Yo English Folks...

KontanKarite · 08-13-2008, 12:43 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/au...civilliberties

I'm not sure how reliable the guardian is for you guys. Just thought I'd bring this to your attention.

Methadrine · 08-13-2008, 01:02 PM

Here in Sweden, we're already preparing for our lovely government and military surveillance by encrypting most things. Email, IM's, even regular website browsing. Seems like the brits need to do the same now.

KontanKarite · 08-13-2008, 01:06 PM

How's it done?

Raptor · 08-13-2008, 01:16 PM

If they're monitoring who you're talking to and not the content of the communication, encryption won't help will it? I have no idea how it works, correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course it should help if they do try to look at the content.

Delkaetre · 08-13-2008, 01:18 PM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4518226.ece

Article on the subject also available from The Times, for those who feel that the Guardian is a bit too left wing for their tastes.

Methadrine · 08-13-2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor

If they're monitoring who you're talking to and not the content of the communication, encryption won't help will it? I have no idea how it works, correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course it should help if they do try to look at the content.

If I use a VPN then they haven't a clue who or even what my computer is communicating with except the initial connection to the VPN server. And that traffic is heavily encrypted to start with. They won't know what sites I visit etc. Not counting that, If I encrypt my email they have to crack my encryption to read anything. If I encrypt my IM sessions then they have to crack that too. If I use Skype instead of a regular phone, then that call is encrypted too, and they'd have to break that too to know what we talk about. If I text someone with a cellphone, I can encrypt that too with the proper software.

They may be able to succeed in breaking some of the encryption, but not likely. Even if they do, then they have spent time doing it, used resources to do it, and encryption algorithms usually stay ahead of the deciphering no matter how good their supercomputer is. At present atleast.

If there's a time to be paranoid, it's now.

KontanKarite · 08-13-2008, 02:07 PM

Links to software? Got any?

Delkaetre · 08-13-2008, 02:12 PM

Time for me to get TOR for my idle browsing, I think...

Methadrine · 08-13-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Links to software? Got any?

For VPN you have to have a server somewhere (preferably set up by a friend) or have an account on a commercial one.

There's always TOR for anonymity while surfing the web. Note though that it can be rather slow, and you don't know if one of the computers the encrypted traffic runs through captures it and tries to decrypt it.

Hushmail for encrypted emails if you don't want to do it yourself with PGP (commercial) or GPG (free). The latter requires that whoever you email must have a PGP/GPG setup of his own. But that's easy to fix if you include a link to it in your email signature.

Pidgin with Pidgin-Encryption for those IM sessions, or SimpLite if you use MSN. The latter one is not opensourced so it can't be trusted a 100%. Still a better option than non-encrypted traffic though.

Delkaetre · 08-13-2008, 02:53 PM

Thanks for the links. Bookmarking them now.
Any good portable versions? I have firefox portable and gimp portable on my 4gb usb, and would like something to secure firefox with when using a machine that doesn't have encryption on it.

Methadrine · 08-13-2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delkaetre

Thanks for the links. Bookmarking them now.
Any good portable versions? I have firefox portable and gimp portable on my 4gb usb, and would like something to secure firefox with when using a machine that doesn't have encryption on it.

OperaTor is pretty nice.

Delkaetre · 08-13-2008, 03:25 PM

Thank you again. I shall have to start using that...

Unimatrix 00 · 08-13-2008, 03:33 PM

I'd have absolutely no problem with governmental bodies reading my emails. I don't give away too much over the internet anyway. Chances are I won't know the person inspecting them, and when you think about it, it will make the country safer, if just a tiny bit. What's the big deal? This is something I've heard many people worry about before, but why, exactly? It's not like someone you give a shit about is reading your emails. And chances are the person employed to read emails won't give a shit about who you fucked last night either.

Methadrine · 08-13-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unimatrix 00

I'd have absolutely no problem with governmental bodies reading my emails. I don't give away too much over the internet anyway. Chances are I won't know the person inspecting them, and when you think about it, it will make the country safer, if just a tiny bit. What's the big deal? This is something I've heard many people worry about before, but why, exactly? It's not like someone you give a shit about is reading your emails. And chances are the person employed to read emails won't give a shit about who you fucked last night either.

Download and read THIS and reconsider.

Unimatrix 00 · 08-13-2008, 03:52 PM

I'm afraid I am too busy. That essay is 28 pages long. Would you care to outline its key points for me?

Saya · 08-13-2008, 03:55 PM

Reminds me of that A Softer World comic.

"I FREEDOM FIGHTER BOMBING love you whether you reply or JIHAD not, if my GODLESS WESTERN PRESIDENT letters are flagged our love will outlive us in their SUBWAY SARIN GAS computers."

gothicusmaximus · 08-13-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unimatrix 00

I'd have absolutely no problem with governmental bodies reading my emails. I don't give away too much over the internet anyway. Chances are I won't know the person inspecting them, and when you think about it, it will make the country safer, if just a tiny bit. What's the big deal? This is something I've heard many people worry about before, but why, exactly? It's not like someone you give a shit about is reading your emails. And chances are the person employed to read emails won't give a shit about who you fucked last night either.

