Big Brother UK getting bigger... and bigger...

[Blodrast]

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/22...ogged-one-year

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

UK phone calls to be logged for one year

Civil liberty groups and opposition parties express outrage
Ian Williams, vnunet.com 01 Oct 2007
ADVERTISEMENT

Information about every call from the UK's mobile phones and landlines will have to be logged by operators for one year under an extension to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

The Home Office has stressed that only information about the calls and texts, including the location in the case of mobile calls, will be logged and not the content.

The information will be made available to 652 public bodies, including the Food Standards Agency, district and county councils and the Gaming Board, on request to a senior police official.

Tony McNulty, the UK's minister for security and counter-terrorism, explained in an interview with BBC Radio 4 that the data will be made available on three distinct levels.

"Say some old lady has got difficulties with someone who's repaired the gas in her house and has a mobile phone [number] for somebody who's clearly dodgy. The local authorities can just get the subscriber information next to that number," he said.

"The second level of data is not simply the subscriber, but the calls made by that phone.

"And the third level, which is purely for the security forces and police, is not just the subscriber information and the calls made, but the calls coming in and location data about where the calls are made from."

The new regulations have come under heavy fire from opposition parties and civil liberties groups.

"Once again this government has been caught red handed creating new surveillance state powers with no meaningful public or parliamentary debate," said Nick Clegg, home affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats.

A spokesman for civil liberties group Liberty said: "A recent poll suggests that 75 per cent believe we live in a surveillance society. It's high time the authorities did something to win back our trust."

A Home Office spokesman defended the move, maintaining that it followed a directive from the European Union.

''We are not intruding into people's private lives," he said. "Imposing requirements on phone service providers to retain data is part of the difficult balance between protecting people from terrorism and serious crime, and respecting human rights."

The new law was signed off by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in July.

Only 652 public bodies will have access to that information ! With such a small number, I'm sure that it's unlikely for any abuse or (Heaven forbid!) misuse of such information to take place.

Wait, there's more!

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...jail-time.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

UK can now demand data decryption on penalty of jail time

By Ken Fisher | Published: October 01, 2007 - 10:20PM CT

New laws going into effect today in the United Kingdom make it a crime to refuse to decrypt almost any encrypted data requested by authorities as part of a criminal or terror investigation. Individuals who are believed to have the cryptographic keys necessary for such decryption will face up to 5 years in prison for failing to comply with police or military orders to hand over either the cryptographic keys, or the data in a decrypted form.

Part 3, Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) includes provisions for the decryption requirements, which are applied differently based on the kind of investigation underway. As we reported last year, the five-year imprisonment penalty is reserved for cases involving anti-terrorism efforts. All other failures to comply can be met with a maximum two-year sentence.

The law can only be applied to data residing in the UK, hosted on UK servers, or stored on devices located within the UK. The law does not authorize the UK government to intercept encrypted materials in transit on the Internet via the UK and to attempt to have them decrypted under the auspices of the jail time penalty.
The keys to the (United) Kingdom

The law has been criticized for the power its gives investigators, which is seen as dangerously broad. Authorities tracking the movement of terrorist funds could demand the encryption keys used by a financial institution, for instance, thereby laying bare that bank's files on everything from financial transactions to user data.

Cambridge University security expert Richard Clayton said in May of 2006 that such laws would only encourage businesses to house their cryptography operations out of the reach of UK investigators, potentially harming the country's economy. "The controversy here [lies in] seizing keys, not in forcing people to decrypt. The power to seize encryption keys is spooking big business," Clayton said.

"The notion that international bankers would be wary of bringing master keys into UK if they could be seized as part of legitimate police operations, or by a corrupt chief constable, has quite a lot of traction," he added. "With the appropriate paperwork, keys can be seized. If you're an international banker you'll plonk your headquarters in Zurich."

