Poll: Investigatory Powers Bill or "Snoopers' Charter" has been approved

[stewski]

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.

This post begs the question, do you understand what metadata on internet communication consists of?

 

[Mynight]

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.

Yeah that's a rather concerning addition. I can understand the need to keep capabilities secret but to not be able to defend yourself against an accusation is surely counter to the normal process.

 

[Rroff]

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.

Indeed - I have no problem with the facilitation of targetted snooping with the necessary oversight and procedure but this is something entirely different.

 

[mmj_uk]

They can probably lie about how they obtained it because they don't want to expose the back doors built into Windows 10.

 

[asim18]

The spied on the person, not the company. There you go getting muddled so easily, again. Tut tut.

Is that seriously your retort to a 364 word post??? A pointless separation of CEO from Company followed by a delusionary belief that it somehow negates everything I said??? You are unbelievable. Another completely irrelevant retort and several completely legitimate questions have been ignored.

Why are you still whining about the person/company?
The relationship between the CEO and his company has already been explained to you. Differentiating between CEO and his company does not nullify anything I've said. It is non-sequitur.

You are a hypocrite. You wrongly accuse me of "making stuff up" and then you proceed to make your own stuff up. It was you who got muddled up before, not me. The good thing about forums is that your short term memory issues are irrelevant. If you simply look at post #911 you say "You didn't mention the person at all, you only mention the company." So it was YOU who got muddled up because I DID state the person not the company. Even though differentiation between CEO and his company is not necessary for the point at hand, and it doesn't make what I said any less probable, yet you're still whining about person/company?

Regardless, every single one of your posts is wholly and utterly non-sequitur. You are non-sequitur, personified. You avoid every single question, you are unable to discuss things, you are unable to remember, you lack any sort of logic and reasoning ability

But also.. do you actually have a point? Besides trying to pretend you are better than anyone else on these forums, I mean.

Hahahahahahahaha

Off on another tangent for the 20th time? You really do have trouble staying on topic don't you?

I don't care about your self-consciousness. Nor who is "better than anyone" I'm here to discuss things, and learn something while I'm at it. Now for the 20th time, do you actually have anything to discuss? Or are you just here to cry about who appears "better" as you have conveniently and finally admitted. I think now is the time to stop baiting me with your non-sequiturs, or finally take some time to form a logical rebuttal to something which I have said.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

I haven't "admitted" nor made up anything - you're literally the one claiming you are "intellectual" and "too philosophical for GD jokers." How you get so twisted up in your own posts is truly bizarre. You should print out Tefal's quote of you and plaster it to your ceiling above your bed, so you are reminded first thing when you wake up what a complete embarrassment that was.

You keep mentioning the company. A whole once you mention the person, and even then that was a dubiously placed reference given the entire context of the post it was within is "well of course they are going to want to infiltrate the company" - again completely and utterly ignorant that it is the spying of foreign nationals that are not in any UK jurisdiction for a mere test (i.e. not even for a real threat) that is the interesting point of the article and my posts.

You also attempt to justify their spying because "of course they are going to be interested in a large webhost company" - again ignorant of it's for a test, and that they spied on the person.

Why is it so important to note they are spying on the person and not the company? What kind of suspicious behaviour is a very successful French national CEO going to be doing? If they wanted to see any information of suspicious behaviour from the webhost company clients, why would they need to spy on the person? Note that it is spy - they put him under surveillance and monitored his behaviour - that's more than just checking his business is in order.

If he wasn't a suspect, and if your completely imagined scenario is true, why are they spying on him and not stopping with the data they need to find the people they actually want to spy on? Why spy on the CEO of a large successful company that has no indications of any untoward behaviour, let alone someone who is of no interest to the UK at all and not even one of her own citizens, nor in her territory?

Oh and you are still yet to actually convey a point, all you've done is chest beat. But please, do carry on assuming you are winning some imagined internet battle.

 

[Mynight]

900 posts of arguing 50 posts on snoopers charter .

 

[Tefal]

900 posts of arguing 50 posts on snoopers charter .

I find these threads show who is chronically disapointed by thier career choices

 

[Tefal]

I haven't "admitted" nor made up anything - you're literally the one claiming you are "intellectual" and "too philosophical for GD jokers." How you get so twisted up in your own posts is truly bizarre. You should print out Tefal's quote of you and plaster it to your ceiling above your bed, so you are reminded first thing when you wake up what a complete embarrassment that was.

