[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

FW: U.K. Labour government backs 7-yr storage of email, phone calls



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

1984, anyone?  :)

Later,
Troy

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Declan McCullagh" <declan@well.com>
To: <politech@politechbot.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 8:21 AM
Subject: FC: U.K. Labour government backs 7-yr storage of email,
phone calls


> ---
> Background: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02035.html
> ---
>
> Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 14:25:46 +0300 (EET DST)
> From: Jei <jei@cc.hut.fi>
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Cc: politech@politechbot.com
> Subject: Labour supports email spy policy
>
>
> More snooping to come
> http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/display_news.cfm?NewsID=1124
>
> by Wendy Brewer
> Friday, 18 May 2001
>
> Labour supports email spy policy
>
> The government is backing EU plans to extend the state's power to
> snoop at private emails.
>
> Under the proposals, all email communications will have to be
> retained by ISPs for a seven-year period.
>
> "Only people who have something to hide should be worried," said a
> spokesperson at the Department of Trade and Industry. "The
> government will only have cause to browse emails if they have their
> suspicions about a 
user.
> They simply don't have the time or money to check every email
> sent." 
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology
> mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if it remains
> intact.
> To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- 
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOwuzklGYRDBLunLiEQJz+wCg2Rbsyir/vFlxD7m/lDljVKdX8KgAnRHc
k3GOSoyxWlfOZo9A+5nsLCNl
=c8/N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: