Want to place a bet with me Cameron....

Discussion in 'Computers' started by Gromett, Apr 1, 2012.

  1. Gromett

    Gromett Funster

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,926
    Likes Received:
    13,976
    Location:
    UK
    Here we go again..... :Doh::shout::shout::shout::Angry::Angry::Angry:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745

    Snooping on everything you do on the internet.

    I will place two bets with you Cameron.

    1) That you won't get this passed and onto the statute book.
    2) If you do. You still won't be able to snoop on my internet activities.

    Cameron you are a fool.. Us techies know a hell of a lot more about the internet than you can even dream of. This is useless legislation that is a waste of time and resources... Have your advisers not told you about VPN's, Encryption, darknets and Tor? I will simply setup a VPN linked to a server you can't monitor, use a pay as you go sim to connect to that vpn and you are out of the loop. It won't cost me a penny....

    It will take me about an hour to set up max. How is this going to help your war on terrorism. The terrorists will just do the same. The information on how to do this is on google now.....

    All you will achieve is push people to encrypt their communications and make things harder for people. It will not make things easier for you and GCHQ....
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. JJ

    JJ Funster

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    14,544
    Likes Received:
    25,668
    Location:
    Quinta Majay, Pinheiro Bordalo, Portugal
    I will bet you £1.00 it is an April Fool's Day Joke Karl...

    JJ :Cool:
     
  3. slobadoberbob

    slobadoberbob Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,159
    Likes Received:
    1,970
    Location:
    Kent, garden of England
    as stated in the link



    as stated in the link........... But it would enable intelligence officers to identify who an individual or group is in contact with, how often and for how long.

    Well that is me up the creek.. They will know how much time I waste on the MHF and what idiot (sorry friends:Blush:) I am bantering with.... boy I bet GCHQ would love that.. opp5 now I have mentioned a security word... I am on there watch list again..


    Bob:Blush:
     
  4. callumwa

    callumwa Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,113
    Likes Received:
    4,517
    Location:
    Tyne & Wear, sometimes..
    From the OP linked BBC article[HI] dated Apr 1 2012, updated at 1015[/HI]

    Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said any legislation requiring communications providers to keep records of contact would need "strong safeguards on access", and "a careful balance" would have to be struck "between investigative powers and the right to privacy".

    I believe backbencher Mr Huhne (no longer a climate minister, never mind his previous Lib Dem job on Home Affairs) is more concerned about a forthcoming court case regarding his driving licence, than an other matters on this April 1st morning.:Eeek:


    Come on Guys....... wakey wakey!..... it's amost lunchtime.....:Doh::Doh::Doh:

    Callum
     
  5. Gromett

    Gromett Funster

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,926
    Likes Received:
    13,976
    Location:
    UK
    Not me.... They will have to get up early to monitor my communications if I didn't want them to....


    I certainly hope so. But its on the BBC and the Sunday Times.....
     
  6. GJH

    GJH Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    27,232
    Likes Received:
    34,419
    Location:
    Acklam, Teesside, originally Glossop
    I note the statement attributed to the Home Office saying action was needed to "maintain the continued availability of communications data as technology changes". The advance of technology has been a bugbear of legislation for many years because the wording is framed based on technologies available and foreseen at the time. I recall, for instance, changes needed to include digital storage in legislation which covered only microfilm/fiche.

    Obviously, as the proposed legislation has not yet been announced nobody other than those preparing it know its content. However, if it is simply to keep legislation like RIPA up to date and contains the current RIPA safeguards then I can't see a problem with it.

    This sort of legislation covers far more than simply terrorism and, whilst some of the people whom authorities are trying to catch will have the technical knowledge which Karl mentions, the majority do not. Also, the technical knowledge and tools available to those authorities which need it is usually at least as high as those employed by their targets.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Gromett

    Gromett Funster

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,926
    Likes Received:
    13,976
    Location:
    UK
    The ones who don't have the technical knowledge or common sense to google are the like of the shoe bomber who are lone wolves and incompetent anyway.

    The organised ones do have people who handle this kind of stuff. So the ones we need to catch won't be trapped by this anyway. Plus you need to know which people you want to monitor ahead of put a "tap" on. I can't see this legislation being of any practical benefit but will be a privacy hole.

    I don't believe this is true sorry. It is not a trivial task to crack 512bit pke. So set up your vpn with 1024 or 2048 bit encryption and your end to end is secure.

    PGP (gpg) has been around for many many years now and is totally secure. It is open source so you can be sure that there are no back doors installed by the government. Using pgp means your emails are encrypted and signed end to end...

    Tor is being used by terrorists, freedom fighters and libertarians the world over and is well known. I wouldn't use it because it is slow.

    If governments were able to crack encryption why do they keep taking people to court to force them to reveal passwords?
     
  8. Gromett

    Gromett Funster

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,926
    Likes Received:
    13,976
    Location:
    UK
    Or Buy a stack of these... Buy them from different suppliers/networks each time... Log onto public wifi networks. Loads of ways for terrorist to avoid this monitoring.
     
