5 ms·

Extreme surveillance' becomes UK law with barely a whimper

97 points by chunkyslink 10y ago

visarga 10y ago
Surveillance train has left the station, can't be stopped any more. It's just too cheap to use cameras, wireless and large HDDs. AI can sift through videos efficiently. So, the only way back to balance is to do government surveillance, and more generally, to have a multi-way surveillance society in which a single actor doesn't have monopoly. We have to go all the way now, short of destroying all surveillance equipment everywhere and making sure nobody recreates it, which, given incentives, it's impossible to enforce. The main problem now is balance of power, not if we like surveillance or not. This new power must not be put only in the hands of an elite. By the same doctrine of "separation of powers", we should not concentrate all surveillance power in a single point, because it lacks checks and balances.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  This act is more about telecommunications data than CCTV cameras. Something that really bothered me is Shami Chakrabarti, previously head of Liberty and a strong supporter of human rights, now shadow Attorney General, abstained from voting.
  - throwaway1974 10y ago
    "They" probably have dirt on him The thing about living in a surveillance society is how good people can be silenced via blackmail.
    - chriswarbo 10y ago
      > "They" probably have dirt on him Her https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shami_Chakrabarti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shami_Chakrabarti
    - vonmoltke 10y ago
      I don't really buy this paranoid viewpoint. If "they" were trying to use information from surveillance to blackmail people into doing what "they" wanted, considering the scale of these programs I find it hard to believe that they would not have tripped over someone who is either functionally unblackmailable or who is willing to take the hit for the greater good. Furthermore, at some point it becomes very difficult to not trace leaks of such information back to government surveillance programs and entities, so every execution of a blackmail threat poses a serious risk to the blackmailers It works against key people when used occasionally, but it can't be used at scale without someone figuring out what is going on.
  - superflyguy 10y ago
    Probably she wants Labour to get elected, and the public are generally behind this sort of intrusion, and political parties are generally not about principles any more, but instead just trying to get elected.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  I agree to a point, that it's an issue of balance of power, but I think the arms race solution could cause a lot more damage to our society than the current arrangements. Surveillance of government could open the floodgates to much broader interpersonal surveillance. For example, imagine a company that offered 'surveillance as a service'. We've been here before with private investigators, but that tended to be a niche market, just imagine if it was mainstream. The mechanisms we'd need to enable ad-hoc surveillance of government officials could also enable the general public to spy on each other to a much greater extent. At what point does that start to impact on our personal relationships and our business relationships? I'd suggest it could cause a much less forgiving society to emerge.
  - visarga 10y ago
    Our current arrangements fill the data coffers of FaceBook, Google, Apple and mobile operators with troves of personal data. It's already a multi-way surveillance society. We need to expand this even more, to surveil the surveillers or have access to their data.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      Perhaps you've misunderstood what I said. I'm suggesting that promoting much more widespread surveillance will seep into civic life, e.g. people spying on employees/employers, neighbours, acquaintances, etc... and at a much greater level than sites like Facebook allow. In other words, I'm suggesting an arms race in the field of surveillance available to the general public is likely to have unwelcome effects on society at large.
Symbiote 10y ago
As one example: the act requires ISPs to log every IP connection that their customers make, for a period of one year. There's a PDF factsheet on this provision, and a full list of other provisions on Wikipedia. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473745/Factsheet-Internet_Connection_Records.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act
- superflyguy 10y ago
  Well I guess we're about to discover which users are running botnets!
- minxomat 10y ago
  > require communication service providers (CSPs) to retain UK internet users' "Internet connection records" – which websites were visited but not the particular pages and not the full browsing history – for one year In what world is a serial list of IP connections that a customer made not a "browsing history"?
  - Symbiote 10y ago
    Presumably, it's not required to record "particular pages" because - It sounds reassuring - It's not possible to record, for instance when someone accesses secure sites (the majority of time and pages) - It's not necessary, since the a server's logs can easily be cross-referenced to the TCP connection logs - It's not necessary, since plenty of insight results from knowing who, when, how much, for how long and how often everyone communicates with everyone else.
- rwmj 10y ago
  Don't miss the full list of organizations with access (pages 210-214): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473770/Draft_Investigatory_Powers_Bill.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
- demolish 10y ago
throw2016 10y ago
It's odd that the usual hysteria by media, academics, assorted human rights organizations and concerned citizens about surveillance has been 'toned down' since the Snowden revelations. It's nearly guaranteed there would be an earthquake of hysteria and frothing about totalitarianism and human rights were the revelations not about western countries. There is nearly zero activism about surveillance apart from the odd EFF press release. It telling about the things we are supposed to care about, and the level of manipulation in local and global affairs over the last few decades and how countries are run. It seems like all societies we too want to think the worst of others and make excuses for ourselves. But that kind of posturing by our media, human rights orgs and reps is now going to become impossible to pull off with any credibility.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  Groups like Liberty and the ORG have been campaigning against this for as long as it's been an issue, but if no-one in the mass media is interested in reporting it, there is only so much they can do. It hasn't even made the "back pages" of the BBC News web site much in recent months, as far as I've seen, nor been mentioned on any mainstream TV news broadcast that I've seen. I'm confused about the current status of the bill. The linked Guardian article says it received royal assent, thus becoming law, on Thursday. However, as I write this, Parliament's own web site[1] says it is still in the "ping pong" stage. [1] http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypowers.html http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypow...
  - superpanic 10y ago
    Now says "This article was amended on 19 November 2016. The act has not yet received royal assent, as stated in an earlier version." at the bottom.
    - darkr 10y ago
      Classic Grauniad
jbwuhwrg 10y ago
Years ago most people believed they were being watched by God 24/7. Now we're being watched by AIs 24/7 and everything is recorded forever
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  Do you have evidence for the first claim?
  - csydas 10y ago
    It's a play on a quote from Deus Ex.
    - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
      Oh, fair enough Still, I would be particularly interested in anything exploring the extent to which people did or did not actually believe their 'official' faith throughout time.
noir_lord 10y ago
Spending my day off upgrading router to dd-wrt, installing openvpn in an country that is less friendly to this shit, hardening all my personal machines and encrypting everything I can encrypt (most of which I should frankly have done ages ago but I got lazy). This was pretty much the straw that broke the camels back for me, I've nothing to hide but fuck them for doing this anyway (and everything they've done before).
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  You may be aware of this already, but for anyone thinking along similar lines... make sure your VPN client guards against DNS leaks. Using a VPN does not automatically mean your DNS traffic is obfuscated, it's necessary to configure the VPN so that your ISP does not see your DNS traffic. https://www.bestvpn.com/blog/5184/4-ways-to-prevent-a-dns-leak-when-using-vpn/ https://www.bestvpn.com/blog/5184/4-ways-to-prevent-a-dns-le... https://www.dnsleaktest.com/what-is-a-dns-leak.html https://www.dnsleaktest.com/what-is-a-dns-leak.html
libeclipse 10y ago
You could argue that this is another unfortunate consequence of brexit. Theresa May is now prime minister, which she wouldn't be if it wasn't for brexit. The only thing we can do now, as developers and creators, is to create simple and easy tools, softwares, systems for the general public that make this kind of surveillance difficult or impossible. We need to work together to conserve and expand what little privacy we have left.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  Technical methods are part of a response, but shouldn't be the only part. We can also write to our MPs and lords, support organizations like ORG and Liberty who may challenge this law in court, and educate less-technical friends, relatives and colleagues.
rwmj 10y ago
This government seems determined to destroy the internet in the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/nov/19/pornography-sites-face-uk-block-under-enhanced-age-controls https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/nov/19/pornography-...