The law also allows authorities to compel individuals targeted in such investigation to keep silent about their role in decrypting data. Though this will be handled on a case-by-case basis, it's another worrisome facet of a law that has been widely criticized for years. While RIPA was originally passed in 2000, the provisions detailing the handover of cryptographic keys and/or the force decryption of protected content has not been tapped by the UK Home Office—the division of the British government which oversees national security, the justice system, immigration, and the police forces of England and Wales. As we reported last year, the Home Office was slowly building its case to activate Part 3, Section 49.

The Home Office has steadfastly proclaimed that the law is aimed at catching terrorists, pedophiles, and hardened criminals—all parties which the UK government contends are rather adept at using encryption to cover up their activities.

Yet the law, in a strange way, almost gives criminals an "out," in that those caught potentially committing serious crimes may opt to refuse to decrypt incriminating data. A pedophile with a 2GB collection of encrypted kiddie porn may find it easier to do two years in the slammer than expose what he's been up to.

I don't know about you guys, but I get really turned off by the fact that there's been a deluge of such laws all over the world in the last few years, leading more and more towards reducing the privacy and rights of people, and creating environments more and more similar to police states.

[lancelot]

Thats what I love about democracy...giving a select few carte blanche to do what the hell they like...

Is anyone (read- Labour Party supporters) else getting wise to the fact that Labour seems kinda fascist in the way in conducts state affairs. Another thing we can add to the Labour tally of worrying acts...

I could probably be convinced to support legislation like this but I frakking hate it when it is slid through the back door without so much as a by you leave.

[The Wizard]

'Nuff said.

[Moros]

Labour party is becomming Norsefire?

[drone]

And here I was thinking that a British reality show was starting the new season with exceedingly well-endowed women.

[Ironside]

And here I was thinking that a British reality show was starting the new season with exceedingly well-endowed women.

The goverment thought it was a too small reality show so they decided to do it on the entire population instead.

[caravel]

More and more laws and as a result more and more crimes, but still no real impact on actual crimes, in particular violent crime and robbery.

[Tribesman]

''We are not intruding into people's private lives," he said. "Imposing requirements on phone service providers to retain data is part of the difficult balance between protecting people from terrorism and serious crime, and respecting human rights."

Why do they need the phone service providers to keep tabs on British phone calls ? Is Cheltenham no longer able to keep up with the workload .

[Crazed Rabbit]

What makes it all the funnier is that apparently all those cameras watching your every move are no good for solving crime:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ved/article.do

London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million, figures show today.

But an analysis of the publicly funded spy network, which is owned and controlled by local authorities and Transport for London, has cast doubt on its ability to help solve crime.

A comparison of the number of cameras in each London borough with the proportion of crimes solved there found that police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any.

The bad thing is the terrible ideas are infecting the US, starting with NYC.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

The bad thing is the terrible ideas are infecting the US, starting with NYC.

Well, if one government develops an expensive, invasive boondoggle to spy on their citizens, it's only natural that other governments would be eager to emulate it.

[Blodrast]

What makes it all the funnier is that apparently all those cameras watching your every move are no good for solving crime:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ved/article.do



The bad thing is the terrible ideas are infecting the US, starting with NYC.

Crazed Rabbit

Rabbit, yes, good post - I was aware of that article, read it, and I toyed with the idea to post it myself, but then my brain started adding more and more examples of similar articles (referring to laws and/or analyses of their effects), so I thought I should pace myself.
But yes, very good to post that.

Baba Ga'on, I'll assume that poster is actually real, not a joke or sarcasm got from the web... If so, it's truly scary, and, frankly, shocking (because it looks _just_ like some poster you'd read about or see in books/movies about oppressive regimes and such: ridiculous in its claims, but serious enough to make you realize that this is for real, and not just a funny joke).

I understand the three "tiers" thingie, but why on earth do so many hundred entities need to know about my calls ?! I can understand the gov't (I don't agree with that, but that's a different matter), but six friggin hundred ??!

As for the other one, crypto-related, people pointed out so many ways it could be abused, it's not even funny.

[Crazed Rabbit]

As a note to Baba Ga'on's post, I have seen that image before and believe it to be 'real'.

You know what made V for Vendetta so fantastic (as in not real)? That the population of Britain would stand up to their government. Individuals, sure, but a great segment of the populace in open defiance? If they accept a poster like that and all it means, then I simply don't think it's possible.

CR

[Tribesman]

What makes it all the funnier is that apparently all those cameras watching your every move are no good for solving crime:

Wasn't it CCTV in London that identified the neo nazi nailbomber and the July trainbombers ?
Then again they were people who didn't like their government and stood up .

[Louis VI the Fat]

And here I was thinking that a British reality show was starting the new season with exceedingly well-endowed women.

Well that does pretty much sum up Britain at large.

Both the most CCTV's and largest breasts in the world:

BRITISH women have the biggest breasts in Europe, a survey revealed yesterday.

The poll for bra maker Triumph found that only in this country did more than half the women need a D cup or larger.

Link

[Blodrast]

Wasn't it CCTV in London that identified the neo nazi nailbomber and the July trainbombers ?
Then again they were people who didn't like their government and stood up .

Tribesy, I don't think anybody (here) claimed there can possibly be no benefit from them, ever, under any circumstances; one can find some silver lining even in genocide (uhm, I dunno, less pollution, more resources for the rest of us, whatever).
I think the point is that 1) the price we pay for having those is not worth the (quite unproved, so far) results/benefits; and 2) the official reason for setting those up was that they would reduce crime, etc. Apparently, they don't, so then if they don't do what the gov't claimed they would be useful for, then what's the point in having them ?


I'd like to point out that the crypto thing is not as irrelevant as it may seem. What's more interesting about it, and very much different from your run-of-the-mill law, is the fact that the burden of proof is NOT on the authorities this time (*); it's on you.
More precisely, a reasonable belief on their side that you do have the key is sufficient for them to charge you, UNLESS you can prove that you do not have it.
In other words: if you cannot prove that you do not have the key, you're screwed - they can put you in jail, and they don't have to prove anything - just have a reasonable belief that you do in fact have the key.
If you can prove that you do not have the key, then yes, they are required to actually prove the contrary before they can charge you with anything.


So, let's say you literally forgot your encryption key: too bad; you can end up in jail, because not providing it to the authorities is illegal now.

Some of the more obvious (and unbelievably ridiculous) effects/exploits are that if someone sends you something encrypted with a key and you don't actually know the key, you could get in trouble unless you can prove that you cannot possible have a key for that.

Also, other people pointed out that criminals get a very nice cop-out in this case, since if you're actually guilty of something, you can just refuse to turn over your key to the authorities and only spend up to 5 years in jail, whereas if you had handed over the key and they had decrypted your data (and found out that you're a terrorist/pedophile), you'd have faced a much worse sentence.

So, very very ironically, the law actually benefits PRECISELY the kind of people it claims it is aimed against.

[Tribesman]

Tribesy, I don't think anybody (here) claimed there can possibly be no benefit from them, ever, under any circumstances;

If they are "apperently no good for solving crime" thats a pretty definate claim isn't it .

Though what I find surprising is that people are raising the subject that the UK government have publicly announced the telephone thing yet don't seem to realise that they have been doing it for decades .
Bloody hell the even delayed the launch of the european communications satellites solely because Britian wanted to fit more monitoring equipment .

Though whats really funny is the criticism by people who supported domestic surveilance in their own country .

[Geoffrey S]

Well, if one government develops an expensive, invasive boondoggle to spy on their citizens, it's only natural that other governments would be eager to emulate it.

...especially if said citizens swallow it whole...

[Blodrast]

If they are "apperently no good for solving crime" thats a pretty definate claim isn't it .

Well, frankly, I don't really wanna go into semantics, but from what I remember from the article, the findings didn't necessarily point either way: in other words, the findings didn't indicate that the cameras help solve crime, but didn't indicate that they don't, either.

