egafd.com

It has been my understanding that even in the late 1940s and 50s there was an unspoken assumption that the security services operated within their own secret, no limits, legal system. Individuals always left a trail which could be audited by the secret services, albeit it with some trouble. However, if you didn't come to attention, you remained just an anonymous individual among the millions of innocent people going about their daily business.

Since the late 1990s, there seems to have been a change in the perception of our governance, and from an assumption that the mass of the population is innocent there now seems to be an assumption that the mass of the population is/are potential criminals who must be strictly monitored. There also seems to have been an attitude that proof of guilt must be made ever easier by passing more and more repressive legislation. The end result of this trend could be a Cardassian system where those charged with a crime are automatically guilty.

There also seems to have been a change in the way people regard the British establishment. Many feel that supposed anti-terrorist legislation is often misused by petty authority. There have been instances of photographers. professional, amateur and holiday snappers, being arrested under anti-terrorist legislation for taking photos in public spaces. There have also been instances of local authorities using anti-terrorist legislation to monitor the routine activities of people.

How long, one wonders, before this new legislation results in harassment, or worse, for those working in the adult industry, and their audiences.
***********

I was around in the forties and fifties.

BTW, the verb (to) audit can be applied to more than just accounts.

I raised this matter a few weeks ago.


It seems those staunch defenders of liberty and freedom, the LDs, are fully behind the governments intention to turn us into a China or an Iran, and follow their (non-) respect for privacy. I dont know, now the Tories are nicking New Labour policy from the dark days of that authoritarian administration.

A piece in the i this morning reveals the reason there are so few personal letters by Schubert in the archives. It appears that the Austrian secret police in the early 19th C. opened all the mail, so nobody wrote anything of importance in letters to people. If ever I needed an excuse to use the internet less, it is this appalling measure.

Here is a clue why it is being done:

As far as I can recall it is a criminal offence to refuse to disclose the encryption software being used when requested by the appropriate authorities.

So even if it does piss them off, the fact that you are pissing them off from behind bars is something of a double-edged sword I would have thought.

David Johnson wrote:

> As far as I can recall it is a criminal offence to refuse to
> disclose the encryption software being used when requested by
> the appropriate authorities.
>
> So even if it does piss them off, the fact that you are pissing
> them off from behind bars is something of a double-edged sword
> I would have thought.


David Johnson's recall is correct. In the UK you must give passwords for decryption to the appropriate authorities on their request. Failing to do this can result in imprisonment for up to 2 years, even when there's no evidence of any other criminal activity.

Maybe I'm not giving the boffins who can track the source of the messages & website browsing enough credit but will the underworld not simply be sharp enough to avoid being be trackable, or even if tracked and the authorities know who they are there will not be enough evidence to prove they sent / received the messages & browsed websites? Assuming so tracking and tracing will be costly pointless exercise so the system might just as well be limited to intelligence gathering.

For texts and 3g email / internet on a phone/PDA will they not have contracts but PAYG SIMS and only use them for a short time.
Even if legalisation was that SIM's had to be registered and there were no loopholes open to dodgy dealers the underworld would just register using false details or stolen ID's.

For higher bandwidth internet access with a netbook / laptop if they use Maccy D's, Wetherspoons etc. surely provably tracing information to an individual is virtually impossible.

There must also be a significant risk to totally innocent individuals and companies because of their Wi-Fi unknowingly being hacked into.

sparky wrote:
>
> For higher bandwidth internet access with a netbook / laptop if
> they use Maccy D's, Wetherspoons etc. surely provably tracing
> information to an individual is virtually impossible.
>
> There must also be a significant risk to totally innocent
> individuals and companies because of their Wi-Fi unknowingly
> being hacked into.

planeterotica wrote:

Free Wi-Fi is widely available in central London even in the streets so as you say it would be difficult to keep track of anyone using it for criminal activities, they could no doubt access any message sent or recieved via free Wi-Fi but pinpointing it to any individiaul may be more difficult..

planeterotica wrote:

"Free Wi-Fi is widely available in central London even in the streets so as you say it would be difficult to keep track of anyone using it for criminal activities, they could no doubt access any message sent or recieved via free Wi-Fi but pinpointing it to any individiaul may be more difficult.."


You will probably find that under the Conservatives you will get vans cruising around like the Gestapo had with DF aerials on the roof.

Or with a Labour government, it would be like Jim's old favourites, Stasi vans with DF aerials on top, either type desperately trying to get a fix on the citizen criminals! Whilst the skilled terrorist slips under the radar, so to speak.