I totally agree. Also considering the article is over 5 years old. So you can say they've had an interest in OVH and similar high tier backbone providers for a pretty long time.
Poll: Investigatory Powers Bill or "Snoopers' Charter" has been approved
- Thread starter thebennyboy
- Start date
I totally agree. Also considering the article is over 5 years old. So you can say they've had an interest in OVH and similar high tier backbone providers for a pretty long time.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/174475
Not getting enough attention. I was hoping people signing one would sign the other.
Not getting enough attention. I was hoping people signing one would sign the other.
Nobody said he was randomly picked.
Oh read the date of the article. It was published yesterday.
The event took place in 2009. If you read the aricle it stats with "in 2009"
You're telling me to "keep up" with events which took place in 2009 and events which i have known are occurring since the snowden leaks many years ago?
It was on about 155k two days ago
You mean this one right, been checking it every morning to see if people were still signing.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199
It wouldn't matter if everyone in the UK signed it. The people with power don't care. They've openly said so and they have the power to impose their will on their subjects.
The official reply dismissing the petition is full of blatant lies because they don't even have to pretend to be telling the truth:
This is true in one sense - they're now admitting most of what they're doing. It's a lie in a more important sense - there's no transparency in the use of the surveillance and it has little or nothing to do with investigating anything. It might or might not be used to some extent in some investigations, but that's not what it's for. If you want to investigate, you use targetted surveillance, not blanket surveillance. Blanket surveillance hinders investigation because it obscures relevant data in a huge mass of irrelevant data. The lack of transparency is so extreme that the authorities have given themselves the right to lie in court and forbid the defendant from questioning the evidence, thus ensuring that a fair or even meaningful trial is impossible. Transparency has been dramatically decreased except in the sense that they're admitting they're doing it.
An obvious lie on both counts because it almost entirely removes privacy and significantly reduces security. It reduces security on a national scale because blanket surveillance obscures relevant information even if it isn't used instead of targetted surveillance (which, of course, it will be). It reduces security from criminals on a personal scale because it puts a huge amount of detailed personal information together online. The security of these databases will be breached, probably often. Breaches of computer systems and copying of personal data is so common nowadays that it only makes even technology news sites if there's something unusual about it. It's so common it's not even slightly newsworthy. It also reduces security from the authorities, obviously. Giving rulers such oppressive and destructive power is not harmless. Even if by some freak of chance they're all saints right now, that can't possibly always be the case.
Almost all of which was completely ignored by the authorities. So that statement is technically true and deliberately completely misleading - the scutiny happened but was deliberately made completely irrelevant.
EDIT: I'm not saying that the authorities will openly suppress dissent right away. In the future they almost certainly will (why have the power and not use it?) but it would probably be too large and obvious a step to take immediately. What will happen to begin with is the use of other ill-defined broad-ranging catchall laws that work so well as a weapon that I'm inclined to believe they were made that way deliberately. The "extreme" and "unconventional" porn laws would be good for that. Object to a surveillance state and their surveillance finds "extreme" and/or "unconventional" porn on your devices. So now you're a sex offender and thus "proof" that only bad people would object to a surveillance state. That's even better than merely imprisoning or killing dissenters - it's turning them into a tool to suppress dissent.
Last edited:
Do you really think spying on a specific individual who is extremely relevant to the stated goal of spying on everyone was only a test simply because the word "test" was used? Or are you just winding asim18 up?
I posted the article because it was published yesterday, and the specific news it covers (the spying of said French national) was not covered until yesterday. Do keep up.
The report said it was a test. I'm not about to make things up like asim18 is prone to doing.
O my bad. Could have sworn when I looked yesterday it was only around 112k.
Damn good for nothing porn sites.
Edit: Just checked on the way back machine clearly I've missed a couple of days here sorry.
No apology needed, just thought you may be on about another petition.
Wonder if this will gain any traction...
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/snoopers-charter-protest-urges-websites-block-restrict-access-uk-1594588
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/snoopers-charter-protest-urges-websites-block-restrict-access-uk-1594588
There you go again. Off on a tangent while completely avoiding a legitimate question thinking some completely unrelated nonsense is a valid retort.
He's asking you why you think the fact that it's labelled a "test" is substantial. Because you highlighted that word several times as a retort to me saying surveillance agencies are interested in ISPs. Something being "tested" doesn't mean it's not happening, it doesn't mean it's not real. It simply means trialling something before total and complete implementation. Now that you know what a testing phase is, and now that you also know that OVH was "tested" back in 2009, isn't it logical to assume that the over the course of 7 years there haven't been many more chief officers from large ISPs put on surveillance potentially for the purposes of coercing access into their respective networks?
This "test" on OVH was back in 2009, and now in 2016 this same agency now owns pretty much all UK ISP data, based on these two facts are you absolutely denying that this agency could every have an active interest in one of Europe's largest backbone providers, if not the entire Internet!?
