Where's the "All your emails and texts and phonecalls are belong to us" thread then?

[Doggy Styles]

It's not the technology that's under debate, it's the legality.

Quite. I think that point has been missed during this thread.

[amcdonald]

The fact the government haven't ignored the courts refusal to extradite Abu Qatada to Jordan. When Italy had a similar request they simply extradited the suspect and paid a relatively small fine.

But they need their bogeymen for the public to fear so they can introduce a police state

The whole Abu Qatada thing was just to wind up daily wail readers to wanting extra measures to be taken to 'protect us'

[Doggy Styles]

You ain't seen me, right?

No, nobody would notice a large lizard swanning about in South Wales.

[realityhack]

It's not the technology that's under debate, it's the legality.

Quite. I think that point has been missed during this thread.

I read two sides to that - let us have the data in real time, and lower the hurdles we have to jump over to make effective use of it (ie, cut out the legislative hoops/warrants/judgements en route to snooping). I'm just not that convinced the security services ever had to unduly ask permission first - not on an operation where you might need data immediately on a new lead or network.

EDIT: Mind you, anything is possible in the public sector, so who knows.

[amcdonald]

No, nobody would notice a large lizard swanning about in South Wales.

I bet David Icke would

[Churchill]

No, nobody would notice a large lizard swanning about in South Wales.

They've missed him thusfar!

[realityhack]

That was a documentary, wasn't it?

Including the designer suits, stylists, ridiculous graphics, swanky offices and a team of 5 or 6 people to tackle several doomsday threats simultaneously across the UK.

[Doggy Styles]

I read two sides to that - let us have the data in real time, and lower the hurdles we have to jump over to make effective use of it (ie, cut out the legislative hoops/warrants/judgements en route to snooping). I'm just not that convinced the security services ever had to unduly ask permission first - not on an operation where you might need data immediately on a new lead or network.

The problem as I understand it is that evidence garnered illegally couldn't be used in the case against the defendant.

So everyone could know that a bloke is a felon, but he could get off on that technicality.

Making it legal should mean they can bang more villains to rights. Perhaps.

[AtW]

This would have never happened under Labour.

[escapeUK]

It's not the technology that's under debate, it's the legality.

Hardly. So we are to believe that they cant make a simple database to hold NHS records work, but they can make a database that holds all e-mails, texts, and phone convos. Lets not forget that its just not the 3% of e-mails that you want, its the 97% of e-mails which are spam.

Also a lot of e-mail doesnt go via ISP SMTP Server, the private server opens a connection to the remote server often negotiates encryption and then sends. How they gonna get that?

Anyone who really wants to hide what they are doing will deploy VPN, and or TOR. They will buy PAYG mobiles with cash, use cash to top them up.

So to conclude, too much information, too much cost, 12 billion wasted on a NHS system (which would be simple by comparison) which never worked. And even if it did work it would be very easily avoided by anyone with a little computer knowledge / common sense.