zlacker

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/11/internet-provi...

> Two internet providers are tracking and collecting the websites visited by their customers as part of a secretive Home Office trial, designed to work out if a national bulk surveillance system would be useful for national security and law enforcement.

> Home Office sources indicated that it was taking advantage of abilities in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, to test what data can be acquired, how useful it is in practice, and how it might be used in investigations.

>>octo88+(OP)
Again, this refers to the domains, not the full URL. As a factual point, ISPs do not retain full browser history, and the IPA does not require them to do so for all customers all the time. It's true that we do not know how much data ISPs are in fact recording. I agree that this is concerning. I am opposed to the IPA. However, I also think that we should take the time to get the facts exactly right when criticizing it. This is understandably an emotive issue for a lot of folks on HN, and there is a tendency to let factual inaccuracies slide if they are part of an argument against internet surveillance. In my opinion the IPA is bad enough as is, and it is not necessary to exaggerate its effects in order to make a strong case against it.

>>foldr+2B1
All this is a bit moot and a distraction when we know Tempora, Karma Police etc exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disc...

>>octo88+XA3
I am just correcting some possible misconceptions about what UK ISPs are required to do by law. If you are worried about surveillance by intelligence agencies, then you might be right to be worried, but that's a separate issue.

>>foldr+wh4
> If you are worried about surveillance by intelligence agencies, then you might be right to be worried, but that's a separate issue.

A childish and pathetic comment