NationStates Jolt Archive

‘Big Brother’ database for phones and e-mails

A massive government database holding details of every phone call, e-mail and time spent on the internet by the public is being planned as part of the fight against crime and terrorism. Internet service providers (ISPs) and telecoms companies would hand over the records to the Home Office under plans put forward by officials.

The information would be held for at least 12 months and the police and security services would be able to access it if given permission from the courts.

The proposal will raise further alarm about a “Big Brother” society, as it follows plans for vast databases for the ID cards scheme and NHS patients. There will also be concern about the ability of the Government to manage a system holding billions of records. About 57 billion text messages were sent in Britain last year, while an estimated 3 billion e-mails are sent every day.

Home Office officials have discussed the option of the national database with telecommunications companies and ISPs as part of preparations for a data communications Bill to be in November’s Queen’s Speech. But the plan has not been sent to ministers yet.
Related Links

* Beware: Big Brother has got you fingered

* How to escape the spies all around us

* New database increases power of surveillance over citizens

Industry sources gave warning that a single database would be at greater risk of attack and abuse.

Jonathan Bamford, the assistant Information Commissioner, said: “This would give us serious concerns and may well be a step too far. We are not aware of any justification for the State to hold every UK citizen’s phone and internet records. We have real doubts that such a measure can be justified, or is proportionate or desirable. We have warned before that we are sleepwalking into a surveillance society. Holding large collections of data is always risky - the more data that is collected and stored, the bigger the problem when the data is lost, traded or stolen.”

David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “Given [ministers’] appalling record at maintaining the integrity of databases holding people’s sensitive data, this could well be more of a threat to our security, than a support.”

The proposal has emerged as part of plans to implement an EU directive developed after the July 7 bombings to bring uniformity of record-keeping. Since last October telecoms companies have been required to keep records of phone calls and text messages for 12 months. That requirement is to be extended to internet, e-mail and voice-over-internet use and included in a Communications Data Bill.

Police and the security services can access the records with a warrant issued by the courts. Rather than individual companies holding the information, Home Office officials are suggesting the records be handed over to the Government and stored on a huge database.

One of the arguments being put forward in favour of the plan is that it would make it simpler and swifter for law enforcement agencies to retrieve the information instead of having to approach hundreds of service providers. Opponents say that the scope for abuse will be greater if the records are held on one database.

A Home Office spokesman said the Bill was needed to reflect changes in communication that would “increasingly undermine our current capabilities to obtain communications data and use it to protect the public”.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article3965033.ece

Thats just like ... Wow there really going through with crushing our privacy and freedoms in the name of "Anti-Terror"...
Well to be honest I'd much rather have my Phone Calls, Texts and Emails private and die from a terror attack that probably won't happen then to have my privacy and freedom breached.

All hail Big Brother for seeing fit to raise our Chocolate ration to 20 grams!

The thing to do is start making liberal use of certain words. Words like assassinate. Or explosion. The sort of thing they'd look for if they were trying to find a terrorist. Put a big list of such words at the end of all your emails.

All hail Big Brother for seeing fit to raise our Chocolate ration to 20 grams!

Well you get those 20 grams in 20 installments over the next five years.

The thing to do is start making liberal use of certain words. Words like assassinate. Or explosion. The sort of thing they'd look for if they were trying to find a terrorist. Put a big list of such words at the end of all your emails.

The government are even thinking about outlawing the word "Asylum" because its now "negative".

How can you restrict a language through law :(
But I guess when you can't really say anything that doesn't conforms in modern society I'm not to surprised...

Well I know if they do create this database I will be very liberal in using "watch words". That and I will send one hell of a load of emails each day to add to the mess, along with the hundreds of texts I send per month and dozens of hours of phone calls per month.

The planet, Proudly sliding back into the feudial era.

Oh and
Asylum!
Asylum!
Asylum!
Asylum!
Can't arrest me bitches!

The planet, Proudly sliding back into the feudial era.

Well even the feudal era wasn't so invasive on personal life.

The planet, Proudly sliding back into the feudial era.

Oh and
Asylum!
Asylum!
Asylum!
Asylum!
Can't arrest me bitches!

Oi Oi whats going on 'ere then!

The government are even thinking about outlawing the word "Asylum" because its now "negative".

