djm4: (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] djm4 at 07:14am on 14/11/2001
"Eh? Data of net traffic but not content?"

I suspect that is simply the toe in the door. In six month's time, David Blunkett will point out that the measure introduced in this bill isn't very useful, and amend it to allow reading of content 'to close a silly loophole that's letting terrorists escape'.

I'll be very happy to be proven too cynical on that one.
[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com at 07:40am on 14/11/2001
And then it will become impossible to keep up. What ISP could keep copies of emails sent for that period?
[link] [parent] [reply]
ext_16733: (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] akicif.livejournal.com at 07:47am on 14/11/2001
I'm prepared to bet that "data" includes the address of the website (rendering it unnecessary to store "content") and the addressee of any email (ie the same info that mobile phone companies store aleady).

What's the betting it'll soon be a criminal offence to own and operate a mobile phone without some form of connected identity?

And if it's not, there's damn' all point in tracking net stuff (if they're doing it for the reasons they say they are).

And while I'd be very surprised if most people reading this hadn't already seen something similar, here's a useful thing from today's Register...
[link] [parent] [reply]

August

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
        1
 
 2
 
 3
 
4
 
 5
 
 6
 
 7
1
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
11
 
 12
 
 13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
18
 
 19
 
 20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
25
 
 26
 
 27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30
 
 31