who voted for this?! "All email, text and phone records to be kept for 2 years"

ei.sdraob

Hi boards.ie

Firstly sorry about using a new account but after hearing about this new Law today one has to be a bit more careful I suppose

Basically I want to know how to find out which politicians/parties voted this monstrosity in

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/all-email-text-and-phone-records-to-be-kept-for-2-years-1820026.html

or even the name of the bill for further research

The independent article is way to short and there's no other stories on other irish sites, nothing here on boards either yet?

Thank you

galwayrush

I thought all records could be retrieved anyways, if somebody with the know how wanted to get them. This only makes it legal to use in court if needed.

ei.sdraob

galwayrush wrote: »

I thought all records could be retrieved anyways, if somebody with the know how wanted to get them.

Not if your using a vpn or tunneling thru several ssh servers as im doing posting here now

Tho im not sure what I will do about the phone, I dont really use it much as it is but looks like its gonna be more skyping from now on

and why is there nothing on the news about this, this is major

Fratton Fred

I thought it was kept already. It is a very simple solution known as call park.

Sms passes through a server so retaining a copy is easy and all calls records are recorded for billing info. As long as it is carefully regulated, as it will be, I don't see what the problem is.

ei.sdraob

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I thought it was kept already. It is a very simple solution known as call park.

Sms passes through a server so retaining a copy is easy and all calls records are recorded for billing info. As long as it is carefully regulated, as it will be, I don't see what the problem is.

... phone and text ... email and website activity ...

ok I know majority of people will say

"I have nothing to hide"

which is fair enough, but I personally dont feel right about being subjected to Stasi style monitoring or worse

hence why I want to know which representatives voted for this so they will never get my vote again come next time, but due to complete lack of detail I dont even know the name of this bill stripping out my liberties :cool:

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Basically I want to know how to find out which politicians/parties voted this monstrosity in

if the Bill is only published today its really just its first appearance

the bill must go through the Dail and seanad before it becomes an Act (i.e. law)

as the dail and seanad are not sitting until september, thats the earliest that could happen; however, it will be competing with all other draft laws for time so it may not become law for some time

if its to be brought in because of an EU directive it may have to be in place by a certain deadline

Fratton Fred

I'm sure there is a way of finding out from dail records is it leinsterhouse.ie? I think you'll find that these records are kept anyway though, probably for longer than 2 years, all this is doing is making it mandatory.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats what bugs me the lack of technical info on how things will be monitored and to what extends

I am already taking precautions, I simply have no trust and faith in government and value my privacy, I pay my taxes and dont break the law, but I don't want the Gardai or Revenue to have anything on me, ever

Riskymove wrote: »

if the Bill is only published today its really just its first appearance

the bill must go through the Dail and seanad before it becomes an Act (i.e. law)

as the dail and seanad are not sitting until september, thats the earliest that could happen; however, it will be competing with all other draft laws for time so it may not become law for some time

if its to be brought in because of an EU directive it may have to be in place by a certain deadline

Thanks I will be keeping close eye on news, the lack of information is annoying

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm sure there is a way of finding out from dail records is it leinsterhouse.ie? I think you'll find that these records are kept anyway though, probably for longer than 2 years, all this is doing is making it mandatory.

had a quick browse, nothing jumped at me, Thank you

Red Sleeping Beauty

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you send much sensative email ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Red Sleeping Beauty

I suppose.
An Post don't keep a record of your post.

I don't like any of this. Fred, what makes you think this will be regulated well therefore your information is safe ? Have you never had medical records "go missing" ? What about every other UK news story about how some database has been compromised ?

I saw Dermot Ahern there on the news mention child pornography....

First they came for the gangsters and paedos....

oscarBravo

From an ISP's perspective, the Bill is terrifyingly vaguely worded.

Part 2 of Schedule 2 is headed "Internet access, Internet e-mail and Internet telephony data to be retained...", and goes on to refer to the source and destination of a "communication".

