UK spy agency GCHQ records EVERY INTERNET USER'S browsing history.

Mother Brain · 27-09-2015 10:55PM

kippy wrote: »

If state bodies believe that recording this data is for the greater good, then so be it.

But why so be it? What gives them the right to circumnavigate the law and indeed, basic human rights?

At what point do the governments actions do more for the government than for the people they are supposed to represent?

Fratton Fred · 27-09-2015 10:58PM

So GCHQ know almost as much about us as Google do.

kippy · 27-09-2015 10:58PM

Mother Brain wrote: »

But why so be it? What gives them the right to circumnavigate the law and indeed, basic human rights?

At what point do the governments actions do more for the government than for the people they are supposed to represent?

Wheres the basic human right being violated?
How exactly to the actions of a state body to more for the government of that state than the people the government represent?

kippy · 27-09-2015 10:59PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So GCHQ know almost as much about us as Google do.

For the average poster on here i would safely say that google knows a lot more about them than any state body and has done far more analysis and processing of this data.

Mother Brain · 27-09-2015 11:01PM

kippy wrote: »

Wheres the basic human right being violated?
How exactly to the actions of a state body to more for the government of that state than the people the government represent?

The universal declaration of human rights:

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

As I just pointed out, the government wanted backdoors into the sim card encryption protocols in order to boost their spying abilities so they targeted innocent engineers working in telecomms companies and hacked their computers, potentially endangering the employment of an innocent party. How is that not (and it's just one example) the action of a government more concerned with itself than with it's constituents?

kippy · 27-09-2015 11:04PM

Mother Brain wrote: »

The universal declaration of human rights:

As I just pointed out, the government wanted backdoors into the sim card encryption protocols in order to boost their spying abilities so they targeted innocent engineers working in telecomms companies and hacked their computers, potentially endangering the employment of an innocent party. How is that not (and it's just one example) the action of a government more concerned with itself than with it's constituents?

The right to privacy.....are you serious? Privacy and the internet.....
Improving spying abilities may be for the greater good......

Mother Brain · 27-09-2015 11:09PM

kippy wrote: »

The right to privacy.....are you serious?
Improving spying abilities may be for the greater good......

What do you mean? It's in the declaration like. That's all i'm saying.

And again, I would argue that the government have no right to break the law and trample over our rights for what they claim to be the greater good.

You're putting forward and ends justify the means argument which I assume most people would be in disagreement with. Maybe not though of course, I find it hard enough to believe that no one cares about this whole issue so maybe im totally in the minority!

kippy · 27-09-2015 11:14PM

Mother Brain wrote: »

What do you mean? It's in the declaration like. That's all i'm saying.

And again, I would argue that the government have no right to break the law and trample over our rights for what they claim to be the greater good.

You're putting forward and ends justify the means argument which I assume most people would be in disagreement with. Maybe not though of course, I find it hard enough to believe that no one cares about this whole issue so maybe im totally in the minority!

Ive got bigger issues tbh as have most people. But I find it hilarious that people get all annoyed when they find out what the do on the internet can and is recorded on many different levels by state bodies whom at least answer to the people and have a mmandate for the greater good. The very same people a lot of the time who hand over countless snippets about themselves to private organisations such as facebook or google on a daily basis.

Mother Brain · 27-09-2015 11:26PM

kippy wrote: »

Ive got bigger issues tbh as have most people. But I find it hilarious that people get all annoyed when they find out what the do on the internet can and is recorded on many different levels by state bodies whom at least answer to the people and have a mmandate for the greater good. The very same people a lot of the time who hand over countless snippets about themselves to private organisations such as facebook or google on a daily basis.

That's a fair point. So do I. But that doesn't mean I feel complacent about the erosion of the application of law and rights that the governments of the world seem content to be doing with impunity.

Sure if we adopt that frame of mind then where does it end? At what point can the government say "actually we think we should be allowed to lock you up indefinitely without charge because we reckon it's for the greater good". Not to mention that if the machinery of dictatorship is allowed to flourish under a non dictatorial government, what's to say that a future, less scrupulous government aren't going to abuse that machinery even more?

Also, the analogy to surrendering privacy is flawed as it equates your active consent in providing information to a private company with the governments non consensual extraction of your privacy. Sure people give away their privacy all the time. That's their choice which they have exercised. When the government takes your privacy they do it without your consent. That's a fundamental difference.

Joshua J · 27-09-2015 11:33PM

A guy on Reddit give this reply to the "nothing to hide" argument. Succinct and to the point.

That statement is basically a false dichotomy - the same kind of conundrum as "you're either with us or against us." It presents a false choice: you are either guilty of something and therefore have a reason to hide it, or you are not guilty of anything and therefore have no reason to hide anything. It is based on the (false) premise that privacy's sole purpose is to conceal wrongdoing, and it excludes the possibility that someone may be innocent of any wrongdoing buy may still want to conceal their activities. Why? Because something is embarrassing, but not wrong. Something may be deeply personal. Someone may have concerns about their information being used for marketing purposes or stolen. The list goes on and on.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/atnmi/if_you_have_nothing_to_hide_then_you_have_nothing/

Mother Brain · 27-09-2015 11:41PM

Joshua J wrote: »

A guy on Reddit give this reply to the "nothing to hide" argument. Succinct and to the point.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/atnmi/if_you_have_nothing_to_hide_then_you_have_nothing/

Exactly, or as I mentioned (repeatedly I know) above about those engineers, who had nothing to hide, no embarrassing activities or wrong doing to conceal, but were simply targeted as they represented an obstacle to the government achieving their (illegal) goals. And as a result, millions of phones are now accessible by the government.

DivingDuck · 27-09-2015 11:53PM

kippy wrote: »

For the average poster on here i would safely say that google knows a lot more about them than any state body and has done far more analysis and processing of this data.

This worries me considerably more than any State body holding the data. There are some constraints on how the State can or would want to use that information.

Private companies are an entirely different matter.

I doubt most people are sufficiently interesting to merit more than a cursory skimming of their data. If you're looking at someone's browser history all day long you'd have to quickly reach the point where you didn't give a crap who was watching what porn or carrying out which illicit affairs or whatever.

Lord PuppyMcSnuggle of Cuddleshire · 28-09-2015 12:01AM

Well if you don't like it, you shouldn't have voted for the party who planned to introduce it. Oh wait, we plebs don't get to vote about stuff like this do we? Democracy for the stupid unimportant things, behind-closed doors dictatorship for everything else!

Mother Brain · 28-09-2015 12:10AM

DivingDuck wrote: »

This worries me considerably more than any State body holding the data. There are some constraints on how the State can or would want to use that information.

Private companies are an entirely different matter.

I doubt most people are sufficiently interesting to merit more than a cursory skimming of their data. If you're looking at someone's browser history all day long you'd have to quickly reach the point where you didn't give a crap who was watching what porn or carrying out which illicit affairs or whatever.

But you see the state bodies have all of the google data that google have on you as well as all of your facebook data, skype calls, your phone etc. By definition they know more because they are tapping the cables that all of the internet goes through as well as all of your regular phone usage.

I mean don't get me wrong. I have no illusions that the government are literally "watching" everyone. Like reading all of their communications etc. That doesn't make it ok.

I mean I use Tor, and for that reason there is a high probability that I have been red flagged by the NSA because as a matter of course they automatically red flag anyone who visits the tor website, or even visits websites discussing these issues. (this has been shown through previous document and code leaks)

Now I'm not a terrorist, I have done nothing wrong. I have no plans to do anything wrong. But simply because I have an interest in protecting my privacy I am deemed a suspicious individual and I fundamentally disagree with that. Another human right violated i.e. the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

the_syco · 28-09-2015 12:11AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is quite clearly one of the most egregious abuses of power among Western governments in the 21st century. It runs absolutely roughshod over every concept of decency, civil freedom, privacy, and the social contract between governments and those they are supposed to be serving.

I'd be surprised if every government wasn't doing the same thing.

Mother Brain · 28-09-2015 12:13AM

the_syco wrote: »

I'd be surprised if every government wasn't doing the same thing.

The scariest thing is that if nobody does anything about it, then they will be.

DivingDuck · 28-09-2015 12:26AM

Mother Brain wrote: »

But you see the state bodies have all of the google data that google have on you as well as all of your facebook data, skype calls, your phone etc. By definition they know more because they are tapping the cables that all of the internet goes through as well as all of your regular phone usage.

Sorry, what I mean to say is that I personally don't give a damn about a State body having my data, especially one that is likely to be as well-guarded about it as possible. I am prepared to sacrifice my privacy for the "greater good" in terms of terrorism watch, etc. This is not a position I expect everyone to take, but it's how I personally feel about the subject.

In an ideal world, no eavesdropping of any kind should happen, but we don't live in an ideal world, and I am prepared to accept that somebody somewhere is reading my emails/texts/porn browsing history so that criminals can't conduct their crime without observation. Naturally I would prefer my personal business not to become public knowledge, but I consider the (hopefully very small) chance of that happening to be worth the (hopefully very large) benefits of conducting such surveillance worldwide.

