Snooper's Charter ?

Messages
1,245
#1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34715872

Could this mean that my ISP will have to keep records of all the sex sites I look at ? Not all THAT many but I like to look at some of the "milder ones" ;) !
Will UKE, UKP and AW be considered sex sites ?
Can't they create some sort of filters to allow them only to snoop on people accessing "terrorist" type sites or those showing pedophile images ? I'm a bit of a dunce about internet filters, so have no idea at all whether or not this could be possible.
Anyone able to shed more light on this, please ?
 
Messages
20
#2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34715872

Could this mean that my ISP will have to keep records of all the sex sites I look at ? Not all THAT many but I like to look at some of the "milder ones" ;) !
Will UKE, UKP and AW be considered sex sites ?
Can't they create some sort of filters to allow them only to snoop on people accessing "terrorist" type sites or those showing pedophile images ? I'm a bit of a dunce about internet filters, so have no idea at all whether or not this could be possible.
Anyone able to shed more light on this, please ?
Yes they will record everything and store it for a year. No they will not be selective as they can claim any website might be a terrorist front.
I fully expect they will extend the time period at some point in the future and also store far more. Snowden's revelations show it is possible for them to suck up unimaginable amounts of data.
 
Messages
1,245
#3
Yes they will record everything and store it for a year. No they will not be selective as they can claim any website might be a terrorist front.
I fully expect they will extend the time period at some point in the future and also store far more. Snowden's revelations show it is possible for them to suck up unimaginable amounts of data.
Frightening :scare: !
 
Messages
12,964
#4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34715872

Could this mean that my ISP will have to keep records of all the sex sites I look at ? Not all THAT many but I like to look at some of the "milder ones" ;) !
Will UKE, UKP and AW be considered sex sites ?
Can't they create some sort of filters to allow them only to snoop on people accessing "terrorist" type sites or those showing pedophile images ? I'm a bit of a dunce about internet filters, so have no idea at all whether or not this could be possible.
Anyone able to shed more light on this, please ?
The spooks who liase with the police can already do this and more as Edward Snowden as shown, we are under state survellience as and when they decide. What this does is legitimate snooping legally so it might help get a conviction in court. ISPs know exactly what sites we look at anyway.

No new laws are needed, there are already more than enough laws that restrict my personal freedom in my view, and I utterly reject the view of if you haven't anything to hide whats the problem, that's not the point to me, I don't want the states nose in my legal business as it is NOT their business what I do within the law.
 
#5
Unfortunately, the whole of the World Wide Web is now so available to whoever wants to use it that I can see no workable alternative to the Snoops` Charter. Literally any site, however apparently innocent its content, could be supplying information, making plots, brainwashing the unwary, etc. that the spycatchers will have to investigate literally everything. I find the whole idea as objectionable as everyone else here, but we have to realise that ,like it or not, we are now at war with an enemy who not only inhabits a foreign land but who also lives and works among us,who will have no hesitation or compunction in visiting the most appalling atrocities upon our population and who is prepared to undergo martyrdom in the furtherance of such atrocities.

I would be prepared to allow ANY investigation into my online activities if it will help prevent a terrorist blowing up a `bus or a plane or a concert hall full of innocent people.

My only disagreement with the idea is the fact that when a terrorist is discovered we are not allowed to stone him/her to death in the market square of whatever town he inhabited.
 
Messages
9,468
#6
As long as they do not criminalise punters (Nordic model) and I can continue to visit ladies they can have my shorts if they want them.
Just stay out of our bedrooms that is all I ask. :(
 
Messages
1,245
#7
Unfortunately, the whole of the World Wide Web is now so available to whoever wants to use it that I can see no workable alternative to the Snoops` Charter. Literally any site, however apparently innocent its content, could be supplying information, making plots, brainwashing the unwary, etc. that the spycatchers will have to investigate literally everything. I find the whole idea as objectionable as everyone else here, but we have to realise that ,like it or not, we are now at war with an enemy who not only inhabits a foreign land but who also lives and works among us,who will have no hesitation or compunction in visiting the most appalling atrocities upon our population and who is prepared to undergo martyrdom in the furtherance of such atrocities.

I would be prepared to allow ANY investigation into my online activities if it will help prevent a terrorist blowing up a `bus or a plane or a concert hall full of innocent people.

My only disagreement with the idea is the fact that when a terrorist is discovered we are not allowed to stone him/her to death in the market square of whatever town he inhabited.
I agree with most of what you say, Greek Scientist, but I can't agree with the bit about "stoning to death". Would that not that simply be our stooping to their own, barbaric level ?
Can anyone really suppose that if I choose to look at " Big Bouncy Boobs dot com" or even "spread legs and open pussies dot com" that I am a latent terrorist looking to stuff a stick of dynamite where I would prefer to stuff something else ?
That just does not compute in my, admittedly not so good, brain these days, but the "eye for an eye" thing seems all wrong to me.
 
Messages
1,245
#8
The spooks who liase with the police can already do this and more as Edward Snowden as shown, we are under state survellience as and when they decide. What this does is legitimate snooping legally so it might help get a conviction in court. ISPs know exactly what sites we look at anyway.

No new laws are needed, there are already more than enough laws that restrict my personal freedom in my view, and I utterly reject the view of if you haven't anything to hide whats the problem, that's not the point to me, I don't want the states nose in my legal business as it is NOT their business what I do within the law.
Sound sense from you as always :hi::drinks:
Your "within the law" statement just sums it up for me, and if I stay there, what the f**k has it got to do with MI5/6, GCHQ, Plod, or anyone else for that matter ?
I don't mind to admitting to being a Dirty Old Man on a forum such as this, but why should all those government agencies be interested or allowed to pry into an old man's personal life, FFS ?
 
Messages
12,964
#9
Sound sense from you as always :hi::drinks:
Your "within the law" statement just sums it up for me, and if I stay there, what the f**k has it got to do with MI5/6, GCHQ, Plod, or anyone else for that matter ?
I don't mind to admitting to being a Dirty Old Man on a forum such as this, but why should all those government agencies be interested or allowed to pry into an old man's personal life, FFS ?
I make a big distinction between being interested and being allowed, as I am not breaking the law I very much doubt they would be interested, but they are allowed if they decide to. But as I said Snowden has showed they have been doing what they like for years anyway, so really its no change IF you aren't breaking the law.

As ever the danger is if the state does decide to get interested in my legal business at some stage, and even more big brother results. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, has this never been the end result to giving the state too much power and control. Orwells 1984 really isn't that far off if we aren't careful in my opinion, I see it as the inevitable conclusion of the if you haven't anything to hide whats the problem argument, though I am not saying it will happen anytime soon.
 
Messages
12,964
#10
I agree with most of what you say, Greek Scientist, but I can't agree with the bit about "stoning to death". Would that not that simply be our stooping to their own, barbaric level ?
Can anyone really suppose that if I choose to look at " Big Bouncy Boobs dot com" or even "spread legs and open pussies dot com" that I am a latent terrorist looking to stuff a stick of dynamite where I would prefer to stuff something else ?
That just does not compute in my, admittedly not so good, brain these days, but the "eye for an eye" thing seems all wrong to me.
I don't agree with the death penalty anyway due to this countries appalling record of murderers being convicted so would of been executed but were later released and totally innocent. Only if it were 100% foolproof would I agree with the death penalty. I don't have 100% faith in the police, CPS, forensics or courts that mistakes wouldn't occur resulting in the state wrongly murdering an innocent person and people.

IMO what should happen is being sent to prison should only be part of the punishment, there should be no TV, no other luxuries and work even if confined to their cells should be mandatory, if they cant be found work that helps others then sowing mailbags or suchlike would be just fine.

On the point some like to mention on this, yes of course if family or friends of mine were murdered I would like to see the murderer/s dead, but that's not the point as to what I believe now. I would have no problem with Dennis Nilsen for example being executed as it is 100% certain he is guilty but again its the chance of others convicted but actually being innocent and murdered by the state that I have a problem with. To ME just one innocent person murdered by the state is too high a price to pay for having the death penalty.
 
#11
I agree with most of what you say, Greek Scientist, but I can't agree with the bit about "stoning to death". Would that not that simply be our stooping to their own, barbaric level ?
Can anyone really suppose that if I choose to look at " Big Bouncy Boobs dot com" or even "spread legs and open pussies dot com" that I am a latent terrorist looking to stuff a stick of dynamite where I would prefer to stuff something else ?
That just does not compute in my, admittedly not so good, brain these days, but the "eye for an eye" thing seems all wrong to me.
Well, as to the stoning I think that with certain terrorist organisations the philosophy of `an eye for an eye` is very appropriate, and with an ISIL executioner I certainly wouldn`t mind chucking the first rock.

