UK intel agencies spy indiscriminately on millions of innocent folks(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
UK intel agencies spy indiscriminately on millions of innocent folks
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/uk-secret-police-surveillance-bulk-personal-datasets/
9 comments
Hacker, yes. News - probably not.
I've depressingly come to accept this as part of being British.
I've depressingly come to accept this as part of being British.
I've heard China's less restrictive in some ways.
You can't call for the overthrow of the government in China or read about Tienanmen Square, but in Britain mildly positive remarks about designated terrorist groups or disparaging speech about minorities (like the man who argued with a Muslim woman and posted about it on Twitter) can get you arrested.
Even if this isn't true there's a perception of monitoring and risk which chills speech. Britain doesn't need too many lessons from the USA, but one exception would be the First Amendment.
You can't call for the overthrow of the government in China or read about Tienanmen Square, but in Britain mildly positive remarks about designated terrorist groups or disparaging speech about minorities (like the man who argued with a Muslim woman and posted about it on Twitter) can get you arrested.
Even if this isn't true there's a perception of monitoring and risk which chills speech. Britain doesn't need too many lessons from the USA, but one exception would be the First Amendment.
> like the man who argued with a Muslim woman and posted about it on Twitter) can get you arrested.
The important part is "argued with a Muslim woman" - in real life, AFK. Not "then posted about it on Twitter".
But the CPS were very clear that the police should not have arrested him, and that they definitely should not have charged him, and that the CPS would not prosecute.
The important part is "argued with a Muslim woman" - in real life, AFK. Not "then posted about it on Twitter".
But the CPS were very clear that the police should not have arrested him, and that they definitely should not have charged him, and that the CPS would not prosecute.
The important part, in my view, is "arrested". We have a police force that feels empowered to arrest people for what they say on Twitter and Facebook. And this wasn't the only occasion.
The effect of this kind of thing on what we feel free to say in public shouldn't be ignored.
The effect of this kind of thing on what we feel free to say in public shouldn't be ignored.
They did not arrest him for what he said on twitter. They arrested him because he confronted a woman in the street to racially harass her.
Twitter is just how they found out about it.
Twitter is just how they found out about it.
>But the CPS were very clear that the police should not have arrested him, and that they definitely should not have charged him, and that the CPS would not prosecute.
The police didn't have the authority to charge him - they needed the permission of the Attorney General first and they didn't bother to get it.
The police didn't have the authority to charge him - they needed the permission of the Attorney General first and they didn't bother to get it.
[deleted]
You can't do bulk data collection without spying on a significant amount of innocent people, can you?
GCHQ/government would claim people aren't spied on until an analyst looks at their data. They have normalised 'collect it all' and created a mental distinction between that and mass surveillance. Obviously running analysis on the data doesn't count as someone looking at it for this logic to work.
Is that the Copenhagen Interpretation of spying?
Unfortunately, this will not surprise many folks here
Is bulk data collection government regulated? Meaning, is it legal for a person to start building and sharing databases about other people e.g. about the same people working for the organizations mentioned in the article, MI5, MI6, GCHQ?
I'm not interested in doing that, just wondering whether there is a double standard for this kind of activity.
I'm not interested in doing that, just wondering whether there is a double standard for this kind of activity.
>Is bulk data collection government regulated? Meaning, is it legal for a person to start building and sharing databases about other people e.g. about the same people working for the organizations mentioned in the article, MI5, MI6, GCHQ?
Yes, the Data Protection Act implements a number of EU directives regarding personal information and privacy.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998
Yes, the Data Protection Act implements a number of EU directives regarding personal information and privacy.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998
But there is a blanket exclusion for the purposes of 'prevention and detection of crime'.
It is widely used by the Police (obviously) but also by the likes of insurance companies (e.g. unsubstantiated suspicious of "suspect" insurance claims) and high street shops (the major stores operate a facial recognition database of 'known' and 'suspected' shoplifters which they use to target people on entry to stores and either eject or detain them as they determine they want to do).
All you need to do is construct an argument about preventing and detecting crime and you're pretty much free to store and process whatever and however you want. The only case I've heard of this failing was in the building industry blacklist (which GCHQ helped create and was run by Sir Robert McAlpine, Balfour Beatty, Costain and Skanska Construction [1]).
Databases like that are part of the 'bulk collection' being used here. It has gone on since at least 1984 (the Telecommunications bill instigated the legal framework for it).
In the mid-80's, I worked in the UK with someone who was in the middle of some business dispute (normal business stuff, nothing unusual or noteworthy). A lot of the business involved dealing with military type customers who generally worked at the 'discreet' end of the business. In casual conversation with one customer, the dispute came up and frustration was expressed at the lack of ways to resolve it. A few days later a large envelope arrived with a complements slip from said customer, containing a huge ream of printouts of extremely personal and sensitive details on the business competitor, their businesses, their family and some choice friends. My colleague had the sense to burn the paperwork ASAP (but did look through it!) and was always way more careful about what and with who he discussed things afterwards.
From that incident, I know that any sort of record in the UK is fair game for GCHQ and it was normal for your doctor visits, bank records, credit records (purchase details), any store accounts etc. - everything - to be sucked up, even in the 80's. Any sort of political activism (of any type) moved you way up the interest & monitoring list, especially things like donations or driving your car near any sort of demo or sensitive site.
The irony was that 1984 was the year the UK made legislation for it. But it got way worse under Tony Blair, who is often chastised for treating Orwell's 1984 as an instruction manual rather than a warning.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/mar/03/blacklisted-...
It is widely used by the Police (obviously) but also by the likes of insurance companies (e.g. unsubstantiated suspicious of "suspect" insurance claims) and high street shops (the major stores operate a facial recognition database of 'known' and 'suspected' shoplifters which they use to target people on entry to stores and either eject or detain them as they determine they want to do).
All you need to do is construct an argument about preventing and detecting crime and you're pretty much free to store and process whatever and however you want. The only case I've heard of this failing was in the building industry blacklist (which GCHQ helped create and was run by Sir Robert McAlpine, Balfour Beatty, Costain and Skanska Construction [1]).
Databases like that are part of the 'bulk collection' being used here. It has gone on since at least 1984 (the Telecommunications bill instigated the legal framework for it).
In the mid-80's, I worked in the UK with someone who was in the middle of some business dispute (normal business stuff, nothing unusual or noteworthy). A lot of the business involved dealing with military type customers who generally worked at the 'discreet' end of the business. In casual conversation with one customer, the dispute came up and frustration was expressed at the lack of ways to resolve it. A few days later a large envelope arrived with a complements slip from said customer, containing a huge ream of printouts of extremely personal and sensitive details on the business competitor, their businesses, their family and some choice friends. My colleague had the sense to burn the paperwork ASAP (but did look through it!) and was always way more careful about what and with who he discussed things afterwards.
From that incident, I know that any sort of record in the UK is fair game for GCHQ and it was normal for your doctor visits, bank records, credit records (purchase details), any store accounts etc. - everything - to be sucked up, even in the 80's. Any sort of political activism (of any type) moved you way up the interest & monitoring list, especially things like donations or driving your car near any sort of demo or sensitive site.
The irony was that 1984 was the year the UK made legislation for it. But it got way worse under Tony Blair, who is often chastised for treating Orwell's 1984 as an instruction manual rather than a warning.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/mar/03/blacklisted-...
Thank you, on a second thought it might should be the collector's duty to voluntarily share the same data about her activity she collects. After all she does not seem to have any problem with it. Transparency should go both ways, but I guess it would be disregarded claiming it is against national interests.
Interesting how "folks" is replacing "people" even in headlines/journalism.
It feels extremely American (to a Brit).
Obama uses it a lot so that's probably at least part of it.
Really tugs at those heart strings.
So much for difference between US/UK and, say, China.
Which means that their data sets include everything that the NSA collects. And they don't have pesky (though effectively unenforced) NSA restrictions against spying on Americans.
Enjoy your lack of privacy!