1)So if you’re not guilty, what exactly are you actually innocent of?.. hmmmm?

Online banking. VPN to work’s corporate network. Buying a game from Amazon. Having an intimate conversation with my wife.

Honestly, you think atypical encryption doesn’t stand out?

I’m saying that it probably doesn’t stand out as much as you think. GCHQ, the NSA etc already have more data than they can cope with. Flagging up someone for further investigation purely because they are transmitting and receiving encrypted data is a massively inefficient way of catching criminals, exponentially more so if you’re looking for actually terrorists rather than Dave at number 39 who illegally downloaded last night’s Strictly Come Dancing.

1)So if you’re not guilty, what exactly are you actually innocent of?.. hmmmm?

I suppose the real answer here is, “none of your clucking business.”

and that’s before we get into some random cheapo Chinese companies web cam.

Old skool solution to nu skool problem:

I’m saying that it probably doesn’t stand out as much as you think

I see your point, especially about data quantity but I don’t agree with it.

Years ago I worked on a project using Sand Nucleus database. (I think it was called that back then). A commercial project. I understand the technology behind Sand was based on software used to analyse subsurface noises, possibly the sounds submarines make (so I was told by the slightly scary American man). I got the idea this was to do with “listening” project the US did to track (soviet) submarines – but that might be a bit 2+2=5.

Sand was IIRC damn fast at what it did and it was (as I was led to believe) originally either used by or trialled by the US defence department.

What I’m saying is the volume might seem a lot now but it might not be soon or might not be if you analyse it in a novel way.

Also, unless trained otherwise we are very habitual creatures, perhaps not on a day to day basis, but bills present themselves regularly, so do payment, holidays and days on which illicit affairs take place.

I’d argue that given currently or near current technology, meta data analysis (for that is what is supposedly being captured) is far more “valuable” than content analysis.

But I think it’s overly intrusive and I don’t think it’s the best way to detect criminals, spys and terrorists.

The NSA etc have more data than they can process right now – ie, before they’re going to get the keys to every ISP in the country (or so it said in an article which I thought was linked on the first page of this thread but can’t immediately find now).

That’s only ever going to increase as the government steal ever more of our liberties and more and more “ordinary” people start to have privacy concerns.

Unless I’m missing something, I’m not sure what you’re going to learn from metadata other than “people are using secure communication methods,” and really, far from being legislated against, that should be mandatory.

It’s not because they are using encryption – it’s the patterns, volume and timing

The enigma “cracking” efforts at Bletchely and the Verona intercepts were vital and revealing but the less glorious meta analysis was useful too – Gordon Welchman is the bloke to look up, I think.

The meta analysis provides suggestion but not proof. That can be enough to provoke the use of more focused, tin foil hat methods.

However, when employed against the likes of Mrs Miggins illicit streaming service, well, at that point things are FUBAR anyway and it’s of no use to the citizens of the state.

Why would you mind the government looking around your house if you have nothing to hide?

Not so long ago that “something to hide” might have included homosexuality. The government said it was wrong. Are you saying that everything that the govt now says is wrong is really wrong, and that all the mistakes have been cleared up?

Governments have always overstated security issues as a reason for impinging on civil liberties – the creep continues here. Nothing new. But should be resisted/checked as much as possible.

Oh yeah, the other Jambafact that piqued my interest was the assertion that “with a search warrant the police have the right to look at anything.” Is that true? Turns out that no, it’s not.

Search Warrants: Laws & Limitations

Police officers’ searches are limited by the scope of the warrant. They can only search the specific location listed in the warrant, but they may be able to seize other items not listed on the warrant if they come upon contraband or evidence of a crime not listed in the warrant during the lawful search.

If officers have a warrant to search an individual, they can only search that specific person. Officers may not search onlookers without specific, independent probable cause of additional criminal activity. Even if they have reasonable suspicion that an onlooker is somehow engaged in criminal activity, officers may only question the onlooker. If an officer’s safety is in question, the officer may conduct a frisk for weapons but nothing more.
…
The majority of searches actually occur legally without a search warrant because the courts have determined that a warrant is not necessary. These warrantless situations include the following circumstances: consent searches, items in plain view, searches made in conjunction with an arrest, or emergency exceptions.

So what we’re proposing here is that the police can potentially look at anything they like, entirely unlike the search warrant policy.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38068078

“And even in the worst-case scenario that our servers are confiscated, there would be nothing on them because of the way they are configured.”
Another VPN provider said the UK government would find it difficult to prevent the use of such workarounds.
“The legislation specifically mentions connection service providers and not just ISPs, and the assumption is that VPNs based in the UK will have to give up their logs under this law,” said Caleb Chen, a spokesman for Private Internet Access.
“But as a US-based company, my legal team has advised me that we would not be under any obligation to do so.
“And even if the government were to try to take it a step further and say no UK citizen could use a VPN that was not compliant with the law, those services would still be available.”
He added that the widespread use of VPNs by businesses to provide staff with remote access to their email and other work-related files would also make it difficult to restrict the technology’s use.

Whats that a very simple work around???

VPN access can be blocked too @mike many sites do so already eg uk national-lottery. Tech is there to do it, just a case of their being a will / legal requirement

#jambyfact?

So blocking the use of VPN’s which have massive legal uses and a load of really good reasons to use them because you chasing somebody, we still havn’t got past using free wifi and unregistered sim’s etc. or basic phones and a code.

