Snoopers Charter
Discussion
Tonsko said:
VolvoT5 said:
Tonsko said:
SystemParanoia said:
can't you jist spin up a vps somewhere and vpn through that. Atleast you have more control then. And can sublet traffic to friends family
What Streisand and Algo appear to do. (Linked above).This may be a really stupid question but what happens to email sent and received when you're using a VPN? Do the headers show your VPN IP or your real IP than can be traced back to you? Could "they" read the content if they know your email address even if you're using an encrypted VPN? What happens if the other party isn't?
I've downloaded the Cyber Ghost VPN (free one) and am using it at the moment. I've tried a few different servers and have seen only a minimal drop in connection speed and ping even on servers outside Europe.
I've downloaded the Cyber Ghost VPN (free one) and am using it at the moment. I've tried a few different servers and have seen only a minimal drop in connection speed and ping even on servers outside Europe.
All that jazz said:
This may be a really stupid question but what happens to email sent and received when you're using a VPN? Do the headers show your VPN IP or your real IP than can be traced back to you? Could "they" read the content if they know your email address even if you're using an encrypted VPN? What happens if the other party isn't?
I've downloaded the Cyber Ghost VPN (free one) and am using it at the moment. I've tried a few different servers and have seen only a minimal drop in connection speed and ping even on servers outside Europe.
It depends on the mail provider. If you use Webmail then at worst it may show the IP you appear from to the mail host (so the VPN provider).I've downloaded the Cyber Ghost VPN (free one) and am using it at the moment. I've tried a few different servers and have seen only a minimal drop in connection speed and ping even on servers outside Europe.
There are a lot of "it depends" involved which means that at best your VPN provider would simply see some encrypted traffic (which of course they could capture) or at worse they could capture your entire emails.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: It depends on the mail provider. If you use Webmail then at worst it may show the IP you appear from to the mail host (so the VPN provider).
There are a lot of "it depends" involved which means that at best your VPN provider would simply see some encrypted traffic (which of course they could capture) or at worse they could capture your entire emails.
I use gmail IMAP via eM Client. And of course I realise that using gmail in the first place is quite ironic when I'm posting about privacy There are a lot of "it depends" involved which means that at best your VPN provider would simply see some encrypted traffic (which of course they could capture) or at worse they could capture your entire emails.
but it's a hypothetical question.All that jazz said:
I use gmail IMAP via eM Client. And of course I realise that using gmail in the first place is quite ironic when I'm posting about privacy but it's a hypothetical question.
I'd trust Google over a lot of other providers. but it's a hypothetical question.The connection between you and Google is almost certainly encrypted.
The connection once Google receive it, and deliver it to whoever you're sending to (if they don't use Gmail) may or may not be encrypted, and the connection between the recipients email server and the recipient may or may not be encrypted.
You can't influence any of that so if you want to be reasonably sure the content cannot be read use something like gpg to encrypt the actual message - but that brings its own headaches as encryption is a giant PITA for average Joe to do.
Captainawesome said:
all they have done is make what they have been doing for years legal. You would be incredibly naive to think otherwise
I pretty much assume that everything I do online is available to anybody that wants to find it. I'm just hiding in the herd.But if they want an easier way to review my porn preferences...well that's their problem really.
Captainawesome said:
all they have done is make what they have been doing for years legal. You would be incredibly naive to think otherwise
No, the number of moronic tw*ts who will have access to this data is now substantially increased. RIPA has of course been abused, but this is a step further.
Jasandjules said:
Captainawesome said:
all they have done is make what they have been doing for years legal. You would be incredibly naive to think otherwise
No, the number of moronic tw*ts who will have access to this data is now substantially increased. RIPA has of course been abused, but this is a step further.
Just like the government aide who "accidentally" revealed her Brexit notes, I fully expect to see some police comissioner or troublesome journalist brought down with "embarrasing" revelations of what they once followed online. Discovered a major flaw in my plan to use a VPN. I use Yatse remote on my phone to control the OSMC/Kodi Raspberry Pi that I use as a media player. Putting either the phone or the Pi on the VPN means they're no longer on the local network so I can't control it.
