|
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.
|
