Community | October 16, 2008 | 15 comments

Government unveils expanded 'Big Brother' plan

Image
synclaire
Plans for a massive expansion of ‘Big Brother’ state surveillance to cover every phone call, email, text message and internet visit in Britain were unveiled yesterday.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith claimed
that storing details of individuals’ communications was vital to prevent further terrorist atrocities.

Activities which will be subject to snooping for the first time include visits
to social networking sites such as Facebook, auction sites such as eBay, gaming websites and chatrooms.

Police and security services will not be
able to access the precise content but will know each site visited, and to whom and when a phone call, text message or email was sent.

If this sets alarm bells ringing, they could seek a Ministerial warrant to intercept exactly what is being sent, including the content.

The billions of pieces of data are likely
to be stored for a year or more. The cost
is estimated to be at least £1billion, and
could be far higher.

Last night MPs and privacy groups attacked the proposals as 'Stalinist', 'Orwellian' and a reversal of the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

One opponent said: ‘They are making us all suspects.’

A leaked memo written by sources close to the project revealed it was fraught with technical difficulties.

Officials are split between placing the vast amount of data to be collected on a huge central Government database or forcing service providers to store the information,
to be accessed on demand.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   WTF,   1 more
  2. tags:
    News Politics News and Politics WTF 4 more
  3.     
    |

15 comments // Government unveils expanded 'Big Brother' plan

  • deafboyone
    • 0
      deafboyone  
    • Being downunder (hurrah! away from UK politics) i'd not seen the name Jacqui Smith before. Given the nature of the "beast" she feels compelled to act in good faith Im sure. She has her constituency to think of... Would this be front line news if she say poured money into ? well what else do Home Secretaries spend money on? Whatever her reasons Im sure shes gone for "biggest bang/biggest buck avenue" not to make a name for herself but because its the nature of the beast (our system). We vote politicians in not for their expertise in a certain field but because they are more popular than another candidate, now if your skill in life is to secure the popular vote and nothing else... What do you expect? From a Deaf perspective we have our secret language (banned right up to the 80s would u believe?) Sign Language is so visual - if you understand it then its hardly confidential. Im torn between sympathy for the hearing world not having their "whispers" overheard... but then why are you whispering? Regards DeafboyOne

    • 4 years ago
  • Echelon
    • 0
      Echelon  
    • The only surprise here is that they actually announced and admitted to their intent.

      The NSA has had a similar global-scale system for decades. The system can monitor e-mails, phone calls, radio transmissions, satellite signals and et cetera for "trigger" words and phrases ("bomb", "hijack", "assassinate" and et cetera) as well as data patterns that, when detected, are brought to the attention of intelligence officials. In fact, I lay money that the previous sentence just set off a few bells somewhere. :-)

      The existence of the system (Echelon) has been vigorously denied for quite some time; however, as rumor has it, organized groups across the globe decided to force the NSA's hand and call its bluff. A few particular days of the year were allegedly chosen on which to originate, in massive volumes, the triggers that the system is designed to seek out. In essence, the system was allegedly "force-fed" that which it sought until it choked and puked.

      I find it interesting that the Brits have openly expressed concern over the technical weaknesses of mass tracking and storage capacity within their own version of the system, not to mention the potentially massive cost in terms of money to store the data and manpower to execute all those "warrantless" warrants, should their system be force-fed. If I were designing such a system to violate your rights, I most certainly would not tell you its weaknesses for you to exploit. Mind-boggling.

      Also, with all of the hacking into wireless networks, remote-access spyware and botnets going on out there these days, it seems unfeasible to know for sure that a particular user tied to a particular internet access account is actually the user who set off the alarms, which would make for even more wasted manpower to execute warrantless warrants. In other words, if I hack into your network or sucker you into installing malware and then use your external IP address to set off the alarms, you get popped for it. I worry about this because I have reason to believe that my wireless network has been accessed without my authorization to do God knows what, as I have seen on numerous occasions web sites in my router logs that I am certain I have not accessed.

      In any case, this could be a potentially huge business opportunity, spawning the next generation of anonymous proxy servers, shell-game systems and encrypted virtual private networks/software... not an entirely bad scenario in my opinion.

    • 4 years ago
  • 1percent
  • jonny2times
    • 0
      jonny2times  
    • subtle fascism. you're free to say whatever you want, but we will always be listening. what we cannot take away we will tax and license. you were free by nature, american by birth.

    • 4 years ago
  • klane83
    • 0
      klane83  
    • Since when does spying on people encourage those people to do better. it just makes me, want to leave my own country, it doesn't make me feel any safer. It makes me feel like it is getting to a point where any one at any time can make up a story about you, and if they can create things to only suggest that you might be involved, bam you are a focus of "terrorism". i didnt know having the mind to speak out about un-constitutional happenings could make you a terrorist.
      Though you are born in a "free" country, you will never be free unless you demand it. or have a lot of money to buy your own island.

    • 4 years ago
  • ThoughtNu
    • 0
      ThoughtNu  
    • The further we get away from '1984', the more important it is to understanding our present. All people involved have opposed this measure, but it remains; year after year. Elections have no effect; shouldn't that tell the numb masses a little about the true structure of power?

      Counter terrorism experts repeatedly say it is a waste of resources.... Complaining to politicians does nothing, but set a later date for it's implementation....hmn Freedom for whom and who's benefit?

      Not the people,politicians or counter terrorism experts ... then who? Bankers perhaps?

    • 4 years ago
  • armchaircritic
  • dirtyemowords
  • abbym0308
  • isnamthere
  • purplefox
    • 0
      purplefox  
    • I find it incredible that they're going ahead with this despite serious concerns and criticism raised by counter-terrorism experts who say that it'll make no difference to the country's security. I'm not liking these kinds of measures.

    • 4 years ago
  • asherp
  • abbym0308
    • 0
      abbym0308  
    • Image
    • Nope, this plan has been in the works for a while, just pretty much under the radar. The original plan was to have this thing go through on 31st October (the 'public consultation' having ended on that version on 6 August).
      But now they've added social networks as targets and are putting it back up for debate in January 2009. We should be making noise about this. BIG NOISE.

    • 4 years ago
  • emmahill
    • 0
      emmahill  
    • Image
    • Hasn't this plan been put on hold? ... The Metro are reporting that the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced the plans will be put up for public consultation in the spring.

      This after Lord Carlile, the government's independent scrutineer, told The Register "the raw idea [of a central database] is dreadful."

    • 4 years ago
  • abbym0308
    • 0
      abbym0308  
    • Image
    • The government's own watchdog warned that this plan is seriously flawed yesterday. The government has a disappointing track record with keeping private data safe. The idea that gathering data from every citizen as a means of protection is completely off the mark. If anything, it opens all of us up to people who want to take advantage of a central database. This must be stopped.

    • 4 years ago
more from Community:

top videos