Obvious answer is set up the VPN on the router so all my traffic goes through it, but it looks like my Virgin router can't do that so I either need to buy a new router or a remote for the Pi.
Obvious answer is set up the VPN on the router so all my traffic goes through it, but it looks like my Virgin router can't do that so I either need to buy a new router or a remote for the Pi.
The Government has replied to the petition.
The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Repeal the new Surveillance laws (Investigatory Powers Act)”.
Government responded:
The Investigatory Powers Act dramatically increases transparency around the use of investigatory powers. It protects both privacy and security and underwent unprecedented scrutiny before becoming law.
The Government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement, security and intelligence services have the powers they need to keep people safe.
The Investigatory Powers Act transforms the law relating to the use and oversight of Investigatory powers. It strengthens safeguards and introduces world-leading oversight arrangements.
The Act does three key things. First, it brings together powers already available to law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications and data about communications. It makes these powers – and the safeguards that apply to them – clear and understandable.
Second, it radically overhauls the way these powers are authorised and overseen. It introduces a ‘double-lock’ for the most intrusive powers, including interception and all of the bulk capabilities, so warrants require the approval of a Judicial Commissioner. And it creates a powerful new Investigatory Powers Commissioner to oversee how these powers are used.
Third, it ensures powers are fit for the digital age. The Act makes a single new provision for the retention of internet connection records in order for law enforcement to identify the communications service to which a device has connected. This will restore capabilities that have been lost as a result of changes in the way people communicate.
Public scrutiny
The Bill was subject to unprecedented scrutiny prior to and during its passage.
The Bill responded to three independent reports: by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; by the Royal United Services Institute’s Independent Surveillance Review Panel; and by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. All three of those authoritative independent reports agreed a new law was needed.
The Government responded to the recommendations of those reports in the form of a draft Bill, published in November 2015. That draft Bill was submitted for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The Intelligence and Security Committee and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee conducted parallel scrutiny. Between them, those Committees received over 1,500 pages of written submissions and heard oral evidence from the Government, industry, civil liberties groups and many others. The recommendations made by those Committees informed changes to the Bill and the publication of further supporting material.
A revised Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 1 March, and completed its passage on 16 November, meeting the timetable for legislation set by Parliament during the passage of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. Over 1,700 amendments to the Bill were tabled and debated during this time.
The Government has adopted an open and consultative approach throughout the passage of this legislation, tabling or accepting a significant number of amendments in both Houses of Parliament in order to improve transparency and strengthen privacy protections. These included enhanced protections for trade unions and journalistic and legally privileged material, and the introduction of a threshold to ensure internet connection records cannot be used to investigate minor crimes.
Privacy and Oversight
The Government has placed privacy at the heart of the Investigatory Powers Act. The Act makes clear the extent to which investigatory powers may be used and the strict safeguards that apply in order to maintain privacy.
A new overarching ‘privacy clause’ was added to make absolutely clear that the protection of privacy is at the heart of this legislation. This privacy clause ensures that in each and every case a public authority must consider whether less intrusive means could be used, and must have regard to human rights and the particular sensitivity of certain information. The powers can only be exercised when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and the Act includes tough sanctions – including the creation of new criminal offences – for those misusing the powers.
The safeguards in this Act reflect the UK’s international reputation for protecting human rights. The unprecedented transparency and the new safeguards – including the ‘double lock’ for the most sensitive powers – set an international benchmark for how the law can protect both privacy and security.
Home Office
---
So there you go, all of the agencies are 'law enforcement, security and intelligence services' related, bet you didn't know the Food standards Agency was part of the Secret Services did you...
So basically you suck it up, unless of course you have a VPN, if you do, then fully expect to be told that only people like pedos and terrorists use VPN's, just like everyone who uses TOR is the same now.
Once that stage is over, fully expect that VPN's to be declared illegal unless of course you're in Business or the Govt.
We will all end up having to falsify library membership details and sign on there to get any kind of privacy. Do Internet cafes still exist?
The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Repeal the new Surveillance laws (Investigatory Powers Act)”.
Government responded:
The Investigatory Powers Act dramatically increases transparency around the use of investigatory powers. It protects both privacy and security and underwent unprecedented scrutiny before becoming law.
The Government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement, security and intelligence services have the powers they need to keep people safe.
The Investigatory Powers Act transforms the law relating to the use and oversight of Investigatory powers. It strengthens safeguards and introduces world-leading oversight arrangements.
The Act does three key things. First, it brings together powers already available to law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications and data about communications. It makes these powers – and the safeguards that apply to them – clear and understandable.
Second, it radically overhauls the way these powers are authorised and overseen. It introduces a ‘double-lock’ for the most intrusive powers, including interception and all of the bulk capabilities, so warrants require the approval of a Judicial Commissioner. And it creates a powerful new Investigatory Powers Commissioner to oversee how these powers are used.
Third, it ensures powers are fit for the digital age. The Act makes a single new provision for the retention of internet connection records in order for law enforcement to identify the communications service to which a device has connected. This will restore capabilities that have been lost as a result of changes in the way people communicate.
Public scrutiny
The Bill was subject to unprecedented scrutiny prior to and during its passage.
The Bill responded to three independent reports: by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; by the Royal United Services Institute’s Independent Surveillance Review Panel; and by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. All three of those authoritative independent reports agreed a new law was needed.
The Government responded to the recommendations of those reports in the form of a draft Bill, published in November 2015. That draft Bill was submitted for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The Intelligence and Security Committee and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee conducted parallel scrutiny. Between them, those Committees received over 1,500 pages of written submissions and heard oral evidence from the Government, industry, civil liberties groups and many others. The recommendations made by those Committees informed changes to the Bill and the publication of further supporting material.
A revised Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 1 March, and completed its passage on 16 November, meeting the timetable for legislation set by Parliament during the passage of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. Over 1,700 amendments to the Bill were tabled and debated during this time.
The Government has adopted an open and consultative approach throughout the passage of this legislation, tabling or accepting a significant number of amendments in both Houses of Parliament in order to improve transparency and strengthen privacy protections. These included enhanced protections for trade unions and journalistic and legally privileged material, and the introduction of a threshold to ensure internet connection records cannot be used to investigate minor crimes.
Privacy and Oversight
The Government has placed privacy at the heart of the Investigatory Powers Act. The Act makes clear the extent to which investigatory powers may be used and the strict safeguards that apply in order to maintain privacy.
A new overarching ‘privacy clause’ was added to make absolutely clear that the protection of privacy is at the heart of this legislation. This privacy clause ensures that in each and every case a public authority must consider whether less intrusive means could be used, and must have regard to human rights and the particular sensitivity of certain information. The powers can only be exercised when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and the Act includes tough sanctions – including the creation of new criminal offences – for those misusing the powers.
The safeguards in this Act reflect the UK’s international reputation for protecting human rights. The unprecedented transparency and the new safeguards – including the ‘double lock’ for the most sensitive powers – set an international benchmark for how the law can protect both privacy and security.
Home Office
---
So there you go, all of the agencies are 'law enforcement, security and intelligence services' related, bet you didn't know the Food standards Agency was part of the Secret Services did you...
So basically you suck it up, unless of course you have a VPN, if you do, then fully expect to be told that only people like pedos and terrorists use VPN's, just like everyone who uses TOR is the same now.
Once that stage is over, fully expect that VPN's to be declared illegal unless of course you're in Business or the Govt.
We will all end up having to falsify library membership details and sign on there to get any kind of privacy. Do Internet cafes still exist?
Gvmt said:
Act includes tough sanctions – including the creation of new criminal offences – for those misusing the powers.
Phew, that's ok then. That's totally going to stop the hackers now that it's illegal.Close one, real bullet dodge there. I mean it's going to be illegal, so clearly criminals will refrain from stealing/hacking the ISPs storing this.
Tonsko said:
Can you flash the DD-WRT firmware onto the router?
