E-borders Referred To In Chief Secretaries Service Delivery Plan 2008!

[Dodger]

How about the IOM surveillance commissioner report recommending that emails and other internet communications should be added? There is also a part where other jurisdictions can have the data as long as they agree to destroy it within the 2 year period, how would this be checked for compliance?

 

You're following the standard tin hat conspiracy nutjob path of fishing for a bit of information, and coming up with a logical conclusion in your little mind.

 

A desire and a legal pathway for survelance and actual real time monitor and capture are very different things. Just because there's legislation for this doesn't mean it's globally happening. There is electronic evesdropping, of course, I've actually got a friend who's worked in this field. Even very specifically targetted evesdropping on the internet returns masses of data, it's not a trivial matter. And beyond that, because of the way the internet is put together, it's very difficult without cooperation from isp's combined with encryption technologies that make widespread evesdropping impossible.

 

Think about it, if internet traffic was filtered in the way you're suggesting, why is there so much illegal activity still ongoing? Why are people permitted to scam people daily if the comms are being monitored? Why are kids lured and groomed bye peado's? Why doesn't these all seeing governments stop the illegal file transfers that cost the entertainments industry millions?

 

Here's a thing, take a read up on Indias objection to allowing RIM to sell blackberries in their country. Blackberries are in wide use here, and a major selling point is their closed encrypted service. The government there is upset because it's impossible to evesdrop on conversations over blackberries. If our governments had a desire to monitor all communications, why do they allow blackberries here?

 

But, if the government amend the law to allow more modern communication monitoring, I don't have a blackberry, but i have had a few emails from them, therefore the email can be potentially intercepted could it not?

 

I agree that masses of data would need to be sifted through, hence the use of buzzwords for computers to pick up on items of interest to that particular government.

 

Though we are way off the e borders topic to quote a point you raised earlier can you elaborate on "There are important issues about data privacy, integrety and the sharing of data" What are your views and how do you feel about the prospect of e borders?

[slinkydevil]

But, if the government amend the law to allow more modern communication monitoring, I don't have a blackberry, but i have had a few emails from them, therefore the email can be potentially intercepted could it not?

 

I agree that masses of data would need to be sifted through, hence the use of buzzwords for computers to pick up on items of interest to that particular government.

 

Though we are way off the e borders topic to quote a point you raised earlier can you elaborate on "There are important issues about data privacy, integrety and the sharing of data" What are your views and how do you feel about the prospect of e borders?

 

What do you mean buzzwords? Is it words like bomb, assasinate, bush, president, overthrow america, inshallah, sniper, christina aguleira diiiiiirty bomb

 

doh!! I'm in trouble now....

[Slim]

But, if the government amend the law to allow more modern communication monitoring, I don't have a blackberry, but i have had a few emails from them, therefore the email can be potentially intercepted could it not?

 

Potentially intercepted how? You don't elaborate on this point. The internet isn't a single network, it's a collection of many many networks, all interlinked. When you send a message, it's broken up and each part travels potentially multiple routes to get to it's destination. Even ignoring encryption, it's virtually impossible to monitor. And then back to my first question, how do you monitor people on the same network. Increasingly people are on google mail or hotmail. How does any evesdropping monitor emails between those two users. You've got an encrypted browser session and an email that never actually touches the internet outside the isp that provides the service, so where's it going to get picked up? This isn't a legislation issue, this is a technology issue. The monitoring you're talking about simply isn't possible.

 

I agree that masses of data would need to be sifted through, hence the use of buzzwords for computers to pick up on items of interest to that particular government.

 

And you think they'd not pick up on buzzwords like 'hey, little girl, why don't you come round to my house?' if this was possible?

 

Though we are way off the e borders topic to quote a point you raised earlier can you elaborate on "There are important issues about data privacy, integrety and the sharing of data" What are your views and how do you feel about the prospect of e borders?

 

As I've said all along, I think you're way off target harpooning governments. I think there's far more serious breaches of privacy and security worries in commercial and in private user internet use. To be churlish about recording where I travel, which I think is entirely appropriate and justified for protecting both the countries security and economy when my life insurance company has £2k a year operators in bangladesh with access to my complete health history seems mental to me.

 

But then I've dealth with folks like you before, you get a tiny part of a story, puff up your chest in outrage and rant on about it for ever more, without actually learning any more about it beyond a few refresher googles when challenged.

[Cronky]

What do you mean buzzwords? Is it words like bomb, assasinate, bush, president, overthrow america, inshallah, sniper, christina aguleira diiiiiirty bomb

 

What are those words that trigger Echelon?

[Slim]

What do you mean buzzwords? Is it words like bomb, assasinate, bush, president, overthrow america, inshallah, sniper, christina aguleira diiiiiirty bomb

 

What are those words that trigger Echelon?

 

A list that the register itself says is most likely bollocks?

 

How about this: If the government can scan everything on the interwebs, why does the FBI want ISP's to keep copies?

[Albert Tatlock]

RFID and Personal Information.

[ai_Droid]

RFID and Personal Information.

 

Is there a point? You can do a similar thing with face recognition. So?

[ans]

Because the answer was Domicillian as per cronky, sorry but is there a reason for duplicating answers?

 

Sorry, I thought when he put that it was a joke. It was a joke.. right?

 

Come on, fun's over. What's the real answer?

 

Still waiting...

[Dodger]

Because the answer was Domicillian as per cronky, sorry but is there a reason for duplicating answers?

 

Sorry, I thought when he put that it was a joke. It was a joke.. right?

 

Come on, fun's over. What's the real answer?

 

Still waiting...

 

Sorry, which question?

[Alias]

At the end of the day, the net's no different then any other medium. Whether eavesdropping is legislated for or not, if something's truly confidential then you're putting trust in a lot of providers beyond your hands (and even your government's jurisdiction). Well resources companies/individuals are in as just a good position as a government to eavesdrop; if it's mission-critical don't send it.

[Cronky]

RFID and Personal Information.

 

Is there a point? You can do a similar thing with face recognition. So?

 

The point is that such surveillance systems are intrusive and an invasion of privacy. They collect an excessive amount of data for the task in hand.

[ans]

Sorry, which question?

 

Answer me this, if I send you a message and we're both on manx.net mail addresses, how does teh governent super sekret computarz intercept that?

[Fred]

Just curious, if I used an email client it could go direct to manx.net mail,but if using a web browser would/could it go via various servers?

 

Fred

[Slim]

The point is that such surveillance systems are intrusive and an invasion of privacy. They collect an excessive amount of data for the task in hand.

 

Why excessive? Why an invasion? What harm is befalling those being tracked? Given that those goods that are being tracked by rfid in that demonstration have just been purchased in the same shopping centre using, most likely, tracable credit cards or store cards often tied with loyalty cards all linked up to a private companies nationwide stock control and customer tracking system?

[Cronky]

Why excessive? Why an invasion? What harm is befalling those being tracked? Given that those goods that are being tracked by rfid in that demonstration have just been purchased in the same shopping centre using, most likely, tracable credit cards or store cards often tied with loyalty cards all linked up to a private companies nationwide stock control and customer tracking system?

 

So where so you draw the line? How much information is it reasonable for companies to hold on you? Up to what distance should they monitor your movements? How long should they keep the information for? Should they pass your personal information to other companies or government departments? What if the information they hold on you is innacurate or corrupted? If they can make money from selling your personal data should you take a cut? Is your personal data your property . . . or theirs?

 

Where is the balance in all this data collection?

 

When I was a youngster companies and organisations knew very little about you. You most probably paid in cash or sometimes with a cheque. We never had ID theft. Credit cards had not been invented and if you got into debt you were regarded as a fool. We had less crime and more privacy.

 

You may not agree that privacy is important. Fine. But for those of us who do value privacy we like to see it respected.