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

Muahahaha · 28-09-2015 02:51AM

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 would be great in an ideal world but we don't live in an ideal world. The State is woeful about safeguarding data and no reasonable person could have confidence in them to do so. There's tons of examples of this but one of the most glaring ones was the Euromillions winner Doleres McNamara who had around 30 different civil servants from around the country hack into her social welfare data as soon as she won the lottery. Later again another civil servant was found selling hundreds of personal information profiles to insurance companies. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/civil-servant-investigated-over-sale-of-welfare-data-26720795.html

The Gardai are probably the most leaky State organisation going, I'm sure most people are familiar with how they arrested Clare Daly TD for drink driving and then fed the information directly to the media to slur her name. The tests came back to say she was innocent of the accused offence but State actors had already managed to release private data to tarnish her name, which it did in fairness.

You could go on and on all day with examples like the above. But at the end of the day if the 'Greater Good' is to be served then the population at large has to have trust in the institutions of the State. Half the problem in Ireland is that most people don't trust the State. And that's because of decades of dodgy deals, scandals, bribery, corruptio, etc, etc. Why would anyone buy into that as a trustworthy operation when the powers that be have frequently been found to be untrustworthy themselves?

DivingDuck · 28-09-2015 02:56AM

Mother Brain wrote: »

. 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.

You're right there. On a practical level, there is no way that people could read through every T&A form presented to them these days, though. There are just too many required for a normal level of participation in society to allow this to be feasible. But yes, it is something we bring on ourselves.

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.

I do believe it's okay. However, should my belief be sufficient to harvest your information? Probably not... But I'm just a citizen, not a policy/lawmaker. (Which is how I like it. I haven't elected to shoulder that burden, and I wouldn't want it.)

At the end of the day, somebody gets to decide these things-- and from a practical perspective, not all policies can be democratically decided.

DivingDuck · 28-09-2015 03:01AM

Muahahaha wrote: »

That would be great in an ideal world but we don't live in an ideal world. The State is woeful about safeguarding data and no reasonable person could have confidence in them to do so.

This State is like a leaky bucket. England is better, but there have been cases where they've dropped the ball, as well.

I was, however, referring to agencies like GCHQ where people are recruited extremely selectively and profiled extensively before being given access to anything, as per the original post. I should have clarified when I said "State bodies"; my bad.

I would not be supportive of this data being available outside of select State bodies: ones with limited personnel, who have been thoroughly screened for their likelihood of misbehaviour.

Muahahaha · 28-09-2015 03:13AM

DivingDuck wrote: »

This State is like a leaky bucket. England is better, but there have been cases where they've dropped the ball, as well.

I was, however, referring to agencies like GCHQ where people are recruited extremely selectively and profiled extensively before being given access to anything, as per the original post. I should have clarified when I said "State bodies"; my bad.

I would not be supportive of this data being available outside of select State bodies: ones with limited personnel, who have been thoroughly screened for their likelihood of misbehaviour.

The thing is though the evidence suggests that all States are leaky, what distinguishes them is how leaky they actually are.

The British security services and senior members of the Met have been already seen to be spying on their own citizens at the behest of tabloid newspapers, the Leveson Inquiry was an astonishing account of how easy it was to bribe very senior members of the police to invade ordinary citizens privacy, in exchange for cash.

Mother Brain · 28-09-2015 03:27AM

DivingDuck wrote: »

I do believe it's okay. However, should my belief be sufficient to harvest your information? Probably not... But I'm just a citizen, not a policy/lawmaker. (Which is how I like it. I haven't elected to shoulder that burden, and I wouldn't want it.)

At the end of the day, somebody gets to decide these things-- and from a practical perspective, not all policies can be democratically decided.

That's true alright. It's impractical to consider every little thing.

I still believe that our representatives should abide by the law though. By all rights change the law if needs be, and if it makes enough people comfortable or whatever but in my mind as soon as the state starts to disregard their own laws it's a sign we're on a slippery slope!

I expect we may have to agree to disagree.

Kudos for maintaining a level head and quality argument though. It's difficult enough to find someone willing to engage in an honest to goodness discussion lately!

DivingDuck · 28-09-2015 03:40AM

Mother Brain wrote: »

I still believe that our representatives should abide by the law though. By all rights change the law if needs be, and if it makes enough people comfortable or whatever but in my mind as soon as the state starts to disregard their own laws it's a sign we're on a slippery slope!

I expect we may have to agree to disagree.

No disagreement there at all-- law-breaking by law-makers is understandably worrying to all.

Kudos for maintaining a level head and quality argument though. It's difficult enough to find someone willing to engage in an honest to goodness discussion lately!

Same to yourself. I don't think getting overly emotional or aggressive solves much of anything in a debate-- and I do appreciate being able to tease these matters out and be exposed to different perspectives and opinions without anybody getting cross or upset, as well.

