17 ms·
Two UK Broadband ISPs Trial New Internet Snooping System
- collsni 6y agoSo essentially they're collecting net flow data on every citizen. It may be kind of fun to overload their storage by creating a ton of short connections, probably wouldn't be feasible.
- chrisacky 6y agoYour the first comment and I had exactly the same idea. What do you want to bet we've all had the same thinking. As a community we sure like to bend things for sure.
- curiousgal 6y agoI mean if they could get the act to pass I am sure they get storage funding too.
- edrxty 6y agoSo what you're saying is if some people banded together, they could manipulate the storage tech market with the force of a nation state behind them?
- marshmallow_12 6y agoBut for how long will they manage to hang on to it? Here's a laugh if you want https://www.silicon.co.uk/data-storage/database/police-delete-database-350055 https://www.silicon.co.uk/data-storage/database/police-delet...
- tgragnato 6y agoRest sure things like masscan and file sharing will be singled out and excluded from long term storage. If I recall correctly there is a process called massive volume reduction by which you filter out “uninteresting stuff”. It’s not a bad idea, but you’ll need something more sophisticated.
- gruez 6y ago>If I recall correctly there is a process called massive volume reduction by which you filter out “uninteresting stuff”. So all you have to do to avoid surveillance is to make a bunch of connections so the system gets overwhelmed and ignores you?
- lupire 6y agoNo. It drops the junk and tags you as an person of interest.
- jjbinx007 6y agoThen criminals should focus on what that non interesting stuff is likely to be and exploit that. Terrorists (as well as a CIA director) have for years used a simple trick to communicate without leaving suspicious looking metadata: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/11/12/heres-the-e-mail-trick-petraeus-and-broadwell-used-to-communicate/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/11/12... I find this type of legislation works like DVD copy protection: the innocent and non tech savvy will be disproportionately affected and it won't do anything to deter those with sufficient knowledge.
- worldofmatthew 6y agoA python script to visit random scraped form directory websites or just having it request invaild pages if you want the logging to be least compressable.
- jimmygrapes 6y agoDo want ISPs to charge by the minute again? Because that's how we get there.
- worldofmatthew 6y agoIf ISPs tried than the public would pressure the government to drop the law. I calculate with 50% reduction from compression (After the required back-ups to comply with the law the number will be much worse for the ISP). That somone on VM 500Mbits using less than 10% of their connection for this could increase their log size by 200GB per day or 73TB over the 12 months.
- lupire 6y agoThen you get throttled by your ISP
- phendrenad2 6y agoThen people move to Germany for the good internet.
- brokenmachine 6y agoAs a side effect, then those people will be living in a country that already has laws against this kind of thing... You know, because of the... unpleasantness. But no worries, you go ahead with what you're doing, UK. Good job. Maybe IBM can offer some technical experience in this area.
- riknox 6y agoI'm not sure if this is referring to the privacy laws or the internet itself, but the internet connectivity in Germany is dreadful in my experience. Capacity is at its limits, to the point that some flats don't have access to the internet.
- citrin_ru 6y agoThis system likely will be paid by the state, so the more traffic flows internet users will generate, the more taxpayers will pay.
- cm2187 6y agoIs a datacentre considered an ISP in this respect? Between vpns and just remote desktoping into a VM, it seems trivial to circumvent to real criminals while being a privacy nightmare to the rest of the population. There is a probability 1.000 that this data will be abused.
- ajsnigrutin 6y agoThis is politics, who cares about a few people doing bad stuff... If the shit hits the fan, you want to know the political stance of all the citizens, and who the troublemakers will be, if something large is happening. ...and for that, it's enough to know which political sites they're visiting, even if you don't know the content itself.
- lupire 6y agoThe fan was hit Jan 6 and no one in power really cared.
- Rule35 6y agoOr, the reason nothing has happened as a result is because nothing serious happened in the "insurrection". I'm suggesting this as a foreigner in a democratic country (a well regarded example country even), a fact I mention to dispel the concept that I'm crypto-republican or even socially (as opposed to fiscally) conservative. I watched 2020 in America through independent videos and through your news, the two of which are very-tenuously connected. Very few of the capitol-riot criminals (because I totally agree that they committed a bunch of crimes, and are absolutely criminals) were armed, even with the makeshift weapons seen in the previous year's street riots. And they weren't going to hurt anyone because the capitol police and the secret service were preparing the evacuation while Trump was still talking blocks away. Not because they legitimately feared a coup, but because it's just general safety protocol to not sit around and wait for a demonstration or a riot to walk up to you. Following that you saw the Democrats care as hard as they could. Some are still caring now. But the message didn't resonate with anyone other than their base - it cost them moderate democrat support and hardened moderate republicans again them. They largely stopped because the voters said "It's a non-issue, we don't believe it as told". (I present this as a self-evident fact, despite having seen poles supporting it, because we all know nobody stops beating on an effective drum.)
