[Nottingham] Communications Data Bill

[James Moore]

On 17/06/2012 01:23, david at gbenet.com wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 16/06/12 14:53, Martin wrote:
>> On 15/06/12 21:35, Paul Sladen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Jason Irwin wrote:
>>>> ...
>>> Here's the draft text for the bill itself:
>>>
>>>    "Draft Communications Data Bill" (12 June 2012, but released later)
>>>    http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm83/8359/8359.pdf [1]
>>>
>>> and if after carefully reading it, you find anything you would like
>>> to discuss with your MP, you may use:
>>>
>>>    http://www.writetothem.com/
>>
>> The first steps towards this?
>>
>> Ethiopia clamps down on Skype and other internet use on Tor
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18461292
>>
>> #####
>> "This is a country where surveillance is very important - due to years
>> of all the conflicts and political rivalry," said Mr Pierre.
>>
>> "The opposition and the media are being listened to, and people usually
>> take care when they talk on the phone.
>> #####
>>
>>
>> (Yes... I know that the communication /content/ is supposedly not to be
>> included... Believable?)
>>
>> Martin
>>
> When the mean "data" they are saying not the content of that data - they say they will only
> collect say the name of the web site or the e-mail addresses that you contacted. The data
> would include any passwords - in which case they have the data. I've read the bill - it
> gives every one the right to access data - who the Sec of State chooses. Besides real
> criminals do not use the same networks as we do. They don't use facebook or gmail or
> anything else to which the public uses.
>
> So the question is why do the government want to access normal people's data activities?
> It's not to counter terrorism - paedophiles or criminal actions. I think that what it is
> that when you do a trace route a ping - it only gives the authorities the box to which your
> ISP has - not the address of the connection - so they want the actual address - for example
> you can narrow down to a box in a street but not the house number by asking ISPs to collect
> individual data - the police or whoever have access to the house number to which the
> connection is made from.
>
> In tracking paedophiles the police monitor a site - then whoever logs in they do a trace
> route they then get to a box in the street and then ask the ISP for the address of the
> person. There new powers will mean that all ISPs will collect user data to identify where
> people are actually making their connections from. All users? Well yes. Everyone. An ISP has
> to collect every connection and who you are - every one. That's a lot of data.
>
> Millions of connections per day - countless in a "year" - how can you sift out those that
> are performing some illegal activity? It gives the power to the Sec of State and whoever he
> says access to every connection you make and collects data on who and where you are. It
> treats us all as criminals - without exception. Now that is contrary to law where every one
> is innocent until proven guilty.
>
> The Bill is an infringement on our civil liberties.
>
> David
>
>

Anyone who would willingly surrender a little liberty for a little 
temporary security (or illusion thereof) deserves neither and will lose 
both.

That said, there are other ways to communicate without fear of being 
spied upon and your words - however innocent - being used against you, 
and there is no law against ditching your internet connection and 
resorting to face to face, spoken communications. It is something I am 
very seriously considering - ditching the phone, ditching the interweb, 
slicing my debit card and dropping off the surveillance grid.