97 points by chunkyslink 10y ago

Surveillance train has left the station, can't be stopped any more. It's just too cheap to use cameras, wireless and large HDDs. AI can sift through videos efficiently. So, the only way back to balance is to do government surveillance, and more generally, to have a multi-way surveillance society in which a single actor doesn't have monopoly. We have to go all the way now, short of destroying all surveillance equipment everywhere and making sure nobody recreates it, which, given incentives, it's impossible to enforce. The main problem now is balance of power, not if we like surveillance or not. This new power must not be put only in the hands of an elite. By the same doctrine of "separation of powers", we should not concentrate all surveillance power in a single point, because it lacks checks and balances.

Symbiote 10y ago
This act is more about telecommunications data than CCTV cameras. Something that really bothered me is Shami Chakrabarti, previously head of Liberty and a strong supporter of human rights, now shadow Attorney General, abstained from voting.
- throwaway1974 10y ago
  "They" probably have dirt on him The thing about living in a surveillance society is how good people can be silenced via blackmail.
  - chriswarbo 10y ago
    > "They" probably have dirt on him Her https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shami_Chakrabarti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shami_Chakrabarti
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    I don't really buy this paranoid viewpoint. If "they" were trying to use information from surveillance to blackmail people into doing what "they" wanted, considering the scale of these programs I find it hard to believe that they would not have tripped over someone who is either functionally unblackmailable or who is willing to take the hit for the greater good. Furthermore, at some point it becomes very difficult to not trace leaks of such information back to government surveillance programs and entities, so every execution of a blackmail threat poses a serious risk to the blackmailers It works against key people when used occasionally, but it can't be used at scale without someone figuring out what is going on.
- superflyguy 10y ago
  Probably she wants Labour to get elected, and the public are generally behind this sort of intrusion, and political parties are generally not about principles any more, but instead just trying to get elected.
ZenoArrow 10y ago
I agree to a point, that it's an issue of balance of power, but I think the arms race solution could cause a lot more damage to our society than the current arrangements. Surveillance of government could open the floodgates to much broader interpersonal surveillance. For example, imagine a company that offered 'surveillance as a service'. We've been here before with private investigators, but that tended to be a niche market, just imagine if it was mainstream. The mechanisms we'd need to enable ad-hoc surveillance of government officials could also enable the general public to spy on each other to a much greater extent. At what point does that start to impact on our personal relationships and our business relationships? I'd suggest it could cause a much less forgiving society to emerge.
- visarga 10y ago
  Our current arrangements fill the data coffers of FaceBook, Google, Apple and mobile operators with troves of personal data. It's already a multi-way surveillance society. We need to expand this even more, to surveil the surveillers or have access to their data.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    Perhaps you've misunderstood what I said. I'm suggesting that promoting much more widespread surveillance will seep into civic life, e.g. people spying on employees/employers, neighbours, acquaintances, etc... and at a much greater level than sites like Facebook allow. In other words, I'm suggesting an arms race in the field of surveillance available to the general public is likely to have unwelcome effects on society at large.

