Author Topic: Terror attacks in Paris.  (Read 38616 times)

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64353
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #100 on: November 17, 2015, 05:08:03 PM »
The old adage comes to mind - if you have nothing to hide what do you have to fear!
Say I'm gay and haven't come out to my parents yet, and this sort of surveillance shows that, and some humpfart looking through the data finds it and blackmails me. Nothing to hide but life's a tad more complicated than adages, else a watched pot won't boil. I was four when I disproved that one.

Owlswing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6945
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #101 on: November 17, 2015, 05:08:28 PM »
King O, jeremyP, Shaker,

I just hope your privacy remains as important to you when it is you who suffers from a lack of intelligence.

You know, what a botnet is? Are you absolutely certain no-one is "piggy-backing" on your innocent e-mails etc?
The Holy Bible, probably the most diabolical work of fiction ever to be visited upon mankind.

An it harm none, do what you will; an it harm some, do what you must!

Owlswing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6945
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #102 on: November 17, 2015, 05:11:58 PM »
Say I'm gay and haven't come out to my parents yet, and this sort of surveillance shows that, and some humpfart looking through the data finds it and blackmails me. Nothing to hide but life's a tad more complicated than adages, else a watched pot won't boil. I was four when I disproved that one.

I am so glad that you have such a high opinion of those trying, in the intelligence community, not their political bosses, to protect us from a possible Paris repeat!

What is one gay being outed or blackmailed to the murders of hundreds! And blackmail can be reported to the police!
The Holy Bible, probably the most diabolical work of fiction ever to be visited upon mankind.

An it harm none, do what you will; an it harm some, do what you must!

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64353
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #103 on: November 17, 2015, 05:15:36 PM »
Stiff Little Fingers were due to play in Paris this evening, and obviously there was concern about the gig going ahead but they have sorted it out and will play, citing that their growing up in NI, they lost the chance to see too many bands because of the the 'troubles'. Kudos.


http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=RBYoNYuUVk0

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64353
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #104 on: November 17, 2015, 05:16:36 PM »
I have as high an opinion of the intelligence community as I do of the rest of humanity

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17596
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #105 on: November 17, 2015, 05:16:59 PM »
Say I'm gay and haven't come out to my parents yet, and this sort of surveillance shows that, and some humpfart looking through the data finds it and blackmails me. Nothing to hide but life's a tad more complicated than adages, else a watched pot won't boil. I was four when I disproved that one.
But there are already numerous chances that this could happen anyhow, regardless of surveillance.

So you might be blackmailed by someone who saw you out with a same sex partner, or even by that partner themselves. Perhaps you were seen buying a particular kind of magazine, or seen leaving a particular club etc etc.

Maybe someone with access to your bank records could already do this by checking your payment history.

The point is that in every case there would be some offence committed. In every case blackmail, but only in the case of the bank records and the proposed surveillance would using that information for purposes other than intended be of itself an offence.


Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64353
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #106 on: November 17, 2015, 05:20:54 PM »
That there are other ways it could be found out, is not a justification for increasing the ways. The point that was being made is that we should object to no amount of surveillance because it is only had things that we might not completely honest about. The example I was using was to show this to be invalid but if some of you want to give up your liberty, count me out, at least until you make better arguments that the intelligence community are saints, and that it might be able to be established anyway.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64353
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #107 on: November 17, 2015, 05:28:10 PM »
That blackmail can be reported to the police must mean it never works?

Shaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15639
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #108 on: November 17, 2015, 05:29:43 PM »
King O, jeremyP, Shaker,

I just hope your privacy remains as important to you when it is you who suffers from a lack of intelligence.
I can think of nothing that would remove, shake or diminish my belief in the primacy of individual privacy.

As NS said, meekly give up your liberties if you want to, but I won't let it happen without complaint. It will happen anyway because nobody can do anything to stop it, but I won't have it done to me willingly or silently.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2015, 05:33:34 PM by Shaker »
Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair, or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back. - Al Swearengen, Deadwood.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17596
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #109 on: November 17, 2015, 05:33:28 PM »
That there are other ways it could be found out, is not a justification for increasing the ways. The point that was being made is that we should object to no amount of surveillance because it is only had things that we might not completely honest about. The example I was using was to show this to be invalid but if some of you want to give up your liberty, count me out, at least until you make better arguments that the intelligence community are saints, and that it might be able to be established anyway.
I am rather more concerned about the current ways in which companies suck in data, for example, records of purchasing habits and sell it on to third parties who may use it for purposes way beyond its intended use. And sure there are theoretical safeguards but increasing, whether through impenetrable tick boxes with double negatives, tiny wording on massive terms & conditions, cookies etc one mistake and they've pulled in that info.

I really am much less concerned about the government and security forces being able to access data to keep me and others safe then my data being often almost public property within the commercial world.

Frankly the amount of data that could be analysed is so mind bogglingly large and the resources available so relatively small it is almost self policing - the only surveillance that will ever actually be done is that which relates to really serious issues.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17596
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #110 on: November 17, 2015, 05:38:57 PM »
That blackmail can be reported to the police must mean it never works?
You've missed the point.

That being someone currently can take a picture of you on their mobile phone (not an offence), in public with your partner (not an offence) and use it to blackmail you. The only aspect of that that is currently beyond the law is the blackmail.

They can read a love letter over your shoulder (not an offence) and use that knowledge to blackmail you. The only aspect of that that is currently beyond the law is the blackmail.

If surveillance is allowed, to access information for purposes other than intended (i.e. prevention of crime etc) that in itself would be an offence.

If you are concerned about blackmail I suggest you need to be more concerned about friends and acquaintances, rather than the risk that a government employee with access to millions of bits of data relating to millions of people's web activity and e-mail traffic might decide to target you.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64353
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #111 on: November 17, 2015, 05:41:35 PM »
 The amount of data taken elsewhere is a tuquoque. That you are worried about something else does not justify the govt taking extra information, I suggest you concentrate on the case in point. That you think all govt surveillance is to keep you safe is almost endearing

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64353
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #112 on: November 17, 2015, 05:46:47 PM »
No, sorry, Prof D, this theme who has not only missed the point but decided that all points shall henceforth be fluffy bunnies.


I shall take this slowly for you as you seem to have gone all a bit I love my govt, they are wonderful here.

The point that there is no reason to object to any increase in surveillance because if I did I must have something that needs to be seen to surveillance is what was being raised.

I was merely putting forward an example where I might be doing nothing that needed to be surveilled and yet I might not want it done.


You are Theresa May, and I claim my five pounds.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17596
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #113 on: November 17, 2015, 05:50:04 PM »
The amount of data taken elsewhere is a tuquoque. That you are worried about something else does not justify the govt taking extra information, I suggest you concentrate on the case in point. That you think all govt surveillance is to keep you safe is almost endearing
I think I have concentrated on the case in point. The government already holds vast amounts of data on us, directly or via its liked organisations, e.g. NHS. Much of this could (theoretically) be put together in a way that could be used to blackmail or to create other problems. I don't see how this is affected in any meaningful manner by some additional surveillance that is, of course, designed to try to prevent serious crimes.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17596
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #114 on: November 17, 2015, 05:54:25 PM »
No, sorry, Prof D, this theme who has not only missed the point but decided that all points shall henceforth be fluffy bunnies.


I shall take this slowly for you as you seem to have gone all a bit I love my govt, they are wonderful here.

The point that there is no reason to object to any increase in surveillance because if I did I must have something that needs to be seen to surveillance is what was being raised.

I was merely putting forward an example where I might be doing nothing that needed to be surveilled and yet I might not want it done.


You are Theresa May, and I claim my five pounds.
Nope I am not Theresa May.

But in my view there is a balance of freedoms here. And I value the freedom not to be blown up above the freedom that never, ever under any circumstance might anyones electronic traffic be accessed by government in order to protect from the former.

To me it is a reasonable trade-off because I do not hunk that this option for government will affect my life and how I live it one iota and that will be the same for pretty well everyone in this country. However if it helps prevent an attack - good.

And there are plenty of other trade-offs. For example having to bring liquids in tiny bottles onto planes in hand luggage has actually affected me more (and that's really stretching it because the effect is minimal). Sure my 'freedom' to carry any amount of liquid onto a plane has been lost, but that's OK as I can see this is a sensible precaution aimed at helping to ensure that the pane I'm on isn't blown up.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2015, 05:56:53 PM by ProfessorDavey »

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64353
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #115 on: November 17, 2015, 05:56:17 PM »
Fine, Prof, if you think it is a valid argument that because the govt knows a lot about us, we shouldn't worry about any extension of that, then off you skip to Stasiland.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17596
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #116 on: November 17, 2015, 06:00:56 PM »
Fine, Prof, if you think it is a valid argument that because the govt knows a lot about us, we shouldn't worry about any extension of that, then off you skip to Stasiland.
Pathetic response.

Godwin's lawesque.

Shaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15639
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #117 on: November 17, 2015, 06:03:41 PM »
Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair, or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back. - Al Swearengen, Deadwood.

Udayana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • βε ηερε νοω
    • The Byrds - My Back Pages
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #118 on: November 17, 2015, 06:04:20 PM »
Shouldn't the authorities be trying to keep track of thousands of known Jihadists, people returning from Syria and properly identifying asylum seekers rather than set up the collection of vast amounts of mostly useless information?

Just as after previous incidents instead of doing what is needed to prevent radicalization and attacks more effort is spent on convincing people that the more freedom they are willing to give up, the safer they will be.
Ah, but I was so much older then ... I'm younger than that now

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64353
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #119 on: November 17, 2015, 06:06:41 PM »
Pathetic response.

Godwin's lawesque.

A diddums, you mean comparison of a state increasing surveillance,can never be compared to a state having too much surveillance? Really,Theresa?

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32509
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #120 on: November 17, 2015, 06:10:50 PM »
King O, jeremyP, Shaker,

I just hope your privacy remains as important to you when it is you who suffers from a lack of intelligence.


The statistics are pretty much in my favour. Even if I was a Parisian, my chance of having been killed in the last attack was less than 1/10,000.

Quote
You know, what a botnet is? Are you absolutely certain no-one is "piggy-backing" on your innocent e-mails etc?
I'm not absolutely certain, but what is your point? Because I might be a victim of cybercrime I should ignore the government's encroachment on my freedom and privacy?
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64353
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #121 on: November 17, 2015, 06:12:10 PM »
It's everyone's view that it's about a balance of freedoms. That is actually the point of the discussion, where you put the balance.

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32509
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #122 on: November 17, 2015, 06:13:47 PM »
But there are already numerous chances that this could happen anyhow, regardless of surveillance.

So you might be blackmailed by someone who saw you out with a same sex partner, or even by that partner themselves. Perhaps you were seen buying a particular kind of magazine, or seen leaving a particular club etc etc.

Maybe someone with access to your bank records could already do this by checking your payment history.

The point is that in every case there would be some offence committed. In every case blackmail, but only in the case of the bank records and the proposed surveillance would using that information for purposes other than intended be of itself an offence.
Tu quoque to you too.
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32509
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #123 on: November 17, 2015, 06:19:26 PM »
I think I have concentrated on the case in point.
No you haven't. You have pointed at other people who are trying to destroy our privacy as if we can't be concerned about more than one thing at a time.

For most of us, the biggest danger of these attacks is that the government will use them as an excuse to further erode our freedoms and privacy.  There's probably going to be a massive increase in security and surveillance spending, but honestly, given the relative risks, they'd get a better return by putting the money into road safety.

Quote
The government already holds vast amounts of data on us, directly or via its liked organisations, e.g. NHS. Much of this could (theoretically) be put together in a way that could be used to blackmail or to create other problems. I don't see how this is affected in any meaningful manner by some additional surveillance that is, of course, designed to try to prevent serious crimes.
Are you OK with the government installing a security camera in every bedroom in the land, including yours? That's the logical extrapolation of trying to keep us "safe".
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64353
Re: Terror attacks in Paris.
« Reply #124 on: November 18, 2015, 10:16:44 AM »
Piece by Adam Hills from his Facebook page (so no copyright issues'


'I’ve been called a lot of things in the past few days, many of them deserved. “Leftie wanker”. “Islam apologist”. “Unfunny ****.” I’ve also been called a “traitor” and even worse, “un-Australian.”
Here’s why I don’t think those last two apply.
Earlier this year I was invited to an Australia Day drinks function at the Australian High Commission in London. As the beer flowed and the lamingtons were passed around I found myself in deep conversation with a variety of governmental experts on The Middle East and in particular, Syria.
As this was a few weeks after the Charlie Hebdo attacks I took the opportunity to find out all I could about this so-called Islamic State group.
I learned a lot of things that night, but the one that stood out was this: Islamic State need recruits and they have two steps to get them.
1) Create an uprising against Muslims in the West by carrying out attacks in the name of Allah.
2) Then when young Muslims feel rejected by Western society, make ISIS look like a cool alternative.
Please remember, this was all expressed to me by officials of both the Australian and British Governments.
It seemed to me that a good way of combatting this would be 1) be nice to non-ISIS related Muslims (ie the vast majority of Muslims) and 2) make ISIS look like idiots.
I ran this past my friends at the High Commission, who agreed that this was indeed a good thing to do.
Now there aren’t a lot of things a one-legged comedian can do to combat a bunch of pricks like ISIS, but when experts in the field from your own government tell you what you can do – you damn well do it.
The next week on the show I host - “The Last Leg” - we ran an on-air competition to rename ISIS. The winner was a lady who tweeted “Cyst-ISIS: cos they’re irritating twats”. From that day forth we only ever referred to them as Cystisis.
We then ran a weekly segment called “The G-Hadi Spot” in which we attempted to ridicule them whenever we could.
We played Cystisis training videos with the Benny Hill music over the top. We celebrated the young girls who defrauded them out of thousands of dollars. We made our own ads for the caliphate, in which we clearly mocked them.
We also increased security at the studios. A live TV show would be the perfect target for these arseholes, and to this day my Mum still pleads with me not to provoke them each week.
In amongst all this, I did my best to remind our viewers that Cystisis are interpreting the Islamic faith in a highly extreme, and self-serving way, and that the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims – around 99.997 per cent – disapprove of them.
I did all this, not because I am a hippy dippy idealist who believes that fairy wings and puppy dog farts can change the world. I did this because I was advised by representatives of my government who are way smarter than I am, that it was the right thing to do.
I might be an unfunny leftie wanker, but I’m no traitor.
And the thing is – you can do it too. There are countless memes going around at the moment decrying Islam; there are people saying their businesses are closed to Muslims; there are jokes going around making Muslims the punchline.
All you have to do is use the word ISIS instead of Islam. Mock the arseholes who are really causing the damage. Cos they hate that. Call them Cystisis. Say your business is closed to any Cystisis member who wants your services. Make a meme about how deluded Cystisis are.
It’s what your government wants you to do.
And what could be more Australian than taking the piss out of those who deserve it, while giving a fair go to those who need it?'