Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

What do you think about the new law where police can view our internet history? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Half of me thinks it's terrifying that the authorities now have access to pretty much everything about me, and half of me thinks it's alright because if you haven't done anything wrong nothing's probably going to happen. It's a tough one.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Excellent response. After demanding sources that have already been provided to you, that's the best rebuttal you could muster in response to the arguments leveled against you?
    The only "source" you have provided is a link to some random guys ebook. What a silly silly boy you are

    I want to see the Homeland securities investigation that reveals 95% of attempts are successful at getting a bomb on board an aircraft

    Please post. Thanks bro
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about - Axo.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    The only "source" you have provided is a link to some random guys ebook. What a silly silly boy you are
    Before attempting to immaturely criticize - that 'some guy' is a law professor at Georgetown. Located in Washington D.C. He's an expert on terrorism law and highly cited throughout the common law jurisdictions for his work. You'll also note that his 'random ebook' was published by Cambridge - which only publishes academic work.

    Perhaps before making ignorant and immature comments, you should educate yourself.

    I want to see the Homeland securities investigation that reveals 95% of attempts are successful at getting a bomb on board an aircraft

    Please post. Thanks bro
    You have already been linked to a new articles that provides the details of the study done by Homeland Security.

    Yet again, you're demanding sources that have already been provided to you.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    They simply don't have the time to check each and every single internet user's history, it'd take forever. I imagine they'd just check someone who they have down as suspicious.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Before attempting to immaturely criticize - that 'some guy' is a law professor at Georgetown. Located in Washington D.C. He's an expert on terrorism law and highly cited throughout the common law jurisdictions for his work. You'll also note that his 'random ebook' was published by Cambridge - which only publishes academic work.

    Perhaps before making ignorant and immature comments, you should educate yourself.
    Ahh an academic you say! He must be right then!

    I know you like telling others to stop making fallacious arguments when all you have done in our exchange apart from make wild and unsubstantiated claims is appeal to authority :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


    http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

    Sit down and have a read..


    (Original post by NYU2012)
    You have already been linked to a new articles that provides the details of the study done by Homeland Security.

    Yet again, you're demanding sources that have already been provided to you.
    I have looked for it twice and the only thing i see you have provided is a link to your hero's ebook. Maybe its hidden in your walls of text but for clarities sake and the progression of this discussion, just repost it below please

    I don't see why you are being so difficult?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Ahh an academic you say! He must be right then!

    I know you like telling others to stop making fallacious arguments when all you have done in our exchange apart from make wild and unsubstantiated claims is appeal to authority :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

    Sit down and have a read..
    All you've done here is further proven your own ignorance. Trying to call out a graduate student of philosophy on a logical philosophical error is actually quite difficult. In fact, you haven't managed it here. See, the problem is that a fallacious appeal to authority is only fallacious when the authority isn't actually an authority. "Sit down and have a read..."

    In fact, let me quote from the very source you've provided:
    This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject
    It's apparent that either (1) you haven't actually read the source you're citing or (2) you're completely unable to comprehend the source you're citing. As I've previously stated, perhaps you might be better served by going and relevantly educating yourself before returning to this thread.

    I have looked for it twice and the only thing i see you have provided is a link to your hero's ebook. Maybe its hidden in your walls of text but for clarities sake and the progression of this discussion, just repost it below please

    I don't see why you are being so difficult?
    I posted in the very same post in which I made the claim - because I understanding citing sources. It was hyperlinked under the word 'study'.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ort-tests.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politi...reening-tests/

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-u...ry?id=31434881
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    All you've done here is further proven your own ignorance. Trying to call out a graduate student of philosophy on a logical philosophical error is actually quite difficult. In fact, you haven't managed it here. See, the problem is that a fallacious appeal to authority is only fallacious when the authority isn't actually an authority. "Sit down and have a read..."

    In fact, let me quote from the very source you've provided:


    It's apparent that either (1) you haven't actually read the source you're citing or (2) you're completely unable to comprehend the source you're citing. As I've previously stated, perhaps you might be better served by going and relevantly educating yourself before returning to this thread.


    I posted in the very same post in which I made the claim - because I understanding citing sources. It was hyperlinked under the word 'study'.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ort-tests.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politi...reening-tests/

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-u...ry?id=31434881
    No i will continue in here, I just learned about appealing to authority :mmm:

    So 67 out of 70 succesfully got an "offensive item" through (Most likely majority knives / small firearms), not bombs as you said earlier.

    A tiny sample of 70 all in America is not enough to claim that airport security is bad enough that" if terrorists wanted to blow planes up, they would be doing so"

    Especially when we cannot judge the deterrent impact of the security measures have and the likelihood terrorists therefore choose perceived softer targets

    Not to mention the sources claim the failure rate now is higher than in 2007. Your sources also show TSA stopped 2212 guns getting on board in 2014
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    So 67 out of 70 succesfully got a offensive item through, not a bomb as you said earlier.
    Yet again, either (1) you have not read the source; or (2) you cannot comprehend the source.

    Let me quote the source
    In one test a man with a fake bomb strapped to his back set off a metal detector, but was allowed to go on to the plane boarding area after a pat-down didn't find the device.
    That looks oddly like the word 'bomb' to me; and it looks oddly like therefore my claim is, in fact, substantiated.

    A tiny sample of 70 all in America is not enough to claim that airport security is bad enough that" if terrorists wanted to blow planes up, they would be doing so"
    There's no reason to believe that the data isn't able to be universalized. Security systems are standardized, training is standardized, etc.

    Not to mention the sources claim the failure rate now is higher than in 2007. Your sources also show TSA stopped 2212 guns getting on board in 2014
    And how many guns made it on board? According to the study, we have reason to believe that a significant proportion could have, if they in fact didn't. As an anecdote, I've seen people accidentally takes knives on planes.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Yet again, either (1) you have not read the source; or (2) you cannot comprehend the source.

    Let me quote the source


    That looks oddly like the word 'bomb' to me; and it looks oddly like therefore my claim is, in fact, substantiated.
    And then below it:

    "It is also unknown which banned weapons, which can range from knives of a certain length to bombs to rifles, the undercover agents got "

    Yes I am aware assault rifles and a bomb were used in the tests, this does not mean 67 bombs and rifles got past security.



    (Original post by NYU2012)
    There's no reason to believe that the data isn't able to be universalized. Security systems are standardized, training is standardized, etc.
    Without knowing why the tests failed its hard to say. I am sure Egypts security and scanners are American / TSA authorised yet we see a very different picture security wise there than compared to UK for example

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    And how many guns made it on board? According to the study, we have reason to believe that a significant proportion could have, if they in fact didn't. As an anecdote, I've seen people accidentally takes knives on planes.
    Im sure many did get through. Hundreds of millions of screenings a year. Im not saying airport security is fool proof and its impossible to get a bomb on board. I am saying its rubbish that terrorists could do so with ease if they wanted to (Or whatever your original quote was) which implied the only reason terrorists arent doing so is because the desire is not there.

    Just to reiterate that the perceived risk of being stopped by airport security is hugely important in itself. If they perceive they have a 1 in 10 chance of getting a bomb on board versus a 100% chance of blowing a bus up, they are going to take the latter 99.9% of the time
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No-one is suggesting banning such services, they're suggesting that the state should be able to review data from them - with approval of a judge and the Home Secretary. We can do it with telephones, we can do it with some electronic communications data - I fail to see why this should be any different.
    But with encryption you can't just "review data", because it's encrypted. That's kind of the point. And if the encryption has a government backdoor, criminals are probably going to use that backdoor as well meaning we have no privacy. Consider just how much things rely on encryption - Like banking, securing confidential medical records, protecting company trade secrets etc - Todays modern society needs secure encryption, and that means no backdoors.

    Would you be happy to do online banking if you knew the encryption was backdoored for the police to have access? I wouldn't, because I'd be afraid of the ramifications when a cyber criminal decided to use the backdoor, he might empty my account and run up a lot of debt in my name. All of this because the government wants to "keep me safe"


    (Original post by L i b)
    Why? Barring things like communication with a solicitor, this has never been the case before. The state has always had the right to intercept mail, phonecalls and other means of communication if a person is suspected of a serious offence.
    And they still do have the right to intercept and collect as much of the encrypted data as they wish, maybe in 50 years there will be a revolutionary breakthrough and they'll be able to start decrypting some of it. They could always tap phones, but people could always talk in code on the phone if they suspected they were being monitored, and you never had to reveal what you actually meant when you were talking in code. So why should this be different?

