1984 Arrives

I thought this had been happening for years?

My guess is it's a bit fib a bit like TV detector vans, to deter people without spending money.

If I were a real terrorist or someone with somethign to hide then I'd simplyh write an app which used a form of encryption hidden in photos or something. Very simple.
 
Hades said:
I thought this had been happening for years?

My guess is it's a bit fib a bit like TV detector vans, to deter people without spending money.

If I were a real terrorist or someone with somethign to hide then I'd simplyh write an app which used a form of encryption hidden in photos or something. Very simple.
Click to expand...
no this is more in like the American's patriot act but not as far reaching (patriot allows unwarranted phone tapping of anyone communicating with a non us citizen, however records are not kept and an inquiry found thousands of wire tap's authorised with no reason given showing wide spread abuse)


basically once you remove the need for a warrant you open it up to corruption , ie guys checking up on their wives, or suspects in cases completely unrelated to terrorism etc.


Warrants exist to stop the secret abuse of power.



If I were a real terrorist or someone with somethign to hide then I'd simplyh write an app which used a form of encryption hidden in photos or something. Very simple.
Click to expand...


this has nothing to do with content it's logging who and when you contact + every website you visit.

So as you say useless for terrorism, however great for tracking anyone who accesses say an anti government or protest site.
 
Last edited:
Abraxaz1 said:
doubt they'll store probaly filter emails for certain key words and store those.


in that case: terror, bomb, explosive, president of the united states, underpants, airplane, allah.
think thats enough to get me a nice comfy room for the week
Click to expand...

KNiVES said:
Did you remember the nuclear weapon from Iran? Mullah Omar says you're late.
Click to expand...

Dunks said:
Tell Faraq I'm on my way.

Allahu akhbar.
Click to expand...

Kill the system with overload!;

get as many people as possible to drop-in phrases and words into everything they send everyday, a kind of ddos against the analysis of the messages, they would go insane if that happened.

They could make it illegal but what then?, prosecute millions of email authors, not going to work the legal system would collapse.
 
Hitman_Leon said:
Kill the system with overload!;

get as many people as possible to drop-in phrases and words into everything they send everyday, a kind of ddos against the analysis of the messages, they would go insane if that happened.

They could make it illegal but what then?, prosecute millions of email authors, not going to work the legal system would collapse.
Click to expand...

again, this has nothing to do with content it's simply logging a list of who/when you communicate and what pages you visit
 
Hitman_Leon said:
I was thinking if they use keyword flags for detection like someone previously mentioned.
Click to expand...

Would be pretty stupid for example what if a kid was to search " young ", yet they were searching " young talent " would that be flagged?, whole words one word what. Keyword flags have WAY too many meanings doesn't mean the person searching is dodgy...

It's getting as bad as DRM with ubisoft, everyone is a pirate :rolleyes:
 
kibblerok said:
Surely you don't mind if we come and rummage about your house, in principle that's the natural progression.

Where do we stop? There's no point going to the huge expense of monitoring only part of the many ways of commincating without scanning post 'just in case' or sticking a camera in your front room... Over exaggerated examples, but only different to this in their implementation, by monitoring your private communication and activity.

Because of course it's not that you do not have anything to hide, it's the presumed expectation that you infact do and potentially could, and we need to monitor your every move just in case.

What's the point of expensive surveillance systems that have gaps in them? Terrorism will find a way around it, crime will find a way around it so you're left with a government automatically suspicious of its 60m citizens, monitoring their private communication and every move online under the guise of 'protection'.
Click to expand...

IF for some reason the Goverment had a reason to ransack my home, which I would imagine would have to be a very good reason then I wouldn't mind no. Why would I?

They don't have unlimited resources, they are limited by money and man power. So they would have to have a VERY good reason to want to enter my home and search it. Who am I to stop them doing there job.

And of course I wouldn't want them to watch everything I do, and anyone who beleives they are going to watch everything you do in your home is very paraniod and needs to step away from the drugs.
 
Begbie said:
IF for some reason the Goverment had a reason to ransack my home, which I would imagine would have to be a very good reason then I wouldn't mind no. Why would I?

They don't have unlimited resources, they are limited by money and man power. So they would have to have a VERY good reason to want to enter my home and search it. Who am I to stop them doing there job.

And of course I wouldn't want them to watch everything I do, and anyone who beleives they are going to watch everything you do in your home is very paraniod and needs to step away from the drugs.
Click to expand...

Oh, but they do, with one click they could:
- Paralyse your assets, credit cards and financial moves
- Revoke your passport, driving licence and flag your vehicles
- Start recording all your conversations and monitoring all your electronic emails

We are talking this is the end of "good reasons", once this monster gets moving a case can be built around almost anyone. This kind of system needs feeding in order to justify its existence, so new crimes will be "invented", there is plenty of precedence to support this.
 
Hitman_Leon said:
I was thinking if they use keyword flags for detection like someone previously mentioned.
Click to expand...

no.


A new law - which may be announced in the forthcoming Queen's Speech in May - 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.
Click to expand...
 
Saw them discuss this on sky news last night.

The people they had in discuss, basically reckoned that it already happens, now they just want the legal bit, to make it easier to use the data in prosecutions, get warrents etc..

They also pointed out, that the data is likely to be miss used.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
equilibrium
Click to expand...

:) i take it you mean the movie... im awaiting my daily tablet to kill all emotions and make me a 24/7 working, tax paying workhorse. oh joy!

OP: i agree. totally unneeded and will be vastly overused.

how many times do we see how a copper etc has accessed things he should not just to stalk someone. the gov and its wardens cannot be trusted. they prove this time and time again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom