3 ms·

The Register has an annoying habit of using very loose language that has the effect of overstating surveillance powers. For example; "And lastly, the Pensions

The Register has an annoying habit of using very loose language that has the effect of overstating surveillance powers. For example; "And lastly, the Pensions Regulator, which checks that companies have added their employees to their pension schemes, need to be able to delve into anyone’s emails so it can “secure compliance and punish wrongdoing.” The phrase "delve into anyone's emails" here is an absurd mischaracterisation

8957a7e865c41c 6y ago
Yep. Anything that implies 'direct access' or 'trawling' moves from being fear mongering to simply being untrue. 'Rifling through emails' and the like is showing a poor understanding of the legislation at best and deliberately trying to create fear uncertainty and doubt at worse.
- dTal 6y ago
  Would you care to expand on exactly why you perceive that to be an inaccurate description?
  - DanBC 6y ago
    In RIPA "Communications data" is explicitly not the content of the messages, it's the meta-data. The Register have a good story if they focus on that access to metadata -- I don't think organisations should have access to meta-data without justification. But they haven't done that, they've said "rifling through your emails" and the implication (see other comments in this thread) is that this means access to the content of the email. That's untrue, it's misleading, and it's yet another example of piss-poor quality reporting from the Register derailing a thread by generating very many comments that miss the point.
    - kwhitefoot 6y ago
      I don't want people reading the metadata either. And what is the definition of metadata? Is it just email addresses and dates or is the subject line included? Does it include any data extracted from email such as the names of other people or links to web sites? Does it just have web server IP addresses or the URLs and if the URLs does it have referrers as well. Exactly where is the line drawn? And yes El Reg is scare mongering as usual, but at least they stirred up some debate.
  - 8957a7e865c41c 6y ago
    It conflates several legitimate issues pertaining to different agencies, their relative powers under the act. It also wilfully conflates different powers. Not to say there isn't a large amount of discussion to be had around it, but if you got all your info from an el-reg article, you would be ill-equipped to have that discussion.

8957a7e865c41c 6y ago

Yep. Anything that implies 'direct access' or 'trawling' moves from being fear mongering to simply being untrue. 'Rifling through emails' and the like is showing a poor understanding of the legislation at best and deliberately trying to create fear uncertainty and doubt at worse.

dTal 6y ago
Would you care to expand on exactly why you perceive that to be an inaccurate description?
- DanBC 6y ago
  In RIPA "Communications data" is explicitly not the content of the messages, it's the meta-data. The Register have a good story if they focus on that access to metadata -- I don't think organisations should have access to meta-data without justification. But they haven't done that, they've said "rifling through your emails" and the implication (see other comments in this thread) is that this means access to the content of the email. That's untrue, it's misleading, and it's yet another example of piss-poor quality reporting from the Register derailing a thread by generating very many comments that miss the point.
  - kwhitefoot 6y ago
    I don't want people reading the metadata either. And what is the definition of metadata? Is it just email addresses and dates or is the subject line included? Does it include any data extracted from email such as the names of other people or links to web sites? Does it just have web server IP addresses or the URLs and if the URLs does it have referrers as well. Exactly where is the line drawn? And yes El Reg is scare mongering as usual, but at least they stirred up some debate.
- 8957a7e865c41c 6y ago
  It conflates several legitimate issues pertaining to different agencies, their relative powers under the act. It also wilfully conflates different powers. Not to say there isn't a large amount of discussion to be had around it, but if you got all your info from an el-reg article, you would be ill-equipped to have that discussion.