How can you restrict a language through law :(
But I guess when you can't really say anything that doesn't conforms in modern society I'm not to surprised...
Yeah....the government can't outlaw words. Chances are they're just considering not using it themselves

Well I know if they do create this database I will be very liberal in using "watch words". That and I will send one hell of a load of emails each day to add to the mess, along with the hundreds of texts I send per month and dozens of hours of phone calls per month.
Excellent.

The planet, Proudly sliding back into the feudial era.

The government are even thinking about outlawing the word "Asylum" because its now "negative".

How can you restrict a language through law :(
But I guess when you can't really say anything that doesn't conforms in modern society I'm not to surprised...
Considering I've been watching that whole COS\Anonymous thing, I have a perfect example of restricting a word.

At the last Anonymous protest in London there were police there threatening to arrest anyone with signs saying "Cult" because it's a "Hate Crime".

It turns out that they CAN outlaw words for certain situations.
Insane...

Yeah....the government can't outlaw words. Chances are they're just considering not using it themselves


Excellent.

Well I'm sure they get the media to create the impression to society that words like "asylum" are racist and instantly collapse society and everyone should panic when they are used... They pretty much managed to do that with anything racist.

The planet, Proudly sliding back into the feudial era.


Considering I've been watching that whole COS\Anonymous thing, I have a perfect example of restricting a word.

At the last Anonymous protest in London there were police there threatening to arrest anyone with signs saying "Cult" because it's a "Hate Crime".

It turns out that they CAN outlaw words for certain situations.
Insane...

Anything to keep us in tyranny...

Its almost as if they enjoy crushing our freedoms and have some "get togethers" in a board room and they all get drunk laughing at us or something...

Well even the feudal era wasn't so invasive on personal life.

It was, only through a vehicle for which we have no equivalent; the monolithic superstructure of the episcopacy. Contemporary society is not constructed on the premise that civil and religious law are approximate in significance, hence allowing adultery, and other such "offences" for which civil law provides no punishment. Except, megalomaniac tossers that they are, New Labour have seen fit to systematically erode our civil liberties in the futile pursuit of the dull utopia they conceive.

It was, only through a vehicle for which we have no equivalent; the monolithic superstructure of the episcopacy. Contemporary society is not constructed on the premise that civil and religious law are approximate in significance, hence allowing adultery, and other such "offences" for which civil law provides no punishment. Except, megalomaniac tossers that they are, New Labour have seen fit to systematically erode our civil liberties in the futile pursuit of the dull utopia they conceive.

Well its more like "dystopia". Theres a lot of evidence to say the 7/7 attacks was just an excuse to give the government more power.

I mean we're hardly likely to suffer another terrorist attack and if we where its not like the terrorists are going to be stupid enough to talk about it via email or phone call... And if they are I don't think they have the intelligence to succeed in a bombing campaign.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article3965033.ece
This government must end. Now. By force, if needs be.

Saturday the 10th of June suit everyone?

(EDIT: If you're reading this, let this be a demonstration of how anti-terror measures spark insecurity)

This government must end. Now. By force, if needs be.

Saturday the 10th of June suit everyone?

(EDIT: If you're reading this, let this be a demonstration of how anti-terror measures spark insecurity)

So I'm to put away my Do-It-Yourself Revolution kit?

Damn everyone nows demonstrations don't work unless your a minority cause...

About time.

Theres a lot of evidence to say the 7/7 attacks was just an excuse to give the government more power.

Teeheehee, conspiracy theories are funny.

Teeheehee, conspiracy theories are funny.

I watched it in citizenship ... It actually had some good evidence that wasn't just circumstantial or the usual "Yeah but that doesn't prove anything".
Well regardless of who did the attacks the breaches into our personal life, personal security and freedoms is atrocious.

About time.

:rolleyes:

It seems like you said that just get a reaction out of us... And that counts as trolling, no?

:rolleyes:
It seems like you said that just get a reaction out of us... And that counts as trolling, no?

If a post didn't get a reaction out of someone it is essentially a waste of a post.

At any rate, I figured this would happen for a long time now, which is why I said 'about time'. Had to happen eventually.

Well its more like "dystopia". Theres a lot of evidence to say the 7/7 attacks was just an excuse to give the government more power.

I mean we're hardly likely to suffer another terrorist attack and if we where its not like the terrorists are going to be stupid enough to talk about it via email or phone call... And if they are I don't think they have the intelligence to succeed in a bombing campaign.

I daresay the good rev smiler thought he was fashioning a utopia. He hardly required evil intentions to fuck the country up royally in 10 years.

Incidentally, if you haven't, watch "Taking Liberties" on 4OD.

I daresay the good rev smiler thought he was fashioning a utopia. He hardly required evil intentions to fuck the country up royally in 10 years.

Incidentally, if you haven't, watch "Taking Liberties" on 4OD.

I don't think I have ... I generally don't watch TV anymore... To much propaganda and rubbish on it for me to enjoy it.

So I'm to put away my Do-It-Yourself Revolution kit?

Damn everyone nows demonstrations don't work unless your a minority cause...
Do it illegally and with a lot of noise. Get the media on board, spread the word and do it within the exclusion zone. What we need is a large, vocal and visible Civil Disobedience strategy. Peaceful is encouraged, but riots would be a good desperation resort if (and only if) the group is large enough to actually overpower any attempts to suppress it.

Alternatively, talk the police into helping out. Coppers are people too, and I'm sure many of them are concerned that the Government is far overstepping its bounds.

I don't think I have ... I generally don't watch TV anymore... To much propaganda and rubbish on it for me to enjoy it.

Well I advise you make an exception. A little tendentious and biased, but highly enlightening, and bloody worrying.

Do it illegally and with a lot of noise. Get the media on board, spread the word and do it within the exclusion zone. What we need is a large, vocal and visible Civil Disobedience strategy. Peaceful is encouraged, but riots would be a good desperation resort if (and only if) the group is large enough to actually overpower any attempts to suppress it.

Get the media on board? The main media are simply government puppets. But if we create a lot of civil unrest of sorts... The government will either show us there true colours and try to crush the opposition or they buckle under the pressure.
Did you see those raids earlier in London? More than a thousand police officers in EU riot gear stormed houses ...

Well I advise you make an exception. A little tendentious and biased, but highly enlightening, and bloody worrying.

I shall watch I guess... But if you pay attention to half of what the government says they'll do theres always something more sinister hidden behind the kind words, just enough to trick the apathetic TV watcher or the just plain stupid.

Get the media on board? The main media are simply government puppets. But if we create a lot of civil unrest of sorts... The government will either show us there true colours and try to crush the opposition or they buckle under the pressure.
Did you see those raids earlier in London? More than a thousand police officers in EU riot gear stormed houses ...
It's a win-win situation. A government that turns the police on people peacefully protesting their oppressive ruling officially loses all legitimacy, even if the protestors are being technically illegal in doing so, and I seriously doubt the police would carry out such an order.

It's a win-win situation. A government that turns the police on people protesting their oppressive ruling officially loses all legitimacy, and I seriously doubt the police would carry out such an order.

Well I don't trust the government one bit. Representative democracy is a farce. Direct Democracy where the public votes on everything is real democracy not one where we are forced to vote for the same people who do nothing for us.

Well I don't trust the government one bit. Representative democracy is a farce. Direct Democracy where the public votes on everything is real democracy not one where we are forced to vote for the same people who do nothing for us.
I certainly agree that our current system of Representative democracy is totally farcical. But what's wrong with it is not so much that it's representative, more that it's not. Cabinet members are appointed by the PM from the modern day equivilent of Rotten Borough seats and we don't get a single look in as to how we want our country's policies to look like or who we want to be in charge.

I certainly agree that our current system of Representative democracy is totally farcical. But what's wrong with it is not so much that it's representative, more that it's not. Cabinet members are appointed by the PM from the modern day equivilent of Rotten Borough seats and we don't get a single look in as to how we want our country's policies to look like or who we want to be in charge.

Well I support the idea of a political revolution. Representative democracy is an Oligarchy.
We where supposed to get a referendum on issues ... They said no to more recent issues, we're supposed to be able to elect our rulers ... Brown came into straight of and refused us an election...

Well I support the idea of a political revolution. Representative democracy is an Oligarchy.
We where supposed to get a referendum on issues ... They said no to more recent issues, we're supposed to be able to elect our rulers ... Brown came into straight of and refused us an election...
Either way, Brown must go. There can be barely a British citizen that thinks otherwise. So why isn't he gone? Because we haven't told him to go.

Let's tell him. We, the British People, have No Confidence in Her Majesty's Government.

This government must end. Now. By force, if needs be.

Saturday the 10th of June suit everyone?

(EDIT: If you're reading this, let this be a demonstration of how anti-terror measures spark insecurity)

I'll bring the Guy Fawkes masks.

