| | | Advertisement |  | | | |
 | GameBanshee Forums
| | 
03-08-2005, 09:08 AM
|  | Banned | | Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Having an alibi.
Posts: 4,257
| | | Lawsuit against internet tapping
THE HAGUE - Internetprovider Xs4all wants the government to pay the extra costs the company makes to be able to tap the internettraffic from their clients.
That is why the provider started a lawsuit against the State.
Since 2001, companies like Xs4all, Demon and Planet Internet are obliged to make their network 'tapable'.
According to Xs4all, the costs of this are very high. Until 2004 the company spent almost half a million euros on it.
They do not find it justified that they have to come up with the money, while their customers are harmed by it. The costs of 'tapability' are at the expense of investments that are supposed to make the internettraffic safer, says Xs4all.
According to the branchorganisation of Dutch internetproviders, the authorities tap the e-mail and internet traffic of suspicious persons only 'a couple of dozen times per year'. The organisation expects this amount to rise over the coming years.
A bill is proposed to the European ministers of justice that certain authorities must be able to access 'old' internettraffic. This means that the telecomproviders will have to store their client's internet- and phone-usage up to three years.
The companies are against this, because it will cost them loads of money, and it harms the privacy of the customer.
An Xs4all spokesman said: "It's about the principle. The government no longer wonders if the tapping is worth the required investments."
However, the telecomlaws state that internetproviders have to come up with investment costs.
Minister Donner of the dep. of Justice said earlier that the storage of 'trafficdata' from internetusers is not in violation of privacy-rules.
Translated from Noordhollands Dagblad, Tuesday March 8
What's your view?  |
03-08-2005, 09:10 AM
|  | Exalted Member | | Join Date: May 2001 Location: Here
Posts: 10,553
| | | A. Its invasion of privacy so i hate the basic idea of tapable internet. I like my privacy.
B. The govt should pay for it if they want it done. Its their requirements they should foot the bill.
C. I am not at all happy with the article or the direction in which personal liberties or lack of them is going.
__________________
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
|
03-08-2005, 12:07 PM
|  | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Cell Block E
Posts: 2,148
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by CM A. Its invasion of privacy so i hate the basic idea of tapable internet. I like my privacy.
B. The govt should pay for it if they want it done. Its their requirements they should foot the bill.
C. I am not at all happy with the article or the direction in which personal liberties or lack of them is going. |
I agree. Why should the companies be at a loss so the government can, as you say, openly invade our privacy? 
__________________ Mag: Don't remember much at all of last night do you? Me: put simply.... No 
Mag: From what I put together of your late night drunken ramblings? Vodka, 3 girls, and then we played tic-tac-toe and slapped each other around.
|
03-08-2005, 01:05 PM
| | Banned | | Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Having an alibi.
Posts: 4,257
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by giles337 I agree. Why should the companies be at a loss so the government can, as you say, openly invade our privacy? | It can be used for tracking criminals, so it will contribute to the safety of our society.
They won't track you and me, unless you're a suspect of something. |
03-08-2005, 01:08 PM
| | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Cell Block E
Posts: 2,148
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by ik911 It can be used for tracking criminals, so it will contribute to the safety of our society.
They won't track you and me, unless you're a suspect of something. |
Do you honestly belive that? In you heart of hearts?
__________________ Mag: Don't remember much at all of last night do you? Me: put simply.... No
Mag: From what I put together of your late night drunken ramblings? Vodka, 3 girls, and then we played tic-tac-toe and slapped each other around.
|
03-08-2005, 01:27 PM
| | Banned | | Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Having an alibi.
Posts: 4,257
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by giles337 Do you honestly belive that? In you heart of hearts? | Well, about the first thing about tracking down criminals with this; I don't really have confidence in the policeforce, so I must say 'no'. I think the number of times this actually comes in handy will be so small, that it will never be worth a half million euros.
The second, invasion of privacy, I don't believe they do that. Even if they'd go through my internet traffic data, I wouldn't care. I never send criminal e-mails, and as long as they don't publicize that I visit stormfront.org, americannaziparty.com and barbie.com more frequently than gamebanshee.com, than I'm just fine. Disclaimer: I do not visit any of the aforementioned websites. I have no responsibility for any external web site. I neither endorse the information, content, presentation, or accuracy nor make any warranty, express or implied, regarding any external web site. I would prefer you do not visit these websites at all. |
03-08-2005, 01:44 PM
|  | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Soviet Canuckistan
Posts: 13,431
| | It's big Brother, that's all. I'm against it, personally, nor can I see any real effective use being made of tapping internet connections.
