141–150 of 241 posts
This seems simultaneously too intrusive, and yet not intrusive enough to actually benefit law enforcement. They are logging source and destination IPs. But to what end? What can that possibly prove? Surely the vast majority of crime occurs at the application level.
So essentially they're collecting net flow data on every citizen. It may be kind of fun to overload their storage by creating a ton of short connections, probably wouldn't be feasible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately this won’t tell you if the ISP is storing extra data in compliance with the Snooper’s Charter because legal compliance can override the GDPR. Basically, the law saying “you’re not allowed to tell anyone you hold this data” overrides an SAR and a legal case to force compliance would likely fail on these grounds.
Does the charter specifically forbid companies from reporting what they store? I'm not familiar with it in detail. I'd be surprised..
Same as getting a request from the NCA asking for details on an individual, can't disclose that you received one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my view privacy has more layers. It has layers of personal data (name, social security, medical records), user-produced data (your family photos), communication (chat) and metadata (ad tracking). Lately I have seen ad tracking put in the same group as personal data. I don't think they deserve the same level of protection. I think total privacy is fools' gold. We always ask for total transparency from our governmen…
But who are “they” to “ask even a little of it from us”. With all due respect but this sounds as if “they” are not the people we send there to manage _our_ countries, but rather a cast of all loving all watching overloads that we should feed a bit of our freedoms now and then to keep us fed, safe and well. And we all know how that worked in history.
Is there anything I can do about this as a citizen to protect my privacy?
This seems simultaneously too intrusive, and yet not intrusive enough to actually benefit law enforcement. They are logging source and destination IPs. But to what end? What can that possibly prove? Surely the vast majority of crime occurs at the application level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a person from the UK, no I've not forgotten. The difference here (and this is NOT excusing them) is that you've gone from a series of systems which didn't officially exist, accessible from the select few of intelligence agencies and no doubt secure as hell into private ones which are controlled by people like BT. Yep, BT. The same BT who are laying off 10k staff this year because they need to cut costs. This isn't…
Why does anybody other than policing and security agencies need access to this stuff? NHS? Fire and rescue? WHAT? They don't have a role in investigating crime. Okay the fire brigade do post-fire analysis of possible arson etc. but that's not something you need access to somebody's internet history for.
If it's that serious, have them ask an intelligence agency to investigate and report - as they do anyway today. They don't need direct access.
But yes, crazy that the Food Standards Agency always end up on this list. Must be someone who knows someone.