Every phone call, email or website visit 'to be monitored
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5215413/Eve...
Trace
Telegraph Online said:
Every phone call, email or website visit will be monitored by the state under plans to be unveiled next week.
By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 6:35PM BST 24 Apr 2009
The proposals will give police and security services the power to snoop on every single communication made by the public with the data then likely to be stored in an enormous national database.
The precise content of calls and other communications would not be accessible but even text messages and visits to social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter would be tracked.
The move has alarmed civil liberty campaigners, and the country's data protection watchdog last night warned the proposals would be "unacceptable".
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, will argue the powers are needed to target terrorists and serious criminals who are taking advantage of the increasing complex nature of communications to plot atrocities and crimes.
A consultation document on the plans, known in Whitehall as the Interception Modernisation Programme, is likely to put great emphasis on the threat facing Britain and warn the alternative to the powers would be a massive expansion of surveillance.
But that will fuel concerns among critics that the Government is using a climate of fear to expand the surveillance state.
Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, the country's data watchdog, told the Daily Telegraph: "I have no problem with the targeted surveillance of terrorist suspects.
"But a Government database of the records of everyone's communications – if that is to be proposed – is not likely to be acceptable to the British public. Remember that records – who? when? where? – can be highly intrusive even if no content is collected."
It is understood Mr Thomas is concerned that even details on who people contact or sites they visit could intrude on their privacy, such as data showing an individual visiting a website selling Viagra.
Chris Kelly, Facebook's chief privacy officer, last month revealed he was considering lobbying ministers over the proposal, which he described as "overkill".
The proposed powers will allow police and security services to monitor communication "traffic", which is who calls, texts, emails who, when and where but not what is said.
Similarly they will be able to see which websites someone visits, when and from where but not the content of those visits.
However, if the data sets alarm bells ringing, officials can request a ministerial warrant to intercept exactly what is being sent, including the content.
The consultation is expected to include three options on how the "traffic" information is then stored: a "super database" held by the Government, a database held and run by a quango or private company at arms' length, or an order to communication providers to store every detail in their own systems, which can then be accessed by the security services is necessary.
A memo written by sources close to the project and leaked last year revealed it was fraught with technical difficulties.
Ms Smith has already claimed local authorities will not have access to the data but the Tories have warned of the "exponential increase in the powers of the state'', while the Liberal Democrats have dubbed the plans "Orwellian" and deeply worrying.
Security services fear a failure to monitor all forms of communications effectively will hamper their ability to combat terrorists and serious criminals. Sir Stephen Lander, chairman of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, said: "Any significant reduction in the capability of law enforcement agencies to acquire and exploit intercept intelligence and evidential communications data would lead to more unsolved murders, more firearms on our streets, more successful robberies, more unresolved kidnaps, more harm from the use of Class A drugs, more illegal immigration and more unsolved serious crime.
Sigh...By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 6:35PM BST 24 Apr 2009
The proposals will give police and security services the power to snoop on every single communication made by the public with the data then likely to be stored in an enormous national database.
The precise content of calls and other communications would not be accessible but even text messages and visits to social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter would be tracked.
The move has alarmed civil liberty campaigners, and the country's data protection watchdog last night warned the proposals would be "unacceptable".
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, will argue the powers are needed to target terrorists and serious criminals who are taking advantage of the increasing complex nature of communications to plot atrocities and crimes.
A consultation document on the plans, known in Whitehall as the Interception Modernisation Programme, is likely to put great emphasis on the threat facing Britain and warn the alternative to the powers would be a massive expansion of surveillance.
But that will fuel concerns among critics that the Government is using a climate of fear to expand the surveillance state.
Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, the country's data watchdog, told the Daily Telegraph: "I have no problem with the targeted surveillance of terrorist suspects.
"But a Government database of the records of everyone's communications – if that is to be proposed – is not likely to be acceptable to the British public. Remember that records – who? when? where? – can be highly intrusive even if no content is collected."
It is understood Mr Thomas is concerned that even details on who people contact or sites they visit could intrude on their privacy, such as data showing an individual visiting a website selling Viagra.
Chris Kelly, Facebook's chief privacy officer, last month revealed he was considering lobbying ministers over the proposal, which he described as "overkill".
The proposed powers will allow police and security services to monitor communication "traffic", which is who calls, texts, emails who, when and where but not what is said.
Similarly they will be able to see which websites someone visits, when and from where but not the content of those visits.
However, if the data sets alarm bells ringing, officials can request a ministerial warrant to intercept exactly what is being sent, including the content.
The consultation is expected to include three options on how the "traffic" information is then stored: a "super database" held by the Government, a database held and run by a quango or private company at arms' length, or an order to communication providers to store every detail in their own systems, which can then be accessed by the security services is necessary.
A memo written by sources close to the project and leaked last year revealed it was fraught with technical difficulties.
Ms Smith has already claimed local authorities will not have access to the data but the Tories have warned of the "exponential increase in the powers of the state'', while the Liberal Democrats have dubbed the plans "Orwellian" and deeply worrying.
Security services fear a failure to monitor all forms of communications effectively will hamper their ability to combat terrorists and serious criminals. Sir Stephen Lander, chairman of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, said: "Any significant reduction in the capability of law enforcement agencies to acquire and exploit intercept intelligence and evidential communications data would lead to more unsolved murders, more firearms on our streets, more successful robberies, more unresolved kidnaps, more harm from the use of Class A drugs, more illegal immigration and more unsolved serious crime.
Trace
Jasandjules said:
Yes, slightly disproportionate I would say.
I'd also be seriously suprised if
1. They managed to build such a system
2. It ran any search in under 5 years
3. It didn't spend most of the day crashed.
I'd also be seriously suprised if
1. They managed to build such a system
2. It ran any search in under 5 years
3. It didn't spend most of the day crashed.
You see, it's not the gubberment that are implementing this, it's the ISPs and Telecoms companies. It will work and will have to work for them to be allowed to operate.
In fact most systems have this in place already simply through their accounting records.
This news has been on the wires for at least 5-6 years now. There was a massive hoo-hah about it at the time as, IIRC, originally the gubberment wanted all the content kept as well. These companies told the gubberment to foxtrot-oscar as they simply couldn't hold all the information. Times and technolologies have changed now, this is one small step towards total state monitoring - which will come.
It's already present to a degree in the US where every byte of information going in or out of USA is monitored and if you want to provision comms services in the US you have to route any data entering or leaving the US through their LIGs (Legal Intercept Gateways).
These days most if not all telephone calls are routed using IP over the Internet backbones - so bytes apply to phone calls as well as texts and web traffic.
Mr POD said:
1 million texts are sent every hour (I think ?) Who is actually going to read all these emails ?
They don't need to read them all straight away 
No doubt all the usual suspect words bomb,Winky,No 10 etc will all trigger a first line alert,the rest will just be held in case you ever do anything in the future
Please people, I know it's late and there's likely been a few beers taken, but 'they are not keeping the content'.... YET.
For phone traffic (text/voice) it's just the end-points (sender & receiver if you like) and the time/date and probably duration, the content of these messages are not being kept.
For web traffic it's the URL, time/date target web site and client IP address.
All of this is currently handled by the accounting systems - ever wondered why you get an itemised bill? It's because all this info is kept already.
For web traffic, same goes, it's all in the log files on the web servers.
Ever wondered how a web site can produce hit lists and user activity reports? It's because all this info is kept already.
One small difference is that the ISP and Telcos have to keep this information for longer (12 months I think).
There is nothing new going on here - YET.
It's the next phase you needto worry about, when they decide that these companies need to keep a copy of the content. (Coming soon trust me)
For phone traffic (text/voice) it's just the end-points (sender & receiver if you like) and the time/date and probably duration, the content of these messages are not being kept.
For web traffic it's the URL, time/date target web site and client IP address.
All of this is currently handled by the accounting systems - ever wondered why you get an itemised bill? It's because all this info is kept already.
For web traffic, same goes, it's all in the log files on the web servers.
Ever wondered how a web site can produce hit lists and user activity reports? It's because all this info is kept already.
One small difference is that the ISP and Telcos have to keep this information for longer (12 months I think).
There is nothing new going on here - YET.
It's the next phase you needto worry about, when they decide that these companies need to keep a copy of the content. (Coming soon trust me)
Symbolica said:
I just don't understand how they can seriously expect to monitor that amount of information. We're talking biblically huge amounts of data here
It's not. Not nowadays, it's a trivial amount of information, because as I said it is only the end-points/time-date that are being kept. This is already done.Symbolica said:
what can they actually use it for? 
It will be data-mined - i.e. if there is a suspect computer or mobile phone that they want to watch, they can go back and see which other mobile phones or computers it has been talking to.Chances are given, a search the databases will throw up the whole network of links between devices under investigation in seconds, a bit like Google does already with web pages.
hewlett said:
The scariest thing is actually who might be able to access this information. I read somewhere that local authorities and a myriad of other bodies will have access to this data.
There is that too, though on the up side if it saves me having to document every single call and text from a psychotic irate ex then Mrs bring it on.Is that libellous? It's not meant to be... just my opinion
The Excession said:
For web traffic it's the URL, time/date target web site and client IP address.
And a few more bits, but only on the remote webservers that is, and that may as well be nowhere - unobtainable info. Unless of course they are using transparent proxies and storing all that, that is a totally different matter.The Excession said:
Ever wondered how a web site can produce hit lists and user activity reports? It's because all this info is kept already.
No, that info is only available on the target webserver itself, nothing to do with anyone but the owner of the website. ISPs cannot get at it, unless as I said, they channel everything through a transparent proxy.Weren't people once shocked and amazed that organisations like Stasi carried out this type of behaviour?
Quite seriously, I think it's still possible that there are Stasi museums where people go to tools of their surveillance and yet don't get the fact that more surveillance is being done now with modern technology than was ever done in their times.
Quite seriously, I think it's still possible that there are Stasi museums where people go to tools of their surveillance and yet don't get the fact that more surveillance is being done now with modern technology than was ever done in their times.
thehawk said:
Weren't people once shocked and amazed that organisations like Stasi carried out this type of behaviour?
Quite seriously, I think it's still possible that there are Stasi museums where people go to tools of their surveillance and yet don't get the fact that more surveillance is being done now with modern technology than was ever done in their times.
Indeed. Quite seriously, I think it's still possible that there are Stasi museums where people go to tools of their surveillance and yet don't get the fact that more surveillance is being done now with modern technology than was ever done in their times.
We are sleepwalking into a police state, a state allegedly "for our safety" - yet I am more worried about being stabbed by a gang of kids than I am of an terrorist bomb.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff