5 ms·

UK’s secret, ongoing mass surveillance rigorously frisked by watchdog

68 points by daenney 10y ago

nxzero 10y ago
Found the comments on Theresa May's efforts to revoke free speech more interesting than the data in the article. Imagining a world where governments are able to tell people not to speak publicly, or worse, secretly told not to do so, sounds like a horrible idea.
- ominous 10y ago
  Like an FBI gag order?
  - nxzero 10y ago
    Right, though there are other examples of secrecy orders too, for example: https://www.wired.com/2013/04/gov-secrecy-orders-on-patents/ https://www.wired.com/2013/04/gov-secrecy-orders-on-patents/
- yrro 10y ago
  Like a super-injunction and hyper-injunction?
  - nxzero 10y ago
    Yes, exactly; here's more information on there use to give context: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/21/secrets-to-keep-hyper-injunction https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/21/secrets-to-keep-...
noir_lord 10y ago
Carte Blanche collection of data with no oversight, no ability to appeal, no ability to even discuss that they've been forced to comply at the direction of a political appointee. Remind me how we are a free country again /s.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Best i can tell, what makes a country free is the ability to pack up and leave (if you can afford it).
  - switch007 10y ago
    All those EU countries we can freely and easily migrate to! How wonderful! /s
  - daenney 10y ago
    Problem is, if this trend continues there soon won't be a country you'll actually want to move to. And we still have no clue in how many countries these sorts of things are actually happening.
- mtgx 10y ago
  And now UK is not even under EU's Fundamental Charter of Rights anymore, which declares privacy a human right. This is one of the reasons why Cameron secretly wanted UK out of the EU, or at least wanted to blackmail the EU into allowing UK to "opt-out" of the Fundamental Charter. UK is so screwed now, in more ways than one.
  - GarrisonPrime 10y ago
    The UK has not left the EU, if that's what you're basing this on. All they've done is hold a public opinion poll on whether they should or not. Doesn't mean they will, and it certainly doesn't mean they have already.
  - daenney 10y ago
    The human right to privacy enshrined in the Freedoms act of the "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" is not a blanket protection against any form of spying on you but it limits the intrusion you can be subjected to (amongst other things). There are many things that we could consider in breach of our privacy that are still allowed within the law. With all the gag ordering going around it's becoming increasingly hard to even know if you're a target. As also pointed out, just because the UK has had a referendum on leaving the EU and they voted in favour of leaving doesn't mean they've left the EU. In order to do so they need to trigger Article 50. So far none of the UK politicians have done so as they're too busy quitting, backstabbing and running around with their tails between their legs. No one wants to go down in history for this. Even if they had triggered article 50 it is estimated to take anywhere between a year and two for a nation to actually leave the EU (this has never been done before so no one really knows). During that time they are a "silent" member of the EU, bound by all its rules and legislation but with no vote or voice in the decision making progress. It should also be noted that Cameron did not campaign to leave. He promised the referendum as a way to avoid his party splitting in two and in order to get (re)elected as PM. As a consequence he's now split his country in more than two. One could argue that this is worse.
xiaoma 10y ago
Bonus points for the relevant law responsible having 1984 in its name.
- type0 10y ago
  Maybe they're also using 1984 as a manual on how it should be done.
sandworm101 10y ago
Does anyone here believe that online activity isn't being collected? Imho the only sane thing to do is assume that anything that can physically be captured is being captured, regardless of laws. Therefore, the discussion should instead focus on defeating the physical technological limitations, rather than seeking to apply legal controls.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  Can the technology be defeated? Short of a Butlerian Jihad[1]? (hints of our usernames). Can we unlearn how to make The Bomb? Perhaps we can defeat, or at least limit the impact of, the technology as individuals Stallman-style. Of course, laws are a very high latency side-channel of authority and power, so they don't really fix anything either. You can't be un-surveilled by a court order, well maybe to a limited extent, if we trust the courts and law enforcement, which we probably shouldn't when it comes to surveillance. My point being, laws can't undo past actions or relieve a person of the memory of the experiences. So what should we do? I'm going to posit that we, society collectively, won't do anything, not for a good while longer anyway if at all. Sure, we can use end-to-end encryption, but that does nothing to prevent meta-data being slurped up. 1. http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Butlerian_Jihad http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Butlerian_Jihad
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    > Can the technology be defeated? Yes. Tor, and like technologies. There are some mathematical limitations on total surveillance, there is a point at which the technological costs of tracking everyone 24/7 are beyond budgets or even physical possibilities.
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
Can anyone tell me, is there actually a reason why both The Pentagon and GCHQ have gardens in the centre of the buildings? Does this design confer some advantage in the event of a weapons strike, or is it purely architectural?
- stuaxo 10y ago
  An area to pull people outside for a chat ?
- CapitalistCartr 10y ago
  Mostly architectural. The only pragmatic benefit is it allows powerful people to go "outside" without going out in public. Take a break, walk in the semi-private garden. During the cold war, we used to joke that the flagpole in the center at the Pentagon was the most precisely surveyed pole in the World (by the Soviets).