- linuxlizard 6y agoWhy didn't they just do what the US Gov did? Snoop but not tell anyone. Certainly would have saved them some grief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001%E2%80%932007) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(...
- nostromo 6y agoAnd then lie about it to congress. Repeatedly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYNXVgYhPOc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYNXVgYhPOc And then lying about lying about it. https://youtu.be/2d03yjXRPtI?t=262 https://youtu.be/2d03yjXRPtI?t=262
- ianlevesque 6y agoCongress then really outdid themselves by focusing all legislation on telephone calls (as if anyone younger than 60 even cares about that part) and leaving the internet snooping untouched. Really fantastic misdirection.
- IAmGraydon 6y agoPeople always ask me about misdirection, It's fantastic. Let me tell you about misdirection. I do very well with misdirection. I love misdirection. No one loves misdirection more than me, BELIEVE ME. Misdirection loves me. We're going to have so many misdirections you are going to get sick of misdirection. The misdirection just got 10 feet higher. I have the best misdirection.
- gumby 6y agoAhh, but it’s actually very clever: young terrorists use phone calls to communicate figuring all the normal means are being spied upon whereas nobody uses the phone anyway so it won’t be spied on. Diabolical!
- dylan604 6y ago
- marshmallow_12 6y agoi'm not as concerned as i might be. My rather meager understanding, which may be entirely baseless, is, that unlike the NSA which is obsessive about collecting every single scrap of data (and many large chunks), the UK intelligence services are rather more discerning. Again, i would be happy for someone to correct me, that's just the general impression i get.
- chiefalchemist 6y agoIsn't there a fairly solid connection (read: partnership) between US and UK intelligence? Isn't such a chain only as strong as the weakest link? It's hard to imagine any of our European allies to be too far off the NSA's pace.
- Enginerrrd 6y agoI mean, the NSA famously uses the UK as a loophole to spy on American citizens. That suggests that they probably aren't particularly discerning to me.
- marshmallow_12 6y agoAll it suggests is that the UK is happy to curry favour with the US government and doesn't give a hoot about the perceived rights of American citizens. Harsh, but true. Their own citizens are an entirely different ballpark, as you might say.
- mhh__ 6y agoThe UK government is also even more lax than the US one with regard to its own citizens privacy.
- marshmallow_12 6y agoI don't know, i think the mentality here is that the government is spying for you, not at you. Is it different in the us? And is that because all revelations revolve around the fact that citizens are being spied on?
- chiefalchemist 6y agoSnooping? Now doesn't that reek of newspeak? If anyone of us did that to someone else it would (at very the least) be stalking. When you track and log everything - for up to a year - that's not snooping. That's surveillance. Using candy-coated language for such things is as (almost as) harmful as the acts themselves.
- jimbob45 6y agoI don’t want to derail a very interesting thread but IMHO snooping has a darker connotation than surveilling.
- londons_explore 6y agoThe night security guard surveills the premisis. Your school nemesis snoops on what you're up to to try to embarrass or one-up you in some way. Surveillance can be good or bad. Snooping is always bad.
- chiefalchemist 6y agoYou've left the context out of your position. This is a couple ISPs in bed with the government. Under what conditions is that good surveillance?
- NeutronStar 6y agoNo, he was explaining it out of context. Not every comment HAS to take context into account.
- novok 6y agoNo it's just the word that the british tend to use for spying. Much like lavatory vs restroom. Ex: Snooper's charter
- chrisseaton 6y ago> Using candy-coated language for such things is as (almost as) harmful as the acts themselves. 'Snooping' isn't candy-coated language in British English, and this is a British article. It's just another way to say surveillance. You're imagining a meaning that isn't there.
- londons_explore 6y agoI would like to see this data collected and published. Data you send out over the internet unencrypted doesn't have an expectation of privacy. Yet lots of people assume stuff like this is private. The only way to close the gap is to publish the data so everyone can see exactly what they and others are inadvertently telling the world.
