Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Everyone Is Guilty - Welcome To Total Surveillance


Sour Mash

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

So that's assume 1tb per person will be enough.

UK population is around 60m.

So we need raid 1 x 2 as a backup system will be required housed in 2 separate locations. So that's 4 separate drives.

So that's 240m hard drives. Lets assume the govt gets a discount on 1tb drive and pays £40 each that's a total cost of £9,600,000,000 (£9.6bn). This is excluding housing the units ie server racks, buildings etc.... Don't forget your going to get hdd failures: http://www.pcworld.com/article/129558/study_hard_drive_failure_rates_much_higher_than_makers_estimate.html

So if we assume that we have a failure rate of 5% a year that's 12m hard drives that will need replacing each and every year. £480,000,000 (£480m) per year if the govt manages to get the drives for £40, remember we need enterprise level drives not consumer drives.

And what can you store on 1TB.

For £17k you could buy this

Then there's the power consumption for all of this.

And everything needs to be saved, so if I download a movie online that movie needs to be saved just in case there is a hidden message in it for a terrorist cell. 1tb is going to go nowhere in storage terms.

I reckon the cost of setting this up you will be lucky to get change out of £20bn and remember govt IT projects always run over budget. I bet the annual cost to simply store the data (ie replacement drives, power, building maintenance, manpower etc...) will be lucky to only be £1bn a year.

Did I mention austerity?

The plan is just crazy it will never work as there's too much data to store as everyone has to be considered guilty.

This plan isn't new, it was being seriously suggested in 2008

http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/news/1911522/government-plans-super-database

http://www.talktalk.co.uk/technology/news/articles/government-plans-new-super-database.html

12-20Bn aren't big figures to our Government, and cuts and austerity are for things which don't matter like pensioners and the NHS

In any case they will budget it at 12Bn then say "oh dear, we miscalculated, we meant 30Bn after it's delived" :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1
HOLA442

I seem to remember Jacqui Smith former Home Secretary before she lost her seat over the expenses scandal wanting powers to scan everyone's computer.

Boiling Frogs.

Sometimes I wonder if it's better to be uninformed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443

Why not just install govt approved thought software which could automatically notify the authorities of any decent.

Any decent what?

Just being pedantic, did you mean dissent :ph34r:

de·cent/ˈdēsənt/

Adjective:

Conforming with generally accepted standards of respectable or moral behavior.

Appropriate; fitting: "they would meet again after a decent interval".

dis·sent/diˈsent/

Verb:

Hold or express opinions that are at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially expressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

Well if the government want to read our email etc then I think every single man, woman and child should assist them by sending them every bit of correspondence, email, text and bit of spam they receive. I would suggest that they could start by letting their local MP and the PM have a copy of everything automatically. If that little lot descended on the governments creaking email servers etc then they might start to have second thoughts I might also start bundling up all the junk mail I still receive in the post and tiurn up at my MPs surgery and let him have all that as well before I bore him for hours as I insist on gertting approval for every item in my personal itinerary over the next month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

Quite so, witness the uses the "Patriots Act" was put to in the US, including use on people protesting environmental and healthcare issues

+1

There is nothing patriotic about the Patriots Act.

Remember back to 2005, when Walter Wolfgang, an 82 year old Labour member, was man handled out of the Labour party conference, when he shouted "nonsense" during Jack Straws speech defending the Iraq war, and Walter Wolfgang being held by police under UK anti terror law when he tried to re-enter the conference centre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446
6
HOLA447

This plan isn't new, it was being seriously suggested in 2008

http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/news/1911522/government-plans-super-database

http://www.talktalk.co.uk/technology/news/articles/government-plans-new-super-database.html

12-20Bn aren't big figures to our Government, and cuts and austerity are for things which don't matter like pensioners and the NHS

In any case they will budget it at 12Bn then say "oh dear, we miscalculated, we meant 30Bn after it's delived" :angry:

Didn't they try something far smaller and simpler with NHS files? In that case the Government achieved its usual result. Spent a fortune, cocked it up and then blamed someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

I have no problem with recording stuff providing a person has sworn in front of a judge that he has good reason to believe the listening will help to prosecute a serious offence, and that that person is liable to imprisonment himself in the event of such an Oath being false.

And that any evidence is then able to be used in a trial of the suspect later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

Well if the government want to read our email etc then I think every single man, woman and child should assist them by sending them every bit of correspondence, email, text and bit of spam they receive. I would suggest that they could start by letting their local MP and the PM have a copy of everything automatically. If that little lot descended on the governments creaking email servers etc then they might start to have second thoughts I might also start bundling up all the junk mail I still receive in the post and tiurn up at my MPs surgery and let him have all that as well before I bore him for hours as I insist on gertting approval for every item in my personal itinerary over the next month.