Well I don't trust the government one bit. Representative democracy is a farce. Direct Democracy where the public votes on everything is real democracy not one where we are forced to vote for the same people who do nothing for us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Either way, Brown must go. There can be barely a British citizen that thinks otherwise. So why isn't he gone? Because we haven't told him to go.

Let's tell him. We, the British People, have No Confidence in Her Majesty's Government.

Well most people just don't care about Browns illegal inauguration and our erosion of rights... The pretty little picture the government and media paints for us is mostly to blame....

Well most people just don't care about Browns illegal inauguration and our erosion of rights... The pretty little picture the government and media paints for us is mostly to blame....

What was illegal about it?

Wont this in practical terms just increase the time the police can access phone records after obtaining a warrant? Since this time they won't have to ask the ISP's for access to their records.

I'll bring the Guy Fawkes masks.
*Has just had sudden image of Anonymous overthrowing the British Government*

Wont this in practical terms just increase the time the police can access phone records after obtaining a warrant? Since this time they won't have to ask the ISP's for access to their records.

I think it saves them ever having to get a court order to force the ISPs and phone companies to turn over their records. Instead they'll take the records now but only look if they get a warrant.

I think it saves them ever having to get a court order to force the ISPs and phone companies to turn over their records. Instead they'll take the records now but only look if they get a warrant.

Wouldn't the warrant gained from the courts itself include the ability to force the ISPs?

Anyone well versed in UK law here? :p

This is just surprising me that it didn't happen in the jolly old U.S. first.

I mean, I know the gov't has a watchword list, but they don't keep everyone's records on file like this is planned.

Even with things like the Patriot Act, that's recockulous.

*Has just had sudden image of Anonymous overthrowing the British Government*
*Imagines a government run entirely through /b/*
*Shudders*

I advocate a general strike of basically everything followed by forcible resistance to the US Federal Government by average gun-toting Americans.

My right to say this brought to you by Brandenburg v. Ohio*. :cool:

And now, a list of soon-to-be prohibited words: asylum, assassinate, bomb, overthrow, Nuremburg Trials, dissent, communist, liberal, socialist, anarchist, pinko, vote, Democrats, protest, peace, social justice, ACLU.

*: Apparently, I have a right to advocate overthrow of the State because my words are not "likely" to produce "imminent lawless action," meaning that I have a right to say these things specifically because nobody here is taking me seriously. I'd be in big trouble if you did... :rolleyes:

EDIT:
I'll bring the Guy Fawkes masks.
I already have mine.

You people do of course realize that firstly:

A: The police are gonna need some damn good evidence to access this

B: It'll almost certainly be on a person-by-person approach not unrestricted access

C: This is hardly gonna be concrete evidence... I for one enjoy taking the opposite stance mainly because its fun so I doubt that anyone gonna be locked up simply because of what they wrote... having a bomb however and having said where your planning on using it to a cohort though... thats probably pretty damning

The thing to do is start making liberal use of certain words. Words like assassinate. Or explosion. The sort of thing they'd look for if they were trying to find a terrorist. Put a big list of such words at the end of all your emails.

yes, yes, yes!

All Brits sending emails add disclaimer at the end of email, like:

---
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any reference to bombs, terror acts, asylums, explosions, spying, muslims, plane crashes, weapons of mass destructions and similar are either not used or used only as joke between consenting adults and does not infer any harmful activity.
---

if you want to fight with your government's fight with terrorism. or not, if you consider it good fight. or yes if free speech for you is more important than security. at the end it all comes down to choices, bitches!

Well most people just don't care about Browns illegal inauguration
Democratically suspect, perhaps, but illegal?

It's my understanding that it's perfectly legal for someone to take over the PM's job halfway into his/her term; as long as the successor calls an election within the time-frame his/her predecessor had to abide to. An offshoot of the PM being the leader of the party in government, I suppose.

Democratically suspect, perhaps, but illegal?

It's my understanding that it's perfectly legal for someone to take over the PM's job halfway into his/her term; as long as the successor calls an election within the time-frame his/her predecessor had to abide to. An offshoot of the PM being the leader of the party in government, I suppose.

It's perfectly legal for the Queen to appoint anyone she likes as prime minister, as and when she likes. The rules regarding elections remain the same.

Well you get those 20 grams in 20 installments over the next five years.Um, have you even read 1984?