- SilverRed 6y agoSomeone did this for torrents, they built a website that scrapes the DHT data and creates a record of every torrent downloaded by each IP address, publicly searchable. This data is technically public and anyone could have got it including governments, making a site to access it just helps awareness.
- brokenmachine 6y agohttps://iknowwhatyoudownload.com/ https://iknowwhatyoudownload.com/ It listed a bunch of stuff that I never downloaded though...
- anaganisk 6y agoYou could be using a dynamic IP, this site links downloads to IP
- KnobbleMcKnees 6y agodoesn't that make the information essentially useless? iknowwhatyoubutpossiblysomeotherblokedownload.com
- cmeacham98 6y agoOther people scraping this data like ISPs or governments could presumably do a better job of mapping IP+time to person.
- floatboth 6y ago
- londons_explore 6y agoNow is time to remind people the benefits of having a free and open WiFi network...
- sammy2244 6y agoI’d like to see them try to find the domain when ECH becomes standard
- Havoc 6y ago>The IPAct effectively prohibits ISPs from talking about much of this How very democratic and transparent of them Kinda in two minds about this...tempted to implement a VPN to a VPS but not super keen on killing my gbps speeds.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gorgoiler 6y agoIf you have the budget for gigabit connectivity then you have the budget for hardware-offloaded VPN. Cryptography is fast and cheap enough to handle SSD encryption — it’s plenty fast enough to handle your network traffic too. The only downside is the packet overhead. Can you survive going from 1500 down to 1420 bytes per packet? (Yes.)
- hansel_der 6y agowhile i technically agree, i think it's worth noting that gbps internet connections are available for cheap (<40$/mon) in many countries and on the other side a gbps-vpn is far from a trivial task especially if it leaves your country to terminate in another jurisdiction.
- M2Ys4U 6y agoVPNs just move the problem around, they don't solve it. You've gone from your ISP being the point at which interception can happen to your VPS provider and/or their ISP being the point at which interception can happen.
- Rule35 6y agoIf you use secure protocols then the VPNs ISP should have no way of linking your good with your bad browsing, whereas your ISP sees where the cable is running from and can link everything you view (as far as the IP or hostname at any rate.) But yeah, you're swapping your ISP and your government for your VPN and maybe their government. If you're a dissident, you're probably fine. If you're a pirate and the VPN isn't in certain countries, you're probably fine. If it's something both countries disagree with, you're in trouble. Know your personal risks.
- asix66 6y agohttps://web.archive.org/web/20210311232132/https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2021/03/two-uk-broadband-isps-trial-new-internet-snooping-system.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210311232132/https://www.ispre... Because the real link has too many redirects behind my pihole. ;-)
- JdeBP 6y agoYou could read the original article in Wired instead. (-: * https://www.wired.co.uk/article/internet-connection-records-ip-act https://www.wired.co.uk/article/internet-connection-records-...
- afturkrull 6y agoOld news, ISPs have been using Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) for ages. Purely in the interests of "prioritise latency" for video or voice that "don't tolerate dropped packets" ;]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- thinkaboutits 6y agoTell the right you are looking for Islamic terrorists. Tell the left you are looking for white supremacists. Like shooting fish in a barrel; total surveillance state achieved.
- eranimo 6y agoThe actual left is generally against that sort of thing, and even significant factions on the right don't want the kind of government control, what you should be concerned about are liberal centrist people.
- maybelsyrup 6y agoYou're right[0], though you won't get much recognition on HN. [0] https://t.co/9UuceYD2Xj?amp=1 https://t.co/9UuceYD2Xj?amp=1
- yew 6y agoI hate to break it to you, but Greenwald is just another "I was a teenage leftist" Republican getting ready for his book tour. He's been pandering to Trump supporters for a few years now... He's a terrible example to cite if you want to support the actual left.
- maybelsyrup 6y ago"People's Front of Judea"
- yew 6y agoI mean, he has started spreading TERF propaganda on Twitter (because those particular brainworms always infect the new converts, for whatever reason). That and the Trump thing aren't minor ideological differences - they're fundamental, irreconcilable conflicts. There's no future for them.
- SilverRed 6y ago
- smashah 6y ago10 years from now cyberterrorism companies with government clearance will be selling machine learning models trained on these logs of previous criminals. Sad.
- brokenmachine 6y agoMaybe then we will have finally got them all and declare the war on terrorism officially over!!
- abraxas 6y agoYes, yes that is exactly what they will do. Shareholders and lobbyists be damned.
