It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Every phone call, email or website visit 'to be monitored'

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

First off, If you don't want to read what I have to write, you don't have to. Second off, you need to go take some sensitivity classes, because it's YOU who ARE COMING OFF AS A JERK, RIGHT NOW!




Calm down. And keeping your own score in a debate you are taking part in (if you can even call it a debate at this point) is beyond immature.



Using the fear of possibility as an argument is near sighted, and dim-witted.


Wouldn't the whole reason for implementing any of these security measures be because of a fear of possibility?



If you are worried about hackers, would you be worried if this database was only accessible over a fiber-optic line with 1024 bit encryption, tunneled through SIPRNet? How about with qubit encryption?


Of course. Most hacking happens locally on a system. Regardless, there is always a hole.



Do you think all the banks and all of the military systems that utilize the internet should be SHUT DOWN because of hackers?


No. But critical information shouldn't be linked to the internet in any shape or form. Many countries should really analyze how secure their systems really are. If you haven't heard, Chinese hackers were able to access the US Electric Power Grid in some capacity recently.



You can't trust someone unless you are willing to give them a chance. If you aren't even willing to give them a chance, how can you ever trust them?


You trust the government more then me. That doesn’t mean I have no trust of the government. Speak of logical fallacies.

Asking where you draw the line isn’t a logical fallacy… it is a question. There are different people, and each believes a different form of government is more suitable. I simply don’t believe in a form that exerts as much control over its people as I think you might (and many others do). My point was to simply bring to attention our differences of opinion.

Etc, etc…the rest of your post is just calling my beliefs logical fallacies, didn’t make much sense, and was often hypocritical. You rattled off like somebody hell-bent on making himself look bad.




posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician
Well there you have it. There is no sense in arguing with you at all anymore as you would be more willing to see the destruction of your country rather than restrict the Internet.


You didn't read the rest of my post?! You know, the important bit. The bit where I explained that monitoring wouldn't stop the destruction of the country. All it does is help catch them after the fact. The bit you conveniently ignored.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nickmare

Originally posted by logician magician

First off, If you don't want to read what I have to write, you don't have to. Second off, you need to go take some sensitivity classes, because it's YOU who ARE COMING OFF AS A JERK, RIGHT NOW!




Calm down. And keeping your own score in a debate you are taking part in (if you can even call it a debate at this point) is beyond immature.



Nice quip. As usual, you aren't addressing anything other than me and my actions. I'm doing it on purpose to illustrate that you are entirely fallacious.



Wouldn't the whole reason for implementing any of these security measures be because of a fear of possibility?


Negative. It is a calculated preventative measure.

Police do not exist because of fear of crimes - they exist to prevent and stop the crimes. There is no room for your short-sighted subjectivity here.



Of course. Most hacking happens locally on a system. Regardless, there is always a hole.


No, there is not always a whole. There you go again with your generalizations.




No. But critical information shouldn't be linked to the internet in any shape or form. Many countries should really analyze how secure their systems really are. If you haven't heard, Chinese hackers were able to access the US Electric Power Grid in some capacity recently.


Information that has to due with national security is on the SIPRNet, a "secret internet protocol routing network." It's never been hacked and it is not directly connected to the internet. The only time any packets are tunneled through to the public internet, they first go through NIPRNet.

"Access the power grid" means absolutely nothing. You present it completely out of context.



You trust the government more then me. That doesn’t mean I have no trust of the government. Speak of logical fallacies.


I never said you did. Thanks for being fallacious.



Asking where you draw the line isn’t a logical fallacy… it is a question. There are different people, and each believes a different form of government is more suitable. I simply don’t believe in a form that exerts as much control over its people as I think you might (and many others do). My point was to simply bring to attention our differences of opinion.


Please. I wasn't even talking about that when I wrote in the other fallacies; however, that too is a fallacy: The continuum fallacy. It doesn't suit you to pretend that those questions were not rhetorical. They all account to nearly complete surveillance in one domain or another.

