xT7.1414$8%.418515@monolith.news.easynet.net>, pisces
>> <pisc...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> >Under "Anti-Terrorism" Act, ISPs can now be compelled to log the kind of
>> >data that would enable NCS actually to do what they initially said they
>were
>> >doing.
>>
>> nope :(
>>
>> under ATCS ISPs will now negotiate a Code of Practice that relates to
>> keeping data .. since I doubt that many ISPs would have any necessity to
>> be logging the type of data referred to (records of downloads from news
>> servers) the question of retention wouldn't arise anyway.
>
>That is indeed arguable - but on the face of it, government must believe it
>broadens the kind of data and length of time for which it can be retained,
>and allows them to insist that data which is not currently retained by a
>particular ISP will be in future - if not, what is the point of this
>legislation ?
IMO, to ensure that the telcos do not delete the data that they've been
holding for the past few years
I think they included ISPs in the interests of being "fair" to the
telcos by creating technology independent legislation. The Home Office
gets enough parliamentary time each year to have no real practical need
to "future-proof" their statutes.
>> because crossposting is evil - and at this width, affects how far
>> articles travel :(
>
>Why is cross-posting evil ?
I gave several reasons in my previous article
>Do you think that every cross-post is a troll ?
no
anthonyberet
Chris Croughton <ch...@keristor.org> wrote in message
news:slrna20ijg...@ccserver.keris.net...
Remember that any software installed in you machine can mess with a personal
firewall's code to prevent being blocked. -though proxys should be safe.
You are right about remote installation of keyloggers though....I would
expect hackers to get to it before the old farts at the govt.
I wouldn't be completely confident though, who knows what deals the US (at
least) govt has with software developers...
anthonyberet
can record/mail the results.
It was used in one case to record the password to a target's PGP.
I got the impression it could be installed remotely.
McCaffee said that if software like this was being used by the FBI they
would not introduce software to detect it.
Can't find a link though, and trojans are hard to plant
remotely....but...........
Chris Croughton
<Re...@newsgrouponly.net> wrote:
>Chris Croughton <ch...@keristor.org> wrote in message
>news:slrna20ijg...@ccserver.keris.net...
>>
>> All the ones I see there are (a) for Windoze or Mac and (b) voluntarily
>> installed (and you have to pay for most of them). Since I (a) don't use
>> Windoze or Mac for anything sensitive (the only path my Windoze machines
>> -- which I have for doing music editing -- have to the net is via my
>> server/firewall running Squid as a proxy) and (b) would not voluntarily
>> install anything of that nature (much less pay for it) there are no
>> 'key grabbers' which will affect me.
>
>Remember that any software installed in you machine can mess with a personal
>firewall's code to prevent being blocked. -though proxys should be safe.
The proxy runs as a different user, so nothing else running is going to
interfere with it (unless I was stupid enough to have an untrusted
process running as root!). This is Linux, not Windoze. Plus I have a
hardware router/firewall and nothing messes with that.
>You are right about remote installation of keyloggers though....I would
>expect hackers to get to it before the old farts at the govt.
>I wouldn't be completely confident though, who knows what deals the US (at
>least) govt has with software developers...
They don't have any deals with the developers of the software I use,
other developers in different countries would soon notice (and in the
extreme I can look at the source myself). Except, possibly, the music
software but I would quickly notice if that started trying to do net
accesses outside my home network...
Chris C
karen
"anthonyberet" <Re...@newsgrouponly.net> wrote:
Yes I think it is that Magic Lantern thingy they were on about in that
thread I mentioned earlier.
McCaffee said that if
> software like this was being used by the FBI they would not introduce
> software to detect it. Can't find a link though, and trojans are hard to
> plant remotely....but...........
Just saw on Ceefax about windoze XP, suposed to be very good
at security but a bug in it just found would enable a hacker to
take over your system, he he, I would demand my money back
not that I would pay money for such buggy software of course!.
It's odd isnt it, America has the constitution, we have nothing like
that, I think it just that governments dont really like the idea of
people being able to mass communicate with each other, this whole
idea of protecting 'us' from terrorists is a load of twaddle, I read
somewhere, may have been here that with all the snooping already
going on even the might of the FBI, CIA, NSA etc etc didnt even
have a whiff of Sept 11, makes you wonder what the real agenda
to all this snooping is!.......I mean we have known for years who the
IRA are and where they live but knowing their names and addresses
didnt stop the bombs and murders continuing.
>
>
Clive D. W. Feather
>
>The recent voluminous thread on "NTK on NCS on NNTP".
Much of which had nothing to do with demon.service. And, even so, that's
not justification.
>> I would also argue that uk.politics.censorship is not relevant, since
>> this is regulation, not censorship,
>
>Surveillance and intrusions of privacy that chill free-speech are a form of
>censorship.
Arguably.
>> and that is *exactly* why
>> uk.net.regulation exists.
>
>Why is there some imperative to confine discussion to the most tightly
>defined single group ? Even if this group *is* the most appropriate group,
>why do you think discussion should *only* occur there ?
Because it stops the thread forking in fifteen different directions, as
this one already seems to be doing.
The *polite* approach is to set followups to a single group in your
original posting and tell people you've done so.
pisces
...
> The *polite* approach is to set followups to a single group in your
> original posting and tell people you've done so.
That is true. I apologize.
Dave J.
> It's odd isnt it, America has the constitution, we have nothing like
> that, I think it just that governments dont really like the idea of
> people being able to mass communicate with each other, this whole
> idea of protecting 'us' from terrorists is a load of twaddle, I read
> somewhere, may have been here that with all the snooping already
> going on even the might of the FBI, CIA, NSA etc etc didnt even
> have a whiff of Sept 11, makes you wonder what the real agenda
> to all this snooping is!.......I mean we have known for years who the
> IRA are and where they live but knowing their names and addresses
> didnt stop the bombs and murders continuing.
I doubt if you'll get a reply - sounds too much like conspiracy
theory..
Or does it sound too much like _the_ conspiracy? ;-)
See
news:oriq1u8mu81jpccfk...@4ax.com
("Is Denis Mcmahon the big brother?") <G>
--
Dave Johnson :- req...@freeuk.com
The problem with Win XP - http://www.arachnoid.com/boycott/