You keep mentioning the company. A whole once you mention the person, and even then that was a dubiously placed reference given the entire context of the post it was within is "well of course they are going to want to infiltrate the company" - again completely and utterly ignorant that it is the spying of foreign nationals that are not in any UK jurisdiction for a mere test (i.e. not even for a real threat) that is the interesting point of the article and my posts.

You also attempt to justify their spying because "of course they are going to be interested in a large webhost company" - again ignorant of it's for a test, and that they spied on the person.

Why is it so important to note they are spying on the person and not the company? What kind of suspicious behaviour is a very successful French national CEO going to be doing? If they wanted to see any information of suspicious behaviour from the webhost company clients, why would they need to spy on the person? Note that it is spy - they put him under surveillance and monitored his behaviour - that's more than just checking his business is in order.

If he wasn't a suspect, and if your completely imagined scenario is true, why are they spying on him and not stopping with the data they need to find the people they actually want to spy on? Why spy on the CEO of a large successful company that has no indications of any untoward behaviour, let alone someone who is of no interest to the UK at all and not even one of her own citizens, nor in her territory?

Oh and you are still yet to actually convey a point, all you've done is chest beat. But please, do carry on assuming you are winning some imagined internet battle.

Possibly spying on the individual CEO is to gain leverage to use to gain access to the company.

I doubt our security forces are above blackmail

 

[asim18]

I haven't "admitted" nor made up anything - you're literally the one claiming you are "intellectual" and "too philosophical for GD jokers." How you get so twisted up in your own posts is truly bizarre. You should print out Tefal's quote of you and plaster it to your ceiling above your bed, so you are reminded first thing when you wake up what a complete embarrassment that was.

Hahaha you've had me in stitches since yesterday I cant take any more laughter, my kidneys are starting to hurt.

I didn't say "I'm too philosophical for GD jokers". I said that particular IDEA was too philosophical for YOU. And I even predicted that it would send you into meltdown and it looks like I was right.

You keep mentioning the company. A whole once you mention the person, and even then that was a dubiously placed reference given the entire context of the post it was within is "well of course they are going to want to infiltrate the company" - again completely and utterly ignorant that it is the spying of foreign nationals that are not in any UK jurisdiction for a mere test (i.e. not even for a real threat) that is the interesting point of the article and my posts.

This part makes zero sense. It's just gibberish. You're the one that keeps mentioning the need to differentiate between company and CEO even though it's got no logical relevance to the point at hand nor does it negate the fact that major ISPs are in the scope of spy agencies. Non-sequitur I'm afraid.

You also attempt to justify their spying because "of course they are going to be interested in a large webhost company" - again ignorant of it's for a test, and that they spied on the person.

Simply incorrect. I have never aimed to justify any sort of spying. Me recognising the fact that spy agencies are interested in global internet data is not the same as me justifying it.

Why is it so important to note they are spying on the person and not the company? What kind of suspicious behaviour is a very successful French national CEO going to be doing? If they wanted to see any information of suspicious behaviour from the webhost company clients, why would they need to spy on the person? Note that it is spy - they put him under surveillance and monitored his behaviour - that's more than just checking his business is in order.

EXACTLY. What suspicious dealing is a successful CEO going to be into???? They're not watching him because they're actually interested in HIM, they're interested in his ASSET. His COMPANY, not him!

Sounds like you're finally starting to realise

If he wasn't a suspect, and if your completely imagined scenario is true, why are they spying on him and not stopping with the data they need to find the people they actually want to spy on? Why spy on the CEO of a large successful company that has no indications of any untoward behaviour, let alone someone who is of no interest to the UK at all and not even one of her own citizens, nor in her territory?

Exactly.

Why spy on someone who has no indications of untoward behaviour? So following on from that, it's OBVIOUSLY because of his company, no???

But please elaborate on what is an "imagined" scenario?

I do have a great imagination, but I don't believe spy agencies' ongoing interest in global internet data (since at least 2009 if not earlier) is merely a figment of my imagination.

Oh and you are still yet to actually convey a point, all you've done is chest beat. But please, do carry on assuming you are winning some imagined internet battle.