1) A camera in your house accessed at any moment.
2) RFID chips (I must assume you are speaking of implants and not RFID chips on DVDs)
3) Bar codes on your body (This is a very ambiguous statement like many of your others)

I must assume that you mean bar codes for tracking someone, and not bar code tattoos that do nothing at all but sit there and look pretty.

You are obviously trying to paint a blurred pictures where a line can not be drawn.



Etc, etc…the rest of your post is just calling my beliefs logical fallacies, didn’t make much sense, and was often hypocritical. You rattled off like somebody hell-bent on making himself look bad.


I'm sure it didn't make much sense to you - you're the one who wrote them in the first place.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A

Perhaps not but I'm sure your insurance company would be interested in your searches for "heart murmur".


Shouldn't they be though? Isn't that something they will find out when you go to the doctor and get pills for it anyway? Why would you want to hide it... for fraud... embarrassment?



The fact is that within the government there are two undesirable elements, namely the unscrupulous (McBride) who will use any means to attack their political opponents; and the incompetent (Bob Quick) who will leave confidential data on the train, the bus or just show it to the worlds press outside of number 10. The UK has had no shortage of stories about how the government, the police and local authorities have abused powers to do everything from arrest opposition MPs to spying on people who put their bins out at the wrong time.

So long as these elements exist then these sorts of powers must be limited.


I think the problem is that those elements will always exist. Do you assume that we'll ever be able to have a government without any corruption? I don't count on it for the next 500 years, at least.

Many, many, many people make... questionable decisions and they are conveniently wrapped together in the bubble of "government" for an easy target - when in reality, you just have a bunch of disparate idiots making bad decisions, which I believe you recognize. I've always been for an easier way to get politicians OUT of office... but even that would be subject to corruption wouldn't it?

The government can only be changed from within - and even that is an uphill battle.

What would you say to an independent agency which took an oath to protect the data, and only release it to the authorities under what amount to a trial between the authorities and opponents of release?

Really, what I'm asking is who can you trust with the data - and who can you trust with the government for that matter?



The current plan is to have service providers maintain their own databases, which is not that much different today. Most already retain this information for around a year anyway, the only difference will be that the government will compel them to do it whether they want to or not.


Then there needs to be something more than just a, "Hey, give me the data now!" ... but even then, people would shout corruption when a decision they don't like is made. We can always find reasons to not adopt something. It's often much easier to do so.



I used to take your position until the government lost a lot of my personal data including everything from my address to my NI number to bank details. I’m not paranoid about these database, they’ve already fecked me over once already along with countless others.


Sounds like it would have been safer in a database.
Seriously though, do you really think "the government" lost it, or could it just have been someone who made an innocent mistake? You seem to take the position that the government "did this to you" on purpose.



That is a complete contradiction of our data protection laws.


I know that many places in Europe have data protection laws light years ahead of what we have in the U.S.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater

Originally posted by logician magician
Well there you have it. There is no sense in arguing with you at all anymore as you would be more willing to see the destruction of your country rather than restrict the Internet.


You didn't read the rest of my post?! You know, the important bit. The bit where I explained that monitoring wouldn't stop the destruction of the country. All it does is help catch them after the fact. The bit you conveniently ignored.


I didn't ignore it. I'm reading perfectly clear that you don't think capturing the people who destroyed the country is an important thing to do.

I didn't catch any important part, I only caught AN IGNORANT LOYALIST PART.

You'd rather let a loyalist spy kill Patrick Henry rather than shut down the Internet that they are using to spread their propaganda and lies about the Patriots & sending back colonial secrets to England.

Great. Now the British Army is familiar with our guerrilla tactics all because of Ye Olde IT Tech,
GobbledokTChipeater let them access to the Colonial Combat and Provisions Service Training web site!!! They didn't even need a password because he thought it would be okay for freedom's sake that everyone learn!

Congratulations. Thomas Jefferson was killed, because you, thought it was more important for the tanner to stuff a 3-legged antelope.

You obviously care about the Internet more than the Constitution.

You make me sick, loyalist scum!!! barf:



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


I had two thoughts to this post: LOL, you're funny; and, wake up to yourself.