- smashah 6y agoBig Oil will be replaced with Big ML. The lobbyists will erode our liberties after rinsing our planet. They will make cutesy ads tricking the masses into trusting the models and anyone using protection online will be branded a terrorist.
- Rule35 6y agoWhen picking an enemy it's vitally important to pick one who doesn't exist, otherwise you could actually end up finding and eliminating them. Also, to pick one that you can manufacture if and when you actually have to show some results.
- known 6y ago“If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom” --Eisenhower (b. 1890)
- PaulAJ 6y agoBecause in prison the likelihood of being raped, beaten or having your property stolen is so much less than it is outside.
- typenil 6y agoYes. The more control centralized authority has the more they can control hate speech. Please babysit us apathetic cynical regulatory capture mechanisms - I mean politicians.
- peterkelly 6y agoHas everyone forgotten about Tempora [1], XKEYSCORE [2], PRISM, [3] and the other Snowden revelations [4]? This kind of shit has been going on for at least a decade in various forms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure...
- dijit 6y agoDoesn’t really make it ok though. We should absolutely keep it in the public eye lest it be relegated to acceptance.
- feralimal 6y agoIt was relegated to acceptance about 10 years ago.
- buran77 6y agoIt doesn't make it ok at all. But this is a double edged sword. Just keeping this in the public eye but without hard action against it simply normalizes the situation as "problem that's only big enough to complain about". People need to see action being taken, like right to repair initiatives that bore fruit. Unfortunately unlike right to repair, this is a fight against a government which already has too much leverage on anyone and gaining more, making the fight progressively more difficult. It's clear that the gov't will use any power at it's disposal to fight against any such citizen initiative.
- morrbo 6y agoAs a person from the UK, no I've not forgotten. The difference here (and this is NOT excusing them) is that you've gone from a series of systems which didn't officially exist, accessible from the select few of intelligence agencies and no doubt secure as hell into private ones which are controlled by people like BT. Yep, BT. The same BT who are laying off 10k staff this year because they need to cut costs. This isn't something they're putting effort into, this is some mandated program which will mean they're going to come up with the cheapest solution to store all your data. That's obviously bad. What was disappointing about this was that I remember the day this bill got passed. I remember refreshing BBC news repeatedly. Not one article was written about the snoopers charter within the days leading up to it (or the day itself). Now, back to the "bad" again... The list of people who can access these records, without a warrant is just utterly insane. It starts off legit-ish but honestly some of these are pretty hard to justify: * Metropolitan police force * City of London police force * Police forces maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996 * Police Service of Scotland * Police Service of Northern Ireland * British Transport Police * Ministry of Defence Police * Royal Navy Police * Royal Military Police * Royal Air Force Police * Security Service * Secret Intelligence Service * GCHQ * Ministry of Defence * Department of Health * Home Office * Ministry of Justice * National Crime Agency * HM Revenue & Customs * Department for Transport * Department for Work and Pensions * NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England that provide ambulance services * Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service * Competition and Markets Authority * Criminal Cases Review Commission * Department for Communities in Northern Ireland * Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland * Department of Justice in Northern Ireland * Financial Conduct Authority * Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 * Food Standards Agency * Food Standards Scotland * Gambling Commission * Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority * Health and Safety Executive * Independent Police Complaints Commissioner * Information Commissioner * NHS Business Services Authority * Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust * Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board * Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation * Office of Communications * Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland * Police Investigations and Review Commissioner * Scottish Ambulance Service Board * Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission * Serious Fraud Office * Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust
- ketamine__ 6y agoWould constantly opening and closing connections use an insane amount of storage?
- JdeBP 6y agoMy educated guess would be no. There are some fairly obvious compression and junk filtering techniques, and the size of the record presented as an example is a lot smaller than a cat video file. (-: Of course, a computer trying to hide like that would also raise a red flag.
- hansel_der 6y agosurely depends on the scale, but generally: no
- bennysonething 6y agoI thought under previous government all isps keep logs of all internet history for two years?
- _jstreet 6y agoCould I submit freedom of information request to my ISP and be provided with all the details they store about my internet browsing? Unfortunately BT are a private company so sounds unlikely..
