On Tue, November 22, 2016 12:41, Mike Fleming wrote: Good luck with your support request to get them. :-p Maybe they could crack my PGP key from ~2003 that I've forgotten the passphrase for... Gavin

Thanks Andy, for responding promptly and clearly to these questions. I'm sure I'm not alone in appreciating the first rate quality of service you provide. Richard Glynos. -------- Original Message -------- From: Andy Smith <andy(a)bitfolk.com> Sent: 23 November 2016 23:57:17 CET To: users(a)lists.bitfolk.com Subject: Re: [bitfolk] IP Bill, BitFolk, and VPNs Hi Chris, On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:49:30AM +0000, Chris Dennis wrote: Probably not, as it stands. Practically speaking they will roll out the data-gathering requirement to the largest four or five internet access providers in the UK, which will cover more than 90% of UK households. There is probably enough vagueness in it for anything connected to the internet in UK to be ruled in-scope, if deemed necessary. Not in general. BitFolk stores 12 hours of (time,srcip,dstip) logs for outbound TCP port 22 connection attempts in order to monitor the rate of outbound SSH connections. Only SYN packets to port 22 remote addresses are logged. This helps in spotting compromised VPSes. BitFolk has a strong privacy policy which doesn't allow for handing over data to third parties unless accompanied with a proper warrant or court order. This has been tested a couple of times in the past with real requests; so far there have been no follow-ups with real court orders. Though if there had been then I wouldn't be able to tell you about that. But in that case I also wouldn't be lying and saying there had been none.¹ Although this Act does seem to give the power to compel us to install some black box on our network that logs all the Internet Connection Records (once they've decided what those are), it seems extremely unlikely that they would ever bother to do that. They'd get far more return on the effort by doing it at peering points and other places where traffic is far more concentrated. So I can make a big scene by promising I'll never allow black boxes on our network, or that I'll never carry out logging of all traffic if compelled, but honestly I don't think BitFolk will ever need to make that decision. Once a bit more is known about how the Investigatory Powers Act (and the Digital Economy Bill if it passes and becomes an Act) will actually work then BitFolk will publish a statement about it. Cheers, Andy ¹ At this point people sometimes like to bring up the topic of warrant canaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary Some UK companies do have warrant canaries, but the concept of a warrant canary has never been tested in English law. Therefore at the moment my policy on them is that I would not like to start publishing one only to find out, in the middle of dealing with a specific incident, that the best legal advice would be to continue publishing the canary (lying to you). If anyone would like to fund a legal study into whether a warrant canary is likely to stand up against the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Investigatory Powers Act then do let me know; I've asked ORG before but they don't seem interested unfortunately. -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)lists.bitfolk.com https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users