I do believe that people should have privacy, but equally, really none of us should be doing things that we'd be unhappy about if they got out. Are we? Probably all of us, but at the end of the day, we are the people doing these things, so we really have only ourselves to blame.

Note that I'm talking about both the doing and the observing in a "free" society like Ireland/England where you can't just be picked up and carried off in the night and "silenced" like you can in some places. Where there are consequences like that for simply expressing political dissent, I can completely understand people being infuriated by the eavesdropping, but that's not the reality for people in Europe at the moment.

That's State bodies, though. I feel very differently about private companies holding my data. There is no "valid" reason for them to have it, so I don't want them having it. I would strongly prefer the option to pay for a service and receive privacy as a result than be forced into accepting the ad-supported/freemium model that dominates the internet these days.

Mother Brain · 28-09-2015 12:56AM

DivingDuck wrote: »

Sorry, what I mean to say is that I personally don't give a damn about a State body having my data, especially one that is likely to be as well-guarded about it as possible. I am prepared to sacrifice my privacy for the "greater good" in terms of terrorism watch, etc. This is not a position I expect everyone to take, but it's how I personally feel about the subject.

That's a totally valid opinion. As I said, if you agree to, and consent to the government having your data then fair enough, that's your choice.

But allow me to posit two separate situations which are analogous of what I feel to be the difference between the two.

If you're walking down the street and a cop comes up to you and demands you surrender your personal effects, searches you and generally treats you like a criminal, despite you just walking down the street minding your own business, is that of more concern to you than a company who tracks your page views etc, figures out your physical address and sends you adverts or coupons or even dispatches a salesman to your door on the basis of your browsing habits?

At the end of the day, a company is only as invested in your data as it can make them money. You would have the choice to shut the door on that salesperson, or throw out those coupons.

Or imagine in the near future when you are awoken by the police because and taken into custody because the gps co ordinates of your phone were tracked as being in the vicinity of a crime scene?

I agree that the state has a duty to do all in its power to prevent criminal activity, and that in the course of executing that duty they require data in order carry out that duty. However this should be accomplished through existing legal framework i.e. judicial approval of intelligence gathering activities based on probable cause.

Another thing I would point out, is that any really serious terrorist or criminal threat is far more likely to be using currently uncrackable encryption in their communications anyway, rendering the primary stated goal of the mass surveillance system moot in any case.

Did you see the recent case of the newcastle massacre plot? A young lad in newcastle was planning a college killing spree and was foiled when a member of the public reported his suspicious activity.

He was able to buy an illegal firearm off the web using easily accessible tools like tor to purchase the goods and untraceable digital currency like bitcoin to pay for it. No amount of existing government surveillance would have captured that activity. He said it was "as easy as buying chocolate" to buy the gun. It was down to a good old fashioned bloke on the street doing the right thing. If you think that terrorists, drug dealers, people smugglers etc are not going to be using the exact same technologies to do their business then I would argue that that is a very naive view.

So what do you have left? You have a mass surveillance program on people who more than likely are not going to be using these untraceable, uncrackable anonymity tools to keep going about their criminal activity. That means that the regular joe who reported the guy in question is more visibile to the authorities than the guy who was plotting a massacre in a university.

What's the justification for the surveillance when it is proven to ineffective?

Banjoxed · 28-09-2015 01:02AM

Some poor feckers in GCHQ or wherever must be looking at a hell of a lot of lolcatz or "inspirational" gifs.

More to be pitied than damned.

Banjoxed · 28-09-2015 01:04AM

kippy wrote: »

The right to privacy.....are you serious? Privacy and the internet.....
Improving spying abilities may be for the greater good......

Well the spooks probably now know just what t'internet has an aul' J Arthur to. Not sure what that will tell them, but ya never know

kippy · 28-09-2015 01:12AM

Mother Brain wrote: »

That's a totally valid opinion. As I said, if you agree to, and consent to the government having your data then fair enough, that's your choice.

But allow me to posit two separate situations which are analogous of what I feel to be the difference between the two.

If you're walking down the street and a cop comes up to you and demands you surrender your personal effects, searches you and generally treats you like a criminal, despite you just walking down the street minding your own business, is that of more concern to you than a company who tracks your page views etc, figures out your physical address and sends you adverts or coupons or even dispatches a salesman to your door on the basis of your browsing habits?

At the end of the day, a company is only as invested in your data as it can make them money. You would have the choice to shut the door on that salesperson, or throw out those coupons.

