|
U-Know! Forum » And so it begins....* |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Apr 02, 2012, 15:36
|
||
|
I expect the standard "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear argument" will be trotted out in defence of this. But A) That's not the fucking point! and B) It's bollocks as well, because if certain keywords cause you to be flagged up (which does happen) then why should you find yourself in a position of having to self-censor your own language and methods of expression in order to to escape the gaze of Big Brother? The sheer hypocrisy of trumpeting the merits of democracy and freedom to all and sundry, especially in the wake of the Arab (see, there's one!) Spring, when such a basic civil liberty as privacy is under threat for the most spurious of reasons. So in conclusion, BOMBS, TANKS, HOLOCAUST, ALLAH, 9 11, JIHAD, Allah Akbar, DEVILS OF THE WEST, THE PACKAGE HAS BEEN DELIVERED, 41 VIRGINS, KERMIT THE FROG, TURDS, POO, PLOP PLOP, GIBBONS ON TOAST, FLUFFY KITTENS, SUSANNA REID'S FAT KNEES, CUNTY BOLLOCKS AND GIANT ALIEN INVASION BY ARSE PROBERS FROM BUMCLUSTERFLUX IMMINENT. Filter that fuck-heads.
|
|||
beltaneboy 39 posts |
Edited Apr 02, 2012, 17:32
Apr 02, 2012, 17:31
|
||
Well one way to piss on their fireworks would be to use the dreaded 'flagged' words/internet searches like: 'how do I make an IED' - 'terrorist' - 'let's kill tories' - 'anthrax letter bomb' - 'dirty bomb' etc etc etc as much and as often as possible within a sentence like: 'this is just to piss off the surveilance agancies because I believe it is an infringment of our civil liberties to be routinely spied upon' so they can't take it seriously as a threat and nick you but it will clog up their networks if LOADS of people do it often.
|
|||
PMM 3155 posts |
Edited Apr 02, 2012, 18:22
Apr 02, 2012, 17:43
|
||
|
beltaneboy wrote: Well one way to piss on their fireworks would be to use the dreaded 'flagged' words/internet searches like: 'how do I make an IED' - 'terrorist' - 'let's kill tories' - 'anthrax letter bomb' - 'dirty bomb' etc etc etc as much and as often as possible within a sentence like: 'this is just to piss off the surveilance agancies because I believe it is an infringment of our civil liberties to be routinely spied upon' so they can't take it seriously as a threat and nick you but it will clog up their networks if LOADS of people do it often. hydrogen peroxide fusewire anarchists cookbook government shaking stevens fertiliser shrapnel
|
|||
John Rice 38 posts |
Edited Apr 02, 2012, 18:37
Apr 02, 2012, 18:36
|
||
|
IanB wrote: That's what happens when you don't commit to vote tactically against the Tories every minute of every single day. Two points... 1) Lots of people did vote tactically against the tories and put their 'X' next to the LibDem candidate (the party that claimed loudest to support civil liberties). 2) These plans are actually an extension of a post-9/11 Blair (i.e. Labour) plan to monitor "extremists". Basically, I'm really not sure that "voting", whether tactically or otherwise, is an effective route out of the mess modern society finds itself in.
|
|||
Moth 5236 posts |
Apr 02, 2012, 18:48
|
||
|
No I didn't vote for it. But then I didn't vote for the Tories.... love Moth
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Apr 02, 2012, 21:09
|
||
|
beltaneboy wrote: Well one way to piss on their fireworks would be to use the dreaded 'flagged' words/internet searches like: 'how do I make an IED' - 'terrorist' - 'let's kill tories' - 'anthrax letter bomb' - 'dirty bomb' etc etc etc as much and as often as possible within a sentence like: 'this is just to piss off the surveilance agancies because I believe it is an infringment of our civil liberties to be routinely spied upon' so they can't take it seriously as a threat and nick you but it will clog up their networks if LOADS of people do it often. Nah. It won't work, you're wasting your time. The heuristics employed are not as simple as that. Even the most basic Bayesian style analysis mthods can extract context and discard such false flags. When I used to design Knowledge Management systems I'd use an approach a little bit more flash than that and I imagine the intelligence services do to. Also that they use something smarter than anything I could come up with too obviously. I posted a paper here the last time this came up (a couple of years a go IIRC) which detailed some of the techniques you could use to extract context. What your post does reveal though is the general acceptance that they can, if they want to, intercept any electronic communication. They probably do too, this in my opinion is just a bill that will allow them to act in a more open manner. Assuming that they do, as a matter of course, intercept data. Which of course, we don't know, right. Thing is, I can't see these new laws passing at all. At least not with an exemption on the storage and interception of the communications of MPs and Lords. Such an exemption would cause such a massive uproar it would kill off the whole proposal. Soo.. I'm not worried about it, and I will continue to not worry about it until we hear that some ammendents are being made to the bill in closed sessions for the sake of 'national security'. Then I'll panic. This post was, of course, carefully written to raise false flags properly :P.
|
|||
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Apr 03, 2012, 09:32
Apr 03, 2012, 07:22
|
||
|
John Rice wrote: IanB wrote: That's what happens when you don't commit to vote tactically against the Tories every minute of every single day. Two points... 1) Lots of people did vote tactically against the tories and put their 'X' next to the LibDem candidate (the party that claimed loudest to support civil liberties). 2) These plans are actually an extension of a post-9/11 Blair (i.e. Labour) plan to monitor "extremists". Basically, I'm really not sure that "voting", whether tactically or otherwise, is an effective route out of the mess modern society finds itself in. I don't disagree but I think I am right in saying that polls showed that more Labour voters (i.e. those who voted for Blair in the previous election) stayed home than switched to Lib Dem or AN Other party. As far as I am concerned the only useful thing about elections is that it represents an opportunity to keep Tory hands off of the Whitehall / Brussels / Local Gov tiller. They end up doing it by other means of course but it slows them down. It's more a forestalling than a conduit for change but it is better than seeing the sons and daughters of Thatcher blunder incompetently through the corridors of power. They are even below average at being Thatcherites. As for the Blair inheritence I do not believe that a Labour / Lib-Dem coalition would be forwarding this particular policy at this time but I could be wrong. I could just about live with five years of Brown with the handbrake on.
|
|||
|
beltaneboy 39 posts |
Apr 03, 2012, 09:33
|
||
|
stray wrote: beltaneboy wrote: Well one way to piss on their fireworks would be to use the dreaded 'flagged' words/internet searches like: 'how do I make an IED' - 'terrorist' - 'let's kill tories' - 'anthrax letter bomb' - 'dirty bomb' etc etc etc as much and as often as possible within a sentence like: 'this is just to piss off the surveilance agancies because I believe it is an infringment of our civil liberties to be routinely spied upon' so they can't take it seriously as a threat and nick you but it will clog up their networks if LOADS of people do it often. Nah. It won't work, you're wasting your time. The heuristics employed are not as simple as that. Even the most basic Bayesian style analysis mthods can extract context and discard such false flags. When I used to design Knowledge Management systems I'd use an approach a little bit more flash than that and I imagine the intelligence services do to. Also that they use something smarter than anything I could come up with too obviously. I posted a paper here the last time this came up (a couple of years a go IIRC) which detailed some of the techniques you could use to extract context. What your post does reveal though is the general acceptance that they can, if they want to, intercept any electronic communication. :P. Hi, could you please clarify: are you saying that they (& you) can "intercept any electronic communication" as your first paragraph appears to authoratively say or that they cannot do so as your sacond paragraph appears to hint at?
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Apr 03, 2012, 10:01
Apr 03, 2012, 09:57
|
||
What !? Where on earth did I give the impression that I can intercept any communication, I most definitely didn't say that and can't. Of course the intelligence services can. I think you need to read up a bit about what Knowledge Management systems are, they have sod all to do with communication interception, they're about extracting meaning and finding correlations of subject/context within documents, systems behaviours (intelligent indexing basically)etc.
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8763 posts |
Apr 03, 2012, 13:08
|
||
|
Moon Cat wrote: I expect the standard "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear argument" will be trotted out in defence of this. He you go: "In a further sign of a determination to push on with the plan, Home Secretary Theresa May said "ordinary people" would have nothing to fear. But "criminals, paedophiles and terrorists" would, she told the Sun" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17595209
|
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
