Reply With QuoteThe number of people using this board would decrease rapidly!Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Still not answered the question. Yes, say there are these algorithms capable of processing what we look at. What use is it for these government agencies and what will they do with it, even why do we assume they'll want to do anything with it in the first place?
The number of people using this board would decrease rapidly!
Have a bit of foresight Eric. Imagine just for one second the government isn't some squeaky clean organisation that just wants what's best for you at all times.
Let's say next year they re-introduce the Poll Tax which turns out to be just as unfair as it was all those years ago and people decide to protest it again.
So, someone sets up www.smashthegovernment.com as a place for people to meet up and plan demonstrations and other courses of action.
This new law will allow this less-than-squeaky-clean government (and their algorithms and AI) to see everyone who visited that site, then cross-reference that with other sites you've looked at any hey presto, they can see how much of a threat you are and also what they can fit you up with to crush you into submission, if they consider you in any way threatening to them.
I'm sure you've heard the phrase "information is power", well this new law is handing a huge amount of power to a group of people that may not have your best interests at heart.
Do you really trust these people to do the right thing for you at all times? These people who steal our taxes to build their duck ponds, have clandestine meetings with powerful CEO's, that wage wars overseas against our wishes, that didn't prosecute a single banker after the crash of 2008, that prosecuted no one when it was revealed that we had all been under illegal surveillance by NSA/GCHQ, that purposely hamper the high-profile paedophile investigation of members of their own profession?
And that's just ONE, fairly mild example of how this new law could be used. Take a look at all the agencies that have access to previously private information, you cannot begin to imagine just how many ways there are for those agencies to use that information to either extract money or compliance from people.
But the people who have "nothing to hide" will be fine, right?
So the average bloke who might disagree with the government is going to be crushed into submission if the opinion is that he might be threatening to them? Who scripts this nonsense?
Eric, look what you've just written.So the average bloke who might disagree with the government is going to be crushed into submission if the opinion is that he might be threatening to them? Who scripts this nonsense?
You've bought into the notion that the government passed this law to act upon terrorist threats whilst simultaneously laughing at the notion that the government would use this law to eliminate threats.
Have a think about it.
I think it's fair to say that this law hasn't been brought in for the benefit of the likes of us.
Indeed.
No I'm not. I'm laughing at the notion that data is going to be used to suppress the average bloke in the street.
You appear to be implying that all data is going to be looked at and evaluated in the same way, whether you look at a few websites that oppose government policies (as per your example) or send emails of a plot to blow up Downing Street. In any case, with your example, it would be simpler to close down such a website than crush into submission those that look at it.
The investigatory Powers Tribunal revealed the government secretly spied on Amnesty International by illegally intercepting, accessing and storing its information. This is an organisation dedicated to protecting human rights worldwide. Seems a bit odd, what do you think their motives were? And if you're registered on the Amnesty membership database should you also feel comfortable twith this as you've nothing to hide?So the average bloke who might disagree with the government is going to be crushed into submission if the opinion is that he might be threatening to them? Who scripts this nonsense?
The United Nations also believes surveillance laws contravene the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. How many more of the articles within that are we prepared to meekly give up because we just can't really imagine any harm coming out of it.
If that's what you think I'm implying then you've misunderstood what I've written and I'd urge you to go back and read it again, if you actually want an answer to that.
The most worrying part is that it doesn't seem to matter what shady shit the government does, people will still trust them to act in their best interest and cling to them like a beaten spouse.
I can see why that mindset appeals to people, to resolve in your own mind that the government is perfectly capable and willing to trample you into the ground is like whipping off the nice warm quilt in the morning and suddenly feeling the chill.
http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debu...thing-to-fear/ this is a half decent article on the nothing to hide argument. Why not install cameras in your house to make sure domestic violence doesn't happen? Just because you don't have anything to hide should not mean that other people should lose their privacy. What's to stop journalists being monitored, for example, who are investigating wrongdoing by our government in whatever way. This law has been called the death of investigative journalism, which should be a very worrying sign.
This law feels like it's made by people who don't fully understand technology at best but could potentially have come from something more sinister, especially given that they've been found to be doing this illegally for years.
Of course, there is an argument for surveillance and I'm not sure anyone here is arguing that we should allow terrorists to act unhindered because of "freedom of speech", but this law goes way beyond what's appropriate. There is a balance between safety and privacy and I'm sure a lot of security experts/ethical hackers would agree. I think this point gets lost when people get hung up on the nothing to hide nothing to fear argument.
There is a legal challenge being put to the ECHR and the European court of justice which will likely rule that parts of this law must be changed but the way this has been passed with very little protest or even knowledge I think is scary. Most people I mention it to have no idea about it whatsoever, regardless if they agree or not.
https://thatoneprivacysite.net/vpn-comparison-chart/
https://www.reddit.com/r/VPN/
https://www.openrightsgroup.org
Some worthwhile sites to look at. There was a guy on here trying to scare people about vpns but they are a worthwhile tool imo. Especially kodi users! With that said, if the govt want to get you they probably will, VPN or not.
