EDIT: changing the name of this thread to make it more general. for data monitoring, surveillance, and general stories of thee coming big brotherhood.

quote:

Plans for a super-database containing the details of all phone calls and e-mails sent in the UK have been heavily criticised by experts.

The government is considering the changes as part of its ongoing fight against serious crime and terrorism.

According to Gus Hosein, a senior fellow at Privacy International, the latest proposals could be even more controversial.

"The idea that ISPs need to collect data and send it en masse to central government is, without doubt, illegal," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7410885.stm

just reading this idea alone makes me sick. limulus and i were discussing the different attitudes to ID Cards between the UK and France. things like this and our governments incompetence at data security are why some of us are very, very much against ID cards and email databases. email database, bloody idiots.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: King Real,

The thing that always strikes me as a problem with these techniques (the US's "Echelon" idea, for example) is: how on *earth* is anyone supposed to make sense out of the data kept? Wouldn't the signal to noise ratio lean far toward the noise?

in real terms, yes, keeping track of particular data would be a hell of a headache. i'm sure no one really, really comprehends just how much mail/sms traffic there is on a daily basis. i guess in terms of combatting terrorism they would use key words and flag terms. though, of course, those would be easily avoided by referring to bombs as rain, and civillians as sheep... for example.

for me its partly principle. i don't like the base assumption that they even have any right, whatsoever, just to store my email for the sake of storing my email. i'm not naive, i know everything i write is out there somewhere on a server, and that under certain circumstances they could get hold of it. but i trust that those circumstances are reasonably slight.

but its also, like the article mentions, security. the british government's current reocrd of data protection is laughable, and if there was any justice there should have been some pretty serious questions asked, and some pretty serious answers given. i'm sure someone who could access that kind of information for their own ends would quickly find ways of using that information and it wouldn't especially need the same kind of processing that would be required for official use. though, of course, thats in the worst case scenario, and on the assumption that discs filled with databases didn't simply fall down the back of a filling cabinet.

and then there is the cost, how these kind of projects never run on time or to budget, and that of course those budget over runs come out of our tax money...and before we know it, we've spent billions on something that doesn't work and we find that tomorrow the country is in an even shittier state than it was yesterday.

bah!

But, boy, wouldn't it be great to have all that funding, eh, Justy? Look good on the ol' resumé. Was in charge of multi-billion pound privacy invasion project. Didn't work, but I left the project before that happened, to apply for this job. In the private sector. 's'not technically my fault, then, innit?

I think better tracking of net traffic might be a good idea. If the government only tracked the to/from, size and time of communications, while recognizing that the content was generally private, would that assuage some of your concerns?

In return, better tracking would make prosecution of spam, child pornography and other network crimes much easier. It would also help with intercepting DDOS attacks and similar disruptions. Given the extent that many of our systems now depend on the global telecommunications network, I'm in favor of taking steps to protect its integrity.

quote:

Originally posted by BlueShift:
I think better tracking of net traffic might be a good idea. If the government only tracked the to/from, size and time of communications, while recognizing that the content was generally private, would that assuage some of your concerns?

Not really.

As an example, I work at the coalface of government lead IT in the health service. The problem is that ministers come up with what they think is a good idea and it never is, and no-one tells them it is not feasible. So it becomes policy, and they hire lots of bigwigs for big salaries to implement the policy, and of course, they're not about to turn round and tell anyone it's not feasible, they just do the job for a few years then get out before they get found out, with a nice fat pension. In the meantime they have got in lots of private companies to do the work on huge contracts, and they're not about to tell anyone it's not feasible, because the shareholders wouldn't like it. Then, after 15 year of missed deadlines and unworkable software and billions of pounds poured down the drain, they blame it on the end user.

Meanwhile, in my department, we're stuck with a system that is in parts 30 years old because they cut the funding of a few million pounds for the perfectly feasible system that I was originally employed to write when I started in the health service 16 years ago.

ah, but it has nothing to do with stopping spam/child porn, its about TERROR!!!!!

and surely they can already take steps to deal with spam/child porn without having to save every single email. and besides, how can they tell that the photo attachment is your holiday pics versus something it shouldn't be?

and like kradlum says, our government have a long proven history of being utter fucks up in this department, so it would be pretty hard for me to support this ever.

quote:

Originally posted by Justy:
Wouldn't the signal to noise ratio lean far toward the noise?

Perhaps it becomes an encyclopedia.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: matthew,

quote:

Originally posted by matthew:

quote:

Originally posted by Justy:
Wouldn't the signal to noise ratio lean far toward the noise?

Perhaps it becomes an encyclopedia.

some folks across the aisle from me at work do stuff with Markov chains. It can be also be used for risk assessment and the flavor called Hidden Markov Models has been used in epidemiology & marketing but the method can also be leveraged to identify networks of behavior (social networks, drug trafficing, terrorist-related activities, etc).

Regarding images, the technology for computer-identified image content is imminent. Its an impressive demonstration, but the jaws audibly drop to the floor around 3min 45sec.

from Slashdot

quote:

"'New research that makes creative use of sensitive location-tracking data from 100,000 cellphones in Europe suggests that most people can be found in one of just a few locations at any time, and that they do not generally go far from home.' More interesting than their conclusion, however, is how they got their data. 'The researchers said they used the potentially controversial data only after any information that could identify individuals had been scrambled. Even so, they wrote, people's wanderings are so subject to routine that by using the patterns of movement that emerged from the research, "we can obtain the likelihood of finding a user in any location." The researchers were able to obtain the data from a European provider of cellphone service that was obligated to collect the information. By agreement with the company, the researchers did not disclose the country where the provider operates.' Any guesses which European country requires cell phone providers to record where their customers make calls, and then allows them to give that data away without disclosing that they have done so?"

CCTV cameras which use artificial intelligence software are being developed to "hear" sounds like windows smashing, researchers have revealed.

The news comes after the BBC learned councils in southern England routinely used powers brought in to fight terrorism and crime to spy on people.

You might want to avoid Yorkshire, Splitcoil.

Stores do that here with hoodies, I always tell 'em to go get fucked, usually while holding a hundred dollar bill.

If they want the money, they'll put up with my attire.

quote:

Originally posted by remotepush:
CCTV cameras which use artificial intelligence software are being developed to "hear" sounds like windows smashing, researchers have revealed.

The news comes after the BBC learned councils in southern England routinely used powers brought in to fight terrorism and crime to spy on people.

I'm pretty sure they have sensors in Chicago that can triangulate a gunshot already.

quote:

Originally posted by fuldog:
You might want to avoid Yorkshire, Splitcoil.

The cretins. And people say Americans have given up their rights.

I don't know anything of British hat etiquette, but over here, entering a post office or bank would not require you to take off your hat. Unless you entered an elevator with a lady inside, a small private office in the building, or sat at someone's desk. Wouldn't have to take it off in a pub either, if you were sitting at the bar.

Fuck the man.

quote:

I always tell 'em to go get fucked, usually while holding a hundred dollar bill.

Does this shit count as Big Brother?

Big Brother, Inc?

Not as scary as governmental surveillance, perhaps, but no doubt much, much more annoying and pervasive.

I guess, theoretically, you'd only notice goverment surveillance if you did something wrong. Theoretically.

Though it's a sure bet they'd be on your arse 24/7 with this shit.

quote:

I guess, theoretically, you'd only notice goverment surveillance if you did something wrong. Theoretically.

Not quite.

We really bent over for this admin. They, in turn, shoved it in balls deep and broke it right the hell off.

Dude! Theoretically!

It's bad enough friggin' Optus keeps telling me I could be winning tickets to the next Thirsty Merc concert or what-the-fuck ever.

I'm pretty sure that we don't have laptop searches. But then, it only takes one US Government official to say, "Oh, you're not gonna implement the searches? Yeeeeaaaah, look, I'm sorry we've decided not to sell the Joint Strike Fighter to foreign militaries. Lockheed says thanks for the donation of billions of dollars, though."

lol...yup.