'Snooper's Charter' law being rushed through.

[phill1978]

next time you fire up that webcam, type some guff on an online game or chat crap to your mates,
even if your actually just quoting internet cultural memes this information could be taken litterally later on down the line, its not like the courts would understand the tongue in cheek nature of net humour.

If i put my tinfoil hat on id say this was all timed nicely to fit in with the global awakening that capitalism is flawed by its nature and the top 1% are getting everything, they need the power to control the masses from gathering together using social media ..

i can kind of understand this, if i was rich and powerful i wouldnt want anyone rocking my apple cart either

 

[Aedus]

next time you fire up that webcam, type some guff on an online game or chat crap to your mates,
even if your actually just quoting internet cultural memes this information could be taken litterally later on down the line, its not like the courts would understand the tongue in cheek nature of net humour.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...League-of-Legends-Player-Reaches-100-000-Sigs

Like this? Poor taste, but to people online we know it's just a kid saying something stupid and sarcastic, yet he was actually charged for it.

 

[Allnamestaken]

Wow

 

[LordSplodge]

Hashing and encryption are completely different.

If you know the encryption algorithm you can decode the whole message , there is no some of it but not all. In a different language you can understand bits of it without being able to know all of it. You are completey wrong, end off.

Thanks. Saved me the effort of pointing out how they're wrong. Again.

 

[LordSplodge]

Bull. Hashing is one way encryption. The result may have a non-unique equivalence to the starting point, and the inversion is considered so hard as to be unfeasible, note not impossible.

Sure but the server end has the decrypt codes for the hash. Rainbow tables can be used to figure out the hash but you still need to brute force the whole thing.

This is why hashes are now salted - or should be, to stop simple rainbow tables working.

This is still nothing like the analogy of speaking a foreign language.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Guess i'll fire up my Private Internet Access VPN again.

 

[olivier renault]

I am not disagreeing with you! However, when you place a letter in the hands of a courier,

The balance is already there. Your private communications are by definition 'private'. From me, to you, or whatever group of people are targeted to be the recipient of the information. Whether you trust or do not trust the carrier or service is moot.

We have laws, and we abide by them, government included. If you do not respect my privacy, you are infringing my rights. With the system proposed, there is no accountability, no oversight, it's one big giant buffet, and is therefore opened to abuse.

Sure you can target an individual and intercept communications, if the individual is suspected of breaking the law, and intercept in accordance with surveillance procedures. But are we all suspects now?

This is also why the Internet charter and in general a communication charter is needed. But don't hold your breath.

I'll give you an example, traffic shaping leading to anti-competitive behaviors. This also stems from not differentiating data with content. ISPs are carriers, not providers, or enforcers. It shouldn't matter to them where the data is coming from, and what it contains, that's none of their business.

This never used to be like this. The principle of the right of privacy was well understood. Now it's all blurred and made unnecessarily complicated when it is actually quite simple.

Individual rights do not matter anymore. Some democracy.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Sure but the server end has the decrypt codes for the hash. Rainbow tables can be used to figure out the hash but you still need to brute force the whole thing.

This is why hashes are now salted - or should be, to stop simple rainbow tables working.

This is still nothing like the analogy of speaking a foreign language.

I fully agree with you though I would like to correct you on one point.

There is no decrypting of hashes. Hashes are irreversible.

Encryption != Hashing.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Bull. Hashing is one way encryption. The result may have a non-unique equivalence to the starting point, and the inversion is considered so hard as to be unfeasible, note not impossible.

"a RaNdOM Cased STRiNg".ToUpper()

It is computationally impossible to determine the originating string from the output of that.

 

[Edrof]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...League-of-Legends-Player-Reaches-100-000-Sigs

Like this? Poor taste, but to people online we know it's just a kid saying something stupid and sarcastic, yet he was actually charged for it.

Crikey, that's awful.

 

[LordSplodge]

I fully agree with you though I would like to correct you on one point.

There is no decrypting of hashes. Hashes are irreversible.

Encryption != Hashing.

Yeah, I meant decrypt as in 'checks the input coming in against the hash table.'

Typing on the fly lead to not the best choice of words.

 

[kitkat9933]

Bull. Hashing is one way encryption. The result may have a non-unique equivalence to the starting point, and the inversion is considered so hard as to be unfeasible, note not impossible.

You can't technically reverse a hash, hence the one-way, there is no algorithm to change a hash back to its original form.

The only way to actually 'reverse' a hash is to use Rainbow tables (or similar) which are lists of original keys and the pre-calcualted hash results OR to 'brute force' it by calculating the results of original keys to get hash results then comparing these against your hash.

Also just because hash results match does not necessarily mean they are the same original value either, likely yes, but not certain.

 

[RoboCod]

I really don't care if they monitor what I chat, browse, say or do.

 

[kitkat9933]

I really don't care if they monitor what I chat, browse, say or do.

That's not the point, what you do now might be perfectly legal, but what about in the future and suddenly browsing OCUK is illegal and they backtrack through their records and persecute everyone who has ever been on OCUK?

It's what the Russians are doing now to Gay people, using records obtained for legal, rational and legitimate purposes and using them for malicious purposes they weren't collected for.

 

[LateX'Dog]

I really don't care if they monitor what I chat, browse, say or do.

People like you are the most dangerous stateists that i know. Its so depressing to speak to people like you.

 

[arc@css]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...League-of-Legends-Player-Reaches-100-000-Sigs

Like this? Poor taste, but to people online we know it's just a kid saying something stupid and sarcastic, yet he was actually charged for it.

Bloody ridiculous.

 

[RoboCod]

That's not the point, what you do now might be perfectly legal, but what about in the future and suddenly browsing OCUK is illegal and they backtrack through their records and persecute everyone who has ever been on OCUK?

It's what the Russians are doing now to Gay people, using records obtained for legal, rational and legitimate purposes and using them for malicious purposes they weren't collected for.

Errr, just lol!

People like you are the most dangerous stateists that i know. Its so depressing to speak to people like you.

Yes, very dangerous *does danger eyes at you*.

 

[chief barker]

Pay attention because this is what is going to happen in our country.

 

[Mynight]

Maybe I'm being cynical but if anything it's already happened. We know that any bit of data held on us is available to law enforcement for the even the most fragile warrant.

Why would we choose to believe that all the data isn't on demand to certain entities?

What do we know they can track;
*internet usage
*mobile usage
*credit card usage
*car usage (ANPR)
*presumably television usage
(Sure I'm missing an obvious one here).

What can't they track?