Theresa may calls for tighter internet regulations after London attack

Mynight said:
30? Seems rather high.

Surely one to watch internet usage. One to follow them (assume partner) and rotate them between suspects so they don't get seen too often. One to lead said following. So 8 people for a day. Maybe one to make the coffee.

What on earth are 30 doing :confused:.
Click to expand...
Well for one thing part of the idea is that you do it unobtrusively, now I don't know about you, but I would probably notice if someone kept popping up in my vicinity.
You need something like at least 3 people just to do a basic trail(so you don't lose sight), more if you want to swap them in and out or they're going somewhere busy.
Then you need to be able to have that available 24/7, so that's 3 people x 3 just for a minimum, then you need to allow for time off or illness, that's another 3-4 people, you potentially need things like drivers and cars as well (so you can follow if they get in their own car, and not be obvious, but again that's more people as you won't want to just leave your transport behind when they get out of theirs).
IIRC it can take something like 6-8 people to follow someone in a busy area without risking losing them or being spotted, and something like a minimum of 3 cars if the person you're following is in a vehicle.
 
Werewolf said:
Well for one thing part of the idea is that you do it unobtrusively, now I don't know about you, but I would probably notice if someone kept popping up in my vicinity.
You need something like at least 3 people just to do a basic trail(so you don't lose sight), more if you want to swap them in and out or they're going somewhere busy.
Then you need to be able to have that available 24/7, so that's 3 people x 3 just for a minimum, then you need to allow for time off or illness, that's another 3-4 people, you potentially need things like drivers and cars as well (so you can follow if they get in their own car, and not be obvious, but again that's more people as you won't want to just leave your transport behind when they get out of theirs).
IIRC it can take something like 6-8 people to follow someone in a busy area without risking losing them or being spotted, and something like a minimum of 3 cars if the person you're following is in a vehicle.
Click to expand...

Makes much more sense now. Thanks.

Won't lie I probably wouldn't notice the same 2 people near me on a regular basis if split over a few days. Busy area even less so but I can see the need for more people in a crowded area to not lose sight.

Clearly my international spy training wasn't up to par :(.
 
The irony of removing encryption to make the internet more secure (which in itself is a contradiction) is that surely that will make it harder to prove that communications actually came from a particular person?

What's to stop someone just saying someone else used their account - if their password is inherently insecure (e.g. stored in plain text) then how do you prove otherwise? Or even simply claiming that the (again plain text) messages were intercepted and changed during transmission?
 
Wire tap my phone, track my IP invade my privacy if that's what it takes to catch these XXXXXXX before they murder innocent people; then kick down their doors and either deport them if they're foreign nationals or lock them up in a specialist British Guantanamo style prison with no access to their Koran. I would rather have my internet usage monitored and my privacy compromised than see any more poor people killed going about their daily business. I have nothing to hide except some questionable "adult interest material".
Click to expand...

A Facebook post on my feed :(

"Make VPNs illegal in one of the comments".
 
The thing is, none of this is actually going to happen. It's just empty rhetoric by a clueless government to appease the uneducated.
As soon as they start trying to do things like this, the banks and other major industry that relies on encryption will just tell them how stupid the whole idea is and how it will break nearly all inter-company secure communication.
 
Uther said:
VPN's will be illegal or there will be no point...
Click to expand...

How do you police that though?

And do you make all VPNs illegal or just some of them? What if I my job involves remote access to my office via VPN, is that illegal? What if that office happens to be outside of the UK and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Great Firewall of Britain, is it illegal then? So much **** being spouted by so many ****ing idiots who don't have the first clue about what they're proposing, and these are the people we trust to run the country?!
 
Haggisman said:
How do you police that though?

And do you make all VPNs illegal or just some of them? What if I my job involves remote access to my office via VPN, is that illegal? What if that office happens to be outside of the UK and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Great Firewall of Britain, is it illegal then? So much **** being spouted by so many ****ing idiots who don't have the first clue about what they're proposing, and these are the people we trust to run the country?!
Click to expand...
I could almost get the impression that she hasn't thought this through...
 
Like with the Westminster attack 2-3 months back, this is another example of Theresa May capitalising on terrorist attacks to forward her political agenda: that is to erode the privacy of us law-abiding citizens. We are being played by our own establishment and human privacy (and human life) is meaningless to them.
 
It still will not help, more security well we had more security but it still happen. There has to be a more hard core approach, anyone traveling to no zones cant come back into the UK, kick out the families of terrorists.
We need to install fear into those wannabe terrorists no welfare, no right to live in the UK, otherwise the continued approach will change nothing. The politicians need to forget about lefties etc.. and really start forcing out polices that have repercussions for their families, this is the only way they will learn.
Partial blame lays with the lefties in this country, the current left thinking does not work, a more hard core approach is needed. Placing stricter laws on using the internet will not solve anything.
 
Just an excuse to expand the 'police state'. You're already watched on multiple CCTVs as soon as you leave your house. After they have full control of the Internet, you will see a banning of cash and every purchase will have to be electronic through a digital currency (won't be Bitcoin, that'll be banned in the not too distant future). It'll be for our 'own good', to protect us from terrorism, apparently.
 
Haggisman said:
The irony of removing encryption to make the internet more secure (which in itself is a contradiction) is that surely that will make it harder to prove that communications actually came from a particular person?

What's to stop someone just saying someone else used their account - if their password is inherently insecure (e.g. stored in plain text) then how do you prove otherwise? Or even simply claiming that the (again plain text) messages were intercepted and changed during transmission?
Click to expand...

That would matter if the plans had anything to do with security. They're designed to increase the power the authorities have over everyone and they would obviously reduce security, so it makes no sense for them to be about security. It makes much more sense for them to be intended for what they're designed for - to increase the power the authorities have over everyone - and that the reduction in security is something that the people behind the changes consider either an acceptable cost to increase the power of the state or an opportunity they could use for corruption (it make it easier to fake evidence or threaten to do so) or an opportunity to further increase the power of the state by blaming the judiciary when people are acquitted because the evidence isn't reliable.

The current government's plans and propaganda against the internet make a lot of sense as a power grab by an authoritarian state.

They make a lot of sense as deflecting blame. Reducing the police doesn't matter. Increasing poverty doesn't matter. It's Facebook's fault!

They make some sense as meaningless noises pandering to voters who don't understand and don't want to understand because they want a simple target to blame and a simple solution.

They make no sense as a security measure.
 
glen8 said:
I wish the internet could go back to the 90s when the only people on it, were intelligent
Click to expand...

(A) I didn't see you on the internets back then ;)
(B) No intelligent person would advocate this:

999time.jpg


:p
 
how much planning do these things really take anyways?
i mean the take car/truck run over people then get stabby, thats not really a high bar in planning

probably buying your outfit takes more planning...
 
Pawnless Endgame said:
Like with the Westminster attack 2-3 months back, this is another example of Theresa May capitalising on terrorist attacks to forward her political agenda: that is to erode the privacy of us law-abiding citizens. We are being played by our own establishment and human privacy (and human life) is meaningless to them.
Click to expand...

Nail on head .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN-4zeT4UJU
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom