Guardian: Privacy fear over (new) plan to store email (fwd)

[Bettina Jodda (Twister)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 22 August 2002 10:58, Owen Blacker wrote:
> Mary Hawking:
> > Is this an argument for encrypting everything?
> > Presumably either the sender or recipient would have to be approached
> > for the key to make your communications intelligible?
>
> No, this new directive is about traffic data (who you emailed, which
> websites you visited but not the pages on them, who phoned you and, most
> chillingly, where your mobile phone has been).  The new directive is ~not~
> about the content of these media.  So encrypting your mail wouldn't help,
> unless it were transported over SSL or something  :)

When you take a look at the ideas of the data Europol wanted to store
www.stop1984.com/index2.php?text=letter_retained_data.txt
you find that the wish-list includes also
- - if someone else is paying your phone-bill
etc.

I think, even with encrypted content it would be simple to get a good profile 
of anybody and - to get the connections between the people.

Hence our favourite reason for internet-surveillance - the pedophils.
When one pedophil is traced you could find the ones he had contact with, he 
had phoned with etc.
And in the recent hysteria you would probably end up being a suspect, too, 
just because you have often had phone calls with him.

I can only say what Richard Stallman once said:
If Hitler had had the opportunity to get all traffic data of, let us say, Anne 
Frank (when in these times the means of communication were the same as now) 
even more people would have died, more people would not have been able to 
stay "undiscovered" etc.

And I would not say that I know who is in control in some years and which kind 
of government we have.

Twister
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE9ZKyQbWUifFmZwyIRAuJKAJ9YnoPAJmrLsXjFicpNpQ3RYC+DXwCfT3x4
AoxTd//NN2BMa2HqyYL22x4=
=4ZCc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----