What's a communication? An e-mail? Is that just an e-mail sent through my SMTP server, or any e-mail sent via any SMTP server but originating on my network?

Does every Instant Message on MSN or IRC constitute a "communication"? Is a single view of a web page a "communication"? Is every embedded image on that page a "communication", and how am I supposed to tell the difference?

Section 4 of Part 2 says that I have to retain

4. Data necessary to identify the type of communication:

the Internet service used.

The what now? Does that mean that I need to keep track of what IP addresses and ports each of my customers connects to?

Do they have any goddamn idea how much data they're talking about forcing us to retain? And we're just a small regional ISP - the thought of what Eircom or BT or Smart Telecom are going to have to retain is simply mind-boggling.

realismpol

nothing to see here folks. Lisbon is all for the good of the people nothing to do with giving more power to spy and control the populations. Yup do it ...or else

Besides who cares if they spy let them let them spy and look into people's lives and what they do and what they surf and what they talk about in their emails. All they'll end up doing when they get to the bottom of their paranoid urge to control people is find a mirror staring back at them. This is all about controlling people nothing else. Yes they are really concerned about child molestors's cause you know their are hundreds of thousands of child molestors out there.....

seems like the old create a problem, have the awnser you always wanted implemented, then pretend you have the solution to the problem all along. This coupled with the lisbon treaty vaugeness is starting to wake people up a little to whats really going on i think. Then we have the recent bill passed for the non jury decisions for criminal gangs. Have no doubt this will be used on ordinary civillians who have 'ties' to criminal gangs. Right...that could be anyone ...anyone who speaks out of turn.

oscarBravo

realismpol wrote: »

nothing to see here folks. Lisbon is all for the good of the people nothing to do with giving more power to spy and control the populations. Yup do it ...or else

Correct, Lisbon has nothing to do with this whatsoever. If you want to talk about the Lisbon treaty, go to the EU forum, and get your facts straight before you do.

Besides who cares if they spy let them let them spy and look into people's lives and what they do and what they surf and what they talk about in their emails. All they'll end up doing when they get to the bottom of their paranoid urge to control people is find a mirror staring back at them.

Thanks for that contribution, but some of us have real, practical concerns here.

Mena

This is part of the EU Data Retention Directive no? That was bandied about in 2006. I'm surprised people are only "waking" up to it now.

Back then, I was classed as leading an ISP (non conventional sense) and this scared the crap out of me.

Privacy aside, the sheer amounts of data they want you to hold onto are simply unmanageable. Try explaining that to a politician in a suit though, ah sure, just use them usb yokes one told me.

/sigh

realismpol

yes one of them usb yokes...share can't ye jast sctick it on a drive likee..

yes when they create terabyte usb's. Also who's going to pay for the servers to store all this information the backups etc....in a time of economic crisis, just to stop a few pedo's online? oh but this isn't really about pedophiles is it...

lust for control is a bad thing a very bad thing.

TCP/IP_King

If you voted in the Nice referendum, I think you actually ratified this.
This has been going on a long time ...
http://www.digitalrights.ie/2005/12/15/data-retention-directive-passed/

TCP/IP_King

And you don't need a USB thingy to do it either ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/503224.stm

realismpol

u know what let them spy like i said its funny because they are so paranoid they feel the need to totally control people. Its their own sense of insecurity that leads to their need to control people. Just sit back and laugh at them thats the way to deal with it as they fumble about new ways to gather 'data' on people.

oscarBravo

We need a metaphor.

Imagine water suppliers (in this country, the local authorities) were required to retain samples of the water passing through their systems for quality assurance purposes.

Not much water; just a millilitre from each litre that they supply. What's a millilitre? It's almost nothing.

But you have to put a system in place through which every single litre of water that you supply must pass. That system has to capture 1ml from each of those litres, store it securely in a place where the water supplier's employees can't access it without authorisation, protect it from accidental damage or loss, index each one so that it can be found at short notice on request.