Well most people just don't care about Browns illegal inauguration and our erosion of rights... The pretty little picture the government and media paints for us is mostly to blame....

Brown's 'inauguration' is perfectly legal, it's part of how our system of government works, since we elect members of parliament and the party with the most seats forms the government. We do not get to directly elect the PM

On the other hand Labour's popularity is currently spiraling and only likely to get worse with news like this. Already it's looking likely they'll get a back-bench rebellion and even defeat with their terror detention limit plans and the recent local elections put them third in the country behind the Liberal Democrats! I personally feel a non-confidence vote is just around the corner and we can all help this along by writing to our MPs, protesting etc and making our discontent known.

It's perfectly legal for the Queen to appoint anyone she likes as prime minister, as and when she likes.
Not that that would ever happen without parliamentary, and largely public, assent.

On the other hand Labour's popularity is currently spiraling and only likely to get worse with news like this... I personally feel a non-confidence vote is just around the corner and we can all help this along by writing to our MPs, protesting etc and making our discontent known.
But who would replace Brown? I can't think of any leadership candidate in Labour who would be so liked that s/he would turn around the party's fortunes between now and the next General Election. Moreover, having two new leaders of a political party within a year(ish) only weakens said party; see the effect it had on the Tories a few years back, and the nonsense the Lib Dems have had to deal with recently.

Already it's looking likely they'll get a back-bench rebellion and even defeat with their terror detention limit plans and the recent local elections put them third in the country behind the Liberal Democrats!
Aye, but council election results often differ wildly from parliamentary elections. Not that Labour isn't doing badly, but I don;t see the Lib Dems having greater numbers than Labour in Westminster just yet.

But who would replace Brown? I can't think of any leadership candidate in Labour who would be so liked that s/he would turn around the party's fortunes between now and the next General Election. Moreover, having two new leaders of a political party within a year(ish) only weakens said party; see the effect it had on the Tories a few years back, and the nonsense the Lib Dems have had to deal with recently.


That is the issue, it may force a general election, which can only be a good thing.


Aye, but council election results often differ wildly from parliamentary elections. Not that Labour isn't doing badly, but I don;t see the Lib Dems having greater numbers than Labour in Westminster just yet.

True, although i can see them becoming a more significant part of the opposition. However, I seriously doubt Labour will still be in power after the next general election. And given their current performance I think I almost might prefer Conservatives (and given my excessively left wing liberal views that's saying something about the current Labour government)

That is the issue, it may force a general election, which can only be a good thing.
Perhaps, but it's those who support the Labour party who'll be arguing whether Brown goes, not those who think they should be out of power.

I don't see it happening before the next GE.

Well I'm sure they get the media to create the impression to society that words like "asylum" are racist and instantly collapse society and everyone should panic when they are used... They pretty much managed to do that with anything racist.

That's why the BNP are banned and we have Winterval now...

This government must end. Now. By force, if needs be.
Why?

The government are even thinking about outlawing the word "Asylum" because its now "negative".

How can you restrict a language through law :(


In the part of Florida where I live, it's against the law to say the word "******." Seriously, not lying, it's a freaking misdemeanor. Not that I want to go around saying it every third word, but my argument is that it's a very slippery slope.

Just like banning books, then we progress to burning them. When a government starts limited the rights given to it's citizens it's only a matter of time before it gets out of hand.

Why?
Wouldn't you want to end repression and dictatorship?

Wouldn't you want to end repression and dictatorship?

There has to be repression and dictatorship before one can end it.

I tough you where talking about facebook

Wouldn't you want to end repression and dictatorship?
1) Not unless it's getting people in my country killed, no.

2) I see no repression or dictatorship in the UK. Oh noes, Gordon Brown took over from Blair without a vote... which was actually legit. So there we go. Oh noes, we have loads of cameras. Do cameras dictate what you should do, or repress you? No.

Do cameras dictate what you should do, or repress you? No.

But...but... they look at you with those cold, cold eyes...
Pitiless eyes that show no mercy.
Eyes that cause the souls of men to clench in fear.
Eyes.
Eyes that can see those drugs you are smuggling, and what sidearm your packing, depending on how good their vision is.

But...but... they look at you with those cold, cold eyes...
Pitiless eyes that show no mercy.
Eyes that cause the souls of men to clench in fear.
Eyes.
Eyes that can see those drugs you are smuggling, and what sidearm your packing, depending on how good their vision is.
I vote for cameras on the police at all times.