Are there any private investigators who are not ex-gardai?

You will get the full picture if you chat to one who trusts you. It's a scary picture.

Restraint of trade etc is not applicable and won't make a difference anyway. The problem is that some private investigators and the people who employ them are willing to over-step the lines of legality by paying employees to divulge private and confidential information. That is what the story confirms. We already have laws against this but they are being broken willy-nilly because the data is there it will be divulged and shared.

The only thing that can stop this is to make the retention of such data illegal. That way the temptation is gone and the crime won't be committed. Instead, our laws make the retention of such data compulsory.

More stories from the UK:

17 October 2008 -

BBC: Proposals for a central database of all mobile phone and internet traffic have been condemned as "Orwellian".

16 October 2008 -

FT: Ministers are pushing ahead with contentious plans to give police and security services increased access to communications data because of fears they are failing to keep pace with the use of the internet by terrorists and criminals

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

More stories from the UK:

17 October 2008 -

BBC: Proposals for a central database of all mobile phone and internet traffic have been condemned as "Orwellian".

Quote :

Information will be kept for two years by law and may be held centrally on a searchable database.

Yeah right.

There are pros and cons to this but is there anyone who believes it's 100% intrusive to have mobile phone and internet conversations stored? They are saying that it's the times and dates that will be stored but be under no illusion it'll be conversations and content eventually. Is this right? Shouldn't there be a balance against the potential abuse of such power? I contend it needs a long and hard process of education of the population (this could take decades) to know and realise what the implications of this might be and afterwards a plebiscite on whether it should be introduced in some limited form.

Or maybe not - is it even necessary? Is this like evotingmachines and low-tech is enough tech?

I think there should be no vote. It goes against the fundamental right to privacy and the fundamental right to freedom of thought.

They are doing it because it can be done. There is no end to this. There are two serious side effects which are already in play:

1. People will not feel free and will curb their communications with others for fear of retrieval or interception. This may lead to blackmail or discrimination (which they might not even be aware of) at a later date. This is an attack on the freedom that has made the free world a great place to live.

2. People with money will gain access to this private information and will use if for their own private gain. This will give them an unfair advantage and power over others. Just as the information is kept because it can be, the information will be accessed because it can be. Like I said, it's already proven that this has been happening.

Zhou - did you notice the row between Sarkozy and Barroso over similar?
The internet is a frightening tool when viewed by politicians. Margaret Wallstrom has in part blamed the internet for the Lisbon no vote.

But do M15/M16 and Cheltenham not have the run of this place under current agreements anyway?

I didn't see that dispute. Do you have link? I note that Sarkozy is suing the former head of the intelligence for breaches of privacy. Is Sarkozy fighting for others privacy or is he another abused abuser?

Interesting topic. The general premise of the surveillance society is based on the fact that law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from surveillance. The surviellance theory breaks down, imo, due to the law part. There are so many new laws and so many ways to interpret new and existing laws that the whole system will become warped in time. One may break a law by doing or not doing something and receive punatitve justice for a tangental issue. The private business use of now public information is just the tip of the ice berg.

Zhou's perspective peaks my interest. (I'm not having a pop at yee and generally agree with your stance.) The interest is peaked by what I perceive to be a somewhat conservative view of politics/economics and yet a firm grounding in fundamental rights of people.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

I didn't see that dispute. Do you have link? I note that Sarkozy is suing the former head of the intelligence for breaches of privacy. Is Sarkozy fighting for others privacy or is he another abused abuser?

http://euobserver.com/871/26884

It was about proposed law to cut people off from the Internet if they illegally downloaded. Most young people would be at risk.

Here are two threads in which the politics of internet access are discussed.

https://machinenation.forumakers.com/world-politics-and-events-f27/death-of-free-internet-imminent-t983.htm?highlight=internet

https://machinenation.forumakers.com/language-culture-f9/blogging-and-fora-an-eu-view-t1290.htm

Fair play to the European Parliament. Sarkozy has some cheek asking the President of the Commission to give a personal commitment to fight against a measure passed by the EP. Sarkozy really can be a bit of a tit when he puts his mind to it.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Fair play tot he European Parliament. Sarkozy has some cheeck asking the President of the commission to give a personal commitment to fight against a measure passed by the EP. Sarkozy really can be a bit of a tit when he puts his mind to it.

The surprising thing is that it was so public. I assume that usually these little things go on behind closed doors.