Or imagine in the near future when you are awoken by the police because and taken into custody because the gps co ordinates of your phone were tracked as being in the vicinity of a crime scene?

I agree that the state has a duty to do all in its power to prevent criminal activity, and that in the course of executing that duty they require data in order carry out that duty. However this should be accomplished through existing legal framework i.e. judicial approval of intelligence gathering activities based on probable cause.

Another thing I would point out, is that any really serious terrorist or criminal threat is far more likely to be using currently uncrackable encryption in their communications anyway, rendering the primary stated goal of the mass surveillance system moot in any case.

Did you see the recent case of the newcastle massacre plot? A young lad in newcastle was planning a college killing spree and was foiled when a member of the public reported his suspicious activity.

He was able to buy an illegal firearm off the web using easily accessible tools like tor to purchase the goods and untraceable digital currency like bitcoin to pay for it. No amount of existing government surveillance would have captured that activity. He said it was "as easy as buying chocolate" to buy the gun. It was down to a good old fashioned bloke on the street doing the right thing. If you think that terrorists, drug dealers, people smugglers etc are not going to be using the exact same technologies to do their business then I would argue that that is a very naive view.

So what do you have left? You have a mass surveillance program on people who more than likely are not going to be using these untraceable, uncrackable anonymity tools to keep going about their criminal activity. That means that the regular joe who reported the guy in question is more visibile to the authorities than the guy who was plotting a massacre in a university.

What's the justification for the surveillance when it is proven to ineffective?

And in one post you show why certain traits raise a flag in the analysis of traffic.

As for the cop, that is a totally different situation to the state recording what you do online. If you want to create an analogy its more like you pass a cop on the street, he keeps an eye on you and if he spots that handgun on you hes gonna have to look a bit closer erc.....

Mother Brain · 28-09-2015 01:15AM

kippy wrote: »

And in one post you show why certain traits raise a flag in the analysis of traffic.

What makes you say that?

EDIT: Oh I get you, because he used tor he was a threat.

Fair enough like, but it doens't make the case for the effectiveness of the surveillance program any better.

They still failed to catch it.

the_syco · 28-09-2015 01:45AM

Mother Brain wrote: »

The scariest thing is that if nobody does anything about it, then they will be.

What can you actually do about it? Either they do it and everyone knows about it, or they do it anyway, no-one knows, and thus waaaay less accountability.

Nichard Dixon · 28-09-2015 01:47AM

This could a funding model for the British government, if you've lost someone's email or details you could call up GCHQ and get the data from their records for a fee.

Mother Brain · 28-09-2015 02:02AM

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

This could a funding model for the British government, if you've lost someone's email or details you could call up GCHQ and get the data from their records for a fee.

"Hello? Is that GCHQ? Yeah i've lost my keys, I was just wondering if you had a bead on them? .... In the couch cushions yeah? Ah sure aren't they always!! Cheers lads!"

Mother Brain · 28-09-2015 02:08AM

the_syco wrote: »

What can you actually do about it? Either they do it and everyone knows about it, or they do it anyway, no-one knows, and thus waaaay less accountability.

Well I guess it depends on how much of an actual democracy we live in.

Thanks to a couple of courageous individuals we actually do know about these things.

Therefore, if enough of us actually try and make our displeasure known, then theoretically the government should begin to take notice and act upon our wishes.

That presupposes that a) enough people will actually care enough to do anything about it. And b) that the government would listen if we did.

Either way I fear it doesn't look too good.

I would love to believe that if someone like corbyn got in to government in the uk they could make a real difference but only time will tell I guess.

DivingDuck · 28-09-2015 02:10AM

Mother Brain wrote: »

If you're walking down the street and a cop comes up to you and demands you surrender your personal effects, searches you and generally treats you like a criminal, despite you just walking down the street minding your own business, is that of more concern to you than a company who tracks your page views etc, figures out your physical address and sends you adverts or coupons or even dispatches a salesman to your door on the basis of your browsing habits?

Honestly, yes. I have an immense dislike of corporations storing data when I believe there is no benefit for me to them having my information. While the idea of the State having my information makes me slightly uncomfortable, I can see a benefit in it for me. If someone close to me was the victim of a crime, I would like to feel that everything possible was being done to catch the people involved. It's invasive, inconvenient, and I don't particularly like it, but there is a benefit for the person. With companies, there is zero benefit for the person.

I also think your State-based examples are slightly extreme for a first-world country, but the corporation/advertising example is about to be rolled out in the UK. (Or it was; this may have been shelved, but I definitely read about people getting postal advertising from their browsing history at one point.)

