BadPhorm - When good ISPs go bad!

Theresa May wants to monitor every personal communication we make. It's a step too far in a democratic society

In my time, I have shared a platform with Theresa May at a Liberty event and Nick Clegg at the Lib Dem conference and on both occasions I remember being heartened by their criticism of the authoritarian policies of the Blair government. Here were politicians who knew the limits of state intrusion and seemed to understand the basis of British liberal democracy.

Four years later, May, as home secretary, is now advocating a system of total digital surveillance, while the deputy prime minister seems prepared to back the Communications Data Bill, provided a few meaningless safeguards are put in place. I won't say too much about May's position or Clegg's rush to compromise liberal principles, because this inconsistency is what we expect from politicians. It is the norm and I feel foolish for expecting otherwise.

I completely agree.

In one breath the politicians of our country criticise states like China, Syria & Pakistan for imposing mass surveillance and filtering the internet yet with the very next breath they tell us we need exactly the same monitotring and controls in this country.

That's hypocrasy of the highest order and worse, it's treating the British people like fools. Do they really expect us to swallow the pack of lies and half-truths they are using to justify this draconian legislation?

This invasive & totalitarian legislation needs stopped before it even gets started. The facts need to be put out to the wider public, honestly, clearly and without tech-speak, something I fear our press is singularly failing to achieve.

• This bill will do nothing to help catch terrorists. If the government want to convince me otherwise, please explain exactly how it will achieve those ends. Even the stupidest terrorist isn't going to post their plans on Facebook!
• It will do nothing to combat criminals either. We have a record of who sent or recieved what e-mail, when. So what - have they never heard of disposable addresses, encryption  and proxy servers?
• The only thing ti will do is provide the Government and thier friends a massive database of ordinary people's daily activities. How long before it's mined for copyright infringers, or used to justify 'preventive' surveillance of those with opposing views?
• It's a huge waste of money. 1.2 BILLION is a conservative estimate. At a time when truly essential services face ever increasing pressure on their budgets and people in need are being denied life-extending drugs how can such expendture be justified on a system that is so easily circumvented it's laughable.

As so many said at the time, Phorm was the tip of the iceberg - the rest of that berg has just surfaced and it smells truly foul!

Jim
BadPhorm Admin

I do not think politicians and civil servants have thought this idea up themselves. I think the question of who stands to gain if these measures are adopted needs to be asked.

I don't know but would take a guess it is the armaments & "security" industries moving into the "cyber war" area and pushing their products that are driving this agenda by scaring the politicians and civil servants with invented bogeymen.

Part of the problem we face at the moment is that the current legislation is woefully out of date - much of predates electronic communication entirely and the various acts that do cover it have fallen way behind the everyday use of the technology.

We can no longer say that copyright abuse is a wilful criminal act in every situation - even the most "reasonable person" uses images they "found" online without obtaining permission - and in most cases, no "reasonable person" could even trace a much copied and re-posted image all the way back to the copyright holder.  Fifty years ago, the only way you could have copied an image like that would be to open a book and stick it into a photo-copier - it took so many steps and was patently obvious that you were copying something rather than merely using it.    Because if that, there's no real defence based on "fair play" or "common sense" - if you have an "illegal" copy of ANYTHING - you are guilty and all you can do is try to argue that are "stupid" rather than criminal in intent.

Likewise - we are still having ridiculous debates about the nature of blogs and forum/social media posts - should they be treated as the written word or as speech?   There's a major difference between libel and slander and the ambiguity surrounding online content causes confusion, wastes time and increases costs in court cases.

In terms of privacy - there is a very real need to examine the nature of "privacy" as it applies now and will apply in the near future.   Is it reasonable to apply the same strict privacy controls we needed fifty years ago when people are increasinly revealing so much about themselves via social media outlets?   Is wire-tapping of phone-calls still as big a no-no in an age where so many people are perfectly happy to have loud conversation on their mobiles on the train or in the pub?

For me, it's not about the use of data - it's about the ABUSE of it.  It's not about saying that data is sacrosanct.  It's about saying that data is a tangible asset and that the owner of that data should be free to monetise it if they so wish - no-one else.  It's about accepting that the USE of data has to be reasonable and justified.  It's about saying that ignorance and intent actually ARE factors in determining whether or not a crime has been committed.

That last point is a stumbling block for many privacy campaigners.  It's easy to see the problem as black and white but we have to step back and look at the whole picture - not just focus on the likes of Google and phorm.  

For example, when the phorm scandal broke, there was a lot of disussion of the fact that their system created a copy - a breach of copyright.  Trouble is, if we push the copyright case too hard using existing legislation, we actually risk criminalising and alienating the public - people who "borrow" an image to use an an avatar or download a ringtone that was "ripped" from a recording without permission or licence are no less guilty than phorm.    People are demanding the same sort of "reasonable use" legislation that exists in the US and that should help - but it has to be very well written otherwise it could be subverted and used as a defence by genuine criminals - possibly even to defend some elements of online tracking systems.

This is why we need new, relevent legislation specifically designed for the internet age.  We can't keep trying to bend laws written when chickens still had teeth to fit new technology and new problems - because the bad guys are doing exactly the same thing and they are winning.   The regulators and authorities are constantly having to interpret laws rather than simply being able to apply them and when they can't even decide for sure that a crime has occured, there's no chance of them taking action.   Much as I am disappointed with the ICO and CPS's failure to penalise phorm/BT over the illegal trials, I do understand the problems they faced trying to decide what laws were actually broken and then having to decide if any "harm" was done.   Having them placed in a situaton where they have to make such subjective decisions makes it too easy for the villains.