    (Original post by L i b)
    Talking about policies is not a criminal offence.
    It isn't at this point in time, who knows if it might be in future. You can talk about this being fine if you are doing nothing wrong, but the point is that I don't get to chose what wrong means, the government does. So what if I am doing something that I know isn't wrong, but they disagree and think it is wrong? I need a way of concealing my activities so that I don't get into trouble.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KvasirVanir)
    But with encryption you can't just "review data", because it's encrypted. That's kind of the point. And if the encryption has a government backdoor, criminals are probably going to use that backdoor as well meaning we have no privacy. Consider just how much things rely on encryption - Like banking, securing confidential medical records, protecting company trade secrets etc - Todays modern society needs secure encryption, and that means no backdoors.

    Would you be happy to do online banking if you knew the encryption was backdoored for the police to have access? I wouldn't, because I'd be afraid of the ramifications when a cyber criminal decided to use the backdoor, he might empty my account and run up a lot of debt in my name. All of this because the government wants to "keep me safe"




    And they still do have the right to intercept and collect as much of the encrypted data as they wish, maybe in 50 years there will be a revolutionary breakthrough and they'll be able to start decrypting some of it. They could always tap phones, but people could always talk in code on the phone if they suspected they were being monitored, and you never had to reveal what you actually meant when you were talking in code. So why should this be different?



    It isn't at this point in time, who knows if it might be in future. You can talk about this being fine if you are doing nothing wrong, but the point is that I don't get to chose what wrong means, the government does. So what if I am doing something that I know isn't wrong, but they disagree and think it is wrong? I need a way of concealing my activities so that I don't get into trouble.

    Lol what makes you think they haven't decrypted 256 bit encryption, never mind 50 years lol.

    In the USA, guess who the largest employer of mathematicians? NSA. They also work closely with our security teams.
    They have very very very very many resources, unimaginable to us.

    so far 256 is secure as long as your password is random. But how random can we get? Who has like 20+ character passwords? Also as you mentioned there are many flaws exploitable which companies in security sell to govts/big companies.

    The fact if you aren't careful, no matter how encrypted things are they can be broken into.

    It's scary once you learn the truth lol. Thankfully 256bit is very ****ing hard to breakthrough. Billions of years to crack through by brute force assuming its a good password.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RiskVsReward)
    so far 256 is secure as long as your password is random. But how random can we get? Who has like 20+ character passwords? Also as you mentioned there are many flaws exploitable which companies in security sell to govts/big companies.
    That's why it's generally best to avoid any security software that isn't open source. With ones that are you can inspect the code yourself to see if there are any exploits, makes it harder to deliberately put in weaknesses for the gov to exploit, you can even compile it yourself if you really feel like it.

    I use 20+ character passwords for anything that I need to keep secure, I would hope that most people do, especially in the modern era where lots of things are done online and attacks on passwords and digital security are very lucrative to criminals.
    •  Official Rep
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
     Official Rep
    Hi Everyone,

    The evidence session that the Science and Technology Committee had yesterday on Investigatory Powers Bill and the consequences for privacy, proportionality and data security might be of interest to those taking part in this conversation thread.

    The Committee heard from the following people on the topic.
    • Matthew Hare, Chief Executive Officer, Gigaclear
    • John Shaw, Vice President, Product Management, Sophos
    • James Blessing, Chair, Internet Services Providers' Association (ISPA UK)
    • Professor Ross Anderson, Professor of Security Engineering, University of Cambridge
    • Professor Mike Jackson, formally of Birmingham City Business School
    • Dr Joss Wright, Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute
    • Professor Sir David Omand GCB, Visiting Professor, Department of War Studies, King's College London
    You can watch this Committee session on Parliament TV.

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Forcing ISPs to store this data will cost money. No doubt that we'll be forced to pay for the increased costs ourselves.
    •  Official Rep
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
     Official Rep
    The Science and Technology Committee has launched a short inquiry into the technology aspects of the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill and they would like to hear the public thoughts.

    The particular areas they would like to receive your comments on are:
    • The technical feasibility and costs of meeting the obligations imposed by the Bill
    • The impact on communications service providers and related businesses
    • The likely consequences for citizen/consumer use of ICT services
    • The extent to which communications data and communications content can be separated and the extent to which this is reflected in the Draft Bill.
    • Specific technologies that have a direct bearing on the operation and effectiveness of the measures in the Draft Bill. These include, but are not restricted to, encryption, bulk data collection, cloud computing, deep packet inspection and anonymous internet communication systems.

    The deadline for submissions to the Committee is Friday 27 November.

    Submit your comment to the Committee
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.