Damn

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=COMPUTERS+IN+BUSINESS-qqqs=computersinbusiness-qqqid=37504-qqqx=1.asp

Auditor #9 wrote:

Damn

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=COMPUTERS+IN+BUSINESS-qqqs=computersinbusiness-qqqid=37504-qqqx=1.asp

I guess this report is already linked to the thread, but I haven't read it yet - it looks very interesting.

http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=378

At present, it seems that "covert surveillance" is carried out without a full legal framework and the results can't be used in court.

"Covert Surveillance Bill To place existing practises by the security forces on a statutory basis in line with ECHR obligations: Publication Expected - 2009 "(Department of Justice).

http://www.dublinsinnfein.com/news/8233 Sinn Fein

I haven't been able to find a copy of a Bill.
This is all I could find on the D of Justice website ( about half way down the page ).
Link

The Eu is ploughing ahead with plans for remote searching of people's computers. Child pornography is being used as the justification. No doubt the law will allow these remote searches to be carried out for all sorts of crimes. If the justifications were limited to child pornography then it would be hard to argue against it. Of course it won't be so limited as it never is.

LINK - BBC News
LINK - theregister.co.uk

The Association of Corporate Travel Executives has raised concerns that RFID Chips in Identification Docs can be used to track individual's travel.

LINK - rsa.com - RFID
LINK - theregister.co.uk RFID

Well it looks like it's also aimed at piracy as well as child pornography, how intrusive the laws would be on the individual isn't yet known is it ? Nor to what level the intrusion can be. If you look at the SBP points above then all they'd need is a system of 'cyber fines' so they can fine you online for mouthing off that Microsofties & Sons were 'unprofessional', for posting a screenshot of the indo here, saving it on my desktop or for copying CDs I bought into mp3 format.

Three pieces of Art have been going through my head lately - the film Brazil (which I just purchased), the Sylester Stallone satire 'Demolition Man' and the Leonard Cohen song 'Everybody Knows' ... all in the vein of 'horror politics' in the Orwellian Canon, only the Stallone one is a feelgood of course.

And everybody knows that the plague is coming
Everybody knows that its moving fast
Everybody knows that the naked man and woman
Are just a shining artifact of the past
Everybody knows the scene is dead
But theres gonna be a meter on your bed
That will disclose
What everybody knows
lyrics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h27HRNm_r4U

Quote :

"The strategy encourages the much needed operational cooperation and information exchange between the Member States," said EC vice-president Jacques Barrot in a statement.

"If the strategy is to make the fight against cyber crime more efficient, all stakeholders have to be fully committed to its implementation," he added.

from the BBC link Zhou posted above. Are all the 'stakeholders' fully committed? Can anyone petition against this type of intrusion ? Scary stuff about the RFID now too ...

cactus flower wrote:

...

"Covert Surveillance Bill To place existing practises by the security forces on a statutory basis in line with ECHR obligations: Publication Expected - 2009 "(Department of Justice).

http://www.dublinsinnfein.com/news/8233 Sinn Fein

I haven't been able to find a copy of a Bill.
This is all I could find on the D of Justice website ( about half way down the page ).
Link

The Sinn Féin statement seemed eminently sensible to me and was explicitly drawing attention to past abuses of surveillance by the authorities so I hope you didn't include the link in response to Mr Zhou's worried query:

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

This could be very handy information for the facists and the snoops and
those that would control opinion [how long before Sinn Fein get into
Government?].

These guys seem reasonably happy with the new bill and the oversight contained therein, and they seem to know of what they speak.

coc wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

...

"Covert Surveillance Bill To place existing practises by the security forces on a statutory basis in line with ECHR obligations: Publication Expected - 2009 "(Department of Justice).

http://www.dublinsinnfein.com/news/8233 Sinn Fein

I haven't been able to find a copy of a Bill.
This is all I could find on the D of Justice website ( about half way down the page ).
Link

The Sinn Féin statement seemed eminently sensible to me and was explicitly drawing attention to past abuses of surveillance by the authorities so I hope you didn't include the link in response to Mr Zhou's worried query:

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

This could be very handy information for the facists and the snoops and
those that would control opinion [how long before Sinn Fein get into
Government?].

These guys seem reasonably happy with the new bill and the oversight contained therein, and they seem to know of what they speak.

I included it for information. It is no use whinging about legislation after its passed, or fretting over something if it is perfectly O.K. We have a link to the digitalrights site here - I have a lot of time for them - the site was very useful when we were drawing up our Charter and Modding principles.

Very significant ruling in the ECHR today

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7765484.stm

It seems that significant number of innocent people who have nonetheless had their DNA samples retained on the database, will be entitled to have them removed.