There wont be enough storage space to keep all the crap I get from Moneysupermarket.com. I have tried unsubscribing but they just ignore me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

Didn't they try something far smaller and simpler with NHS files? In that case the Government achieved its usual result. Spent a fortune, cocked it up and then blamed someone else.

Problem with the UK government IT they always think they know what they are doing but don't, they always get overambitious and want too much on a scale that never been done before, in the NHS case they also split the work between several companies who didn't communicate well.

I have a Spanish colleague who has an ID card, bit of plastic with a number and a photo on it, UK looks into it, it has to have biometrics and God knows what else built in, result the project collapses under the weight of it's own complexity (not that I think National ID cards are a good thing but typical of the way they over complicate projects)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

Problem with the UK government IT they always think they know what they are doing but don't, they always get overambitious and want too much on a scale that never been done before, in the NHS case they also split the work between several companies who didn't communicate well.

I have a Spanish colleague who has an ID card, bit of plastic with a number and a photo on it, UK looks into it, it has to have biometrics and God knows what else built in, result the project collapses under the weight of it's own complexity (not that I think National ID cards are a good thing but typical of the way they over complicate projects)

I have all the ID I need....me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

I have no problem with recording stuff providing a person has sworn in front of a judge that he has good reason to believe the listening will help to prosecute a serious offence, and that that person is liable to imprisonment himself in the event of such an Oath being false.

And that any evidence is then able to be used in a trial of the suspect later.

...and when membership of House Price Crash becomes a criminal offense on the grounds of it being a dangerously subversive site, dedicated to undermining official UK government policy? :D

One day you could be bedraggled and miserable in your dark damp cell, dreading the approaching sound of Kirsty's jackboots

:lol::D:lol::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

Well if the government want to read our email etc then I think every single man, woman and child should assist them by sending them every bit of correspondence, email, text and bit of spam they receive. I would suggest that they could start by letting their local MP and the PM have a copy of everything automatically. If that little lot descended on the governments creaking email servers etc then they might start to have second thoughts I might also start bundling up all the junk mail I still receive in the post and tiurn up at my MPs surgery and let him have all that as well before I bore him for hours as I insist on gertting approval for every item in my personal itinerary over the next month.

I like this plan.

That aside (and the reason I like this plan) is that unless the government is insane, they know that the storage and running costs will be ridiculous. What they are after, imho, is the right to do this when it suits them without having to do anything time-wasting like convince a judge that they actually have some justification. Once a law is in place saying the government can do this, then it will be up to them to decide when (and on whom) they do this, and they won't have to justify it.

Everyone is guilty - that's why they want to do it. The difference between the stated aim and the intent is that what you are guilty of has probably nothing to do with why the government is out for you. Smoke dope and involved with some sort of grass roots protest? One will get the government interested in you, and the other will be what they charge you with. Guess which is which...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
14
HOLA4415

Why do they care what anyone thinks anyway? They do what the hell they want, the main political parties are the same, remember the protest at the iraq war, they didn't take a blind bit of notice. The populous are doing nothing worth spying on, apart from a few loonies strapping poorly improvised explosives to themselves once in a while, and are they going to find that needle in the haystack? And what does it matter if the general public work out we're all being farmed and the banks own the governments, what are they going to do about it? Write an email?

And besides, the sheer volume of data they may have access to presents its own problems, they're going to be incompetent at mining it the same as they're incompetent at everything else.

As has already been commented, the purpose would be control. There would never be enough resources to fully utilise the data, same way as there can never be enough secret police to fully lock down a totalitarian society. It's much more effective to condition people to accept, even embrace, their own serfdom and police themselves. These kind of announcements have psychological, not technical, objectives

As to the question of 'their' alleged incompetence. Looking at results, as opposed to commentary, I don't see much evidence of it myself, quite the opposite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
16
HOLA4417

Just a simple question but no doubt so simple to answer; is it illegal to send encrypted information? So there would be a market for encryption software that you would need to use a password to enable you to read emails etc. I think certain Governments have been conflicted with RIM in the past because their messaging system has been secure enough to withstand the hackers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418

I seem to remember Jacqui Smith former Home Secretary before she lost her seat over the expenses scandal wanting powers to scan everyone's computer.

Boiling Frogs.