On the subject of invasion of privacy, it is, regardless of how one looks at it. It doesn't matter if the subject cares or not, it doesn't change the fact. Not only that, but criminal activity on the internet is essentially, these days, being considered anything that can be downloaded, meaning that everyone would be tapped, not just a few people  |
03-08-2005, 01:47 PM
|  | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Law School library, Vermont, USA
Posts: 1,230
| | | size does matter
I don't like tapping internets either, but the one thing that the web does have going for it is sheer size. The volume of material on the web makes it near impossible to comprehensively monitor in any manner. So, let's hope the gov't. decides to focus attention to someplace other than where we are. |
03-08-2005, 01:49 PM
|  | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
Posts: 4,476
| | | Haha you even put a cute disclaimer.
So I'm guessing the you wouldn't be overly concerned if the government put cameras in your home since you're no wrongdoer?
__________________ Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person. ~Chanak |
03-08-2005, 01:59 PM
| | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Law School library, Vermont, USA
Posts: 1,230
| | Quote: | So I'm guessing the you wouldn't be overly concerned if the government put cameras in your home since you're no wrongdoer? | I would be concerned, but I don't think they will. I guess it isn't a solution so much as a rationalization. The topic of the thread also relates to internet companies (which I have nothing to do with) and European Law (which I know almost nothing about and also don't live under), so it is really just an abstract thought to me.
If the man did but cameras in my house I don't think they would find anything terribly interesting. Ironically, they would get a lot of pictures of me playing BGII and typing on the Forums, and they could have just figured that out by tapping my internet!
Last edited by Cuchulain82; 03-08-2005 at 02:00 PM.
Reason: speeling
|
03-08-2005, 02:11 PM
| | Banned | | Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Having an alibi.
Posts: 4,257
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Vicsun Haha you even put a cute disclaimer. | Pre-emptive measures, for when they start tapping me.  Quote: |
Originally Posted by Aegis Not only that, but criminal activity on the internet is essentially, these days, being considered anything that can be downloaded, meaning that everyone would be tapped, not just a few people | Damn, you're right  Haven't thought about that. Even this avatar is stolen off a copyrighted place (don't report me, pleeeeaaase  ) |
03-08-2005, 02:36 PM
| | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Soviet Canuckistan
Posts: 13,431
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by ik911 Pre-emptive measures, for when they start tapping me.
Damn, you're right Haven't thought about that. Even this avatar is stolen off a copyrighted place (don't report me, pleeeeaaase ) | The thing with these sort of policies is that you have to look between the lines to see the whole story. In most cases, the subtext of policy is often the true goal, not what is on the surface. |
03-08-2005, 02:41 PM
| | Banned | | Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Having an alibi.
Posts: 4,257
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Aegis The thing with these sort of policies is that you have to look between the lines to see the whole story. In most cases, the subtext of policy is often the true goal, not what is on the surface. | That's nasty. They're after ME! |
03-10-2005, 11:15 AM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: I'm from Iowa, I just work in space.. Okay the Spa
Posts: 2,824
| | | I feel that the burden of proof should be on the state in these matters and that tapping pre-emptively is not necessary. If the state wants to hire hackers to find out what's happening on a particular computer after the user is suspected of something, that's fine.
The real issue here is money. They don't make gas stationd hire drug-sniffing dogs to search cars that fill up, why should ISPs have to pay for measures that the government admits will be even less effective than the afforementioned dogs?
@fas, what do you mean by your third point? I'm just a little confused.
Edit: IIRC InterPol already scans electronic traffic with bots for suspicious activity. Isn't that enough?
__________________
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson |
03-10-2005, 11:20 AM
| | Exalted Member | | Join Date: May 2001 Location: Here
Posts: 10,553
| | | Tapping the internet is like tapping the entire phone network. Whenever you want you can turn it on and let it be there. It leads to alot of issues about privacy and security. Who is to say that right now that SYM is not being monitored. I mean who gave the govt the right to just do whatever they want with regard to people's private lives. Security is one thing. You know this guy is ETA or Red Army or Al Qaeda fine, just target him.
Setting up an infrastructure that could affect everybody using the internet is a violation of personal freedoms and it is not to the benefit of society. You got one guy go after him. Don't spy on 20 innocent people just because you can.
__________________
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
| | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off |
| | | |
