Forum menu
This is before we even mention all the computers, tablets out there too. I suspect, you wannabe fascists haven't quite got a handle on the scale of the problem you seek to control.
I think the only real solution is to get the listening devices installed along with the brain monitors, you can't be too careful
I propose we extend the SNPs named person scheme to adults! 😆
willard - Member
Obviously, if you have nothing to hide, you would not object to such a measure, after all, it would keep you safe from terrorists.
Incidentally, as a principle I personally I think we should have reserved rights to clandestine activity against the government if it gets too big for it's boots!
So yes, I do object.
seosamh77 - MemberYoure solution still doesn't solve the problem of existing phones. Even if you could pass it through.
Oh, that's simple. Just insist on a recall of all non-approved and registered phones. All phones in use will then be approved, registered and able to be securely monitored by the responsible authorities.
Obviously, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
Aye, that'll work. Why don't you just switch off the internet? Probably the easiest solution, cut the wires. take down the satellites.
See above. I may well have nothing to hide, but something to fear.
Some of you really really should read a history book or 2, you don't even need to go back as far as WW2.
Oh, that's simple. Just insist on a recall of all non-approved and registered phones. All phones in use will then be approved, registered and able to be securely monitored by the responsible authorities.Obviously, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
I can't work out if this is sarcasm or not.
Which is obviously one of the issues.
#bomb #goingoffsoon #sendtheswatteam #wontsomebodythinkofthechildren
Never ceases to amuse me that the lets say right wing types here, complain about big government interfering in their lives, yet get a complete hard on when the government want to implement surveillance laws such as this.
Authoritarians eh? 🙂
[i]This is before we even mention all the computers, tablets out there too. I suspect, you wannabe fascists haven't quite got a handle on the scale of the problem you seek to control. [/I]
Yep. And what also seems beyond their thought processes is that folk can just programme their past this stuff, not everything is an 'App' nor needs to be bought/downloaded. How do they think we did this stuff before? We wrote code!
[I]Never ceases to amuse me that the lets say right wing types here, complain about big government interfering in their lives, yet get a complete hard on when the government want to implement surveillance laws such as this.[/I]
Yep, agree.
Must admit, going back to the OP, this going through without a whimper and Corbyns clear support for Brexit, have killed any good will I have for him and his Labour project.
jimdubleyou - Member
I can't work out if this is sarcasm or not.
It is absolutely sarcasm. The whole phrase "if nothing to hide..." fills me with fear. Things I (or anyone else) do now may not e illegal or worthy of note, but may be in the future or when the people looking at the data changes.
I know many people that fought to give my parents and me the freedoms we enjoy now and I detest that we seem to be heading that way in all corners of the world.
As I understand the justification & evidence for using those powers has to be extremely strong & robust - as someone who knows more about it than I said "If you've got nothing to hide, then you've nothing to worry about..."
Some very misleading term sin the Graun as I understand it are "...access masses of stored data..." & "...even if the person under scrutiny is not suspected of any wrongdoing...." whereas the act is aiming for targeted individuals & a court order must be obtained prior to the use of those powers.
So your information can't be accessed by the Gov willy nilly - as I understand it.
Like anything it could be open to abuse......
edit: a court order isn't required but there must be extreme justification for the use of the new powers.
Must admit, going back to the OP, this going through without a whimper and Corbyns clear support for Brexit, have killed any good will I have for him and his Labour project.
Like on most issues, to me he just seems like a slightly bemused, barely interested bystander, just watching all this going on in front of him, without realising its actually his job to be doing something about it
It's come as a complete surprise to me. I mean, TM was, pretty much the most hyper zealous spook champ Home Secretary we've had in years.
And we get more of her brilliant policies (see what i did there, they got NUTHIN' on me...) when she is, er, [i]given [/i]the Prime Ministers job.
As Russia found out, the apple don't fall far from the tree.
There is a reason that Home Secretaries rarely get the top job...
EDIT:
Oh, and the "end to end VPN", tor, steganography stuff - they dont have to know what you say, just that your hiding it. Sore thumb. Standout.
[quote=willard ] Obviously, if you have nothing to hide, you would not object to such a measure, after all, it would keep you safe from terrorists.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/18/people-falsely-accused-internet-data-disclosure
Spot on binners - he's the tired headmaster rolling his eyes at the antics he's seen many times before instead of getting stuck in and handing out some detentions!
Not sure who the hell I'll vote for when I next get the chance. Probably an independent at this rate.
Some of you really really should read a history book or 2, you don't even need to go back as far as WW2.
Remind me which departments 'invented' the computer and why?
As for Binners point, Corbyn and McDonnell are loving Brexit they are part of the old left that hate the EU and think without it the UK will suddenly become some commie workers paradise.
[img] 
[/img]
The Ancient Chinese tax office? 😆
😆
Jamba (and others), I'm not going to try and change your opinions but you have to at least understand that you are arguing from a point of ignorance. The knowledge is out there in the public domain, cryptography is a very well known and understood art, it's simply writing things down in a manner someone else can't read. You can no more ban encryption than you can ban Welsh.
Encryption isn't some sort of voodoo technlology where you take data and turn it into something special, it's just number crunching. You can store it as plain text even; here's an extract from a website certificate, for example:
A0NNQTEMMAoGA1UECxMDSUNUMR4wHAYDVQQDExVjb25mZXJlbmNlLmNtYS5nb3Yu
dWswggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQCyJelWTh7NrUbAqy5T
QODJ8xW1IugFw+4lgr9raLzvY4BJB4P3mIRHUoVWyGGQcvEpEez6TMEc28fFnMMv
Cy65QXkjG0gqCFpuscjRxXDRqFCmLj4y9armc/gOI5gbHO4tgm5q0nsJYPpSbHnQ
0wKVNG7ECYxye2z828ikc0JhCgbMDyFXoX7xeDA0C7lt2dCPLz5rlthxgHiMoHQ+
E6I9ANgIqeGMx9lLipQ00BaRE7VT0pAmNrS/RgMxCHRo81+nd2MTQY0Yyta6YqwI
9nZOXGHUu2lqMpFaoFaNM1nFsvGmffMMsrvofmCANFcXFtJHRtiOwMo5Kgyh8EDjHow are you going to ban the transmission of text?
what also seems beyond their thought processes is that folk can just programme their past this stuff, not everything is an 'App' nor needs to be bought/downloaded. How do they think we did this stuff before? We wrote code!
And it's not even that complicated, you could knock something up from scratch in minutes. This is what I think some folk are misunderstanding, secure encryption isn't difficult, it's trivial. Or rather, it is now, all the heavy lifting has been done by a succession of clever people. Essentially you're trying to legislate against the use of maths.
Oh, and the "end to end VPN", tor, steganography stuff - they dont have to know what you say, just that your hiding it. Sore thumb. Standout.
Well,
1) So what? Guilty until proven innocent now are we?
2) That assumes that secure transmission of data is unusual. It isn't.
2) That assumes that secure transmission of data is unusual. It isn't.
In fairness, they may have a point here, lets decrypt all those bank details. See where the money really is! 😆
re corbyn and co.
I used to think (for some reason I can't now recall, most likely stupidity) that "left wing" and "liberal" meant much the same thing.
But I was painfully and obviously wrong.
People prepared to sacrifice the privacy and freedom of others "for security" "for the children" or whatever, should first make their own internet and phone history public (and possibly get rid of their curtains).
VPNs, tor etc do make you stand out like a sore thumb, but at least if "they" suspect you of nefarious dealings they'll have to put a bit of effort in, and try to find some evidence (Edit: As cougar just said 🙂
Of course, the more they continue with this stuff, the more people will go down that road, until everything is encrypted and nothing is accessible (except for the logs jamba will record of his own activities and send unsolicited to Theresa every month).
Meanwhile, the actual terrorists will be passing each other messages in clear text using stolen phones, or by mail using sd cards, or maybe postcards, or maybe [insert simple secure idea here]..
Meanwhile, the actual terrorists will be passing each other messages in clear text using stolen phones, or by mail using sd cards, or maybe postcards, or maybe [insert simple secure idea here]..
Post a file to any cloud storage with public access, if you have the key you can decrypt it in seconds, like the classic spy thriller dead drop but all you need to do is hit up some free wifi.
Don't worry, Jeremy has strategically placed Shami Chakrabarti in the Lords to scupper this authoritarian invasion of privacy. He can just stick his feet up and get on with the real business of opposition, whatever that is.
Still, May will have to go some distance to beat the Blair/Brown RIPA shambles, the main use of which appears to be helping councils find out who is putting their bin out on the wrong day. If any terrorists are trying to get their kid into a better school by lying about where they live, they're screwed, basically.
Everyone knows that criminals, paedos and terrorists operate behind locked doors - so it follows that the world will definitely be a safer place if we ban locked doors.
Should be easy to do - simply ban shops from selling locks unless they can be opened by a government issued key.
Some people may try to barricade their door using other means but they'll stand out like sore thumbs.
🙄
Why would you mind the government looking around your house if you have nothing to hide?
martinhutch - Member
Why would you mind the government looking around your house if you have nothing to hide?
Why wear clothes? Most places are heated. Much the same principle.
Why would you mind the government looking around your house if you have nothing to hide?
Everyone has something to hide, that's the point. It's just that most people's secrets involve breaking their diet with a cream cake at lunch rather than plotting the fall of Western civilisation.
If you genuinely believe you have nothing to hide, let me know when I can pop round and install CCTV in your bedroom.
You've already put it there, in the form of your phone, web cam, xbox connect, Amazon echo or other device. I'd be less worried about the government (in the UK at least) and more worried what Apple, Facebook, Google, Samsung etc. are doing and that's before we get into some random cheapo Chinese companies web cam.
Why would you mind the government looking around your house if you have nothing to hide?
Privacy is not the same as secrecy. I sometimes poo. It's no secret, I'm sure you do too. But that doesn't mean I want someone watching me do it and then noting down its vital dimensions, colour, consitency and weight.
Well,1) So what? Guilty until proven innocent now are we?
2) That assumes that secure transmission of data is unusual. It isn't.
1)So if you're not guilty, what [i]exactly [/i]are you actually innocent of?.. hmmmm?
2) Are you being serious? Endpoints, cipher types, use of proxies, etc. Honestly, you think atypical encryption doesn't stand out? When the soviets went dark, all the data in transit was opaque, but the traffic analysis proved revealing (and continues to do so).
Security because of being in the herd and security by obscurity really isn't an sort of security.
TBH, time and again, it's been shown that surveillance capability != security.
First rule of security? There is no security!
It's all about mitigation.
1)So if you're not guilty, what exactly are you actually innocent of?.. hmmmm?
WTF? I'm going about my legal day to day business.
No doubt those with money (I'm looking record companies, film makers etc) will be looking at this to assist their war on [s]terror[/s] watching the Walking Dead a day early.
Trump's core vote doesn't GAS about end to end encryption
Isn't a bit worrying to find yourself on the same side as Trump voters?
Perhaps Mr Corbyn isn't a silver surfer. Maybe he's a bit "old-fashioned" and has stuck to a paper-based, one-time-pad solution.
So he's not bothered AND his communication is almost totally secure. 🙂
1)So if you're not guilty, what exactly are you actually innocent of?.. hmmmm?
Online banking. VPN to work's corporate network. Buying a game from Amazon. Having an intimate conversation with my wife.
Honestly, you think atypical encryption doesn't stand out?
I'm saying that it probably doesn't stand out as much as you think. GCHQ, the NSA etc already have more data than they can cope with. Flagging up someone for further investigation purely because they are transmitting and receiving encrypted data is a massively inefficient way of catching criminals, exponentially more so if you're looking for actually terrorists rather than Dave at number 39 who illegally downloaded last night's Strictly Come Dancing.
1)So if you're not guilty, what exactly are you actually innocent of?.. hmmmm?
I suppose the real answer here is, "none of your clucking business."
and that's before we get into some random cheapo Chinese companies web cam.
Old skool solution to nu skool problem:
[img] 
[/img]
I'm saying that it probably doesn't stand out as much as you think
I see your point, especially about data quantity but I don't agree with it.