Originally posted by logician magicianI didn't ignore it. I'm reading perfectly clear that you don't think capturing the people who destroyed the country is an important thing to do.


Move the goalposts? Earlier in the thread we had to stop them actually destroying the country, not simply capture them afterwards.
Why a change of heart?

And where did I actually say I didn't think it's important to catch them?
I just happen to believe we shouldn't hand over our last remaining area of free speech, open to everyone equally (at the moment), in order to catch them. Recognise this.



Originally posted by logician magician...rest of post...


Blah, blah, blah. I never was good at history.

Please stop trying to make me look like I said things I didn't. What was that you said earlier about 'straw-man' arguments? You are the one using them. Who said rhetorical questions don't prove a point? (no answer needed).


Giving up the free-speech which the internet gives us is crazy, cannot be any good for the people, and only serves to isolate the populace, removing the voice from all.

The truth of the matter is that I know that the internet is the thorn in the side of people in high places who wish to do nefarious things. This is proven when the pentagon says things such as: The internet needs to be treated as an 'enemy weapons system'. If they do indeed treat it as an enemy weapons system, and people like you and me are the majority of internet users, does that mean they treat us a enemies? Should we, in turn, treat them as enemies?

The entity which has complete control over the internet has complete control over everybody's free speech. Is that worth giving up?



[edit on 27/4/09 by GobbledokTChipeater]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater

Move the goalposts? Earlier in the thread we had to stop them actually destroying the country, not simply capture them afterwards.
Why a change of heart?


You're not even playing along with the scenario. You're just making your own things up so that you don't arrive at the inevitable goal of the scenario: TURN OFF THE INTERNET TO SAVE AMERICA.

You're so entrenched into your your irrationality that you dare not go down the road I was guiding you down with my example. You just respond with "Oh, that's not applicable."

NICE COP OUT!

To stick with your position, you're actually saying that a fantasy-hypothetical scenario is not applicable! Hah! To stick to your position you conclusively recreate the scenario so that it is not possible to capture the spies before they leave.

You have NO DOMAIN.

In fact, it IS entirely possible to capture them! All you have to do is turn off the Internet before they send the command signal that will activate the bomb that Ye Olde Denitist Loyalist Britian Supporter Scum implanted in General George Washington... and set the booby traps that the colonial militia has put up from intelligence gathered by the patriots!

The only way to save the country is to turn off the Internet. There is no looking back. You have 5 seconds to choose.

What do you do? Are you a Patriot, or are you an Internet sycophant?

What is more important? The Declaration of Independence, or the Internet?

By the way, the word on the ColonialTopSecret.com is that the English brought the Internet to the Colonials in order to distract the Patriots from what was important! They are saying that the Boston Tea Party was actually caused by real Indians, and that the Patriots just used that as an excuse to rally the Colonies. They say the Patriots are Liars. They say the Patriots killed Innocent women and children in the Boston Massacre in order to frame the British!!

Nobody in the colonies knows what to believe anymore! There is so much disinformation on the Internet that they are changing their minds about fighting England because they think the patriots are TERRORISTS!

They have been literally PARALYZED by (dis)information!



And where did I actually say I didn't think it's important to catch them?
I just happen to believe we shouldn't hand over our last remaining area of free speech, open to everyone equally (at the moment), in order to catch them. Recognise this.


Obviously, I DO NOT stand corrected. You can't have your cake and eat it too.



Blah, blah, blah. I never was good at history.


No! Send him into the Area! . . . . . . . .




Please stop trying to make me look like I said things I didn't. What was that you said earlier about 'straw-man' arguments? You are the one using them. Who said rhetorical questions don't prove a point? (no answer needed).


Your whole argument has been, "You this, and you that! Stop doing this and stop doing that! You do what you say I do!"



Giving up the free-speech which the internet gives us is crazy, cannot be any good for the people, and only serves to isolate the populace, removing the voice from all.


The Internet didn't always exist though! Can you comprehend a world before the internet!

IT MUST HAVE BEEN HELL ON EARTH!!!!