However, like I said, this is just semantics; as far as *I*'m concerned, if they can't prove that the damned things help solving crime (i.e., in my eyes, the burden of proof is on *them* to show that the cameras are helpful), then there is no reason for having the cameras.

Also, on semantics, what I meant by my previous post was that because of the laws of statistics, I'm absolutely convinced that there may be cases when they end up being useful. But if those cases are not statistically relevant, and/or if the benefit of solving those few cases is not greater than the negative consequences of having the cameras in place, then, again, the cameras are not justified.
That's what I was trying to say in my previous post. I'm not sure if I'd managed to express that clearly and coherently enough.

Though what I find surprising is that people are raising the subject that the UK government have publicly announced the telephone thing yet don't seem to realise that they have been doing it for decades .
Bloody hell the even delayed the launch of the european communications satellites solely because Britian wanted to fit more monitoring equipment .

Well, I guess this makes it worse because it kinda enshrines it into law. I mean, sure, everybody is aware that your phone calls aren't really yours, and they weren't private for many years now, but, up to now, you know, they needed a court order, they needed to jump through some hoops, and/or it wasn't even legal to do so. But now, it's out in the open - and I think that's the difference. And it is much worse, in my eyes, because now they can practice it on a larger scale and without worries about whistleblowers and the legislative giving them a hard time about it when they overstepped their bounds too much and made a booboo.

[Pannonian]

Well, frankly, I don't really wanna go into semantics, but from what I remember from the article, the findings didn't necessarily point either way: in other words, the findings didn't indicate that the cameras help solve crime, but didn't indicate that they don't, either.

However, like I said, this is just semantics; as far as *I*'m concerned, if they can't prove that the damned things help solving crime (i.e., in my eyes, the burden of proof is on *them* to show that the cameras are helpful), then there is no reason for having the cameras.

There is masses and masses of proof that cameras help solve crime. Where there is doubt, is whether or not cameras help deter crime. Nearly all the cameras that are installed are done so to try and do the latter. What they mostly end up doing, is doing the former.

One thing that doesn't seem to be in doubt is that cameras make most people feel safer. There is the contradiction between steadily falling crime rates and the steadily rising fear of crime. Cameras help address the latter, but there is considerable doubt whether or not they are responsible for the former.

[Papewaio]

Both the most CCTV's and largest breasts in the world:

What is the corresponding size of the counter balance?

[Tribesman]

Well, I guess this makes it worse because it kinda enshrines it into law. I mean, sure, everybody is aware that your phone calls aren't really yours, and they weren't private for many years now, but, up to now, you know, they needed a court order, they needed to jump through some hoops, and/or it wasn't even legal to do so. But now, it's out in the open - and I think that's the difference. And it is much worse, in my eyes, because now they can practice it on a larger scale and without worries about whistleblowers and the legislative giving them a hard time about it when they overstepped their bounds too much and made a booboo.

They had no worries about whistleblowers anyway , they changed that years ago under Thatcher when they had a small problem with somene blowing a whistle .

[InsaneApache]

Clive Ponting?

[The Wizard]

On that image: that's a picture taken in front of a bus stop, looks like, so it's probably real. I've also seen a similar one from DC private entity, also with obvious fascist undertones.

[naut]

's. Kinda glad I don't live in the police state anymore.

[caravel]

The poster is a London Transport one, CCTV was widely installed on public transport back in the 90's, primarily to crack down on vandalism. Despite this, vandalism is actually a bigger problem than ever.

It really has nothing whatsoever to do with the phone calls logging issue.

[The Wizard]

No shiznat, buddy, but it just serves as a handy tool for illustrating some real dangerous tendencies prevalent amongst the world's democracies these days.

[HoreTore]

Are you all forgetting that this is FOR OUR OWN SAFETY!?!?!

And the people doing this only wants us to be safe!!

[Watchman]

Feel safe, you mean. AFAIK the primary benefit for the citizen is an illusion of security.

[HoreTore]

With your nick, Watchman, you should be supporting this btw...

[Watchman]

With my real name I should be landing in southern Britain at the head of an army...