Years ago I worked on a project using Sand Nucleus database. (I think it was called that back then). A commercial project. I understand the technology behind Sand was based on software used to analyse subsurface noises, possibly the sounds submarines make (so I was told by the slightly scary American man). I got the idea this was to do with "listening" project the US did to track (soviet) submarines - but that might be a bit 2+2=5.
Sand was IIRC damn fast at what it did and it was (as I was led to believe) originally either used by or trialled by the US defence department.
What I'm saying is the volume might seem a lot [i]now [/i]but it might not be [i]soon [/i]or might not be if you analyse it in a novel way.
Also, unless trained otherwise we are very habitual creatures, perhaps not on a day to day basis, but bills present themselves regularly, so do payment, holidays and days on which illicit affairs take place.
I'd argue that given currently or near current technology, meta data analysis (for that is what is supposedly being captured) is far more "valuable" than content analysis.
But I think it's overly intrusive and I don't think it's the best way to detect criminals, spys and terrorists.
The NSA etc have more data than they can process right now - ie, before they're going to get the keys to every ISP in the country (or so it said in an article which I thought was linked on the first page of this thread but can't immediately find now).
That's only ever going to increase as the government steal ever more of our liberties and more and more "ordinary" people start to have privacy concerns.
Unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure what you're going to learn from metadata other than "people are using secure communication methods," and really, far from being legislated against, that should be mandatory.
It's not because they are using encryption - it's the patterns, volume and timing
The enigma "cracking" efforts at Bletchely and the Verona intercepts were vital and revealing but the less glorious meta analysis was useful too - Gordon Welchman is the bloke to look up, I think.
The meta analysis provides suggestion but not proof. That can be enough to provoke the use of more focused, tin foil hat methods.
However, when employed against the likes of Mrs Miggins illicit streaming service, well, at that point things are FUBAR anyway and it's of no use to the citizens of the state.
Why would you mind the government looking around your house if you have nothing to hide?
Not so long ago that "something to hide" might have included homosexuality. The government said it was wrong. Are you saying that everything that the govt now says is wrong is really wrong, and that all the mistakes have been cleared up?
Governments have always overstated security issues as a reason for impinging on civil liberties - the creep continues here. Nothing new. But should be resisted/checked as much as possible.
Oh yeah, the other Jambafact that piqued my interest was the assertion that "with a search warrant the police have the right to look at anything." Is that true? Turns out that no, it's not.
http://www.youblawg.com/criminal-law/search-warrants-laws-limitations
[i]Police officers’ searches are limited by the scope of the warrant. They can only search the specific location listed in the warrant, but they may be able to seize other items not listed on the warrant if they come upon contraband or evidence of a crime not listed in the warrant during the lawful search.
If officers have a warrant to search an individual, they can only search that specific person. Officers may not search onlookers without specific, independent probable cause of additional criminal activity. Even if they have reasonable suspicion that an onlooker is somehow engaged in criminal activity, officers may only question the onlooker. If an officer’s safety is in question, the officer may conduct a frisk for weapons but nothing more.
...
The majority of searches actually occur legally without a search warrant because the courts have determined that a warrant is not necessary. These warrantless situations include the following circumstances: consent searches, items in plain view, searches made in conjunction with an arrest, or emergency exceptions.[/i]
So what we're proposing here is that the police can potentially look at anything they like, [b]entirely unlike[/b] the search warrant policy.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38068078
"And even in the worst-case scenario that our servers are confiscated, there would be nothing on them because of the way they are configured."
Another VPN provider said the UK government would find it difficult to prevent the use of such workarounds.
"The legislation specifically mentions connection service providers and not just ISPs, and the assumption is that VPNs based in the UK will have to give up their logs under this law," said Caleb Chen, a spokesman for Private Internet Access.
"But as a US-based company, my legal team has advised me that we would not be under any obligation to do so.
"And even if the government were to try to take it a step further and say no UK citizen could use a VPN that was not compliant with the law, those services would still be available."
He added that the widespread use of VPNs by businesses to provide staff with remote access to their email and other work-related files would also make it difficult to restrict the technology's use.
Whats that a very simple work around???