If you want to engage in discussion about anything I have said perhaps you should start by highlighting what I have "made up" and then explain your reasoning, perhaps do a little probability assessment of your own and explain why you think something couldn't be likely, etc.
Yes I sometimes make claims which cannot possibly be substantiated, but that doesn't mean I can't discuss potentialities. There's a chance that the entire British isles could become one massive hellish penal slave colony in as little as 50 years time but yeah that is well off topic and far too philosophical for GD jokers. But sufficed to say at the rate our civil liberties are being eroded, is it wrong to assume such hell could someday become reality? I cant see life getting better once we have relinquished our final remaining civil liberties. I mean one is now not at liberty to watch a woman squirting. That is unbelievable.
How's that for some unsubstantiated BS, you must be going into meltdown right now
.
Last edited:
The government has said the IPA increases and protects privacy and security.
And now I am saying that the moon is made of dried fish and pigeons fly there on alternate Tuesdays except during October when they go on Wednesdays instead.
The key thing about things that are said is to evaluate how plausible they are. Using surveillance against the head of an ISP (and thus also against the ISP) isn't very plausible solely as a test of the ability to use surveillance online. Particularly not when it was done 6 years ago and continued for an unspecified amount of time.
There you go again. Off on a tangent while completely avoiding a legitimate question thinking some completely unrelated nonsense is a valid retort.
He's asking you why you think the fact that it's labelled a "test" is substantial. Because you highlighted that word several times as a retort to me saying surveillance agencies are interested in ISPs. Something being "tested" doesn't mean it's not happening, it doesn't mean it's not real. It simply means trialling something before total and complete implementation. Now that you know what a testing phase is, and now that you also know that OVH was "tested" back in 2009, isn't it logical to assume that the over the course of 7 years there haven't been many more chief officers from large ISPs put on surveillance potentially for the purposes of coercing access into their respective networks?
This "test" on OVH was back in 2009, and now in 2016 this same agency now owns pretty much all UK ISP data, based on these two facts are you absolutely denying that this agency could every have an active interest in one of Europe's largest backbone providers, if not the entire Internet!?
If you want to engage in discussion about anything I have said perhaps you should start by highlighting what I have "made up" and then explain your reasoning, perhaps do a little probability assessment of your own and explain why you think something couldn't be likely, etc.
Yes I sometimes make claims which cannot possibly be substantiated, but that doesn't mean I can't discuss potentialities. There's a chance that the entire British isles could become one massive hellish penal slave colony in as little as 50 years time but yeah that is well off topic and far too philosophical for GD jokers. But sufficed to say at the rate our civil liberties are being eroded, is it wrong to assume such hell could someday become reality? I cant see life getting better once we have relinquished our final remaining civil liberties. I mean one is now not at liberty to watch a woman squirting. That is unbelievable.
How's that for some unsubstantiated BS, you must be going into meltdown right now
The spied on the person, not the company. There you go getting muddled so easily, again. Tut tut.
But also.. do you actually have a point? Besides trying to pretend you are better than anyone else on these forums, I mean.
*shrugs* "metadata test" is what the article says. That's believable and/or plausible, is it not? No idea what you've posted those scenarios for. That's a "False cause" fallacy.
1) I stated the relevance extremely clearly - something being said does not prpve that it's true, so statements should be evaluated. I gave examples of untrue statements to demonstrate that it's possible to say something that isn't true.
2) I did not state any one thing caused any other thing, so it's impossible for there to have been a false cause fallacy. In order for a false cause fallacy to occur, there has to have been a claim of a cause. Since there was no claim of a cause, there cannot have been a false clause fallacy.
Neither does it automatically mean it's fake, either. In fact in the complete absence of any evidence at all that it is indeed a lie, it is outright daft to assume it is.
Your false cause is assuming it's a lie because there was another lie.
Your false cause is assuming it's a lie because there was another lie.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 6,882
It was on about 155k two days ago
You mean this one right, been checking it every morning to see if people were still signing.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199
Either way the results will just be ignored,Not sure why they are bothering to appeal against it.
It wouldn't be so bad if the system will actually be effective,But it wont be..just like when they blocked torrent sites,within 2 seconds you can be on it again.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,297
- Location
- Manchester
It has been covered further back but my issue isn't with secretive government agencies doing this kind of thing - it's with the mass hoovering up of data on all citizens, dodgy storage of it and most importantly, the fact that access to it has been expanded to a massive array of departments that absolutely should not have access (with a clause in the act allowing the government to add more as it sees fit). Couple that with the ability to force software companies to provide backdoors (circumvent encryption) and the incredibly dodgy clause allowing the government to lie in court and for it to be illegal to challenge that. It's a bad act.
They have been snooping on us for ages. There's a bloke called snowden told us all about it
when its illegal though its fine as they cant use it against you.
now its all legal (and more worryingly they can lie about how they obtained it and you cant dispute it) you can be prosecuted for all sorts.