The truth of the matter is that I know that the internet is the thorn in the side of people in high places who wish to do nefarious things. This is proven when the pentagon says things such as: The internet needs to be treated as an 'enemy weapons system'. If they do indeed treat it as an enemy weapons system, and people like you and me are the majority of internet users, does that mean they treat us a enemies? Should we, in turn, treat them as enemies?


It appears that you already are treating them as enemies - you're obviously treating them as a threat.



The entity which has complete control over the internet has complete control over everybody's free speech. Is that worth giving up?


... it must have been hell before the Internet... Must have been like living in Nazi Germany without the Internet.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by News And History
 

The Computer Desktop Encyclopedia defines 'traffic' as:

Data transmitted over a network. Traffic is a very general term and typically refers to overall network usage at a given moment. However, it can refer to specific transactions, messages, records or users in any kind of data or telephone network.

The article defines 'traffic' as:

The proposed powers will allow police and security services to monitor communication "traffic", which is who calls, texts, emails who, when and where but not what is said.

Excluding content data from the definition of 'traffic' is suspicious. A more accurate term for this type of 'traffic' is metadata.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

You're not even playing along with the scenario



Originally posted by logician magician

The only way to save the country is to turn off the Internet.



OK. So I have 2 choices: I have to cause Americas destruction or take what I consider to be the last bastion of free speech from the people.
And you wonder why I'm not playing along? You have designed your hypothetical scenario so that I am damned if I do and damned if I don't.

Does America actually find itself in this unique position today? Will America be destroyed if it doesn't turn off the internet? Of course not. Your scenario still isn't applicable. I'm not playing.



Originally posted by logician magician

Your whole argument has been, "You this, and you that! Stop doing this and stop doing that! You do what you say I do!"


If you honestly believe that then you need to re-read the thread.



Originally posted by logician magician

The Internet didn't always exist though! Can you comprehend a world before the internet!

IT MUST HAVE BEEN HELL ON EARTH!!!!


In fact, I used to live before there was no internet! These days however we are a lot more international and people are as likely to talk to someone that lives thousands of miles away as they talk to their next-door neighbour. Back then people weren't dependent on the internet like they are today.

Just like cars. Could you imagine this world if we just stopped selling fuel and petroleum products tomorrow. There would be no food, no transport, no fresh water, probably no electricity, no clothing, all shops would be closed and basically it would be hell on earth.

But hang on... how can that be...? We haven't always had fuel so that can't happen....




Originally posted by logician magician

It appears that you already are treating them as enemies - you're obviously treating them as a threat.


No, I do not. Do you think I'm crazy man? I'm just another internet user with a loud keyboard. That was simply another one of my hypothetical questions. I find it easier to make my point and get people thinking by asking questions.



Originally posted by logician magician

... it must have been hell before the Internet... Must have been like living in Nazi Germany without the Internet.


See the paragraph above with Petroleum in it.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   
BBC: Plan to monitor all internet use

Communications firms are being asked to record all internet contacts between people as part of a modernisation in UK police surveillance tactics.

The home secretary scrapped plans for a database but wants details to be held and organised for security services.

The new system would track all e-mails, phone calls and internet use, including visits to social network sites.

The Tories said the Home Office had “buckled under Conservative pressure” in deciding against a giant database.

Announcing a consultation on a new strategy for communications data and its use in law enforcement, Jacqui Smith said there would be no single government-run database.

(Read full article at: News.BBC.co.uk/)

Don't allow the government to control or track you. We are not their slaves!



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Please please please PLEASE stop saying things like "the destruction of the country".

If a terrorist organisation was even vaguely capable of achieving that, they would declare war and invade. The reason they are resorting to terrorism is because they do not have the power, in any way, to destroy a nation. The worst they can do is scare the population by a handful of civilian deaths (coldly put, but still proportionally true).

This is, as always, just another excuse, a smokescreen, to allow Labour to try and become The Party, rather than just a party.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 




Originally posted by logician magician
Shouldn't they be though? Isn't that something they will find out when you go to the doctor and get pills for it anyway? Why would you want to hide it... for fraud... embarrassment?