Lord PuppyMcSnuggle of Cuddleshire · 28-09-2015 04:58AM

DivingDuck wrote: »

At the end of the day, somebody gets to decide these things-- and from a practical perspective, not all policies can be democratically decided.

I wouldn't casually lump this in with "all policies" like it's some bureaucratic minutia. It's a human rights issue and has some serious implications when it comes to data-mining. Nobody has to sit down and leaf through your internet history one page at a time... it can be all thrown into an algorithm to sort out. Which potentially makes it more like a really invasive census.
So I suppose the question would boil down to - is there anything you think the government shouldn't be able to ask on a census?

efb · 28-09-2015 05:40AM

Hope they like gay porn

Shep_Dog · 28-09-2015 06:53AM

DivingDuck wrote: »

At the end of the day, somebody gets to decide these things-- and from a practical perspective, not all policies can be democratically decided.

The European Court of Justice ruled that the present Data Retention regime in most member states is invalid.

http://www.philiplee.ie/data-retention-directive-declared-invalid-by-european-court-of-justice/

The government has no plans to repeal or reform the Data Retention Act.

hatrickpatrick · 28-09-2015 02:59PM

Candie wrote: »

People have been willingly compromising their privacy for years. Most or many have publicly announced details of their whereabouts and activities, their acquaintances and their habits and predilections, their relationships and affiliations and their attitudes to their work. Facebook and similar sites were at the vanguard of the erosion of personal privacy, and many of the people shocked at a government agency collecting information via the internet have been willingly feeding that information into it for years.

Which isn't to excuse state spying, but just to point out that privacy isn't just being stolen but also surrendered.

There's a difference though. On Facebook and others you willingly choose to give up that privacy and you know what you're getting into. Nobody knew that every single internet browsing history was accessible by the government until fairly recently - sure, we suspected it, but we didn't know for sure.

hatrickpatrick · 28-09-2015 03:00PM

strelok wrote: »

i might choose to allow someone to penetrate me after I've had a few pints, doesn't mean any guard or civil servant can just saunter inside me if the mood strikes.

After Hours, ladies and gentlemen. After feckin' Hours.

stoneill · 28-09-2015 03:03PM

All those cat clips filling up GCHQ

hatrickpatrick · 28-09-2015 03:06PM

Lord PuppyMcSnuggle of Cuddleshire wrote: »

I wouldn't casually lump this in with "all policies" like it's some bureaucratic minutia. It's a human rights issue and has some serious implications when it comes to data-mining. Nobody has to sit down and leaf through your internet history one page at a time... it can be all thrown into an algorithm to sort out. Which potentially makes it more like a really invasive census.
So I suppose the question would boil down to - is there anything you think the government shouldn't be able to ask on a census?

Sure - a list of everyone I've spoken to in the last six years, a list of every place I've thought about travelling to, a list of every sexual kink I have, a list of every political organisation I've been involved with, a list of every medical professional I've communicated with (or even just thought about communicating with), a list of every pub or club I've looked up a menu for, a list of every dating profile I've ever viewed, etc etc etc.

Unless an individual is suspected of a crime, their internet history should be between them and their ISP, and it should be deleted from the ISP as soon as is feasible (after data usage for the billing period has been calculated, probably) so as it isn't available for perusal later if somebody decides to do that.

There's nothing wrong with real-time tracking of a suspected criminal's online activities, but allowing the government to target people who are not suspected of a crime just in case they might subsequently be, is the definition of totalitarianism. Because what's allowed today might not be allowed tomorrow, particularly when it comes to political activism, if a more repressive government were to come to power.

Let's put this another way. Imagine if the internet had existed during the civil rights movement in America or in Northern Ireland. With technology like this, any such activist movements which the government opposed would have been smashed to pieces before they had even had time to draw a breath.

The only way one can believe that invasive spying tactics like this from the government are acceptable, is if one trusts the government not to do anything unscrupulous if their power is threatened. History has shown us repeatedly that one should never impart that kind of trust.

Datallus · 28-09-2015 03:09PM

Can one simply choose not to be online if their personal lives are so sacred to them?

donspeekinglesh · 28-09-2015 03:10PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Let's put this another way. Imagine if the internet had existed during the civil rights movement in America or in Northern Ireland. With technology like this, any such activist movements which the government opposed would have been smashed to pieces before they had even had time to draw a breath.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_and_King.27s_personal_life

Joshua J · 28-09-2015 03:35PM

With regards to the established order of things and those who wish to maintain it, you are the enemy. The American establishment is not at war with Russia or some middle Eastern back water their enemy is their own people because only they can effect any substantial change in the status quo. Just like the Russian people are the enemy of their establishment. Not in actual terms of course, in potential. It's what their leaders fear most of all. When you understand this you'll realise how dangerous mass spying can be and why paranoid leadership considers everyone guilty. I consider it guilty of potential.

Mother Brain · 28-09-2015 03:42PM

Datallus wrote: »

Can one simply choose not to be online if their personal lives are so sacred to them?

Can you realistically any more? So much infrastructure goes through the web now, and the government are putting more and more online because it is so much easier to handle.

Not only that, but should you have to abandon the web in order to protect your privacy and your rights?

I must admit I find it rather amusing that the one thing the internet seems incapable of getting outraged about is perhaps the only thing that directly affects them!

kippy · 28-09-2015 04:50PM

Mother Brain wrote: »

I must admit I find it rather amusing that the one thing the internet seems incapable of getting outraged about is perhaps the only thing that directly affects them!

'The internet' doesnt care. For numerous reasons.

Mother Brain · 28-09-2015 04:59PM

More's the pity.

Shep_Dog · 28-09-2015 05:12PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nobody knew that every single internet browsing history was accessible by the government until fairly recently - sure, we suspected it, but we didn't know for sure.

The Data Retention Act was passed into law in January 2011, it was one of the last acts of the Fianna Fail government.

Datallus · 28-09-2015 05:16PM

Mother Brain wrote: »

Can you realistically any more? So much infrastructure goes through the web now, and the government are putting more and more online because it is so much easier to handle.

Not only that, but should you have to abandon the web in order to protect your privacy and your rights?

*Goes on internet to interact with government: "The Gubberment is watching meee!!!"

Somebody has to regulate and control it!

Mother Brain · 28-09-2015 05:21PM

Datallus wrote: »

*Goes on internet to interact with government: "The Gubberment is watching meee!!!"

Somebody has to regulate and control it!

That's funny alright, but come on, you know there's a difference!

When you're voluntarily using a government service you expect that to be recorded and it's all well and good. Especially since it's primarily not the irish government employing these kind of schemes. It's the more powerful governments that abuse their power i've a problem with.

Datallus · 28-09-2015 05:24PM

Mother Brain wrote: »

It's the more powerful governments that abuse their power i've a problem with.

Abuse their power? Or catch criminals and terrorists?

Mother Brain · 28-09-2015 06:03PM

Datallus wrote: »

Abuse their power? Or catch criminals and terrorists?

Why not both?

I would love to know all of these terrorists they have foiled using mass surveillance. I've never heard of one. I'm sure there probably have been some, but there's been far more that they haven't been able to prevent. Just think of the boston bombing, the london bombing, many mass shootings etc.

The NSA even acknowledged in their own documents that what they were trying to do was "like drinking from a fire hose" because they actually have so much data that they are unable to process it effectively.

Not to mention that the kind of techniques that they do try to use are simply not suited to the task. Algorithmic, data mining techniques are terrible at picking up meaningful patterns concerning terrorism and terrorist plots for a number or reasons.

hatrickpatrick · 28-09-2015 06:09PM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

The Data Retention Act was passed into law in January 2011, it was one of the last acts of the Fianna Fail government.

That merely required ISPs to retain the information so as it could be provided on foot of a court order. Such orders require some degree of probable cause.

This is not the same as a government agency collecting information on the entire international internet population 24/7. I still don't approve of that, personally, but it's orders of magnitude less obscene than what GCHQ is doing.

Capt'n Midnight · 28-09-2015 06:10PM

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?

Given what the US does and has done in Latin America for US corporations this is pretty much a certainty.

Look at the fuss over EU passenger lists or data retention by US companies.

People forget that they carry a tracking device around too.

Using open wifi without a VPN is another good one.

Notavirus.exe · 28-09-2015 06:11PM

I'm just a number to them.

I don't care what they know about this particular number.

(P.S. Google probably sold them our browsing history.

hatrickpatrick · 28-09-2015 06:11PM

Datallus wrote: »

Abuse their power? Or catch criminals and terrorists?

Given that whistleblowers of various kinds and activists of various kinds are regarded as "criminals" by the US and UK governments, this definition is useless.

Shep_Dog · 28-09-2015 06:17PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That merely required ISPs to retain the information so as it could be provided on foot of a court order. Such orders require some degree of probable cause.

No court order is needed. The request just has to be made by of a middle-ranking civil servant or Garda. There is no right to know that your information has been accessed.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is not the same as a government agency collecting information on the entire international internet population 24/7. I still don't approve of that, personally, but it's orders of magnitude less obscene than what GCHQ is doing.

It's an out-sourcing of the collection/retention, a ploy that's been seen for what it is by the ECJ.

hatrickpatrick · 29-09-2015 12:00AM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

No court order is needed. The request just has to be made by of a middle-ranking civil servant or Garda. There is no right to know that your information has been accessed.

It's an out-sourcing of the collection/retention, a ploy that's been seen for what it is by the ECJ.

Jesus. I thought it was subject to the same conditions as a real-time phone tap.

Thank f*ck the ECJ is getting rid of it, then.

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

Comments