All you've done is post nonsense, be self-conscious about stuff I don't even care about, whine about who's English is better, whine about who's better, avoiding every possible question, retorting using non-sequitur arguments.

I'm not assuming I'm winning anything lmao. What are you self-conscious about now? I don't want to win anything, for the 10th time this isn't a children's playground, it's a discussion forum. I just want to discuss and learn from others.

I've already conveyed the point. That this guy is a target because of who he is, not because he has done anything illegal himself!


“People were specifically hunted and targeted by intelligence agencies, not because they did anything wrong, but because they could be used.”

 

[asim18]

900 posts of arguing 50 posts on snoopers charter .

The thing is there isn't even an argument. It's just the external manifestation of an internal conflict in one's own mind, this is evidenced by the amount of unrelated arguments which have been posed, such as the English thing.

Spy agencies are interested in global internet traffic. It is a complete and undeniable fact, the snooper's charter itself is evidence of this. It cannot be argued against. It is perfectly logical to assume that because GCHQ has been looking to secure internet data for a very long time, and has finally gained legal ownership of pretty much ALL UK ISP data, that they are also interested in all global internet data. In fact global internet data is ALREADY collected! It's just not legal to own the data yet as with the snooper's charter.

If anyone thinks all GCHQ wants is UK ISP data, even after the interest they have shown in one of Europe's largest backbone ISPs, then they are quite frankly an idiot and they are the reason this snooper's charter has even been able to become implemented.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

I didn't say "I'm too philosophical for GD jokers". I said that particular IDEA was too philosophical for YOU. And I even predicted that it would send you into meltdown and it looks like I was right.

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.

asim18 in "making it up again" shocker.

 

[asim18]

asim18 in "making it up again" shocker.

You are the GD joker.

Goodness me it's like you're 5 years old. Cant you comprehend anything or stay on topic for 5 minutes?

Where does it say "I'm too philosophical"?
It says "that is well off topic and far too philosophical for GD jokers."... "that" being the particular idea, and the "GD joker" being YOU! I don't want to make fun out of your username but replace the A with an E.

Amazing you still resort to pointless off-topic one line retorts and simply refuse to admit that GCHQ is interested in global ISPs, nor show any interest in discussing anything using logic and reason.

How about you just forget about me? Why not go and answer Angilion's perfectly legitimate question instead of avoiding it using another non-sequitur? Oh wait I forgot he's about 100 times more intelligent than me, you're not going to have much success with him either are you?

 

[Armageus]

The pair of you are both heading for a long holiday - you have already been warned. I suggest you both take a break from this thread (and each other)

 

[markonius]

The new act will force UK tech companies to disclose future products to the government before their launch to "ensure police can still intercept data"

This utterly cripples UK economic performance in the tech sector, as it means their products cannot be trusted. People will simply migrate to non backdoored alternatives. I could see WhatsApp complying with a request like this. They did implement end to end encryption but they could push an update to disable that, and we wouldn't be able to tell because their source code isn't open to review. With legislation like this, open source software which has been thoroughly examined and reviewed is king.

 

[Narj]

The new act will force UK tech companies to disclose future products to the government before their launch to "ensure police can still intercept data"

This utterly cripples UK economic performance in the tech sector, as it means their products cannot be trusted. People will simply migrate to non backdoored alternatives. I could see WhatsApp complying with a request like this. They did implement end to end encryption but they could push an update to disable that, and we wouldn't be able to tell because their source code isn't open to review. With legislation like this, open source software which has been thoroughly examined and reviewed is king.

Yep it'll end up with UK companies in the same category as Chinese manufacturers that are never considered during a tender because God knows what security holes are in place...

It's utterly retarded. I can think of a few firms that may be worried about this.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

That's quite an old article - has there been any change to the bill that makes a difference to that?

 

[Mynight]

Only change I've found reference to is the exemption for MPs.

 

[markonius]

That's quite an old article - has there been any change to the bill that makes a difference to that?

Didn't notice the date. Snowden tweeted it today so thought I'd post it, didn't spot the date on it.

 

[neil_g]

And our government expects ISPs to keep our browsing history safe for a year?

'One billion' affected by Yahoo hack

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38324527?post_id=10155183764904815_10155916717229815#_=_