The Stasi would have been so pleased Share This:





The Telegraph (04/05) expands, A European Union directive, which Britain was instrumental in devising, comes into force which will require all internet service providers to retain information on email traffic, visits to web sites and telephone calls made over the internet, for 12 months. Police and the security services will be able to access the information to combat crime and terrorism. Hundreds of public bodies and quangos, including local councils, will also be able to access the data to investigate flytipping and other less serious crimes.



I've been watching the interaction of trends in the US and the UK for several years. Just as America's staunchest ally in foreign policy (Iraq and Afghanistan) is the UK so, too, are they closely allied in cultural trends like political correctness and political ones like surveillance policies. What happens in the UK seems to wash up on North American shores as a proposed legislation in Congress within a year or two.



I am under no illusion that privacy on the Internet actually exists but the open archiving of all internet activity in order to make it available to government agencies on all levels feels like a difference in kind from what has been happening. It is rather like the current corruption in government. Politicians have always been corrupt but now there is a shocking openness about their grabs for power and money, about the stolen tax funds they publicly heap on others within the oligarchy (e.g. large banks). There used to be a sense of discretion, of limits...sometimes even of shame that surrounded the process. Now, it seems, all restraints have been lifted and there is only the naked face of power that sees no need to dissemble. No need even to pay lip service to civil liberties or any other tatter of personal freedom.



Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, is correct when he states,: "I don't think people are aware of the implications of this move. It means that everything we do online or on the phone will be known to the authorities. They are using this to produce probably the world's most comprehensive surveillance system."



BTW, I do not for a second believe assurances by officials that the identities of the sender and receiver will be archived but not the contents of messages. And, no, I am not paranoid. How many times have we been given official assurances that were blatant lies? -- "the police don't retain DNA," "airlines don't have a suspected terrorist list." Nor do I believe this is primarily a move to fight terrorism. Indeed, anyone who does believes this will not be used as a tool for social control is criminally naive.



If people organize opposition or resistance, I hope they do it off-line. Back to category overview Back to news overview Older News Newer News



Printer Friendly Wendy McElroy - Tuesday 07 April 2009 - 06:45:57 - Permalink Yesterday, Christopher Null reported on the Yahoo Tech site , In a move that even the most nonchalant of privacy advocates is crying foul over, the UK has put into effect a European Union directive which mandates the archival of information regarding virtually all internet traffic for the next 12 months. The program formally goes into effect todayThe Telegraph (04/05) expands, A European Union directive, which Britain was instrumental in devising, comes into force which will require all internet service providers to retain information on email traffic, visits to web sites and telephone calls made over the internet, for 12 months. Police and the security services will be able to access the information to combat crime and terrorism. Hundreds of public bodies and quangos, including local councils, will also be able to access the data to investigate flytipping and other less serious crimes.I've been watching the interaction of trends in the US and the UK for several years. Just as America's staunchest ally in foreign policy (Iraq and Afghanistan) is the UK so, too, are they closely allied in cultural trends like political correctness and political ones like surveillance policies. What happens in the UK seems to wash up on North American shores as a proposed legislation in Congress within a year or two.I am under no illusion that privacy on the Internet actually exists but thearchiving of all internet activity in order to make it available to government agencies on all levels feels like a difference in kind from what has been happening. It is rather like the current corruption in government. Politicians have always been corrupt but now there is a shocking openness about their grabs for power and money, about the stolen tax funds they publicly heap on others within the oligarchy (e.g. large banks). There used to be a sense of discretion, of limits...sometimes even of shame that surrounded the process. Now, it seems, all restraints have been lifted and there is only the naked face of power that sees no need to dissemble. No need even to pay lip service to civil liberties or any other tatter of personal freedom.Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, is correct when he states,: "I don't think people are aware of the implications of this move. It means that everything we do online or on the phone will be known to the authorities. They are using this to produce probably the world's most comprehensive surveillance system."BTW, I do not for a second believe assurances by officials that the identities of the sender and receiver will be archived but not the contents of messages. And, no, I am not paranoid. How many times have we been given official assurances that were blatant lies? -- "the police don't retain DNA," "airlines don't have a suspected terrorist list." Nor do I believe this is primarily a move to fight terrorism. Indeed, anyone who does believes this will not be used as a tool for social control is criminally naive.If people organize opposition or resistance, I hope they do it off-line.