Did you see the recent case of the newcastle massacre plot? A young lad in newcastle was planning a college killing spree and was foiled when a member of the public reported his suspicious activity.

He was able to buy an illegal firearm off the web using easily accessible tools like tor to purchase the goods and untraceable digital currency like bitcoin to pay for it. No amount of existing government surveillance would have captured that activity. He said it was "as easy as buying chocolate" to buy the gun. It was down to a good old fashioned bloke on the street doing the right thing. If you think that terrorists, drug dealers, people smugglers etc are not going to be using the exact same technologies to do their business then I would argue that that is a very naive view.

I'm sure some of them are. The smarter ones certainly are. (The dumber ones are not, and not all criminals are criminal masterminds.)

However, regards the case above, it is my belief that the investigative services are fully aware of the activities on the deep web and rarely move on smaller criminals in order to disguise evidence of their presence. Wouldn't the logical option for the agencies here be to look for "obvious" evidence and then report that to the regular police as "a concerned citizen" rather than push the issue through their own channels and reveal themselves in the process? I find the timing of his arrest very telling-- i.e., he was only arrested when he became an immediate threat. I'm sure the authorities were fully aware of him before this and weren't prepared to break their cover in order to remove him as the level of threat he posed was, to that point, not high enough to move on.

What's the justification for the surveillance when it is proven to ineffective?

I'm reminded of that quote from the movie: "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist." The dumber these agencies look, the more effective they can be.

StonyIron · 28-09-2015 02:13AM

What's to say this isn't being used for commercial purposes?
Since when have states played totally fairly when it comes to protecting local industries or pet lobbies?

DivingDuck · 28-09-2015 02:16AM

StonyIron wrote: »

What's to say this isn't being used for commercial purposes?
Since when have states played totally fairly when it comes to protecting local industries or pet lobbies?

Now that one is a fair (and horrifying) concern for me.

Mother Brain · 28-09-2015 02:47AM

DivingDuck wrote: »

Honestly, yes. I have an immense dislike of corporations storing data when I believe there is no benefit for me to them having my information. While the idea of the State having my information makes me slightly uncomfortable, I can see a benefit in it for me. If someone close to me was the victim of a crime, I would like to feel that everything possible was being done to catch the people involved. It's invasive, inconvenient, and I don't particularly like it, but there is a benefit for the person. With companies, there is zero benefit for the person.

I also think your State-based examples are slightly extreme for a first-world country, but the corporation/advertising example is about to be rolled out in the UK. (Or it was; this may have been shelved, but I definitely read about people getting postal advertising from their browsing history at one point.)

I understand that. Lord knows i'm no fan of corporate overreach in this arena too, but in most cases people have legitimately given permission for this kind of thing through accepting new terms of service etc. Since companies by and large abide by the law, it's up to the consumer to educate themselves enough to make informed choices about what they want to share or not. Ever time you click through a legal agreement without reading it in my mind is a an instant in which you've shot yourself in the foot and left yourself open to this kind of mistreatment. The difference being when a government does it, it's without consent.

I'm sure some of them are. The smarter ones certainly are. (The dumber ones are not, and not all criminals are criminal masterminds.)

That makes out that you believe that it's ok as long as a few minor criminals are sorted out. I personally don't agree that it's ok to blanket harvest our personal information in every form just so some petty drug dealer gets caught out while anyone of any real interest who uses easy to access encryption tools get away.

However, regards the case above, it is my belief that the investigative services are fully aware of the activities on the deep web and rarely move on smaller criminals in order to disguise evidence of their presence. Wouldn't the logical option for the agencies here be to look for "obvious" evidence and then report that to the regular police as "a concerned citizen" rather than push the issue through their own channels and reveal themselves in the process? I find the timing of his arrest very telling-- i.e., he was only arrested when he became an immediate threat. I'm sure the authorities were fully aware of him before this and weren't prepared to break their cover in order to remove him as the level of threat he posed was, to that point, not high enough to move on.

I'm reminded of that quote from the movie: "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist." The dumber these agencies look, the more effective they can be.

That may be so. Who can say how thee organisations act right? That unfortunately is exactly my point. Not to mention the fact that it's probably less likely than otherwise, given the fact that their own internal documents repeatedly represent encryption and tor as significant, near impossible obstacles for them to overcome.

What's far more likely in my eyes is that a deranged mad man intent on murdering a bunch a people posted something stupid that aroused suspicion amongst his social media group, rather than an elaborate double bluff by the security forces. But it's true, it is possible, however unlikely.

UK spy agency GCHQ records EVERY INTERNET USER'S browsing history.

Comments