This system, through which all the water flows, can't be allowed to slow down the flow of the water, or interrupt it in any way. The system needs to be completely reliable, all the time.

Now take that to the next level, and imagine that you need to store information about where each litre of water went - who used it, and what for. (Yes, it's technically possible to do this for [most] Internet communications and not for water, but bear with me.)

Finally, think about a large water supplier with millions of litres of water being delivered to tens (or hundreds) of thousands of customers all day, every day, and you have some idea what we're being asked to do.

realismpol

you seem to be missing the point. They don't care about how much it costs etc. All for control i tells ye...doesn't matter what the cost...its worth it to be able to pry into johhny's personal facebook life....:pac:

oscarBravo

TCP/IP_King wrote: »

If you voted in the Nice referendum, I think you actually ratified this.
This has been going on a long time ...
http://www.digitalrights.ie/2005/12/15/data-retention-directive-passed/

There's no mention of the Nice treaty in that article.

If you want to talk about The Man spying on us, take it to Conspiracy Theories. If you want to talk about the EU, take it to the EU forum.

oscarBravo

realismpol wrote: »

Just sit back and laugh at them...

realismpol wrote: »

you seem to be missing the point. They don't care about how much it costs etc.

You seem to be missing the point that I'm not laughing because I do care how much it costs - because I'll be paying it.

TCP/IP_King

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's no mention of the Nice treaty in that article.

I didn't say anything about Nice in the article, i said i think we voted for this in the referendum

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you want to talk about The Man spying on us, take it to Conspiracy Theories. If you want to talk about the EU, take it to the EU forum.

It's nothing to do with conspiracy, Echelon has been there for a decade or more.

Scofflaw

This was originally a McDowell initiative, introduced in the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill 2002, with a three-year retention period. Ireland - or McDowell on the Council of Ministers - then pushed for a framework directive at EU level, got one, but under common market legislation (as impacting the commercial operations of ISPs, which I imagine oB will agree is an effect) rather than security/justice. The Directive was picked up by the UK Presidency as one of its issues, and rushed through.

The probable best legal case against this is that it is disproportionate, which is a view taken by at least one German court. The EU Commission was asked for an opinion on whether it conflicted with the privacy articles in the Charter of Fundamental Rights - I don't know whether there was an answer, but if Lisbon passes, I would expect to see a challenge based on the Charter.

However, you have to bear in mind that the version originally introduced here by McDowell has not been constitutionally challenged. In the final analysis, the governments of the member states have only done through the EU what they're perfectly willing and able to do at a national level. If the directive can be challenged under the Charter, it may simply push this legislation back to the national level - and there is no right to privacy in Bunreacht.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

realismpol wrote: »

nothing to see here folks. Lisbon is all for the good of the people nothing to do with giving more power to spy and control the populations. Yup do it ...or else

:eek: wtf (excuse me) does this have to do with Lisbon or Nice? :rolleyes:

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's no mention of the Nice treaty in that article.

If you want to talk about The Man spying on us, take it to Conspiracy Theories. If you want to talk about the EU, take it to the EU forum.

Thank you, im not sure why people are trying to hijack this or what it has to do with Lisbon

OB you seem to know whats happening what Bill is this and where can I read it, thanks (edit: just seen Scofflaw's response before mine)

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point that I'm not laughing because I do care how much it costs - because I'll be paying it.

I feel for you Oscar, I am involved in running some high traffic sites (half million people a day) with local Irish company, are we classed as an ISP? do we have to store data? all of the hardware is outside Ireland so what then?

Mena wrote: »

This is part of the EU Data Retention Directive no? That was bandied about in 2006. I'm surprised people are only "waking" up to it now.

Back then, I was classed as leading an ISP (non conventional sense) and this scared the crap out of me.

Privacy aside, the sheer amounts of data they want you to hold onto are simply unmanageable. Try explaining that to a politician in a suit though, ah sure, just use them usb yokes one told me.

/sigh

What other EU countries are implementing or having to implement anything like this?

