Police to get powers to view everyone's internet history

Story here

Good luck with that then.

They still need a court order to do it so a non story really. Not like they can look atl anyone's history for the fun of it

Quite a bit of data for the ISP's to store. What happens if a proxy is used?

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

Quite a bit of data for the ISP's to store.

Especially if you have prefetch enabled� just because your browser accessed a website doesn't mean that you did!

And if you were using the internet for nefarious purposes then call me dumb but why wouldn't you just go to a "weak" wifi spot and do what you need to do there or buy a burner phone and tether?

Or just make it easy and route every ISP through GCHQ

hence the move for the net to move to https only (http/2) and I think things like dnscrypt will gain traction to hide dns queries from their eye's also.

In reply to a post by bobble_bob:

They still need a court order to do it so a non story really. Not like they can look atl anyone's history for the fun of it

That's not true actually. The idea is they can see the meta-data freely, so can HMRC.

I'm about to build a new router(pfSense) and one of the things I'm considering is routing certain devices(i.e. those used for browsing) on the network through a VPN as standard ...

In reply to a post by bobble_bob:

They still need a court order to do it so a non story really. Not like they can look at anyone's history for the fun of it

"They" have been snooping on our internet activities for years, without court orders.

Look at the UKUSA agreement, and what powers it secretly grants. The Agreement is decades old now, according to Duncan Campbell, who wrote the 1999 STOA Report on Project Echelon for the European Parliament.

According to Campbell, telecoms traffic for British targets is switched at the NSA Menwith Hill facility in N.Yorks and trunked across the Atlantic to Fort Meade, Maryland.

GCHQ operatives on secondment at that Maryland facility actually perform the 'sigint' on that British internet traffic. In return, NSA staffers perform the same function on domestic US traffic at Menwith in N.Yorks. And then an intelligence summary - if not the raw content data - is sent back to relevant authorities in the target's home country.

The objective of shifting those interceptions to foreign soils is to circumvent domestic espionage laws in Britain and in the USA, and similarly in Canada, Oz and NZ.

Not that insiders and stodgy-thinkers like the OP would ever acknowledge that. BTW, anyone else noticed that the OP (AdrianPH) is all over these intelligence-related stories?!

So, as with "Edward Snowden" and the wikileaks project - the purpose of this proposed law is probably to acclimatise us to what's been happening for decades any way.

Edited by deleted (Fri 27-Nov-15 03:04:28)

Not all isp's

In reply to a post by tommy45:

Not all isp's

Presumably Kennard is hoping to win new clientele by being "mercifully" "outspoken" towards the new surveillance plans?

Other ISPs have played similar roles in the past. Posing as champions of the consumer; scrutineers and guardians of our digital freedoms. Alas, nothing ever comes of it.

And surely the interception capabilities are outside Kennard's control any way, and capabilities that exist already?

The surveillance apparatus already installed and operational at the eleven(?) internet exchange points around Britain (LINX, LONAP, IXScotland, IXCardiff, IXManchester, and so on).

Equipment that simply switches the target traffic from the IXPs to dedicated surveillance facilities, at Menwith, Cheltenham, Fort Meade, or wherever.

Could the proposed laws just be bluff? To get everyone thinking that interceptions occur at the ISPs? And that it's all above board? All done within a strict legal process; with documented surveillance warrants and court orders?

In a sense, it could be bluffing to fool Kennard, too. For all he sees is a handful of Court Orders per year. So that's what he'll assume is the sum-total of the surveillance of his subscribers. And he'll vouch for that. Indeed those will be the intercepts officially recorded; all documented ready to return in FOIA responses.

When in practice, the vast majority of intercepts are illicit and undocumented; exclusively commercial espionage; on domestic targets; nothing to do with "national security", nor "criminal intelligence."

Someone was described the intelligence apparatus as being like an iceberg. Only a tiny fraction is visible. That's the state-funded component; the only part we ever hear about. And even those agencies -- GCHQ, NSA, MI6, CIA, etc -- are only nominally answerable to government.

For proof, we need look no further than the huge intelligence scandals to affirm that. (Mena, BCCI, Iran Contra, Northwoods, etc). Not government operations, but organised crime.

The vast bulk of the intelligence apparatus is private. Yet interfaces closely with, and secures cover from, government counterparts. But it was all built to serve corporate masters; particularly the finance houses of the City of London and Wall Street today.

These new surveillance powers look like a fa�ade; just window-dressing to disguise how it really works in the world of espionage.

--

Edited by deleted (Sat 28-Nov-15 03:26:15)

We must all be doomed.

Edited by RobertoS (Sat 28-Nov-15 00:06:57)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

We must all be doomed.

Back to the pithy one-liners, Bob?!

Just moved this into the appropriate thread. For some reason Zarzar, an Openreach linesman-cum-PR flunkey, dragged the discussion into another forum. Presumably to isolate it, where he could pooh-pooh the idea of a surveillance state.

The NSA listening post Menwith Hill in N.Yorks was already mentioned; and its place today in the UKUSA Agreement. The UKUSA Agreement is an arrangement on intelligence gathering and sharing between the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and NZ.

Way back in the 1990s BT Group, was cited for alleged criminal activity in that UKUSA programme. Accused of aiding in the unlawful espionage of British companies at Menwith Hill in N.Yorks. There was a high-profile court case about it, heard by Mr Justice Crabtree in 1997..

In reference to cryptome.org/jya/echelon-go.htm#message5:

Judge Jonathan Crabtree agreed to grant public interest immunity "BT had no business whatsoever to disclose anything of the kind", he said.

He then ordered Mr R.G. Morris, BT's head of emergency planning, not to give any more evidence about the secret cables [which BT had run into the Menwith Hill facility].

After being privately briefed in his chambers by BT's second solicitor, the judge said that it was immaterial if Menwith Hill was spying on British citizens and commercial communications and may have cost British companies in billions of dollars of lost sales.

"The national interest of the United Kingdom, even if if is conducted dishonestly, requires this to be kept secret", said Judge Crabtree.

That was 1997. Imagine the surveillance capabilities today.

That's may be what "Edward Snowden" is about; an intelligence creation to play catch-up with us; acclimatising us to what's been happening for decades. Ably assisted by other disinformationalists in a world renowned for smoke and mirrors. Promoting the naive idea that telecoms surveillance is only ever done by the book; with court orders, just cause and the like.

Rather than widespread commercial espionage that is outsourced globally, to circumvent local laws. Achieved by simply packet-switching the telecoms traffic of a target British company at its internet peering points. Sending it up to Menwith and then across the Atlantic. Where the domestic British traffic can be intercepted in an NSA co-facility, like Fort Meade in Maryland. Without any need for British warrants or judicial orders?

The wonders of a globalised intelligence apparatus, eh?! Not sure why Zarzar considers that far-fetched. While you won't read about it in the Daily Mail, it's well-documented elsewhere.

--

Edited by deleted (Sat 28-Nov-15 03:16:39)

If they did this with all traffic the lag would be very obvious , The big isp's have requested gagging orders why? so they can't tell customers ? Privacy is a human right, and all these measures didn't prevent the Paris attack or organised crime , there are lots of ways that people can communicate on the internet that your blundering government and spooks couldn't grasp ,decode ect So makes this snooping bs pointless , but is it really about detecting terrorists or organised crime , or about their insatiable desire for control over us? and the internet and no i don't trust government it's not like they never lie or steal themselves is it