You assume that you’re searching because you have a genuine medical problem. I didn’t say that. However were this information to be leaked, sold or lost (all of which are far from unheard of in the UK) then your insurance company would probably assume the same.

The point being that seemingly innocuous information can produce negative effects if made public or passed on to certain people/groups. Your suggestion that only terrorists and paedophiles need be worried is therefore untrue.

Also, no an insurance company wouldn’t, legally, find out anything when you visit the doctor because that information is kept confidential.



I think the problem is that those elements will always exist.


Exactly, which is why these powers must always be limited.



What would you say to an independent agency which took an oath to protect the data, and only release it to the authorities under what amount to a trial between the authorities and opponents of release?


Independent agencies already do hold much personal data for the government yet it still gets lost and there are still many cases of abuse.



Really, what I'm asking is who can you trust with the data


You can’t trust anyone completely but in certain cases you are forced to for practical reasons. I’m happy to let my doctor keep my medical records because there is a practical reason and the evidence shows that there is little risk in this.

I don’t want the government to hold/have access to the kind of data we are talking about because there has been no persuasive argument put forward detailing a practical need and the evidence has shown that there is significant risk in them having this data.


Then there needs to be something more than just a, "Hey, give me the data now!" ... but even then, people would shout corruption when a decision they don't like is made.


I agree with the first point but the second is dismissive. People aren’t shouting corruption because they don’t like the government, Damien Green did not break any law and the police knew this, the governments policy on DNA retention has been declared illegal by the ECHR, the commons has attacked the use of terrorism legislation in cases it was not designed for, the Lords have criticized the government on this, independent reports have denounced a quarter of government databases as illegal and the majority as unnecessary. This is not a bunch of hippy protestors shouting corruption because they’re not allowed to hold up traffic in London.


Sounds like it would have been safer in a database. Seriously though, do you really think "the government" lost it, or could it just have been someone who made an innocent mistake?


It was in a database and yes the government lost it. The government oversaw the procedures put in place to safe guard this information; these were woefully inadequate and have been shown to be so time and time again. It sounds like you’re not really aware of the scale of the problem. I’d suggest you do a quick google search, I imagine you’ll be surprised.

A small cross-section of lost data would include.

Details of 25 million benefit claimants,
Details of 3 million drivers,
960 passports,
121 MoD USB sticks including classified information,
Details of 600,000 military personnel (former, serving and recruits)
Details of 84,000 prisoners including information on informants,

With regard to the latter three that information could have cost lives.

That’s far from complete by the way and accounts for about one year’s worth of lost data.


You seem to take the position that the government "did this to you" on purpose.


No it’s incompetence, but that doesn’t matter because the end result has been massive problems for millions.

Your argument seems to be that if you’re not guilty of something then you have nothing to worry. Doesn’t the above show that to be totally untrue?



[edit on 28-4-2009 by Mike_A]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician


Why is it weak, because a warrant is required before the police can install a wiretap on someone's telephone lines?



It is weak because YOU used the analogy of data moving through infrastructure not owned by the individual as a valid reason why no warrant is needed to glean all data sent through the internet.

You cannot have it both ways.

You can call me whatever names you like or even keep score as you have with others, but it will not change the words you have used in your argument or change the possibility that you may not be as smart as you think you are.

FACT:
You cannot know what the intentions are of those who are legislating unless you are a legislator or represent them.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx

Yours is the weak analogy. Telephone conversations are just data that travels over switches and routers which are not owned by the individual, but warrants are still required before anyone can legally install a wiretap.


Originally posted by logician magician

Why is it weak, because a warrant is required before the police can install a wiretap on someone's telephone lines?



It is weak because YOU used the analogy of data moving through infrastructure not owned by the individual as a valid reason why no warrant is needed to glean all data sent through the internet.

You cannot have it both ways.


You're not asking the right questions. You seem to actually be throwing intelligence out the window when you find that, "A warrant is required for wiretapping"

The problem is, you haven't used critical thinking, or done any research to know exactly why one is required.

Let me dumb it down since you are obviously ignorant of what happens, and why it happens.

The point is that you do not own the telephone lines, but... GASP! someone does own the telephone lines... and law enforcement must present a warrant to someone when performing the wiretap.

