Police seek powers to access browsing history of UK computer users

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tony Cole

Level 27
Thread author
May 11, 2014
1,639
Police seek powers to access browsing history of UK computer users:

Police have lobbied the government for the power to view the internet browsing history of every computer user in Britain ahead of the publication of legislation on regulating surveillance powers.

Senior officers want to revive the measures similar to those contained in the“snooper’s charter”, which would force telecommunications companies to retain for 12 months data that would disclose websites visited by customers, reported the Times.
Police said they need the powers to because the scale of activity carried out online meant traditional methods of surveillance and investigation were becoming more limited.

Richard Berry, the National Police Chiefs’ Council spokesman for data communications refused to comment on any specifics of the forthcoming legislation, but told the paper the police were not looking for anything beyond what they could already access through telephone records.

Berry, assistant chief constable at Gloucestershire police, said: “We want to police by consent, and we want to ensure that privacy safeguards are in place.

“But we need to balance this with the needs of the vulnerable and the victims.”

Explaining the powers police want, he said: “We essentially need the ‘who, where, when and what’ of any communication – who initiated it, where were they and when did it happened. And a little bit of the ‘what’, were they on Facebook, or a banking site, or an illegal child-abuse image-sharing website?

“Five years ago, [a suspect] could have physically walked into a bank and carried out a transaction. We could have put a surveillance team on that but now, most of it is done online. We just want to know about the visit.”

He accepted it would be “far too intrusive” for officers to be able to access content of internet searches and social media messaging without additional safeguards, such as the requirement for a judicial warrant.

The shelved communications data bill – labelled a “snooper’s charter” by critics – would have required companies to retain phone and email data to include records of browsing activity, social media use and internet gaming, among other things.

It was blocked by the Liberal Democrats due to privacy concerns during the coalition government, but the forthcoming investigatory powers bill could revive the measures.

Conservative MP David Davis told the paper: “It’s extraordinary they’re asking for this again, they are overreaching and there is no proven need to retain such data for a year.”

*Notes:I was a police officer for two years and I personally believe more powers are required. People do not release the things that go on behind closed doors, or in their neighbourhoods. Dealing with people (from experience) who abuse children, is shocking - trust me, when I say people get away with crimes because there is not enough evidence, or loopholes in the law mean there is no charges brought.*
 

Nightwalker

Level 24
Verified
Honorary Member
Top poster
Content Creator
Well-known
May 26, 2014
1,314
d7eac5391e1d47b95cfac668a62dd992.jpg
 

omidomi

Level 71
Verified
Honorary Member
Top poster
Malware Hunter
Well-known
Apr 5, 2014
6,008
Police seek powers to access browsing history of UK computer users:

Police have lobbied the government for the power to view the internet browsing history of every computer user in Britain ahead of the publication of legislation on regulating surveillance powers.

Senior officers want to revive the measures similar to those contained in the“snooper’s charter”, which would force telecommunications companies to retain for 12 months data that would disclose websites visited by customers, reported the Times.
Police said they need the powers to because the scale of activity carried out online meant traditional methods of surveillance and investigation were becoming more limited.

Richard Berry, the National Police Chiefs’ Council spokesman for data communications refused to comment on any specifics of the forthcoming legislation, but told the paper the police were not looking for anything beyond what they could already access through telephone records.

Berry, assistant chief constable at Gloucestershire police, said: “We want to police by consent, and we want to ensure that privacy safeguards are in place.

“But we need to balance this with the needs of the vulnerable and the victims.”

Explaining the powers police want, he said: “We essentially need the ‘who, where, when and what’ of any communication – who initiated it, where were they and when did it happened. And a little bit of the ‘what’, were they on Facebook, or a banking site, or an illegal child-abuse image-sharing website?

“Five years ago, [a suspect] could have physically walked into a bank and carried out a transaction. We could have put a surveillance team on that but now, most of it is done online. We just want to know about the visit.”

He accepted it would be “far too intrusive” for officers to be able to access content of internet searches and social media messaging without additional safeguards, such as the requirement for a judicial warrant.

The shelved communications data bill – labelled a “snooper’s charter” by critics – would have required companies to retain phone and email data to include records of browsing activity, social media use and internet gaming, among other things.

It was blocked by the Liberal Democrats due to privacy concerns during the coalition government, but the forthcoming investigatory powers bill could revive the measures.

Conservative MP David Davis told the paper: “It’s extraordinary they’re asking for this again, they are overreaching and there is no proven need to retain such data for a year.”

*Notes:I was a police officer for two years and I personally believe more powers are required. People do not release the things that go on behind closed doors, or in their neighbourhoods. Dealing with people (from experience) who abuse children, is shocking - trust me, when I say people get away with crimes because there is not enough evidence, or loopholes in the law mean there is no charges brought.*
Good news :D
*Notes:I was a police officer for two years and I personally believe more powers are required. People do not release the things that go on behind closed doors, or in their neighbourhoods. Dealing with people (from experience) who abuse children, is shocking - trust me, when I say people get away with crimes because there is not enough evidence, or loopholes in the law mean there is no charges brought.*
:D
i love uk officers, their hats are very nice :)
do u have hat?
 
  • Like
Reactions: upnorth

jamescv7

Level 85
Verified
Honorary Member
Mar 15, 2011
13,085
Well for peace and order then why not? If you are not hiding something then why afraid?

These are typically some countries whose care on cybercrimes since its a next generation of a problem, the thing should abide concern is privacy.
 

Nightwalker

Level 24
Verified
Honorary Member
Top poster
Content Creator
Well-known
May 26, 2014
1,314
Well for peace and order then why not? If you are not hiding something then why afraid?

These are typically some countries whose care on cybercrimes since its a next generation of a problem, the thing should abide concern is privacy.

I would be afraid, with these stupid laws "they" are already changing the "Presumption of innocence" principle, and boy, this is gonna be problematic.

Politicians want to make our life a "modern 1984" dystopia and yet people are willing to give the big gov more power o_O
 

Cats-4_Owners-2

Level 39
Verified
Honorary Member
Top poster
Well-known
Dec 4, 2013
2,799
Police seek powers to access browsing history of UK computer users:

Senior officers want to revive the measures similar to those contained in the“snooper’s charter”, which would force telecommunications companies to retain for 12 months data that would disclose websites visited by customers, reported the Times.
Police said they need the powers to because the scale of activity carried out online meant traditional methods of surveillance and investigation were becoming more limited.



“But we need to balance this with the needs of the vulnerable and the victims.”


“Five years ago, [a suspect] could have physically walked into a bank and carried out a transaction. We could have put a surveillance team on that but now, most of it is done online. We just want to know about the visit.”


The shelved communications data bill – labelled a “snooper’s charter” by critics – would have required companies to retain phone and email data to include records of browsing activity, social media use and internet gaming, among other things.

It was blocked by the Liberal Democrats due to privacy concerns during the coalition government, but the forthcoming investigatory powers bill could revive the measures.


*Notes:I was a police officer for two years and I personally believe more powers are required. People do not release the things that go on behind closed doors, or in their neighbourhoods. Dealing with people (from experience) who abuse children, is shocking - trust me, when I say people get away with crimes because there is not enough evidence, or loopholes in the law mean there is no charges brought.*
We now live in a world where even law abiding citizens have grown to unconsciously attempt/accept getting away with breaking rules, be it texting while driving or when a more powerful individual or group preys upon another. When prevention loses it's focus, arrests & prosecution might also be viewed as preserving liberty and protecting those whom are innocent.

I used to hear our neighbors at night, and even walked to their door and knocked when I'd heard the father yelling, and his little girl crying. This was followed by silence & no reply at the door. One day, during daylight hours, a large detachment of police arrived. They arrested the man, and took his computer apparently as evidence. The family (the remaining wife and 2 daughters) left our neighborhood, and moved away shortly after that.
Although I do not know what crimes may have actually been committed, I recognize (even now) how little the power of the law can be placed into effect when it cannot be enforced. I do not wish our freedoms to be lost, but when I've witnessed (3) individuals set free from the torments of their supposed protector by nothing more than good fortune and the concerned reporting of neighbors followed by police response, I've further come to learn there is something more than knocking on doors that needs to be accomplished.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: upnorth and frogboy

upnorth

Moderator
Verified
Staff member
Malware Hunter
Well-known
Jul 27, 2015
5,264
Surveillance is already here like it or not but what genuine bothers me is who has access and what is done with it...

Quote : " Law enforcement should not collect information they can’t protect. Surveillance technology without adequate security measures puts everyone’s safety at risk. "

Source : EFF: We found 100+ license plate readers wide open on the Internet

 

jamescv7

Level 85
Verified
Honorary Member
Mar 15, 2011
13,085
@Nightwalker: With proper implementation about the limits hence it should work well as rule.

Police powers should only use if a highly specialized case occur when someone as a witness give a tip.

Still the problem arise where the rule regarding on surveillance needs a provision.

Remember if you go on those highly dark web sites then you are at risk to involve on crimes even browsing matters only.

If you can behave well on public why not also on your home and steer away those sites that can lead you to curiosity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top