Atticus wrote:

Very significant ruling in the ECHR today

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7765484.stm

It seems that significant number of innocent people who have nonetheless had their DNA samples retained on the database, will be entitled to have them removed.

This thread was going through my head today again - shouldn't there be enormous legal protection for the individual with the introduction of such penetrative technology and legislation that the computer you are typing away on now could soon be being fingered for bad stuff ? As per the Sunday Business Post article above, you are not entitled to copy your own CDs into mp3 format. Would I have to prove how I got 47 CDs worth of mp3s onto my c drive?

But the link is about DNA. From your link

Quote :

The European Court of Human Rights has spoken with a strong and clear voice - retaining indefinitely the DNA and fingerprint records of unconvicted suspects is unlawful.

The 17 judges of Strasbourg's Grand Chamber were unanimous in their ruling, and they emphasised that the government must follow it - because on this issue it does not have much "margin of appreciation" or leeway.

The court said the UK was the only one of the 47 members of the Council of Europe to permit the "systematic and indefinite" retention of DNA samples and profiles from people who have been acquitted, though within the UK the arrangements apply only to suspects in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

However, the court signalled that the government should consider following Scotland's example.

What's so special about Scotland and how do we know they've thrown the samples out ? The film GATTACA comes to mind.

Ye'll have to click the link or they'll sue me probably.

Ah, I have Gattica on video somewhere but no longer have a video player!

I really don't have time now, but want to link to and follow up the Channel 4 news broadcast this evening. Jon Snow spoke to a chap from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, a deeply respectable body here which is regularly consulted by the govt. on bioethical issues.

http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/

Can't see the exact conversation on the C4 website and, as i say, don't have time just now.

Atticus wrote:

Ah, I have Gattica on video somewhere but no longer have a video player!

I really don't have time now, but want to link to and follow up the Channel 4 news broadcast this evening. Jon Snow spoke to a chap from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, a deeply respectable body here which is regularly consulted by the govt. on bioethical issues.

http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/

Can't see the exact conversation on the C4 website and, as i say, don't have time just now.

Thanks for that anyway Atticus. If you don't have GATTACA I bought it recently on CD and I can burn y-



forget it.

FROM SANS.org:

UK Government Denies Plans to Expand Remote Warrantless PC Surveillance (January 4 & 5, 2009) The UK Home Office has denied reports in two papers that the government plans to expand its authority to search citizens' PCs remotely without a warrant. The Computer Misuse Act of 1990 already allows remote searches of computers, and the practice is regulated under the Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). The searches can be conducted through Trojans sent in emails, WiFi eavesdropping or through physically installed keystroke loggers. The European Union's Council of Ministers has decided to adopt a plan that would allow member states to expand the potential scope of remote warrantless surveillance of PCs; it would also allow other member nations to request such surveillance from UK police.

http://www.heise-online.co.uk/security/Government-backs-more-remote-searching-of-private-PCs--/news/112350
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/05/police_remote_snoop/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5439604.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4109031/Government-plans-to-extend-powers-to-spy-on-personal-computers.html
[Editor's Note (Schultz): I do not believe the UK Home Office's denial in the least bit. Whether we like it or not, the ever growing seriousness of terrorist and other threats makes extensive government-conducted surveillance, including at-will remote access to privately owned PCs, an inevitability.]

--Proposed UK Communications Database Could be Managed by Private Company (December 31, 2008 & January 3 & 5, 2009) In an effort to save money, the UK government plans to use a private company to manage a proposed database of all phone calls, text messages, emails and web surfing details. The database would contain information about when and where the communications took place, but no content would be retained; there would be stringent penalties for misusing the information. The database, which is aimed at helping with criminal investigations, has met with resistance from privacy advocates.
]http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2233212/uk-government-outsource
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7805610.stm

I hate to say it, but reasons for acceding to the Charter of Fundamental Rights no.101 - Articles 7 and 8. Currently we have no firm basis for challenging this at a European level.

I don't know of a report. If there is one it doesn't matter because the state and private industry will continue as they please unless constitutional law stands in their way. This is a matter of human privacy, dignity and freedom of thought in my opinion. I doubt whether our "pragmatic" courts would take the same view though.

ibis wrote:

I hate to say it, but reasons for acceding to the Charter of Fundamental Rights no.101 - Articles 7 and 8. Currently we have no firm basis for challenging this at a European level.

Also, we would be able to see what went on in the Council meetings on these issues: "The European Union's Council of Ministers has decided to adopt a plan that would allow member states to expand the potential scope of remote warrantless surveillance of PCs; it would also allow other member nations to request such surveillance from UK police."