Who is that someone ?

It's the telephone company.

Why?

Because they are installing a wiretap on the telephone company's property.

Let me try it again:

My analogy only appears weak to you because you do not fully grasp the reality of the situation behind your veil of ignorance.

When the police have a warrant to search your house, they must show you the warrant sometime during the search - because it is your house.

Guess what? When the police have a warrant to search your communications, they don't have to show YOU a warrant.

Who do you think they bring the warrant to?

When the police have a warrant to search telephone lines, they must show the warrant to the TELEPHONE COMPANY. Why?

Because they are searching the telephone companies property

Telephone companies can also find taps which have been placed without warrants issued to them. Once they find the tap, they contact law enforcement agencies to find out if the tap is legal or not (if the warrant wasn't initially delivered to them). If the tap is illegal, they'll tell you about it, If there is a warrant for it, they won't until 90 days after the fact.

Get it? Good.



You can call me whatever names you like or even keep score as you have with others, but it will not change the words you have used in your argument or change the possibility that you may not be as smart as you think you are.


Likewise, it will not change the fact that you are not as smart as you think you are.

The words not need change - only your new interpretation of them once you have denied ignorance and embraced knowledge and reason over blind emotion and appeal to idealism.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

Let me dumb it down since you are obviously ignorant of what happens, and why it happens.

... law enforcement must present a warrant to someone when performing the wiretap.



I am happy to see that you now agree with me that a warrant is needed after all. That was a long way to go to get you to agree to it.


Thanks for seeing it my way.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by xman_in_blackx]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
The tyrants in government want us to accept all of their policies, while they monitor our social-activity, financial-transactions, and other things we elect them to do for us. They're not our government!

RogueGovernment.com



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by logician magician
 



Originally posted by logician magician
Shouldn't they be though? Isn't that something they will find out when you go to the doctor and get pills for it anyway? Why would you want to hide it... for fraud... embarrassment?


You assume that you’re searching because you have a genuine medical problem. I didn’t say that.


I don't understand how your response relates to my questions.





Also, no an insurance company wouldn’t, legally, find out anything when you visit the doctor because that information is kept confidential.


Must be where you live. Insurance companies here want to know your pre-exisiting conditions and are informed about any surgeries or procedures done with you at the hospital, as well as any medication given to you. The hospital updates your health care provider with your current medical conditions so the health care provider can rape your wallet.



A small cross-section of lost data would include.

Details of 25 million benefit claimants,
Details of 3 million drivers,
960 passports,
121 MoD USB sticks including classified information,
Details of 600,000 military personnel (former, serving and recruits)
Details of 84,000 prisoners including information on informants,

With regard to the latter three that information could have cost lives.

That’s far from complete by the way and accounts for about one year’s worth of lost data.

Your argument seems to be that if you’re not guilty of something then you have nothing to worry. Doesn’t the above show that to be totally untrue?


You're using a broad brush, my friend.

I appear to be arguing many things with many people in this thread, but I'm not entirely sure why you are using the example of prior loss of sensitive information from a government database as an argument for a database that monitors what can not be considered necessarily sensitive information. You just seem to be putting up a straw man argument - you're attacking something that isn't really the focus... it only appears to be so on the surface.

I think we can both agree that storing sensitive information in your yahoo email is not a good idea. Likewise, giving sensitive information over the telephone is also not a good idea. The same goes for website visits... and these safety concerns are hardly government related. Using unencrypted email to communicate sensitive information is akin to writing your life secrets on a paper bag and releasing it to the wind.

The article seems to be describing a monitoring system that does not allow for precise contents of email messages to be available. This implies to be that they will be screening for certain words and phrases. It also implies that web site connections will be recorded, but not your precise activities. The same for phone communication.

You mention all of the data being lost as a strong point in your argument, it would seem - but it doesn't actually appear to fit in with the data being monitoring by the proposed system because it wouldn't necessarily be sensitive data. As I mentioned before, it is up to the individual to take security precautions by not transmitting sensitive data over insecure mediums. Appealing to the assumption that the data should be safe is just not good enough for me.

There is little doubt that a government database which contained your bank information, credit card numbers, medical information, etc... would be a prime target for nefarious
purposes.

But it is a little more far fetched to say that your visits to certain sites, or cherry-picked phrases in emails or telephone calls can be used against you by very many entities. The article also mentions that it is "likely" to be stored in an enormous national database... but what exactly does this even mean? It sure sounds like an ominous single database that if broken into by one hacker, would have no defense or internal security.

... but is this true with databases? No.

So, let's say a politician or other evil-doer wants to use the more-or-less innocuous information about your surfing habits to... do something to you.

Can you give me some examples of what undeserved information can be extrapolated from a database which monitors what this database is proposed to monitor?



The point being that seemingly innocuous information can produce negative effects if made public or passed on to certain people/groups. Your suggestion that only terrorists and paedophiles need be worried is therefore untrue.


So how do you explain the mostly non-effects of Facebook, myspace, twitter, etc.. - where millions of people give out their most personal information, and even what they are doing down to the minute?

Myspace has over 200 million members who post pictures, interests, goals, education, addresses, plans, friends, etc.. etc...

Facebook has about 80 million...

Twitter has over 1 million at least...

It is all very much personal information, is it not?

One could even go as so far to reason that out-of-context strings found in email, patterns of website usage, or keywords on the tele are not as dangerous to an individual as what they wish to share with the world.

It should be proven from the above "experiments" that even personal information does not have ill-effects for 280+ million, which isn't even including all of the other networking sites.

Yes, there have been stories in the News about a few ill-effects, but they hardly constitute a reason to shut down social networking sites?

Which leads us to this little Ignoratio elenchi: "But those are voluntary!"

Sure they are, but that doesn't change the fact that it still shows that the use of innocuous and personal information (your claimed point) has been shown to have little to no-ill effects on the majority, even when readily accessible by the majority.

Here, I believe your point has been etched down to a rounded end. You must then - if innocuous information is not really your prime concern - have another concern hidden somewhere. For if I were to believe that you have something against the sharing of innocuous information, I must witness you protest it in full.

Furthermore I can not believe that your true qualm is that it is voluntary vs. involuntary, since I can reasonably be sure that you do not have the same qualms for every involuntary thing that you are subjected to. I certainly don't believe you have qualms against the involuntary law which prohibits you from murder, or that fact that you have allowed yourself to be bound to obligations.

It appears, by your own admission that you used to think as I - whatever that means... that your true qualms rest somewhere with the government, and what they have done to you.

You have been personally affected by losing sensitive information... It then appears safe to assume that your outlook had been changed after you had been personally affected, and not a moment before.

It appears that your reason against the database is merely personal.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx

Originally posted by logician magician

Let me dumb it down since you are obviously ignorant of what happens, and why it happens.

... law enforcement must present a warrant to someone when performing the wiretap.



I am happy to see that you now agree with me that a warrant is needed after all. That was a long way to go to get you to agree to it.


Thanks for seeing it my way.



Thanks for letting everyone know that you have your own way to see it (and what you read), in spite of reality.

It should really clear a few things up.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 



I don't understand how your response relates to my questions.


You were asking why anyone would be interested in a random person’s information. I suggested that a commercial group (an insurance company) would be interested in that information, if it suggests you may have an undisclosed medical condition for example.

You assumed that because I said a person may be searching for “heart murmur” it meant that the person had this medical condition. This is the same, incorrect, assumption that an insurance company may come to given the same data thus resulting in the person being treated unfairly.

The point being that data though seemingly unimportant can have dramatic repercussions if leaked, lost or sold. Therefore everyone has reason to be worried about this possibility.


Must be where you live.


Well this is the UK; the NHS is a public service. Medical information is strictly private, except IIRC within the NHS system.

But this is really irrelevant. In the example I gave the person may be a hypochondriac or be concerned about someone else or even just take an interest in medical matters in general. However do you believe that if an insurance company knew that someone was continually communicating with IP addresses connected to cancer or heart problems this wouldn’t affect their ability to get life insurance for example?


