UK Police Tell Cybercafe Owners 'We're Not Asking You To Spy On Users... But Spy On Users'
from the that-thing-we-said-about-not-spying-on-users?-yeah,-ignore-that dept
Over in the UK, police are apparently going around to various cybercafes and telling the owners and operators to be observant about what customers are doing, even to the point of examining the hard drives of the public computers after people have used them. Amusingly, the police then say, "It's not about asking owners to spy on their customers..." -- except that it is. The recommendations specifically included "encouraging people to check on hard drives." But that's not spying?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cybercafes, monitoring, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
very out a business if they get caught doing it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: very out a business if they get caught doing it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spy
In any case, the owners should be watching what is being done on their computers anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spy
I have a serious question. It's not that I merely disagree with your statement. It's that I honestly can't even comprehend the state of mind of someone who could hold this opinion. Please explain what you mean by "watch" -- it's sound less sinister than "spy", but it has the same effect -- and also can you explain why you think it's reasonable for cybercafe owners to "watch" their customers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Spy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Spy
I understand your point, but you're talking about two different animals here. One is a private system that you might allow a guest to use, the other is being used commercially for the strict purpose of other's use. They're not the same.
"Internet Cafes are liable for what their customers do on their systems, that's why they should be worried about what's happening on their systems."
Actually, I happen to agree with you here. For two reasons, really:
1. It IS their property and their business. If they want to watch, they should be able to. If they want to sweep the hard drives after use, they should be able to. But they should also be forced to plaster that they're going to do those things all over every workstation in the cafe. There's no reason that users shouldn't know it is being done.
2. I would much much much much much much much much rather have the businesses being the ones doing the spying rather than any law enforcement agency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Spy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Spy
I don't see how your two statements support your agreement that Internet cafe owners should be responsible for any activity that their customers do on their computers. Both of the reasons you provided appear to me to be focused on the cafe owners protecting themselves from some kind of cyber attack i.e. inside the cafe, whereas the topic at hand is the UK police encouraging cafe owners to spy on their customers in the hopes of catching illegal activity outside of the cafe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Spy
To answer your question honestly, I might be a little worried, but I think the more appropriate point is that I would not feel responsible. Just as if I was the owner of a car rental company, I might be worried if my customers were driving on a snowy day, but I would understand inately that I'm just providing them with a tool and that they are responsible for how they use it.
Internet Cafes are liable for what their customers do on their systems, that's why they should be worried about what's happening on their systems.
Based on the article, the requirement to "watch" their customers is voluntary for UK Internet cafe owners, so they are in fact not liable for what their customers do. Which pretty much renders your point moot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Spy
Did you just "watch" that guy rob that old lady and then steal that kids bike to get away? I did.
Watching does not call for any action other than looking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Useless
Guess the next thing they "won't" encourage them to do, will be to install keyloggers and packet sniffers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spy
Absolutely! And the rental car agency should install cameras and watch those drivers. What if they target a bank?
@Nullop
Iran, Cuba, North Korea and China need people like you. You could join the high ranks of The Party!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Spy
Don't be a dipshit next time :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Spy
"Internet Cafes are liable for what their customers do on their systems..."
Really? It's early here where I'm at in the US, but man, using that logic, then ISP's are also liable for what their user's do (can ya hear the sound of th can of worms opening?).
Not sure how it works in the UK, so I can't speak to liability there, but imagine if the rental car agencies were responsible for anything a person did that used one of their cars...
What the heck happened to personal responsibility? It's never my fault, if that cafe didn't have internet access, I wouldn't have hacked that company and downloaded all that software! Whaaaaaaaa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Spy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-issue
And anyway, is this even surprising, coming from the land of CCTV?
Really, everyone should just move on. There's nothing at stake here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Non-issue
So, you really don't see any problem with the police going into a private business and suggesting that they spy on their customers? It'd be one thing if it was a PSA-type ad campaign, but when a cop is standing right in front of you suggesting that you do something, it carries the presumption of law. And in this case, it's not the law. Their suggestion is like an offer you can't refuse.
"I would suggest that you give me free donuts whenever I come into your store. Do you have to? No! I never said that. I just suggested it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Non-issue
Actually, the police don't suggest they get free donuts. They just relay the suggestion originally provided by their loaded sidearm....
"Shooty here thinks I deserve free donuts, propriater. Do you disagree with Shooty?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]