Alan Rouge wrote: »

I suppose.
An Post don't keep a record of your post.

I don't like any of this. Fred, what makes you think this will be regulated well therefore your information is safe ? Have you never had medical records "go missing" ? What about every other UK news story about how some database has been compromised ?

I saw Dermot Ahern there on the news mention child pornography....

First they came for the gangsters and paedos....

If its to deal with peados, then why do Revenue get access to data?

(edit: after reading Scofflaw's response and him putting this in context of the Charter and Lisbon, this can be challenged at EU level if Lisbon is passed this October? or am i am misunderstanding here)

Wertz

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point that I'm not laughing because I do care how much it costs - because I'll be paying it.

If I draw that to another conclusion does this potentially mean the cost of net access goes up across the board to cover ISP costs imposed by this?

...and sorry to be selfish but this can't be good for d/l speeds at peak times without ISPs spending a ton of cash on new equipment can it?
Imagine trying to keep a record of every single packet sent and received of any and all random torrent files going in and out of the country...that can't possibly be workable...

jmayo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Langley ?

oscarBravo wrote: »

From an ISP's perspective, the Bill is terrifyingly vaguely worded.

...
What's a communication? An e-mail? Is that just an e-mail sent through my SMTP server, or any e-mail sent via any SMTP server but originating on my network?

Does every Instant Message on MSN or IRC constitute a "communication"? Is a single view of a web page a "communication"? Is every embedded image on that page a "communication", and how am I supposed to tell the difference?

Section 4 of Part 2 says that I have to retain The what now? Does that mean that I need to keep track of what IP addresses and ports each of my customers connects to?

Do they have any goddamn idea how much data they're talking about forcing us to retain? And we're just a small regional ISP - the thought of what Eircom or BT or Smart Telecom are going to have to retain is simply mind-boggling.

Hey this is great news for disk providers, anyone in government got shares in Netapp by any chance ?
The size of attachments has jumped hugely over the last few years, does the authorities expect SMTP relays and ISPs to store all of the sh** ? :eek:

Only possible plus maybe a chance this could provide a reason to alleviate the amount of f***ing spam out there, just a hope

oscarBravo wrote: »

Correct, Lisbon has nothing to do with this whatsoever. If you want to talk about the Lisbon treaty, go to the EU forum, and get your facts straight before you do. Thanks for that contribution, but some of us have real, practical concerns here.

Been away a few weeks and the amount of conspiracy theorists/theories appearing in this forum has appeared to have jumped.
(Someone currently running with the whole 911 conspiracy theory on another thread about British casulaties in Afghanistan)

TCP/IP_King

Read and weep etc
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/surveillance_society_full_report_2006.pdf

j1smithy

I thought GCHQ and the NSA could read/deciphir all electronic communications, so really nothing transmitted across those networks is "safe". As for it being used to spy on the private citizen at random, I really don't think it would happen... as interesting and all as the lives of the general populace are (not very) I mean how often does one communicate truely "sensitive" information? Only really when one is about to undertake something illegal. The only possibility for abuse really is the theft of intellectual property... and there are safeguards against that.

It is this information which could be very beneficial in the solving of crime, for example the O'Reilly murder.

lostexpectation

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2009/07/13/if-youve-nothing-to-hide-youve-nothing-to-fear/

Speaking on the Last Word with Matt Cooper earlier today FF TD Niall Collins trotted out that old canard - “if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear” - in relation to the new data retention bill. Curiously, when asked if he’d be happy to provide us with his mobile phone bills for the last two years and details of his emails for the last year he claimed not to understand the question and refused to do so.

http://audio.todayfm.com/lwpodcasting.xml

no supervision of this, no oversight.

http://audio.todayfm.com/audio/20090713180010.mp3

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joey the lips

This is old news, mobile companies have been doing this ages it has just become regulatory so to speak.

So becareful if your in the tallaghtband!

Fratton Fred

Joey the lips wrote: »

This is old news, mobile companies have been doing this ages it has just become regulatory so to speak.

So becareful if your in the tallaghtband!

it is amazing what the mobile companies can get on you, if needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_interception

I have seen the device that carries out lawful intercepts in a UK mobile operators network and IIRC, not only is it in a secure area, but also the people who have access to that area have to have certain security clearances before being authorised to work on that equiopment.

The reason why i believe it will be well regulated is that the data will be retained by private companies who will ensure they are compliant. If it was left to government agencies i would be a lot less optimistic.

However, I concur fully with OB's point, this is an absolute nightmare for mobile networks, so for ISPs it will be even bigger.

Joey the lips

The unfortunate thing in society believes that "Well if you have nothing to hide what have you to fear - Bar a couple of steamy calls with the boyfriend/girlfriend they can keep my records" But the americans say this from the outset for what it truly is....

Its an erosion of your civil liberaties. One american worded it quite well I thought even though extreame. " You put a rabbit into boiling water and it will jump out.... But put a rabbit into cold water and slowly turn on the heat and you will have a stew in no time"

You see we are slowly been tracked and traced to a point that it will be known what you intend doing before you have done it.

No granted, they can track me all they want but its an interesting thought

Fratton Fred

yep, it is an interesting topic. How much of our civil liberties do we give up in the fight against drug dealing, terrorism and peados? how much do we trust our government to use this information in a responsible manner? how much do we care?

oscarBravo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

OB you seem to know whats happening what Bill is this and where can I read it, thanks (edit: just seen Scofflaw's response before mine)

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=12468&&CatID=59

What other EU countries are implementing or having to implement anything like this?

It's transposing an EU directive, so all member states have to do it. I believe the minimum retention period is six months.

If its to deal with peados, then why do Revenue get access to data?

It's for dealing with "serious crime".

Wertz wrote: »

If I draw that to another conclusion does this potentially mean the cost of net access goes up across the board to cover ISP costs imposed by this?

I don't know yet. If the costs are truly onerous, then yes: we'll have to pass them on. It's not like the banks will lend us the price of the new equipment we'll need...

...and sorry to be selfish but this can't be good for d/l speeds at peak times without ISPs spending a ton of cash on new equipment can it?

It should be possible to engineer it in a way that it doesn't hurt traffic speeds, but it's not going to be easy.

Imagine trying to keep a record of every single packet sent and received of any and all random torrent files going in and out of the country...that can't possibly be workable...

It's not clear to me what we're supposed to be keeping. That's one of my biggest issues with the proposal at the moment.

Run_to_da_hills

To all you that that say "It should not concern me if I have nothing to hide". Think again, What if such records ends up unencrypted on a stolen laptop or pendrive?

Don't say it doesn't happen, it has happened once too often now. The last thing someone wants to know is confidential data ending up in the wrong hands.

thebman

What about data in secure transactions?

Such as credit card details etc...

Or personal identifiable info?

This is disgraceful TBH. Next thing you know, you slam FF online, it will be deemed a serious crime.

Wertz

thebman wrote: »

This is disgraceful TBH. Next thing you know, you slam FF online, it will be deemed a serious crime.

In all seriousness with the raft of legislation pushed through in the last week or so, that's really the only conclussion you can draw...this surveillance bill, the criminal justice amendment, ban on legally held handguns (yes I know that was a wee while back) and the blasphemy bill....anyone would think FF are shoring up for a coup d'état or something...

oscarBravo

thebman wrote: »

What about data in secure transactions?

Such as credit card details etc...

The actual content of a "communication" is not required to be stored, and in fact may not be stored. Basically it seems we'll need to store email headers, but not the body.

Similarly, even if someone was daft enough to type credit card details into a non-secure web page, we won't be storing the content of the pages, just the fact that the user accessed the page - I think.

thebman

Oh right, will the URI stem be stored such as the as everything after the ? in address of this page?