68 points by daenney 10y ago

Found the comments on Theresa May's efforts to revoke free speech more interesting than the data in the article. Imagining a world where governments are able to tell people not to speak publicly, or worse, secretly told not to do so, sounds like a horrible idea.

ominous 10y ago
Like an FBI gag order?
- nxzero 10y ago
  Right, though there are other examples of secrecy orders too, for example: https://www.wired.com/2013/04/gov-secrecy-orders-on-patents/ https://www.wired.com/2013/04/gov-secrecy-orders-on-patents/
yrro 10y ago
Like a super-injunction and hyper-injunction?
- nxzero 10y ago
  Yes, exactly; here's more information on there use to give context: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/21/secrets-to-keep-hyper-injunction https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/21/secrets-to-keep-...

noir_lord 10y ago

Carte Blanche collection of data with no oversight, no ability to appeal, no ability to even discuss that they've been forced to comply at the direction of a political appointee. Remind me how we are a free country again /s.

digi_owl 10y ago
Best i can tell, what makes a country free is the ability to pack up and leave (if you can afford it).
- switch007 10y ago
  All those EU countries we can freely and easily migrate to! How wonderful! /s
- daenney 10y ago
  Problem is, if this trend continues there soon won't be a country you'll actually want to move to. And we still have no clue in how many countries these sorts of things are actually happening.
mtgx 10y ago
And now UK is not even under EU's Fundamental Charter of Rights anymore, which declares privacy a human right. This is one of the reasons why Cameron secretly wanted UK out of the EU, or at least wanted to blackmail the EU into allowing UK to "opt-out" of the Fundamental Charter. UK is so screwed now, in more ways than one.
- GarrisonPrime 10y ago
  The UK has not left the EU, if that's what you're basing this on. All they've done is hold a public opinion poll on whether they should or not. Doesn't mean they will, and it certainly doesn't mean they have already.
- daenney 10y ago
  The human right to privacy enshrined in the Freedoms act of the "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" is not a blanket protection against any form of spying on you but it limits the intrusion you can be subjected to (amongst other things). There are many things that we could consider in breach of our privacy that are still allowed within the law. With all the gag ordering going around it's becoming increasingly hard to even know if you're a target. As also pointed out, just because the UK has had a referendum on leaving the EU and they voted in favour of leaving doesn't mean they've left the EU. In order to do so they need to trigger Article 50. So far none of the UK politicians have done so as they're too busy quitting, backstabbing and running around with their tails between their legs. No one wants to go down in history for this. Even if they had triggered article 50 it is estimated to take anywhere between a year and two for a nation to actually leave the EU (this has never been done before so no one really knows). During that time they are a "silent" member of the EU, bound by all its rules and legislation but with no vote or voice in the decision making progress. It should also be noted that Cameron did not campaign to leave. He promised the referendum as a way to avoid his party splitting in two and in order to get (re)elected as PM. As a consequence he's now split his country in more than two. One could argue that this is worse.

xiaoma 10y ago

Bonus points for the relevant law responsible having 1984 in its name.

type0 10y ago
Maybe they're also using 1984 as a manual on how it should be done.

sandworm101 10y ago

Does anyone here believe that online activity isn't being collected? Imho the only sane thing to do is assume that anything that can physically be captured is being captured, regardless of laws. Therefore, the discussion should instead focus on defeating the physical technological limitations, rather than seeking to apply legal controls.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
Can the technology be defeated? Short of a Butlerian Jihad[1]? (hints of our usernames). Can we unlearn how to make The Bomb? Perhaps we can defeat, or at least limit the impact of, the technology as individuals Stallman-style. Of course, laws are a very high latency side-channel of authority and power, so they don't really fix anything either. You can't be un-surveilled by a court order, well maybe to a limited extent, if we trust the courts and law enforcement, which we probably shouldn't when it comes to surveillance. My point being, laws can't undo past actions or relieve a person of the memory of the experiences. So what should we do? I'm going to posit that we, society collectively, won't do anything, not for a good while longer anyway if at all. Sure, we can use end-to-end encryption, but that does nothing to prevent meta-data being slurped up. 1. http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Butlerian_Jihad http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Butlerian_Jihad
- sandworm101 10y ago
  > Can the technology be defeated? Yes. Tor, and like technologies. There are some mathematical limitations on total surveillance, there is a point at which the technological costs of tracking everyone 24/7 are beyond budgets or even physical possibilities.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

Can anyone tell me, is there actually a reason why both The Pentagon and GCHQ have gardens in the centre of the buildings? Does this design confer some advantage in the event of a weapons strike, or is it purely architectural?

stuaxo 10y ago
An area to pull people outside for a chat ?
CapitalistCartr 10y ago
Mostly architectural. The only pragmatic benefit is it allows powerful people to go "outside" without going out in public. Take a break, walk in the semi-private garden. During the cold war, we used to joke that the flagpole in the center at the Pentagon was the most precisely surveyed pole in the World (by the Soviets).