As to the choice of websites, the name of the site is immaterial, but even with a display of spread legs or open pussies a great deal of information about locations, intended operations, methods and participants can be conveyed to the initiated by the use of simple codes; e.g.:-
`open pussies`=railway or underground stations suitable for attack
`this week`s lovely pussy Wendy of Wimbledon` indicates which station
`aged 27` is the date in the month of the attack
`runners up` are the code names of the other conspirators involved in the action
A few comments from the winner about her lifestyle can easily contain coded statements as to the type of bomb and the placing and means of detonation etc..

All very James Bond, I appreciate, but still perfectly feasible, and in a more sophisticated form just what the snoopers are looking for.
 
Messages
4,650
#12
I'm a bit of a dunce about internet filters, so have no idea at all whether or not this could be possible.
Anyone able to shed more light on this, please ?
Like i mentioned on UKP for the similar post on this. I am fairly certain due to the https protocol that UKP/UKE uses means your ISP will only be able to know that you went to UKP/UKE from the DNS lookup.

And if you use another DNS than your ISPs own internel DNS - so something like goolgeDNS or OpenDNS then this should mean that your ISP wont even know you have went to UKP/UKE and other websites using Https at all.
 
Messages
1,245
#13
Like i mentioned on UKP for the similar post on this. I am fairly certain due to the https protocol that UKP/UKE uses means your ISP will only be able to know that you went to UKP/UKE from the DNS lookup.

And if you use another DNS than your ISPs own internel DNS - so something like goolgeDNS or OpenDNS then this should mean that your ISP wont even know you have went to UKP/UKE and other websites using Https at all.
Sorry Ant. double dutch to me as I;m quite ignorant of the technical terms you are using here :(
 
Messages
1,245
#14
Well, as to the stoning I think that with certain terrorist organisations the philosophy of `an eye for an eye` is very appropriate, and with an ISIL executioner I certainly wouldn`t mind chucking the first rock.

As to the choice of websites, the name of the site is immaterial, but even with a display of spread legs or open pussies a great deal of information about locations, intended operations, methods and participants can be conveyed to the initiated by the use of simple codes; e.g.:-
`open pussies`=railway or underground stations suitable for attack
`this week`s lovely pussy Wendy of Wimbledon` indicates which station
`aged 27` is the date in the month of the attack
`runners up` are the code names of the other conspirators involved in the action
A few comments from the winner about her lifestyle can easily contain coded statements as to the type of bomb and the placing and means of detonation etc..

All very James Bond, I appreciate, but still perfectly feasible, and in a more sophisticated form just what the snoopers are looking for.
Oooh Errrr !
I must have led a sheltered life as I never, ever would have connected "open pussies" with underground staioms.
 
Messages
47
#15
Ok so now Theresa May knows I am a punter. Let's hope she keeps that to herself and that I don't in future have to justify my private life choices to an employer / landlord / golf club at any point in my future.
 
Messages
1,667
#16
Ok so now Theresa May knows I am a punter. Let's hope she keeps that to herself and that I don't in future have to justify my private life choices to an employer / landlord / golf club at any point in my future.
You never know, she might offer a RB
 
Messages
4,650
#17
Sorry Ant. double dutch to me as I;m quite ignorant of the technical terms you are using here :(
Hope this comes out right. But if you are worried about this issue I would start googling and learning up about DNS, HTTPS and VPNs, what they are and how they work and so forth.
 
Messages
328
#19
As ever the danger is if the state does decide to get interested in my legal business at some stage, and even more big brother results. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, has this never been the end result to giving the state too much power and control. Orwells 1984 really isn't that far off if we aren't careful in my opinion, I see it as the inevitable conclusion of the if you haven't anything to hide whats the problem argument, though I am not saying it will happen anytime soon.
re: 'if you havnt got anything to hide...'

most of us have got something to hide,
here its our entirely legitimate and legal punting habit from spouses, colleagues and pointlessly narrow minded, hand wringing, sexually repressed and inhibited people in general some of whom would be prejudiced against us in various ways if they knew about it.

i think my right to privacy and and to be above suspicion unless there is genuine probable cause to think otherwise matters as well

i accept th terrorist threat is real, but i get the feeling some authoritarian types in the establishment get wet with excitment at what snooping they will be able to justify by it in the future. very sad for what i think of as british values imo
 
Top