  9. GJH

    GJH Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    27,232
    Likes Received:
    34,419
    Location:
    Acklam, Teesside, originally Glossop
    You would probably be surprised, Karl, how lax some lawbreakers are when it comes to what we might view as coming naturally. I once caught somebody, who is very competent technically, within 5 minutes of starting to look because of silly mistakes he made. The majority of people targeted are criminals, not terrorists.

    Also, the fact that e-mail content is not accessible isn't important in most cases; it is being able to priove that two people are communicating with each other. As the BBC story points out the legislation "would not allow GCHQ to access the content of emails, calls or messages without a warrant. But it would enable intelligence officers to identify who an individual or group is in contact with, how often and for how long. They would also be able to see which websites someone had visited."
     
  10. Gromett

    Gromett Funster

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,926
    Likes Received:
    13,976
    Location:
    UK
    I understand what you are saying. The specific targets mentioned in all the articles are terrorist and pedophiles....

    Pedophiles use extremely clever tricks to hide their activity. They don't use email to communicate because they know this is vulnerable. I won't go into details but they are already very technically savvy and the police already have the means to catch the low hanging fruit. The new legislation won't help in my opinion.

    I know they are only logging from/to/when data and pgp won't stop this. But VPN's, darknets, tor and encrypted proxies will. It is trivial to get around it with just a little research. Just because your expert made this mistake...
    When/if this law comes out there will be a worldwide movement to provide quick and easy methods of avoiding this surveillance. Tor is one example of the results of government monitoring.

    The "you have nothing to worry if you are innocent" argument used to wash with me but no more. I have seen legislative creep allowing laws meant for one purpose being used for another purpose. There are literally hundreds of scenarios where this data could be misused and all without a court order...
    There is nothing in this legilation that has been announced so far that prevent fishing trips with all the negative possibilities this provides. The RIPA act was used to check if people were living in the house they said they did for the purpose of applying to a school....

    I am against this data collection full stop. It won't work for what it is intended but has potential for major implications for innocent people.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. GJH

    GJH Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    27,232
    Likes Received:
    34,419
    Location:
    Acklam, Teesside, originally Glossop
    I can't see any mention of paedophiles in the BBC article, just crime & terrorism (third para). It seems to me, though, that it is a scaremongering article. The first paragraph is written as if the monitoring would be something new when it isn't, it has happened for years.

    It is worth remembering that RIPA 2000 was only necessary because the HRA 1998 was so badly written that it prevented the legal use of investigatory powers which had been, necessarily, available to law enforcement authorities for many years. Amendment of RIPA to encompass technological advances over the last 12 years is only the law playing catch-up and is a far cry from the unworkable database which Labour tried to introduce.

    It was the use of covert surveillance (not RIPA) by Poole Council in connection with school applications that was, quite rightly, found to be improper by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. As The Ruling makes clear, had Poole Council applied RIPA properly then the authorisation they used would never have been granted. It certainly wouldn't have got past me when I was a RIPA Officer.

    RIPA already makes "fishing trips" unlawful so, whilst it is possible for "everyone" to be monitored, legally only properly targeted monitoring is allowed (as opposed to the default storage of everything as proposed by Labour).
     
  12. rangitira

    rangitira Funster

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    12,402
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Way hey! Bomb Bullet, Die Infidels!

    El hafreat fell bab! (the devil is at the door)






    Thats got the lot at Cheltenham in their armoured Jags on the way to raid La Ponderoza Jim:thumb:
     
  13. ShiftZZ

    ShiftZZ Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    19,821
    Likes Received:
    35,879
    Location:
    Leicestershire
    RIPA was a disaster, it allowed virtually every tom dick and harry to get info from whoever.

    If this story is correct, then as Karl said there will be a big movement to make software available to prevent this from happening, was there not a similar move in the USA when PGP came out and its author was imprisoned?


    I do have a friend who worked in GCHQ and he always claimed that they found it easy to break 512bit encryption, claimed it was mind rather than hours. I also remember reading about Edinburgh University were able to 'crack' wither 1024 or 2048 bit.

    Anon and LulZ were able to 'hack' a fair number of protected sites and they were caught even though they should have been savy enough to cover their tracks.

    I know that a lot of passwords were sent via intranets unencrypted and the company that I worked for said they were looking ot CIPE (controlled internet protocol encryption) and then migrate to SIPE. Dont know if it ever happened.

    Another company I worked for always had a firewall that changed OS/protocol Windows/UNIX/Linux I was lead to believe that it was harder to hack across different protocols (who knows)

    I suspect that the 'authorities' do access our data now, with or without a warrent, all this does is cause them more issues by bringing it to the attention of 'low hanging fruit' .

    Roll out the proxy servers/avon servers and VPN's...
     
  14. GJH

    GJH Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    27,232
    Likes Received:
    34,419
    Location:
    Acklam, Teesside, originally Glossop
    Not so. RIPA regulates (that's what the R stands for) how powers can lawfully be used despite the HRA. Those powers were already in place and used lawfully before the HRA mess came along. RIPA provided no new powers.
     
Loading...

Share This Page