One of the criteria for doing something is to make it workable and useful. They have created a law that is useless and seriously impacts people every day.

Why do you want total control over every Aspect of life jamba?

So what we’re proposing here is that the police can potentially look at anything they like, entirely unlike the search warrant policy.

I’m sure jamba will be along in a minute to make a detailed and logical response to that important point. Or maybe he’ll just ignore it and launch into another round of fantasy.

VPN access can be blocked too

I use a VPN every day for work. As will pretty much anyone who accesses their work network remotely. It is standard practice.

Outlawing VPNs is as ridiculous an idea as outlawing encryption.

You might as well suggest switching off the internet and going back to plain text telegrams.

So, about those search warrants.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/investigatory-powers-bill-act-snoopers-charter-browsing-history-what-does-it-mean-a7436251.html

The full list of agencies that can now ask for UK citizen’s browsing history, which is laid out in Schedule 4 of the bill and was collected by Chris Yiu, is below:

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

Concerned? Go here.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199

Why do you want total control over every Aspect of life jamba?

I want a search warrant to be as effective as it was 25 years ago. The Government isn’t controlling my life by being abke to search my electronic comminications with a warrant

@mike you cannot login, they’ve blocked it even via a VPN (certainly the one’s I use). I have even had blocked usage from my mobile in the UK

Concerned

Yes that the laws don’t far enough

@mike you cannot login, they’ve blocked it even via a VPN (certainly the one’s I use). I have even had blocked usage from my mobile in the UK

You just need a different VPN, it worked.

Yes that the laws don’t far enough

So you want to ban VPN’s that have a massive usage for good legal reasons to stop people doing something that you can get around anyway.

Terrorism wins when the other side waste their time, efforts and resources chasing shadows.

the problem for Labour is the power of the right wing press ( and that is who May is pandering to). Labour are terrified of being labelled “soft on terrorism” so are paralysed into inaction over issues like this.

“Labour are terrified of being labelled “soft on terrorism”

I think that horse has already bolted, the leadership positively encouraged terrorism.

the problem for Labour is the power of the right wing press

The bigger problem for labour is its clueless, useless leader. Difficult to be seen as anything other than soft on terrorism when you’ve spent the last 30 years bigging up Hamas. The only MP I can think of with less credibility on this subject is George Galloway

I run a VPN on my own personal VPS, for personal use only. Does that make me a VPN provider?
I also often just use SSH tunnel. Does that also make me a VPN provider? Makes iPlayer work from outside UK.

They can request my logs, but there won’t be anything, especially for the SSH tunnel.

Food Standards Agency? 😯

Interesting @mike thanks.

Cougar just listened to a French Press conference discussing the IS terrorists recently arrested in Strasbourg and Marseilles and their use of encrypted communications between themselves and to IS handlers in Syria. Plus we have juat had the murder of a health care worker protecting retired Monks and Nuns in Montpellier. Throat cut. No confirmation yet of motive but it’s reasonable to assume it’s terrorist related given recent events

jambalaya – Member
VPN (certainly the one’s I use).

😆 this is hilarious! so how do the police monitor your VPN activity? since you want to give them access.

the problem for Labour is the power of the right wing press ( and that is who May is pandering to). Labour are terrified of being labelled “soft on terrorism” so are paralysed into inaction over issues like this.

Might also be that Labour is pro intrusive government action? I’m not aware of any rule that states left wing economic policies are incompatible with a disdain for civil liberties.

It’s OK I just checked in the bill and the Food Standards Agency can only request details “for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or preventing disorder”. So not for checking that I’m eating my five a day.

“I’m not aware of any rule that states left wing economic policies are incompatible with a disdain for civil liberties.”

East Germany.

Cougar just listened to a French Press conference discussing the IS terrorists recently arrested in Strasbourg and Marseilles and their use of encrypted communications between themselves and to IS handlers in Syria.

I assume on this you would accept speed limiters in all cars, GPS tracking and rigid segregation on roads. A complete ban on the private ownership of firearms etc. all of those things cause a huge amount of death and suffering.

The irony in all this is we have just had the Establishment, Royalty, and all our political leaders at the Cenotaph this month piously laying wreaths for those who died “fighting for freedom”.

Let’s have some of the bloody stuff that they fought for instead of getting it increasingly restricted every year.

mogrim – of course there is no reason why a left of centre party need not be authoritarian – indeed Blair was authoritarian. However I do believe that the press make it much harder for Labour to oppose anything that is aimed at ” preventing terrorism”

I assume on this you would accept speed limiters in all cars, GPS tracking and rigid segregation on roads.

Giving the authorities the same access to modern electronic communications as they had to phone tapping isn’t the same as bringing in new restrictions that have never existed.

It doesn’t mean that it is desirable, but all this is trying to do is maintain a capability (not add a fundamentally new one).

Should, or should not, the police and other similar agencies have access to private communications if they have reasonable cause and a proper warrant? If your answer is yes then why does the method of communication matter?

Since brexit I have been contacting my mp challenging his views as they are at odds with his electorate.
I was going to contact him and ask where he lived so that I could pop by and randomly check his Internet search history.
As I am now on his pain in the arse list I have thought better of it as he can go snooping around my business and personal accounts and make life very difficult for me if he so wished. I would have no protection from him. I now fear what my mp can do to me.
That is wrong. I won’t even be able to take it to the European Court.
Freedom will be split between very few people I think.