Sometimes I wonder if it's better to be uninformed.

Maybe better to be uniformed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419

As has already been commented, the purpose would be control. There would never be enough resources to fully utilise the data, same way as there can never be enough secret police to fully lock down a totalitarian society. It's much more effective to condition people to accept, even embrace, their own serfdom and police themselves

As to the question of 'their' alleged incompetence. Looking at results, as opposed to commentary, I don't see much evidence of it myself, quite the opposite

They don't have to utilise all the data, just keyword search and then zero in on anyone who overuses certain words, then if they are of interest look at all their communication with other parties and check them too, every group has it's loud mouths.

While the Government aren't totally useless they are not omnipotent either, for their own staff they also don't pay top rates, the real talent tend to go to the city and the banks, both GCHQ and the Treasury are on record saying they find it hard to recruit staff on the money they can offer, they also tend to use 3rd party companies who are less than impressive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420

...and when membership of House Price Crash becomes a criminal offense on the grounds of it being a dangerously subversive site, dedicated to undermining official UK government policy? :D

One day you could be bedraggled and miserable in your dark damp cell, dreading the approaching sound of Kirsty's jackboots

:lol::D:lol::D

I see the lighter side and yet it can be a slippery slope...like i say, a person has to be responsible for the Oath, a judge to authorise it, (also sworn) and evidence presented.

even this process is subvertable as it has been in the US where judges have ruled against Officers but do nothing to them....as it is the "department" that is responsible, and only a financial penalty is available...It has to be a real person that takes the hit....same as the observed is a person too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

Just a simple question but no doubt so simple to answer; is it illegal to send encrypted information? So there would be a market for encryption software that you would need to use a password to enable you to read emails etc. I think certain Governments have been conflicted with RIM in the past because their messaging system has been secure enough to withstand the hackers.

It's not illegal to send encrypted information, most commercial companies do it all the time, for email I have been to some places that use Pretty Good Privacy to encrypt all emails, and there are open source versions of the same technology, SSH and VPN are both encrypted and anytime you connect to a bank or shop using SSL (the padlock symbol on your browser appears) you are using encryption.

The Government does have the right under existing laws to demand you reveal passwords or passphrases to decrypt information if it so desires

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422

Maybe better to be uniformed.

Or informed but choose to ignore

I personally believe that announcements like this are part of a steady drip drip drip of propaganda intended to condition law abiding people into a state of passivity

Ignore is good. An active refusal to be bullied is better, if harder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423

They don't have to utilise all the data, just keyword search and then zero in on anyone who overuses certain words, then if they are of interest look at all their communication with other parties and check them too, every group has it's loud mouths.

While the Government aren't totally useless they are not omnipotent either, for their own staff they also don't pay top rates, the real talent tend to go to the city and the banks, both GCHQ and the Treasury are on record saying they find it hard to recruit staff on the money they can offer, they also tend to use 3rd party companies who are less than impressive

Why would they bomb want to zero new york in on anything that osama I write though, its bedded not like we with care tony and george what they get up to. :lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424

HM Government can already demand your encryption keys, to actually intercept stuff without you knowing is also possible with "man in the middle" attacks etc, also with the established security industry in the US and UK you never know whether commercial software has been "got at", yet another argument for using open source :)

They can also lock you up for two years, if you 'forget' the pass phrase too.

TBH, if you had much incriminating evidence on your machine, you would just do the time.

I bet some people will have a destructive pass phrase too, which literally destroys the data on use. No doubt you would get two years for that too, mind!

I wonder who actually wants this crap. Genuine terrorists aren't going to be afraid of doing a couple of years for their cause and they sure as hell are going to encrypt stuff.

Not only does it seem futile, but it very much pits 'us' against 'them'. In a free market for security, I certainly wouldn't give any security agency such privileges, in exchange for my protection.

I have a feeling this sort of stuff will just drive more people to using open source software and operating systems, along with encryption. In this battle, the state will ultimately lose, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

It's not illegal to send encrypted information, most commercial companies do it all the time, for email I have been to some places that use Pretty Good Privacy to encrypt all emails, and there are open source versions of the same technology, SSH and VPN are both encrypted and anytime you connect to a bank or shop using SSL (the padlock symbol on your browser appears) you are using encryption.

The Government does have the right under existing laws to demand you reveal passwords or passphrases to decrypt information if it so desires

ah, so that's a bit of a non starter then... I guess you could always 'forget passwords' although I have heard that extr@-ordinary rend1tion and something called 'w@terb0arding' are excellent memory recall techniques...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information