Look Who it Was Random video

Why terrorists don't use the internet - so there is no evidence trail for police to follow

904 views · Published 6 June 2018 · 24:13 · Indexed 4 November 2026

Channel: Public Enquiry · 2018 · News & Politics

Watch on YouTube

Remember that picture you sent to your family of your children playing in the paddling pool? Or that private text you sent to someone trusted? Or when you searched for medical advice? 
Special series: Cyber-hacks
This week, the BBC is taking a close look at all aspects of cyber-security. The coverage is timed to coincide with the two biggest shows in the security calendar - Black Hat and Def Con.

Follow all the coverage via this link
Then, guess what: those messages and websites you visited will be stored and could potentially be obtained by criminals. What’s more, as soon as these messages are sent, their metadata (who we speak to, where we were, when it took place and how long we spent talking) and the content of communications could potentially be read by government agencies with a warrant.
When it comes to the services you're connected to the internet, the Investigatory Powers Act (known derisively to some as the Snooper’s Charter) allows government agencies, under certain circumstances, to access those records. What's more, a technical capability regulation was leaked in May to the Open Rights Group, a civil rights group. Such a notice would legally compel a telecommunications firm to record all of the communications by the target(s) named in the warrant, and to transmit this information, in near real-time, in a readable format (if it's already in a readable format).
Following the recent terror attacks in London and Manchester, Prime Minister Theresa May reiterated her intention to “regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning.”
This is to help protect us from future acts of terrorism – and disclosing intercepted content in real time isn't new – but is it an intrusion into our private lives?
Safety vs privacy – which is more important?
In the UK, the vast majority of the population support the prevention of terrorism: in 2010, a survey revealed that nine in 10 are happy with a proportionate loss of privacy in certain circumstances, such as full-body scanners in airport security checks. And in 2015, another survey showed that double the amount of Americans were concerned the government wasn’t doing enough to fight terrorism than the amount of Americans who were concerned with losing certain civil liberties in the process.
The IP Act first came into effect on 29 November 2016. From that point, all telecommunication services whose providers were given notice by the Secretary of State were compelled to store records of certain electronic communications, and record people’s internet connection records, as well as, when served with a warrant, allow the government access to this information.
Cybersecurity 
Protests around the world in recent years have called for safeguarding personal freedom on the internet from governments fighting terrorism (Credit: Getty Images)
But what if one day, information regarding every app, email, instant message, text, podcast, video and Skype call might be recorded and stored by service providers?
Whilst the actual content of these communications is not stored, it is the associated metadata that is recorded. For intelligence agencies, this information can offer far more insight than the actual content of the communication.
The Investigatory Powers Act was enacted in order to protect against terrorist attacks - and indeed, all crime - but the wide-reaching surveillance powers enshrined in this legislation has been likened by some to someone accessing your phone. “Under the guise of counter-terrorism, the state has acquired totalitarian-style surveillance powers and this is the most intrusive system of any democracy in history,” says Silkie Carlo, senior advocacy officer with Liberty, a UK-based human rights watchdog group.
There is the argument of “Nothing to hide, nothing to fear”, in support of what some might consider mass surveillance. However, whilst we may have nothing to hide, we still have the right to a private life... 

However, blanket surveillance that harvests everyone’s data presents its own problems.
Investigating criminals’ online info needs to be more precise
“The Draft Regulation Capability Notice does not tell us anything we didn’t know anyway when the bill went through,” says Ross Anderson, professor of security engineering at Cambridge University. “They explicitly give [government agencies] the power to serve arbitrary secret orders on technology firms. This is going to lead to serious trouble.”

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170808-tracking-terrorists-online-might-invade-your-privacy

More from this channel