Theresa may calls for tighter internet regulations after London attack
- Thread starter Amaede
- Start date
.
.Thing is, if someone said to me that they disliked me because I was white and didn't hold a religion, even if the words they used are vocaly offensive. My response would be fine, jog on and fester In your own world hateful little person. That's it, why now these days do we need to police this crap and throw hatespeech accusations around. It serves to cheapen the real hatespeech, paints a distorted picture of what Is actually happning and only serves to cover up the inept sensationalist money grabbing agenda most media outlets employ in regards to the whole extremist situation.
Wow. Not at all is it the same as not locking your door.
By locking your door, you are able to stop the vast majority of people getting into your house. By putting details in a big secure database means you stop the vast majority of people accessing your data. Specialists in either field could still get in.
Not locking your door is the same as publicly posting your logins and details.
And then those "specialists" go ahead and post your details on the internet for anyone to find... Or have we all forgotten the leaks from Talk Talk, Yahoo, Sony etc? Not to mention the government's track record of keeping information secure by totally not leaving it on trains...
It's not just about hoovering up data, they also want their own access to encrypted services. If we're using door analogies, where there is currently an almost infinitely thick concrete wall, May wants to put a door that we're assured only the government has the key too. But a locked door is still weaker than a solid wall, and unfriendly locksmiths could still use it to get in.
I agree. But what is worse? Someone knowing your email password, or potentially taking some of your money, or being stabbed, driven into or blown up? If it genuinely would help stop these attacks, and action would actually be taken on people, then surely some leaked personal info is better than bloodshed?
It depends on the probability of those things happening, a 0.00000001% chance of being stabbed/run over/blown up vs a 0.1% chance of having all of my personal information leaked, my identity stolen and £££ of debt taken out in my name? I'll take door number one please!
How many people have been killed/injured by terrorists in the UK in the last 10 years compared to how many have had their personal details stolen and used for fraud/identity theft or other criminal activities?
I think you're underestimating the impact someone having free reign over your digital life could have, e.g. what's to stop them sitting outside your house, on your WiFi, logged into your email/Dropbox/etc, downloading and distributing child pornography? How do you prove that it wasn't you?
You can see the latter, you cant see the former until they've taken you're life from you via bankruptcy or ruining your identity.
Theres also the ability to blackmail someone for rather trivial things that depend on your stoicism.
If it were true, that the only way to obtain the required information in order to prevent a terrorist attack - was to perform internet surveillance on everybody, then that would at least give it a bit more credibility as a counter-terrorism strategy.
But the unfortunate reality is that in literally every single case, the authorities already have the perpetrators on the radar - they already have the right people in their sights and they still can't stop it, to the point where one of them is on a channel 4 documentary, waving an ISIS flag saying 'HI I'M A TERRORIST' and they still can't prevent the guy from committing a terrorist attack.
If channel 4 can go out, find these people, interview them, film them and broadcast them - then channel 4 are awesome at intelligence gathering, because they were obviously on the money, channel 4 didn't need to eavesdrop on the entire internet to get to the heart of ISIS terrorism in the UK.
But the unfortunate reality is that in literally every single case, the authorities already have the perpetrators on the radar - they already have the right people in their sights and they still can't stop it, to the point where one of them is on a channel 4 documentary, waving an ISIS flag saying 'HI I'M A TERRORIST' and they still can't prevent the guy from committing a terrorist attack.
If channel 4 can go out, find these people, interview them, film them and broadcast them - then channel 4 are awesome at intelligence gathering, because they were obviously on the money, channel 4 didn't need to eavesdrop on the entire internet to get to the heart of ISIS terrorism in the UK.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,352
yep, at the rate we're going the only way to win this war on terrorism is to either abandon our freedom or our morals.
tis a shame but between the 2 i'd have to take the loss of moral high ground, at least that dies off in a few generations.
Channel 4 should be our new intelligence agency, They seem to be able to find these people.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
If you watch a TV show called "person of interest" the plot is that a guy, after 9/11 created an artificial intelligence to monitor people and sold that to the US government for only $1.
The system is closed and so will give you social security number of someone who is dodgy, but it will not give any other information.
And while the government gets those numbers, a guy killing his wife is not "national security" and so this guy gets those numbers and solves various minor crimes.
Anyway if you watch this show i think this might happen very soon, even you don't need a real AI, a weak AI (not self aware) could potentially do this job.
Agree, I don't understand this move by politicians who seem to believe that masses and masses of data is all we need to stop people, it still needs to be analysed and then poured through, the more you have the longer this takes, and with this new "wave" of low tech simple attacks it seems to me that by the time the data is sifted through it's probably going to be too late anyway.
From my point of view it is this dangerous and muddles thinking that has contributed to the issue, we seem to be trying to move away from traditional police work and intel gathering in favour of just harvesting my internet history, this is what leads to people being reported multiple times for their extremist views, and for all intents and purposes they are then ignored because they do not have the resources to watch them.
Of course things like stabbings or bombs elicit a stronger emotional response, but that doesn't mean the impact of small scale terrorist attacks is worse than what the Government has (maybe had now, hopefully) planned. "some leaked personal info" would be the least of our worries. You have to remember that for many people now, and realistically most people born in this country after the 90s, the internet forms the backbone of our lives, and will be the backbone of industry and wealth well into the future. We do everything with it. Bank, pay bills, socialise, consume media, and importantly have the means to form our own opinions with our own research. If you start letting someone else control what you see or hear under the umbrella of terrorism it starts us down a very slippery slope. Likewise putting 'Government only' backdoors into encrypted services is an idea so stupid it should have been a political death knell for anyone suggesting it. The scope for abuse or flat out incompetence is practically endless.
That is a rather worrying advocacy for deep learning to be used to "understand" mass surveillance datawhich opens up some incredibly worrying doors if people have the foresight for it.
I always assumed data mining, machine learning, knowledge discovery, etc. had been used in this sense for ages.
Isnt it literally what they do at the utah data mining centre?
See on one hand we have that (most likely the governments/TLA stance) or the other where we switch off these networks and funnel the money into more staff to watch the ones already known. I imagine the former is used already though.That is a rather worrying advocacy for deep learning to be used to "understand" mass surveillance data
Personally I lean towards the latter as clearly we cannot handle the current list let alone add thousands more to it.
What is being done now is a very rudimentary level compared to the emerging technologies that are being labelled as deep learning now - look at all the stuff nVidia is doing for instance with it.