The dynamic is simple. Everyone recognizes that knowledge is power. Once an individual or organization knows virtually everything one can know about you, the ability of that individual or organization to control you is nearly infinite. If governments were infallibly moral, then perhaps this idea would be less objectionable, but, as things are, that the information gleaned through these methods might be turned to ends other than the safety of citizens is very likely.

Raptor · 08-13-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Methadrine

If I use a VPN then they haven't a clue who or even what my computer is communicating with except the initial connection to the VPN server.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Methadrine

For VPN you have to have a server somewhere (preferably set up by a friend) or have an account on a commercial one.

There's always TOR for anonymity while surfing the web. Note though that it can be rather slow, and you don't know if one of the computers the encrypted traffic runs through captures it and tries to decrypt it.

Ah thanks.

So to hide the connection it's either get your own server or use something slow?

KontanKarite · 08-13-2008, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unimatrix 00

I'd have absolutely no problem with governmental bodies reading my emails. I don't give away too much over the internet anyway. Chances are I won't know the person inspecting them, and when you think about it, it will make the country safer, if just a tiny bit. What's the big deal? This is something I've heard many people worry about before, but why, exactly? It's not like someone you give a shit about is reading your emails. And chances are the person employed to read emails won't give a shit about who you fucked last night either.

Some of my respect has just died a little inside now.

Unimatrix 00 · 08-13-2008, 08:31 PM

I see where you're coming from Gothicusmaximus, but I still wouldn't mind much. Maybe I'm just not a secretive person, I don't know. Can somebody please explain to me what exactly is so disgraceful about this? No ambiguity please.

Saya · 08-13-2008, 08:41 PM

I don't want anyone at all in the world to know about the amount of hentai I watch.

And I'd be afraid I'd get in trouble for my random urge to type in KILL WHITEY into google.

CptSternn · 08-14-2008, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/au...civilliberties

I'm not sure how reliable the guardian is for you guys. Just thought I'd bring this to your attention.

The Guardian is a respectable newspaper, like New York Times. That being said they even have a fairly decent record of being unbiased. Don't get me wrong, some of the writers there are hard core right wing nuts, but as a rule, their articles are pretty balanced (although I can cite a few anti-Irish articles they have published over the years).

But back to the main topic - the new rules about calls and texts.

Heres the thing about that - the EU passed legislation making all European countries keep those records for 10 years a few years back. Ireland and most all of the EU already does that. The UK has been dragging its heels so to speak.

So its not a real revelation. Also, it was confirmed a few years back the the UK has been doing this already for years with all of Irelands calls and texts - all of our hubs for phones and the internet go right through england, who was tapping them for years. They finally acknowledged that, but we knew that for years.

The main difference, much like the difference in my other thread about America using spy satellites on Americans is that with it being public and the government making it legal to do so, it can now be used in court. Thats the big difference. Now thats its public knowledge and the government has gotten approval, they can use your phone records and or internet message or text message (or in the case of Americans satellite images) to use against you in minor court cases, legally.

It might not sound that bad, but look at it this way - you no longer have any privacy. The government has now given itself full access to all of your communications, they have given themselves the right to watch you 24/7, listen to what you say on the phone, monitor who you text, monitor what website you visit.

AND then they can take that information and use it against you in court, much like they did with that scientist they claimed was responsible for the anthrax attacks - they can build a case based on suspicion and innuendo using the public opinion to convict you even before you step foot in a court room, effectviely making you, or anyone else they want, a social pariah if them deem so, based on what you believe in or what you choose to read about.

Thats what really should bother people, not ony are they going to judge a book by the cover, they are legally going to convict you using that same method as well.

Delkaetre · 08-14-2008, 11:53 AM

Sternn -it's not just about them keeping the records. It's about them giving access to the records to ANYONE with an even remotely government sanctioned reason. Tax authorities, local council, the NHS, quite possibly even school boards.

Unimatrix- do you genuinely have no problem at all with strangers reading your letters and listening to your calls? Have you never, not even once, had a conversation with your voice lowered because you did not want to broadcast the information? Have you never met a time when discretion is required for the dignity of those involved? Are you utterly without care about who sees what you do, and where, and with whom? Do none of your friends ever have secrets they wish to share with you, and you alone?

This law cannot make it, and it must not. They must not be allowed to do this to us. If we can but delay them or sway the Commons to us...

Unimatrix 00 · 08-14-2008, 12:05 PM

Delkaetre, yes I have, many times. But I find this different because those listening this time are anonymous to me, and I am anonymous to them. They don't know who I am, merely a citizen. I wouldn't have a problem with my information being shared with someone anonymous who I'll never encounter even (knowingly, that is, and on both sides).

alyroi360 · 08-14-2008, 12:14 PM

wow, Uni. Anonymity must be very important to you. Me too, but I like to talk about the general layout of the state that I live in. I mean, it's not California or Alaska... or Hawaii. It's not hot. It's moderate, I guess. It rained a lot lately. Idk. just rambling. btw, Hannibal Lecter kicks ass.