hitmanNo2 Posted February 20, 2017 Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 Let us do this illegal thing or we'll violate you...My phone is encrypted. Unless they're going to pay the Israelis $100K to unlock it, they're not getting *suitcase* from me. Apart from whatever sticks to their fingers. They can have that for free. But lets be serious. It's a complete violation. Think of all the possible stuff on your phone, banking info, dirty pics of the OH, industry secrets e.t.c. They could do anything to it. Clone it, add stuff, whatever. Nothing to hide bla, bla, bla. That's not the point. It's the principle. Link to post Share on other sites
DrAlexanderTobacco Posted February 20, 2017 Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 For sure, m80 - was just joking! I'm fully on the privacy side; but cba to put pen to paper on why whilst at work Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 20, 2017 Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 The best privacy measure is remaining inconspicuous. If the police have no reason to raid your house and trawl your hard drives, then they won't bother. They're busy. If they *do* then nothing you can do will keep them out, and the harder you make it the more damage and time it'll take to get in and see what they want to see. The police don't need to raid your house and trawl your harddrives. Everything you do on the internet is saved for analysis later. Bear in mind that such measures are not to be used against terrorists or whatever - that is easy. the "next big thing" is understanding how populations support (and to what degree) political movements. MOD surveys indicated that the occupation of iraq had the support of only 5% of the population. Also it's not just the police. If the IPA is passed look foward to the following having access: Metropolitan Police Service City of London Police Police forces maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996 Police Service of Scotland Police Service of Northern Ireland British Transport Police Ministry of Defence Police Royal Navy Police Royal Military Police Royal Air Force Police Security Service Secret Intelligence Service GCHQ Ministry of Defence Department of Health Home Office Ministry of Justice National Crime Agency HM Revenue & Customs Department for Transport Department for Work and Pensions NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England that provide ambulance services NHS National Services Scotland Competition and Markets Authority Criminal Cases Review Commission Department for Communities Department for the Economy Department of Justice (Northern Ireland) Financial Conduct Authority Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 Food Standards Agency Food Standards Scotland Gambling Commission Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority Health and Safety Executive Independent Police Complaints Commission Information Commissioner NHS Business Services Authority Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board Health & Social Care Business Services Organisation Office of Communications Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland Police Investigations and Review Commissioner Scottish Ambulance Service Board Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission Serious Fraud Office Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust edit: you can play about with VPNs and all that good stuff, but the most effective, and depressing solution is to simply: do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing. Link to post Share on other sites
Habakure Posted February 20, 2017 Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 You left off John from the boffin. Link to post Share on other sites
Tinkerton Posted February 20, 2017 Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 bloody john. Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 20, 2017 Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 john... john is gonna see my *rickroll* Link to post Share on other sites
Mike_West Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Bear in mind that such measures are not to be used against terrorists or whatever - that is easy. the "next big thing" is understanding how populations support (and to what degree) political movements. Of course. Remember how the "war on drugs" started? Nixon couldn't make being a lefty or a black person illegal, so instead he cracked down on the favorite drugs of some of them, then started a smear campaign about how all African-Americans are crack-smoking gangsters and all lefties are sex-obsessed, permanently stoned hippies (who are mostly gay). And don't expect them to uncover another pedo scandal, despite all sorts of cop shops having access to what people do online. At least not until it's politically convenient or the perp is dead like Jimmy SoVile. Link to post Share on other sites
scorch Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 As long as they don't ban midget porn I'm good to go. Joking. Or am I? Link to post Share on other sites
shmook Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 We all know you're not. Link to post Share on other sites
scorch Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 There's a rather special one I've seen called "the clown, the midget and the big baby". Give that a go. It's the most surreal thing I've ever seen. Link to post Share on other sites
shmook Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Yeah... I reckon I'll swerve that. Link to post Share on other sites
scorch Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Clown-phobic? Link to post Share on other sites
shmook Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Nar, just not in to weird *suitcase*! Link to post Share on other sites
Pdubyuh Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 As long as they don't ban "tranny" midget porn I'm good to go. Joking. Or am I? you missed a bit Scorch but its ok i got it for you! Link to post Share on other sites
scorch Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 I've told you before, there's a line and your dvd collection crosses it. Link to post Share on other sites
Pdubyuh Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 but they are so little and well they are so big at the same time! Link to post Share on other sites
amateurstuntman Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 They'd get a strong no from me asking to take my unlocked phone away... Technically the border isn't in the US so US laws don't apply, they can apply a lot of pressure. They told him he would be staying in a featureless cell and unable to contact anyone until he capitulated. I get that you shouldn't have to tell anyone anything if you're legit, but stunt, why are you going to these extremes? Genuine question. I know I work for the man, but I'm not biased that way. Curious as to why you're doing this, when the chance of you coming in is I'm guessing minimal at best, and having your devices searched needs a bloody good reason. Again, genuine wonder from me We should all do it. Some people have a genuine need for this level of privacy. If they are the only ones who use it they will stick out. They should blend in. I am not being over protective of my privacy, almost everyone else is being blase and underprotective. In your job you have a strong reason to keep the details of your private life out of the public domain. Kinda agree here. ^ There are worse problems in our life. As much as I don't like people peeping in, I'm but an average joe. And yet, you had your Rockstar account hacked and lost your GTA progress. That could almost certainly have been avoided. As we live more and more of our lives online more and more of our lives are vulnerable to faceless criminals defrauding us, corporations stealing private data for profit and overzealous or even corrupt government organisations spying on us. The in a glass box thing is an interesting analogy. Perhaps you don't want to *suitcase* in a bank vault either. That's fine. But a tiny percentage of people are terrorists and you can identify them by how they *suitcase*. So now the government wants to stop terrorism, it says that everyone has to *suitcase* on CCTV and their *suitcases* will be recorded. The terrorists will ignore the law. News flash: They are already breaking laws, they don't care. The only outcome of the law is that nobody else can take a *suitcase* in peace. Link to post Share on other sites
Lone_Bullet Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Quite true, and yet I have so much on my mind that I can't specialise in a Master ICT security. I'm sure my 'hacker' had it easy since it appeared my email server ( well, my brothers..) didn't have annynsecurity except from my pw. They could just walk in I guess. I'll just rumble a little and move on. It's been fixed. It all makes me so tired... Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites
Mike_West Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 I'm sure my 'hacker' had it easy since it appeared my email server ( well, my brothers..) didn't have annynsecurity except from my pw. They could just walk in I guess. What the *fruitcage*? Now that you say this, I think I'll start transitioning my important dealings over to my Gmail account. The one I use for some things is so ######-poor that I'm drowning in spam there, and vice versa, some mail servers straight up blacklisted the domain long ago because of how easy it was to spoof it and/or use it for spam distribution. Also, I'm having blood drawn tomorrow morning. Which means getting up at *fruitcage* you o'clock, without a breakfast. Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 The terrorists will ignore the law. News flash: They are already breaking laws, they don't care. The only outcome of the law is that nobody else can take a *suitcase* in peace. Why is it that the government never seems to realise that more laws aren't the answer to people breaking the law? It's exactly the same as crime in general and gun/knife crime in particular. Media/lobbyists: "Criminals killed some people with guns/knives! Do something!" Government: "We will act swiftly to ban guns/knives." Sensible people: "The law will only penalise decent people who wish to own guns/knives for legal purposes. Criminals, by definition, don't care about breaking the law." Media/lobbyists: "Think of the children! Won't somebody *purlease* think of the children!?!" Link to post Share on other sites
Gunnman Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 Ban knifes, I don't care. If someone bans guns, I'm going on a stab spree. Link to post Share on other sites
shmook Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 Why is it that the government never seems to realise that more laws aren't the answer to people breaking the law? It's exactly the same as crime in general and gun/knife crime in particular. Media/lobbyists: "Criminals killed some people with guns/knives! Do something!" Government: "We will act swiftly to ban guns/knives." Sensible people: "The law will only penalise decent people who wish to own guns/knives for legal purposes. Criminals, by definition, don't care about breaking the law." Media/lobbyists: "Think of the children! Won't somebody *purlease* think of the children!?!" Because the voice of the simpleton is louder than the voice of the rational person, and the fickle government will flip flop to whoever they will get the most votes. Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 Yeah, I know. It was kinda a rhetorical question... Link to post Share on other sites
shmook Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 I wasn't thinking! Link to post Share on other sites
amateurstuntman Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 I never understood banning guns when shooting people was already illegal. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.