Symbiote 10y ago

As one example: the act requires ISPs to log every IP connection that their customers make, for a period of one year. There's a PDF factsheet on this provision, and a full list of other provisions on Wikipedia. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473745/Factsheet-Internet_Connection_Records.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act

superflyguy 10y ago
Well I guess we're about to discover which users are running botnets!
minxomat 10y ago
> require communication service providers (CSPs) to retain UK internet users' "Internet connection records" – which websites were visited but not the particular pages and not the full browsing history – for one year In what world is a serial list of IP connections that a customer made not a "browsing history"?
- Symbiote 10y ago
  Presumably, it's not required to record "particular pages" because - It sounds reassuring - It's not possible to record, for instance when someone accesses secure sites (the majority of time and pages) - It's not necessary, since the a server's logs can easily be cross-referenced to the TCP connection logs - It's not necessary, since plenty of insight results from knowing who, when, how much, for how long and how often everyone communicates with everyone else.
rwmj 10y ago
Don't miss the full list of organizations with access (pages 210-214): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473770/Draft_Investigatory_Powers_Bill.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
demolish 10y ago

throw2016 10y ago

It's odd that the usual hysteria by media, academics, assorted human rights organizations and concerned citizens about surveillance has been 'toned down' since the Snowden revelations. It's nearly guaranteed there would be an earthquake of hysteria and frothing about totalitarianism and human rights were the revelations not about western countries. There is nearly zero activism about surveillance apart from the odd EFF press release. It telling about the things we are supposed to care about, and the level of manipulation in local and global affairs over the last few decades and how countries are run. It seems like all societies we too want to think the worst of others and make excuses for ourselves. But that kind of posturing by our media, human rights orgs and reps is now going to become impossible to pull off with any credibility.

Silhouette 10y ago
Groups like Liberty and the ORG have been campaigning against this for as long as it's been an issue, but if no-one in the mass media is interested in reporting it, there is only so much they can do. It hasn't even made the "back pages" of the BBC News web site much in recent months, as far as I've seen, nor been mentioned on any mainstream TV news broadcast that I've seen. I'm confused about the current status of the bill. The linked Guardian article says it received royal assent, thus becoming law, on Thursday. However, as I write this, Parliament's own web site[1] says it is still in the "ping pong" stage. [1] http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypowers.html http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypow...
- superpanic 10y ago
  Now says "This article was amended on 19 November 2016. The act has not yet received royal assent, as stated in an earlier version." at the bottom.
  - darkr 10y ago
    Classic Grauniad

jbwuhwrg 10y ago

Years ago most people believed they were being watched by God 24/7. Now we're being watched by AIs 24/7 and everything is recorded forever

Normal_gaussian 10y ago
Do you have evidence for the first claim?
- csydas 10y ago
  It's a play on a quote from Deus Ex.
  - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
    Oh, fair enough Still, I would be particularly interested in anything exploring the extent to which people did or did not actually believe their 'official' faith throughout time.

noir_lord 10y ago

Spending my day off upgrading router to dd-wrt, installing openvpn in an country that is less friendly to this shit, hardening all my personal machines and encrypting everything I can encrypt (most of which I should frankly have done ages ago but I got lazy). This was pretty much the straw that broke the camels back for me, I've nothing to hide but fuck them for doing this anyway (and everything they've done before).

ZenoArrow 10y ago
You may be aware of this already, but for anyone thinking along similar lines... make sure your VPN client guards against DNS leaks. Using a VPN does not automatically mean your DNS traffic is obfuscated, it's necessary to configure the VPN so that your ISP does not see your DNS traffic. https://www.bestvpn.com/blog/5184/4-ways-to-prevent-a-dns-leak-when-using-vpn/ https://www.bestvpn.com/blog/5184/4-ways-to-prevent-a-dns-le... https://www.dnsleaktest.com/what-is-a-dns-leak.html https://www.dnsleaktest.com/what-is-a-dns-leak.html

libeclipse 10y ago

You could argue that this is another unfortunate consequence of brexit. Theresa May is now prime minister, which she wouldn't be if it wasn't for brexit. The only thing we can do now, as developers and creators, is to create simple and easy tools, softwares, systems for the general public that make this kind of surveillance difficult or impossible. We need to work together to conserve and expand what little privacy we have left.

Symbiote 10y ago
Technical methods are part of a response, but shouldn't be the only part. We can also write to our MPs and lords, support organizations like ORG and Liberty who may challenge this law in court, and educate less-technical friends, relatives and colleagues.

rwmj 10y ago

This government seems determined to destroy the internet in the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/nov/19/pornography-sites-face-uk-block-under-enhanced-age-controls https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/nov/19/pornography-...