You're using a broad brush, my friend.

I appear to be arguing many things with many people in this thread, but I'm not entirely sure why you are using the example of prior loss of sensitive information from a government database as an argument for a database that monitors what can not be considered necessarily sensitive information.


The examples I gave illustrate the government’s competence with relation to handling confidential information. That is very relevant to the topic.

The sensitivity of the information we’re talking about is not up to the government to decide, it is for the person to whom the data belongs. UK and European legislation already establishes that this information is private. It doesn’t matter how insignificant you may think it is, I disagree and it is my right to decide that.


Can you give me some examples of what undeserved information can be extrapolated from a database which monitors what this database is proposed to monitor?


I’ve already given you one. But if you want more how about if a public figure’s porn surfing habits were to be used by his opposition? I also don’t think the nice local vicar would be too keen for his parishioners to know he visits Stormfront.com.

All that needs to be known is the persons unique ID and what sites the IPs he has connected to represent.


So how do you explain the mostly non-effects of Facebook, myspace, twitter, etc.. - where millions of people give out their most personal information, and even what they are doing down to the minute?


Well people have been fired from their jobs because of their comments on facebook and myspace. A teenager was recently sacked for describing her job as boring.

www.theregister.co.uk...

But your argument doesn’t hold water; Facebook and the like don’t relay your surfing habits. As in the examples above it won’t say that you visit “amputeesandmidgetporn.com” or are a regular visitor to the BNP website. The information held by the government would and this sort of information becoming public could be damaging for many. Not to mention the possibility of it being abused by the government itself.


Which leads us to this little Ignoratio elenchi: "But those are voluntary!"

Sure they are, but that doesn't change the fact that it still shows that the use of innocuous and personal information (your claimed point) has been shown to have little to no-ill effects on the majority, even when readily accessible by the majority.


As above the two things aren’t synonymous. They don’t hold the same kind of data.


I certainly don't believe you have qualms against the involuntary law which prohibits you from murder, or that fact that you have allowed yourself to be bound to obligations.


Now that’s a straw many argument!

I am happy to be bound by certain laws if sufficient reason is given for there existence, otherwise I will protest them. Clearly there is a reason for murder to be illegal.

There has been no reasonable argument put forward for this new information system. As far as I know it has not been debated in parliament, if they will have a chance to debate it at all.

Even if you accept that there are no risks from these proposals, without justification then the invasion of privacy alone means it should be blocked.

Would you perhaps consider setting up a webcam in every room of your house for ATS to watch? Surely you have nothing to hide so where is the problem? I bet we could set up a thread to let people contribute to the cost. Up for it?


It appears, by your own admission that you used to think as I - whatever that means... that your true qualms rest somewhere with the government, and what they have done to you.

You have been personally affected by losing sensitive information... It then appears safe to assume that your outlook had been changed after you had been personally affected, and not a moment before.


No, you characterise it as a grudge whereas it is in fact simply an opinion informed by experience.

Before I did not consider the loss of data to be an important issue, my experience demonstrated to me that this was not true.

I also thought government abuse was a minor factor and that overall if you weren’t doing anything wrong then you had nothing to worry.

All of the evidence I have seen over the past five years or so has demolished this point of view.


[edit on 28-4-2009 by Mike_A]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

Thanks for letting everyone know that you have your own way to see it (and what you read), in spite of reality.

It should really clear a few things up.


I have always let people know that I have my own way of seeing it. I personally think that I do not know anything which contrasts greatly with you because you seem think you know everything.

Even though you say that only guilty people have something to fear from this collection of data, you seem to have forgotten the reality that even though it looks like traffic is coming from a person's computer, it may be a zombie doing a hacker's bidding. While i don't know if this is a non-issue to you, it could have huge ramifications to the individual who had his computer compromised. Millions of computers are currently compromised throughout the US. The normal prosecutor doesn't care of the person is innocent or not, they only care if the case is winnable. They have data which shows that it came from your computer, it was you. Case closed.

This is not paranoia, this is reality.

It is all fun and games until you go to prison for something you didn't do.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join