That can be quite revealing on certain sites about what activity people were up to.

oscarBravo

thebman wrote: »

Oh right, will the URI stem be stored such as the as everything after the ? in address of this page?

Honestly, I don't know, and - again - that's one of my biggest concerns about this whole thing.

Fratton Fred

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

To all you that that say "It should not concern me if I have nothing to hide". Think again, What if such records ends up unencrypted on a stolen laptop or pendrive?

Don't say it doesn't happen, it has happened once too often now. The last thing someone wants to know is confidential data ending up in the wrong hands.

You could say the same thing about your bank or credit card company, they have all that info. You could also say the same about NTL/Bord Gais/ESB/Sky?Vodafone in fact anyone who has enough info to bill you.

If your ISP is, for example, eircom, then they already have your banking details and know enough about what you are doing each month to bill you. As I say, most companies have and store this info already, it is just a case of how long they retain it for.

Incidentally, one of the pieces of evidence that was used against Joe O'Reilly when he was charged with murdering his wife was the fact that he used his phone in a location which proved he wasn't where he claimed he was at the time. If the phone company had binned those records, he may have got away with it.

oscarBravo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If your ISP is, for example, eircom, then they already have your banking details and know enough about what you are doing each month to bill you. As I say, most companies have and store this info already, it is just a case of how long they retain it for.

It's true that this legislation is less onerous on phone companies, as they use pretty much the data that's to be retained to determine how much to charge.

It's a different story for ISPs. Even those ISPs that bill based on how much you use only need to aggregate either the total amount of time online, or the total amount of data that went to and from the customer's connection, in order to bill for it. The difference between storing a customer's total usage per month and storing information about every "communication" is several orders of magnitude.

Incidentally, one of the pieces of evidence that was used against Joe O'Reilly when he was charged with murdering his wife was the fact that he used his phone in a location which proved he wasn't where he claimed he was at the time. If the phone company had binned those records, he may have got away with it.

This is true, and is an argument in favour of this legislation.

On the flipside, if everyone had continuous CCTV recording of everything they ever do in their house, that could come in useful in criminal investigations also. Does that make it a good idea?

Joey the lips

http://www.slate.com/id/2156397/

above is the top 10 violations of civil liberties in the US. Just because we have nothing to hide it does not make it right that we accept it.

I am not gay or homosexual but i should not have to defend myself if i am. This is one of the core aspects of civil liberties violation just becuase you dont do somethin does not mean you must accept it,

MackDeToaster

Ridiculous legislation because of a) the civil rights/freedom/privacy violations, and b) it's easily bypassed by any 'serious' criminal/terrorist, eg. tor, jap/jondo, xerobank, not carrying a mobile, etc etc.

The politicians who come up with this crap are so technically ignorant and behind the times that it's just not funny. Notwithstanding the privacy/rights concerns, this will prevent little of any importance and instead lead to a huge financial burden on isps and thus end-users.

A previous government fell because of phone-tapping, and people wouldn't stand for having all their post tracked, so I fail to see how people can just accept this now other than out of sheer simple ignorance of the scope and implications of it.

It's full encryption all the way for me now, simply as a matter of principle, and not paranoia or criminal intent.

thebman

Exactly the only reason they feel safe doing this is because most people are ignorant of the consequenes.

Strange how the politicians can be so proactive on tracking online use but not the roll out of broadband or proper regulation of the service.

lostexpectation

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Incidentally, one of the pieces of evidence that was used against Joe O'Reilly when he was charged with murdering his wife was the fact that he used his phone in a location which proved he wasn't where he claimed he was at the time. If the phone company had binned those records, he may have got away with it.

well the digitial rights guy said that wasn't applicable, that was case of investigating a specific person, who was a genuine suspect of a serious crime.

anyway keeping the data 6 months would have dealt with that why 2 yrs?

Wertz

lostexpectation wrote: »

anyway keeping the data 6 months would have dealt with that why 2 yrs?

In case something takes longer to come out or to end up in court I imagine...