- hkt 6y agoFreedom of information is about the activities of public authorities, and that includes private sector bodies performing public functions. A person could access aggregate data and other non-personally identifying information this way but it would likely require a court to rule on the public activities of the company. This happened with privately run care homes which were deemed to have public functions. However, you don't want that: you want a subject access request. This covers data from private sector companies too. Not responding is illegal and you can take them to the Information Commissioner and eventually the Information Tribunal. This is the information commissioner's office's guide to making a request: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/your-right-to-get-copies-of-your-data/preparing-and-submitting-your-subject-access-request/ https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/your-right-to-get-copie... Source: trained as a journalist and am quite good at media law stuff. Not a lawyer, but have had substantial training and think this is worth a punt.
- scott_w 6y agoUnfortunately this won’t tell you if the ISP is storing extra data in compliance with the Snooper’s Charter because legal compliance can override the GDPR. Basically, the law saying “you’re not allowed to tell anyone you hold this data” overrides an SAR and a legal case to force compliance would likely fail on these grounds.
- eecc 6y agoWhat I don’t get is this: our governments - “ours” being the group of parliamentary democracies - routinely diss authoritarian ones such as China - and rightfully so - for their violations against human rights, among which that to habeas corpus, privacy, and reasonable suspicion. To the point that we agonized over and sabotaged contact tracing apps, which could have helped a lot in fighting COVID, over claims to privacy and government control. Now this shit. Fuck it. You either are or you’re not. So if my privacy is to be made sausages, chopped and sold at the market for FB, ad-tech and spooks, then give me at least some upside! As it is, we’re just bovines with ear tags...
- tomcooks 6y agoThe Chinese model works, and it's what every government wants. The rest is marketing.
- KoftaBob 6y agoIt "works" if your priority is getting things done, but it absolutely does not work if you value liberty and personal freedom. Ask minority groups in China like Christians wanting to build a church or Uyghurs how well the model works.
- StavrosK 6y agoSeems to me that the GP meant "it works for the government and politicians".
- ricardobayes 6y agoIn my view privacy has more layers. It has layers of personal data (name, social security, medical records), user-produced data (your family photos), communication (chat) and metadata (ad tracking). Lately I have seen ad tracking put in the same group as personal data. I don't think they deserve the same level of protection. I think total privacy is fools' gold. We always ask for total transparency from our governments, yet if they ask even a little of it from us, it's bad. Why? Also, in our society, wanting too much of anything makes you a weirdo and an outcast. Why has advocating for total privacy become normal(ized)?
- pacifika 6y agoAnother step closer for a families web history to affect their life insurance policies. How long until this information is repackaged and sold on?
- Silhouette 6y agoThat seems like a weak slippery-slope argument. The exemptions to the usual rules that require ISPs to comply with government security policy here and keep quiet about it only cover those things. So for one thing, using the data collected for anything else or providing it to anyone else would be an immediate and severe breach of both data protection and security laws. That would have serious consequences for the ISP doing it. For another, it would bring that monitoring system into disrepute and damage the credibility of a government that wants to be seen as strong on security. As a previous government learned to its cost when it tried to introduce personal ID cards here, even voters in the UK (who traditionally have a majority in favour of tough policing and security measures) still have lines they aren't willing to cross. In short, while there is plenty of scope to debate whether a system like this is necessary or justified as a security measure, it's highly unlikely that it will also be turned into the kind of sell-all-your-data exercise that might be a concern in some other parts of the world.