I don't believe so, looks like most people who want to do similar put the Virgin box in to modem mode and then use a separate router. I do have an old Linksys router kicking about bit it's probably a bit too old to do the job.Putting the entire network on to a VPN at the router level does have its drawbacks though, for example it needs to be on a UK location to access BBC iPlayer, and I don't know what impact location would have Amazon Prime, but there are other things that work better on overseas locations. Might be able to get round that with PureVPN's dual tunneling business though assuming I can set specific sites to use the local network and anything else to use the VPN
Edited by RizzoTheRat on Wednesday 30th November 11:04
techguyone said:
The Government has replied to the petition.
The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Repeal the new Surveillance laws (Investigatory Powers Act)”.
Government responded:
The Investigatory Powers Act dramatically increases transparency around the use of investigatory powers. It protects both privacy and security and underwent unprecedented scrutiny before becoming law.
The Government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement, security and intelligence services have the powers they need to keep people safe.
The Investigatory Powers Act transforms the law relating to the use and oversight of Investigatory powers. It strengthens safeguards and introduces world-leading oversight arrangements.
The Act does three key things. First, it brings together powers already available to law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications and data about communications. It makes these powers – and the safeguards that apply to them – clear and understandable.
Second, it radically overhauls the way these powers are authorised and overseen. It introduces a ‘double-lock’ for the most intrusive powers, including interception and all of the bulk capabilities, so warrants require the approval of a Judicial Commissioner. And it creates a powerful new Investigatory Powers Commissioner to oversee how these powers are used.
Third, it ensures powers are fit for the digital age. The Act makes a single new provision for the retention of internet connection records in order for law enforcement to identify the communications service to which a device has connected. This will restore capabilities that have been lost as a result of changes in the way people communicate.
Public scrutiny
The Bill was subject to unprecedented scrutiny prior to and during its passage.
The Bill responded to three independent reports: by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; by the Royal United Services Institute’s Independent Surveillance Review Panel; and by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. All three of those authoritative independent reports agreed a new law was needed.
The Government responded to the recommendations of those reports in the form of a draft Bill, published in November 2015. That draft Bill was submitted for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The Intelligence and Security Committee and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee conducted parallel scrutiny. Between them, those Committees received over 1,500 pages of written submissions and heard oral evidence from the Government, industry, civil liberties groups and many others. The recommendations made by those Committees informed changes to the Bill and the publication of further supporting material.
A revised Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 1 March, and completed its passage on 16 November, meeting the timetable for legislation set by Parliament during the passage of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. Over 1,700 amendments to the Bill were tabled and debated during this time.
The Government has adopted an open and consultative approach throughout the passage of this legislation, tabling or accepting a significant number of amendments in both Houses of Parliament in order to improve transparency and strengthen privacy protections. These included enhanced protections for trade unions and journalistic and legally privileged material, and the introduction of a threshold to ensure internet connection records cannot be used to investigate minor crimes.
Privacy and Oversight
The Government has placed privacy at the heart of the Investigatory Powers Act. The Act makes clear the extent to which investigatory powers may be used and the strict safeguards that apply in order to maintain privacy.
A new overarching ‘privacy clause’ was added to make absolutely clear that the protection of privacy is at the heart of this legislation. This privacy clause ensures that in each and every case a public authority must consider whether less intrusive means could be used, and must have regard to human rights and the particular sensitivity of certain information. The powers can only be exercised when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and the Act includes tough sanctions – including the creation of new criminal offences – for those misusing the powers.
The safeguards in this Act reflect the UK’s international reputation for protecting human rights. The unprecedented transparency and the new safeguards – including the ‘double lock’ for the most sensitive powers – set an international benchmark for how the law can protect both privacy and security.
Home Office
---
So there you go, all of the agencies are 'law enforcement, security and intelligence services' related, bet you didn't know the Food standards Agency was part of the Secret Services did you...
So basically you suck it up, unless of course you have a VPN, if you do, then fully expect to be told that only people like pedos and terrorists use VPN's, just like everyone who uses TOR is the same now.
Once that stage is over, fully expect that VPN's to be declared illegal unless of course you're in Business or the Govt.
We will all end up having to falsify library membership details and sign on there to get any kind of privacy. Do Internet cafes still exist?
Pathetic.The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Repeal the new Surveillance laws (Investigatory Powers Act)”.
Government responded:
The Investigatory Powers Act dramatically increases transparency around the use of investigatory powers. It protects both privacy and security and underwent unprecedented scrutiny before becoming law.
The Government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement, security and intelligence services have the powers they need to keep people safe.
The Investigatory Powers Act transforms the law relating to the use and oversight of Investigatory powers. It strengthens safeguards and introduces world-leading oversight arrangements.
The Act does three key things. First, it brings together powers already available to law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications and data about communications. It makes these powers – and the safeguards that apply to them – clear and understandable.
Second, it radically overhauls the way these powers are authorised and overseen. It introduces a ‘double-lock’ for the most intrusive powers, including interception and all of the bulk capabilities, so warrants require the approval of a Judicial Commissioner. And it creates a powerful new Investigatory Powers Commissioner to oversee how these powers are used.
Third, it ensures powers are fit for the digital age. The Act makes a single new provision for the retention of internet connection records in order for law enforcement to identify the communications service to which a device has connected. This will restore capabilities that have been lost as a result of changes in the way people communicate.
Public scrutiny
The Bill was subject to unprecedented scrutiny prior to and during its passage.
The Bill responded to three independent reports: by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; by the Royal United Services Institute’s Independent Surveillance Review Panel; and by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. All three of those authoritative independent reports agreed a new law was needed.
The Government responded to the recommendations of those reports in the form of a draft Bill, published in November 2015. That draft Bill was submitted for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The Intelligence and Security Committee and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee conducted parallel scrutiny. Between them, those Committees received over 1,500 pages of written submissions and heard oral evidence from the Government, industry, civil liberties groups and many others. The recommendations made by those Committees informed changes to the Bill and the publication of further supporting material.
A revised Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 1 March, and completed its passage on 16 November, meeting the timetable for legislation set by Parliament during the passage of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. Over 1,700 amendments to the Bill were tabled and debated during this time.
The Government has adopted an open and consultative approach throughout the passage of this legislation, tabling or accepting a significant number of amendments in both Houses of Parliament in order to improve transparency and strengthen privacy protections. These included enhanced protections for trade unions and journalistic and legally privileged material, and the introduction of a threshold to ensure internet connection records cannot be used to investigate minor crimes.
Privacy and Oversight
The Government has placed privacy at the heart of the Investigatory Powers Act. The Act makes clear the extent to which investigatory powers may be used and the strict safeguards that apply in order to maintain privacy.
A new overarching ‘privacy clause’ was added to make absolutely clear that the protection of privacy is at the heart of this legislation. This privacy clause ensures that in each and every case a public authority must consider whether less intrusive means could be used, and must have regard to human rights and the particular sensitivity of certain information. The powers can only be exercised when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and the Act includes tough sanctions – including the creation of new criminal offences – for those misusing the powers.
The safeguards in this Act reflect the UK’s international reputation for protecting human rights. The unprecedented transparency and the new safeguards – including the ‘double lock’ for the most sensitive powers – set an international benchmark for how the law can protect both privacy and security.
Home Office
---
So there you go, all of the agencies are 'law enforcement, security and intelligence services' related, bet you didn't know the Food standards Agency was part of the Secret Services did you...
So basically you suck it up, unless of course you have a VPN, if you do, then fully expect to be told that only people like pedos and terrorists use VPN's, just like everyone who uses TOR is the same now.
Once that stage is over, fully expect that VPN's to be declared illegal unless of course you're in Business or the Govt.
We will all end up having to falsify library membership details and sign on there to get any kind of privacy. Do Internet cafes still exist?
They say the words but they don't mean them.
The Government said:
The Government has placed privacy at the heart of the Investigatory Powers Act. The Act makes clear the extent to which investigatory powers may be used and the strict safeguards that apply in order to maintain privacy.
Classic doublespeak. Say one thing then do another.It gets better, all internet encryption must have some backdoor for the government to snoop. So basically encryption in the UK will have a method of hackers to exploit - genius
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/30/investigat...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/30/investigat...
SwissJonese said:
It gets better, all internet encryption must have some backdoor for the government to snoop. So basically encryption in the UK will have a method of hackers to exploit - genius
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/30/investigat...
Surely using a VPN with foreign servers bypasses this as the Gov can't do anything about?http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/30/investigat...
I've just been reading back through the Parlimentary debates on the Charter and they make for some interesting reading.
I found Alistair Carmichael's comment quite funny:
Reading back of Teresa May's comments from the time; when asked about protecting that data from third-parties, she seem fixated on the fact that the bill is protect by the fact that they've made it illegal to access this data without authorisation. As if that is going to stop anyone!
No doubt there is some sweaty 16 year old sitting his bedroom somewhere in America scared off by the prospect of UK legal action
The stupid thing is that the Government don't seem to realise that making it illegal to hack the database is punishment for successfully committing the act, not a form of security that stops it happening. If Sony/Microsoft?IBM/The US Government/Apple etc are all vunerable to hacking, what the hell makes the UK so special, especially when the prize is so great?!
These databases will be like a digital library for everybody's online habits; data that will be worth a fortune to the right people. Hackers will see this like a challenge, the holy grail of data theft with a massive payoff.
Frightening times....
I found Alistair Carmichael's comment quite funny:
Alistair Carmichael 7th June said:
Andy Burnham reminded us that it was 15 years ago today that he and I were elected to this House. I have seen a lot happen in that time, and I like to think that I have learned a thing or two, one of which is that when Government Ministers and Government Back Benchers shower the Opposition Front Bench with praise, it is time to head for the hills because we are going to do something that is seriously bad and dangerous.
The first time that the right hon. Gentleman and I saw that in this House was in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003 when the Conservatives, then in opposition, said that they would take the Government position on trust. Later on, they said, “Of course, if we had known what we know now, we would not have supported them at the time.” They could not have known then what they knew later, because they never asked the questions. It is not the job of the Opposition to take the Government’s views on trust, but that is what they are doing. I do not question their principle, but I am afraid I cannot share their judgment.
Plenty of jovial backslapping when this was discussed, but a few MPs have spoken loudly about the dangers involved.The first time that the right hon. Gentleman and I saw that in this House was in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003 when the Conservatives, then in opposition, said that they would take the Government position on trust. Later on, they said, “Of course, if we had known what we know now, we would not have supported them at the time.” They could not have known then what they knew later, because they never asked the questions. It is not the job of the Opposition to take the Government’s views on trust, but that is what they are doing. I do not question their principle, but I am afraid I cannot share their judgment.
Reading back of Teresa May's comments from the time; when asked about protecting that data from third-parties, she seem fixated on the fact that the bill is protect by the fact that they've made it illegal to access this data without authorisation. As if that is going to stop anyone!
No doubt there is some sweaty 16 year old sitting his bedroom somewhere in America scared off by the prospect of UK legal action
The stupid thing is that the Government don't seem to realise that making it illegal to hack the database is punishment for successfully committing the act, not a form of security that stops it happening. If Sony/Microsoft?IBM/The US Government/Apple etc are all vunerable to hacking, what the hell makes the UK so special, especially when the prize is so great?!
These databases will be like a digital library for everybody's online habits; data that will be worth a fortune to the right people. Hackers will see this like a challenge, the holy grail of data theft with a massive payoff.
Frightening times....
didelydoo said:
SwissJonese said:
It gets better, all internet encryption must have some backdoor for the government to snoop. So basically encryption in the UK will have a method of hackers to exploit - genius
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/30/investigat...
Surely using a VPN with foreign servers bypasses this as the Gov can't do anything about?http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/30/investigat...
Quite how Google et. al will react, especially as they're setting up shop in a big way in London, no-one knows.
In theory though, a foreign company, despite being insisted to by the UK Gov't, could just ignore it. UK based VPNs are pointless, for two reasons now.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff