Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Britain passed the “most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy”

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 302 posts

Re: Britain passed the “most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy”

#121

Post by dx034 »

lucaspiller wrote: post #94
grownseed wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Been using these guys for a few years now, best use of $40/yr. You'll occasionally get blocked on certain sites (which you can often fix by simply changing location), but their infrastructure is definitely impressive. I get to use the full speed of my connection, which ironically is not always the case when I'm not connected through PIA (there's definitely some selective throttling going on, even though my ISP preten…

Does Netflix work through it? I have an DO box that I use as a VPN, and Netflix has blocked it recently.

Don't think so. Netflix got really good at blocking all vpn and datacentre ips

Re: Britain passed the “most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy”

#122

Post by simopaa »

pjc50 wrote: post #23
rubberstamp wrote: post #19

Will the citizens allow it to be passed if they knew about it via some news source? Of course "news" now a days is about kardarshians or justin beiber than about things that requires serious attention. This may have hardly got tiny little square cm area in newspapers or 30 seconds air time. Thus sinks democracy. People who are informed are way less in number than non-informed people, but all get to vote thus diluting…

Quite a lot of them would be in favour of it as a means of "fighting terrorism". It's not so much what is reported as how it's spun. The really big thing is the "internet connection record": every TCP connection you make is supposed to be logged by the ISP: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... (just look at that list of justifications. Of course! It's about catching paedos! The all purpose…

This sounds like a potential (new?) attack type though. Just have software that pings certain illegal websites and bam - the target is now a paedo or whatever the attacker wishes.

Re: Britain passed the “most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy”

#124

Post by datamoshr »

hackuser wrote: post #84
datamoshr wrote: post #44

As a UK resident, this irks me beyond belief. It's a sickening invasion of human rights[1]. To echo u/rubberstamps sentiments, it's such that there's been little to no coverage of this in the media. But it's the same everywhere, introduce an encroaching bill, have uproar from those with the heads screwed on (the minority). Let it grow a little stale in the publics eye and keep reintroducing with slight alterations it…

Learn political organizing skills, which address these issues: How to build awareness, appeal to people, organize them, etc. As many veterans of past civil rights battles have said: Don't get mad, organize!

I've just started out freelancing, this is the kick in the pants I need to fill my downtime.

Re: Britain passed the “most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy”

#125

Post by dx034 »

WordyMcWordface wrote: post #4

I will just leave this here: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com

Used hide.me so far. Speeds there were really good and the company is not located in Europe or us.

But this is much cheaper, any experience? Especially using it in the UK, does it increase latency significantly?

Re: Britain passed the “most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy”

#126

Post by petercooper »

s_kilk wrote: post #12

> Despite the uproar, the government's opposition failed to scrutinize any significant amendments and abstained from the final vote. Killock said recently that the opposition Labour party spent its time "simply failing to hold the government to account". What the hell is the point of the Labour party these days? They are absolutely not an effective opposition. Worthless bastards, one and all.

What the hell is the point of the Labour party these days? They are absolutely not an effective opposition.

Hear, hear. They've even done a 180 over Brexit, which they now support, against the majority of their supporters.

Labour claims this is because they respect the referendum, which is ridiculous. It'd be like the Democrats becoming pro-life and anti-immigrant to "respect" the presidential election. You don't just give up your own ideals and platform for what won - well, not unless you're the modern Labour party.

Re: Britain passed the “most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy”

#127

Post by duaneb »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #51
24gttghh wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anonymity not imply privacy?

No, due to browsers leaking data and state actors controlling tor end points. They still know know someone out there is doing something, and can build ad profiles and threat profiles on them, they just can't link those profiles to you easily: that is anonymity. Privacy would be inability to build useful profiles.

Is that ever possible? Every interaction is going to have side channels and fingerprints.

Re: Britain passed the “most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy”

#128

Post by godelski »

TheGrumpyBrit wrote: post #41
rubberstamp wrote: post #19

Will the citizens allow it to be passed if they knew about it via some news source? Of course "news" now a days is about kardarshians or justin beiber than about things that requires serious attention. This may have hardly got tiny little square cm area in newspapers or 30 seconds air time. Thus sinks democracy. People who are informed are way less in number than non-informed people, but all get to vote thus diluting…

They not only allowed it to pass, a disturbing number support it. The "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" line has been rolled out in force, and if you express concern in public about this bill, you get suspicious looks. What sites are you visiting that you're so nervous about the government seeing? Some kind of terrorist or pedophile, are you? Then those same people will go home and download torrents of the latest mo…

I think that is the key difference. People feel like these are only minor infractions and that those that have the data will only go after the "real" bad guys. Not realizing that there is a thin line being tread in that argument. Especially since historically we've seen movie studios able to get the data to send cease and desist letters. I also don't think people realize how easy it is to sift through that data.

Also I find it interesting that argument holds so much ground since it has been the catch phrase of tyrannical governments for a hundred years. In Sinclair's "The Profits of Religion: An Essay in Economic Interpretation" and from the mouth of Goebbels. Usually people try to distance themselves as far as possible from the NAZIs.

Re: Britain passed the “most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy”

#129

Post by vanderreeah »

anondon wrote: post #63

What is the easiest way to explain to the average citizen that the "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument is not a good reason to let the Government keep tabs on your online activities? Most people don't give any thought to online privacy that it truly scares me.

Logically speaking, hundchenkatze's riposte seems best: that hiding and privacy are two different things.

Practically speaking, I believe it's impossible to convince most people, including myself, to change their behaviour online. In my opinion this is because most people feel detached from any instrumental or guiding role in their society. They simply have no agency, no say in what is done to them and what is done in their name. Because of this perceived abyss between them and the state, the notion that its magnifying glass will be turned, one day in the future, upon them personally, is incredible. The distance is too great. And because they feel like they have no stake in the fate of their society, their browsing habits are anyway innocuous: they probably rightly think that they won't raise any flags. To leap from that state of affairs to a future in which individuals start to be singled out for their browsing habits requires an effort of the imagination that most of us don't have the time or energy to undertake in the detail needed for it to be realistic or even actionable.

Re: Britain passed the “most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy”

#130

Post by jwtadvice »

ablation wrote: post #120

As other people have said, there are a few steps you can take to protect yourself in the near to medium term future: 1) Use Signal 2) Use Tor 3) Use a VPN 4) Reduce your digital footprint - especially if you use social media What was once paranoid fantasy now just seems like prudence. What a time to be alive, eh?

1) Signal does not and can not protect information about who you are in contact with, when you contact or are contacted by them, and how long your conversation is.

2) Tor has been both infiltrated organizationally, academically broken, and is occupied by police on most of its exit nodes. This without the operational burden it puts on users. Tor is 'just okay' at protecting users, and should never be used alone.

3) Use a VPN you can trust. Most VPN (especially cheap and free services) are monitored by state police.

4) To add here, try not to have your pictures and locations uploaded online and do not carry a cell phone.

I want to add to the list:

5) Do NOT be a target. This is the opposite rule of the usual "if you have nothing to hide": DO NOT have anything to hide. Your opponents in the game of 'hide' are intelligence agencies and state police. It's much better that you comply and focus on narrow interesting technical problems than social or civil rights - as being outspoken and interested about the latter makes you a target.

Post reply on HN