Road rules1 min ago
Should We Have A Snooping Law?
10 Answers
http://
On the basis that anyone doing anything remotely iffy can use the dark web or various TOR techniques, is this really necessary? Is the government just setting up a snoopers charter to gather data to flog to business?
On the basis that anyone doing anything remotely iffy can use the dark web or various TOR techniques, is this really necessary? Is the government just setting up a snoopers charter to gather data to flog to business?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
GCHQ already monitors tinternet, so the national security thing is already covered. We wouldn't agree to all our mail that receive and send being opened by the Post Office, and all information therein being recorded. It would be an invasion of privacy. This is just an electronic version of reading our letters and is an invasion of privacy. No doubt we will get...
11:31 Wed 23rd Nov 2016
they're also cracking down on, tadaaa, websites showing female ejaculation
https:/
Not to combat terrorism, I suppose, but there's an awful lot of control freakery out there.
https:/
Not to combat terrorism, I suppose, but there's an awful lot of control freakery out there.
There's nothing to stop a VPN network provider doing exactly what Mr Blessing is afraid of. In fact, given that the only reason they might have to be worried about this is that their clients might be up to no good anyway, which by extensioon makes a significant number of them likely to be "dark net dogy" anyway, I would have thought their was quite a high chance of blackmail
GCHQ already monitors tinternet, so the national security thing is already covered.
We wouldn't agree to all our mail that receive and send being opened by the Post Office, and all information therein being recorded. It would be an invasion of privacy. This is just an electronic version of reading our letters and is an invasion of privacy.
No doubt we will get the usual nonsense replies that it should be allowed because if you nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Law abiding people are entitled to their privacy, and being electronically tagged when you have not done anything wrong, is draconian.
We wouldn't agree to all our mail that receive and send being opened by the Post Office, and all information therein being recorded. It would be an invasion of privacy. This is just an electronic version of reading our letters and is an invasion of privacy.
No doubt we will get the usual nonsense replies that it should be allowed because if you nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Law abiding people are entitled to their privacy, and being electronically tagged when you have not done anything wrong, is draconian.
GCHQ may "monitor the internet" but what they can't do is read encrypted internet traffic, for various reasons.
The bottom line is that the more encryption there is the more privacy there is, but also the more secrecy. It's the usual debate between the two
(When you extol the virtues of Trump, Tora, you seem to think "big business" can do no wrong :-) )
The bottom line is that the more encryption there is the more privacy there is, but also the more secrecy. It's the usual debate between the two
(When you extol the virtues of Trump, Tora, you seem to think "big business" can do no wrong :-) )
...and clogging it to business I believe you said Tora
As for GCHQ paying any attention to this site, I don't know for sure but I think GCHQ's remit is foreign communications. Not keeping tabs on discussion groups and during like this one. If anyone was doing that I would be more likely to be MI5, but I can't believe it would be a very efficient way to work. Somebody has presumably twigged that the words 'support for ISIS' for example taken out of context are not worth worrying about.
As for GCHQ paying any attention to this site, I don't know for sure but I think GCHQ's remit is foreign communications. Not keeping tabs on discussion groups and during like this one. If anyone was doing that I would be more likely to be MI5, but I can't believe it would be a very efficient way to work. Somebody has presumably twigged that the words 'support for ISIS' for example taken out of context are not worth worrying about.
1 to 10 of 10
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.