Good OP Colonel and you're right to make noise on this.
The Snoopers Charter has been perhaps the single most depressing piece of legislation I can remember passing in the UK, partly because, like you say, it passed without a whimper. It seems to me that the UK seems to be some kind of beta testing ground for 1984-esque policies. It reminds me of the legislation that Blair failed to pass in regard to DNA identification. Eugenics controls will the next level the government will impose on us.
The Snoopers Charter also confirms that the Punch and Judy in the in the commons is about as real as American wrestling. It's on issues like this that the right wingers are supposed to take the moral high ground over the left, as this is a communist big state style policy after all. But the Tories have been infiltrated with Draconian elitist loonies since before I was around.
I remember when we used to point to China and North Korea for examples of this kind of state intrusion. We don't have to look that far now.
To add to my previous post - it seems like there is a lot of movement currently regarding online monitoring and data security, much of it about copyright ostensibly. These should be very carefully scrutinised and challenged where appropriate as they could have far reaching consequences. Part of the problem I think is that the majority of people don't really understand the complexities involved - we all use the internet but most of us don't really understand the workings behind it and subsequently trust that these laws will be made for our benefit. Even if those proposing (doing) mass data collection/censorship only have our benefit in mind(!) they could inadvertently be creating an unjust or dangerous system which could be abused by other people at a later stage, purely because those who created them didn't fully understand the technology or ramifications of what they were implementing. Unfortunately I don't have much faith that these proposals will be tempered adequately - and we're gradually giving away more and more freedom. I don't agree with the US gun laws - but the ideology of the second amendment makes sense to some extent - everyone being able to protect themselves and challenge tyrants or overbearing governments is important in society. I would argue that physical power is undermined by technological power these days and by allowing censorship and mass surveillance (e.g. by not caring) we are giving away the power to challenge the leaders of our society and protect ourselves.
I have nothing to hide but it doesn't mean I want the likes of the ****ing Welsh ambulance service having access to my internet history, please tell me why they need it? What is Corbyns view on this? Where is the opposition?
I am quite rational about this though in the main, I have no issue with the spooks having access to my internet history, if it keeps me safe then it keeps me safe. I can't imagine for the life of my why anyone would want to look at my history however the list of organisations that are entitled to this is far, far too long. What measure are in place to stop workers at these organisations just searching for their mates on the database? Lives could be ruined.
As a point aside it dawned on me the other day just how powerful the likes of Facebook are with out information. I was out a few months ago and got with a bird from Gloucester who was staying in Cardiff for a hen do. Never met her before and I couldn't remember her name in the morning. A couple of days afterwards I was browsing Facebook and her face pops up in the "people you may know" section. How absurdly creepy is that.
It worked for the Stasi.
I didn't give her my name for obvious reasons so she couldn't have found me that way. The only explanation I have is that I have her number in my phone book or that our phones were next to each other for a prolonged period of time. Either way, it was no coincidence.
If you have her number in your phone and assuming it's a smartphone then facebook will get her details from that - as it appears she has her facebook account linked to that phone number.
Web pages you visit will also send ad requests to facebook to be targeted at you - the thing about facebook listening to conversations is real, but they say it doesn't gather data from this to advertise - although I feel like this has happened to me and other people I know so it's dodgy I reckon. They previously didn't delete cookies after you logged out - so continued tracking you. Then there's the mood monitoring thing (and warnings about not using reactions if you value privacy) and how they can influence your mood based on what they show you in your feed.
The amount of information that site (and others including google for example) have is crazy and the power and influence they have is very scary. Societies can be manipulated without even knowing it. I'm not one for conspiracy theories but I think this is a real prospect.
Go ooooon Gramps..
Question.
Why would the Food Standards Agency want to know ANYONE's internet browsing history? Why would the Welsh Ambulance Service?
Can you provide an example of any relevant information they can get from checking a person's browsing history?
example number 1 in red
The Government, and indeed all Governments around the world, have been playing the "terrorism" card for ages. The big side-effect is that a frightened (ignorant) public have become more extreme in their views and voting patterns.
For America, look also at France, Austria, Germany, The Philippines.
There is no doubt in my mind that we are heading for a World War, but that's just my opinion.
"I have nothing to hide". Fair enough. However, be very careful. The example I am giving may sound extreme, but is it?
A woman found stabbed to death. CCTV suggests you are a suspect with the media happily reporting your "suspicious" behaviour on the night of the crime. Fact was, you were acting suspiciously, you had just had a falling out with your own missus and, to get away from the argument, you walk the streets doing nothing and going nowhere.
The Police pull up your browsing history.
They find that you have recently read a number of stories of stabbings and brutal murders. They find you listen to a podcast that discusses (jokingly) some gruesome murders from history. They also find you have a love of violent movies from Korea.
This is leaked to the press, suddenly you are a suspicious character with an interest in violent movies, stories, and murders.
This is in the Public Domain by the time you appear before the beak and 12 members of the public.
Do you often use an Internet Browser to pick your nose?example number 1 in red
Posting Permissions