- CaptArmchair 6y agoAs recently as october 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that data retention laws in the UK, Belgium and France are illegal as they aren't in accordance with EU directives: > Today 6 October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its verdict on four data retention cases in France, Belgium and the UK, in the context of these countries surveillance programmes. The European Court of Justice ruled that the surveillance laws of France, Belgium, and the United Kingdom fail to safeguard fundamental rights and freedoms. The CJEU rules that general and indiscriminate data retention is allowed under EU law when the State faces a “serious threat to national security” that is present or foreseeable, but only under the scrutiny of courts or independent administrative bodies and when this is done only temporarily. Finally, the CJEU specifies that national courts cannot use information obtained from bulk retention regimes against suspects in criminal proceedings. > “Today’s judgement is a massive blow to existing laws in France, UK and Belgium and to other current data retention practices by Member States”, said Diego Naranjo, Head of Policy at European Digital Rights (EDRi). “With this judgement, the CJEU essentially rules that, States can only engage in general and indiscriminate data retention when they face a “serious threat to national security” that is present or foreseeable, when subject to a court or administrative body review. The CJEU has put a stop to current illegal practices and disregards practices that are not under a national court’s scrutiny in the name of national security or in the fight against “terrorism””, he added. > Data retention practices entail the storage of traffic and location data (metadata) by telecommunications companies for an extended period of time in order to ensure the availability of such data for law enforcement purposes. As electronic communications technologies are increasingly used in the course of criminal activity, electronic communications data can play an important role in criminal investigations. Mandating the bulk retention of this data, however, poses serious risks to the right to privacy and communications freedoms. https://edri.org/our-work/press-release-the-data-retention-regimes-of-france-united-kingdom-and-belgium-are-illegal-says-cjeu/ https://edri.org/our-work/press-release-the-data-retention-r... This was October 2020. The CJEU still held jurisdiction over the U.K court during the transition period after brexit (31 jan 2020 - 1 jan 2021) per the withdrawal agreement. > The Court of Justice of the European Union continues to have jurisdiction over the United Kingdom during the transition period. This also applies to the interpretation and implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_104 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_... The U.K. is free to do whatever with little to no recourse for U.K. citizens beyond appeal to their own Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of data retention / surveillance laws. That said, the EU is not without it's own particular faults and shortcomings, but there are times when it does pay off to be able to challenge national legislation and policy making when it threatens human rights and freedoms such as they are purported to be upheld on the West-European continent. As far as "governments" go, across the EU, the separation of powers is a thing. If data retention laws are enacted, that's a reflection of the prevailing winds / power balances between the legislative, executive and judicial bodies.
- jl6 6y agoThis seems simultaneously too intrusive, and yet not intrusive enough to actually benefit law enforcement. They are logging source and destination IPs. But to what end? What can that possibly prove? Surely the vast majority of crime occurs at the application level.
- csunbird 6y agoThey are slowly boiling the frog (the citizens). This surely will be extended to more data in the future.
- breakingcups 6y ago"Fun" fact, that only works on lobotomized frogs. Regular healthy frogs just jump out of the pan when it gets uncomfortable.
- upofadown 6y agoHow? For TLS connections that is all the information available.
- noir_lord 6y agohttps://www.cryptomuseum.com/crypto/usa/clipper.htm https://www.cryptomuseum.com/crypto/usa/clipper.htm It's not like governments haven't tried to backdoor computing devices via the legal route before.
- Rule35 6y agoAlso, they have the IP the "anonymous users" are connecting to. They know who to go lean on to get the logs.
- intricatedetail 6y agoConnected to Tor or VPN? You must be up to something...
- Sophira 6y ago
- oji0hub 6y agoThe UK is getting less and less attractive all the time...
- he0001 6y agoHow would things like Tor work against these things?
- nazbuck 6y agoJust when you think Englandistan couldn't be anymore cucked by Zionists shit like this pops up lmao
- Nailgun 6y agoIs there anything I can do about this as a citizen to protect my privacy?
- techrat 6y agoUse a VPN for everything.
- openfuture 6y agoVPN solves absolutely nothing. You are just moving your root of trust around. Nym is a very promising mixnet that is built with a global passive adversary in mind. That may work.
- azalemeth 6y agoIsn't this almost exactly the use-case for a VPN: one well-defined snooping adversary? If one _assumes_ that the VPN provider doesn't lie (or at the very least is independently audited) and has a server beyond your jurisdiction then isn't moving the root of trust away from your un-trustworthy ISP the right thing to do?
- justinclift 6y agoIf you have the right skills, it's not hard to set up Squid or your choice of other proxy software in the EU (eg outside the UK), and direct your browsing traffic over it. Latency from the UK to (say) Germany or the Netherlands isn't too bad either.
- outsomnia 6y ago... if you own and trust the VPN server and exit arrangements then this is true. But it would have to be outside the UK to avoid the same fate, since you are in the UK, this makes it harder to trust the service provider and their security services not to find your "foreign" traffic very interesting and not subject to their laws protecting their own citizens' data. A lot of "we don't keep logs" vpn providers were found to very much keep logs of all your traffic. Some of the people in the VPN business are the last ones you would want to see all your traffic. Tor might work, or at least change the threat model, but it cannot be used as a high bandwidth proxy.
- swiley 6y agoDon't like the environmental impact of monero and TOR? Stop making them something everyone needs.
- LatteLazy 6y agoAren't uk ISPs already required to keep logs of everything that happens on a connection? How is this different to that? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just confused what is being added when they already (I thought) collected everything on everyone...
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoThe level of spying instituted by 'free countries' would make Stalin roll in his grave.
- dfgdghdf 6y agoWhat can an individual do to protect against this (excluding going off-grid)?