Data Communications Bill, Fingerprinting children, what comes next? Options

[x2lls]

In the same vein as the current thread re schools fingerprinting children.



The government plans to monitor all UK citizens online communication, with retention set to one year, for now.
On the page ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20045818 ), one section states :-
It does not include the content of messages - what is being said. Officers will need a warrant to see that. So, if the content is not being stored, How can it later be seen?


I find this very disturbing.

Another irritant, there is no 'your comments' link on the report.

[user23]

It does not include the content of messages - what is being said. Officers will need a warrant to see that. So, if the content is not being stored, How can it later be seen?

A record of your activities is stored now, by your ISP.

[x2lls]

A record of your activities is stored now, by your ISP.

Yes, that is a given, this is about more than that.



To what extent would that be?

A record can take many guises. Just the fact that you connected or the entire content of any data flow.

Emails sent/recieved... Just the adresses, or the contents of those emails?
You go to moonpig, send a card. How much of that transaction is captured?
Online banking?

[Timbo]

A record of your activities is stored now, by your ISP.

To a point there.
They can see what sort of websites you've been on but not necessarily what you actually do.
Especially if a webpage has an active applet within in.

They do not store and are unable to read IMs, emails neither can they listen into Skype or similar VoIP calls from your desktop unless they are patched into your local network. Emails - most of it on say Gmail you log onto Googles Server which your ISP can't see. they can't tell your password or anything. They could find your email address but not actually get into it. Unless Google (in this example) gives them your emails.

I think the issue is the internet represents freedom to so many people, freedom of speech (which is slowly being taken away of course) and a few other things, and despite the fact that record sales would be no different there is the big push in terms of piracy which is always a reason behind anything relating to "online monitoring".

It's becoming quite the big brother nation. More so than it is now.

[Andy Capp]

Notwithstanding international crime and political subversion.

[x2lls]

Notwithstanding international crime and political subversion.

That is very true.

But we shouldn't be using hammers to crack nuts, particularly hammers that are not in secure hands. The government are just crap at technology.

Even Gordon brown admitted it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...rdon-Brown.html

[Squelchy]

The government are just crap at technology.
Even Gordon brown admitted it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...rdon-Brown.html

No he didn't. That article from the Daily Hate of four years ago has him saying that it's the 'human' side of things that's iffy.

"It is important to recognise that we cannot promise that every single item of information will always be safe because mistakes are made by human beings"

I suspect that observation would be made by ALL of the party leaders over the last 20 years.

Not only should there be a national database of fingerprints (taken from as young an age as possible) but a DNA sample should be taken from every child born in the U.K. (That way you also have matches for it's parents as well). That database should be on-going and forever.

[Biker1]

No he didn't. That article from the Daily Hate of four years ago has him saying that it's the 'human' side of things that's iffy.

Cracks me up the way all these comments come out about the Daily Mail yet it is the second biggest selling daily!
Who's right and who's wrong?

[Andy Capp]

Cracks me up the way all these comments come out about the Daily Mail yet it is the second biggest selling daily!
Who's right and who's wrong?

X factor and soaps are the most popular TV programs. Popularity is not necessarily a good measure of integrity. Look at Jimmy Savile.

[Andy Capp]

No he didn't. That article from the Daily Hate of four years ago has him saying that it's the 'human' side of things that's iffy.

"It is important to recognise that we cannot promise that every single item of information will always be safe because mistakes are made by human beings"

Which reinforces 2xlls's point.

[Biker1]

X factor and soaps are the most popular TV programs. Popularity is not necessarily a good measure of integrity. Look at Jimmy Savile.

Good point, The Sun is the most popular. Can't think why though..................oh, maybe a couple of things!!

Mind you, not sure many Daily Mail readers watch "X Factor"!

[x2lls]

No he didn't. That article from the Daily Hate of four years ago has him saying that it's the 'human' side of things that's iffy.

"It is important to recognise that we cannot promise that every single item of information will always be safe because mistakes are made by human beings"

I suspect that observation would be made by ALL of the party leaders over the last 20 years.

Not only should there be a national database of fingerprints (taken from as young an age as possible) but a DNA sample should be taken from every child born in the U.K. (That way you also have matches for it's parents as well). That database should be on-going and forever.

Why should there be?

[Weavers Walk]

Cracks me up the way all these comments come out about the Daily Mail yet it is the second biggest selling daily!
Who's right and who's wrong?

Are you saying that because the Mail has a big readership it's reporting is truthful and not biased then? What a odd assumption to make.

[x2lls]

Are you saying that because the Mail has a big readership it's reporting is truthful and not biased then? What a odd assumption to make.

I think the assumption, is in your post.

There is a lot of newspaper snobbery, where people are judged by the paper they read.

Most of those that slate a newspaper are doing so to defend themselves against an assumption that if they admit to reading a particluar rag, they will be tarnished with the general public view of said rags political agenda.

[Weavers Walk]

I think the assumption, is in your post.

You may think that, but try as I might, I can find no assumption at all. Only a question based on what Biker1 had previously written.

Conversation between he and me. Nothing to do with you. Wind yer neck in. (or learn the difference between an assumption and a question)

[x2lls]

You may think that, but try as I might, I can find no assumption at all. Only a question based on what Biker1 had previously written.

Conversation between he and me. Nothing to do with you. Wind yer neck in. (or learn the difference between an assumption and a question)

It's everything to do with me and a few others, you are using a public forum.

You asked a question, then answered it yourself. An assumption if ever there was one.

You found an assumption, and thought it odd.

[taxpayer]

Are you saying that because the Mail has a big readership it's reporting is truthful and not biased then? What a odd assumption to make.

And conversely, just because a paper has a small readership does that mean they are not biased?

[Weavers Walk]

And conversely, just because a paper has a small readership does that mean they are not biased

No, who said that?

[dannyboy]

And conversely, just because a paper has a small readership does that mean they are not biased?

small readership say like the British Patriot?

[blackdog]

All papers are biassed - it's impossible not to be. The extent of their readership is, to some extent, a measure of how popular their particular bias might be.