Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
richardhead

100 Percent Privacy

28 posts in this topic

President Obama was talking about how  the National Security Agency has been keeping secret databases of Americans’ electronic and telephonic communications.

 

“I think it’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. Were going to have to make some choices as a society.”

 

He says that we need to have this to protect people from terrorism. What he said doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

I can go into any one of hundreds of internet cafes all over London and open a Googlemail account. So can any terrorist or career criminal. Nobody can link that Gogglemail account to me.

 

I can go into a shop and buy a cheap pay-as-you-go mobile phone. Nobody in the shop will make me fill in a form and check the information against my passport.

 

So it seems to me that anyone can have '100 percent privacy' should they choose to do so. Terrorists and criminals can meet face to face to plan their evil deeds. They can refrain from typing words like 'bomb' when they email each other anonymously and use pre-agreed replacement words if they need to.

 

I don't see how this is going to prevent terrorism. I think it will be used against ordinary people. Just like the 'money laundering' law is used against sex workers and sex shop owners. Just like the 'extreme pornography' law which is used against anyone who has on their computer a video of a woman doing something naughty to her pony.

 

As far as I can see, anyone with a bit of intelligence can have 100 percent privacy. Most people who want to use the internet from their homes won't have it and could lose out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Obama was talking about how  the National Security Agency has been keeping secret databases of Americans’ electronic and telephonic communications.

 

 

He says that we need to have this to protect people from terrorism. What he said doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

I can go into any one of hundreds of internet cafes all over London and open a Googlemail account. So can any terrorist or career criminal. Nobody can link that Gogglemail account to me.

 

I can go into a shop and buy a cheap pay-as-you-go mobile phone. Nobody in the shop will make me fill in a form and check the information against my passport.

 

So it seems to me that anyone can have '100 percent privacy' should they choose to do so. Terrorists and criminals can meet face to face to plan their evil deeds. They can refrain from typing words like 'bomb' when they email each other anonymously and use pre-agreed replacement words if they need to.

 

I don't see how this is going to prevent terrorism. I think it will be used against ordinary people. Just like the 'money laundering' law is used against sex workers and sex shop owners. Just like the 'extreme pornography' law which is used against anyone who has on their computer a video of a woman doing something naughty to her pony.

 

As far as I can see, anyone with a bit of intelligence can have 100 percent privacy. Most people who want to use the internet from their homes won't have it and could lose out.

No but they can often find out where the phone was purchase, the time the person logged on in the cafe and then take a look at CCTV images. Most shops have CCTV inside these days, as well as cameras in the streets, car parks, on the roads. Not all is wiped and an image of you buying the phone, plus other information about calls made to or from it, location when making those calls(mobile companies keep this data and can work out the location a call or text was sent from GPS info) plus other information and evidence might be enough to identify a person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but they can often find out where the phone was purchase, the time the person logged on in the cafe and then take a look at CCTV images. Most shops have CCTV inside these days, as well as cameras in the streets, car parks, on the roads. Not all is wiped and an image of you buying the phone, plus other information about calls made to or from it, location when making those calls(mobile companies keep this data and can work out the location a call or text was sent from GPS info) plus other information and evidence might be enough to identify a person.

 

so you wear a burqua when u buy the phone.  turn it off when not in use, just agree with your mates to use it at a set time each day.  Or meet with your friends in the country where there is no CCTV.  I know where the CCTV is where i live so I am sure anyone naughty knows as well. Without a concrete lead I reckon all this data is useless.And with a concrete lead you can get evidence without trawling huge quantities of data.  Read Peter Wrights Spycatcher book.

 

but the worrying side is plod know you are a WG, know your number (it on the internet) so can check your call rates to see how much you work and challenge your tax return. Or say hookering in your flat is business use and charge you commercial rates, or say you have done change of use with no planning permission. or say your rubbish is commercial and should be collected by a commercial rubbish collector.Thats the worry, that its used for trivial stuff.

Edited by Coventrypunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you wear a burqua when u buy the phone.  turn it off when not in use, just agree with your mates to use it at a set time each day.  Or meet with your friends in the country where there is no CCTV.  I know where the CCTV is where i live so I am sure anyone naughty knows as well. Without a concrete lead I reckon all this data is useless.And with a concrete lead you can get evidence without trawling huge quantities of data.  Read Peter Wrights Spycatcher book.

 

but the worrying side is plod know you are a WG, know your number (it on the internet) so can check your call rates to see how much you work and challenge your tax return. Or say hookering in your flat is business use and charge you commercial rates, or say you have done change of use with no planning permission. or say your rubbish is commercial and should be collected by a commercial rubbish collector.Thats the worry, that its used for trivial stuff.

The police don't do work for other agencies. They investigate criminal matters. The things you list are for HMRC and local authorities to worry about. The police also currently have to apply for a warrant to access data records, in order to get one of these granted they have to show good reason ie serious crime not the sort of things a local council is responsible for chasing up. Change of use requires specific changes to have been made to the property and the type of activities the business will attract, along with a whole host of other criteria which many people working from home in a variety of businesses do not actually meet - same goes for the commercial waste thing. 

Edited by Strawberry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorists can of course have 100% privacy if they try not so very hard. All they have to do is meet up in one of their homes and talk face to face...unless the us governement is going to start to bug every house in the us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but they can often find out where the phone was purchase, the time the person logged on in the cafe and then take a look at CCTV images. Most shops have CCTV inside these days, as well as cameras in the streets, car parks, on the roads. Not all is wiped and an image of you buying the phone, plus other information about calls made to or from it, location when making those calls(mobile companies keep this data and can work out the location a call or text was sent from GPS info) plus other information and evidence might be enough to identify a person.

 

Buy 20 Nokia 3310s second hand or abroad. Drive 30 miles to make a phone call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buy 20 Nokia 3310s second hand or abroad. Drive 30 miles to make a phone call.

use payphones...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth looking at what's (technologically) possible as opposed to merely what's legal.....

First up, I agree that the UK police aren't going to bother using advanced surveillance methods to track down Escorts fiddling their taxes...but if you're a drug dealer, human trafficker, terrorist etc the law isn't always going to hinder access.

 

In light of the PRISM leak, there's been a major discussion on punting forums here in the US about potential implications..and what with sex for sale being illegal there's been much speculation...some bordering on bug eyed conspiracy theory claptrap- but who knows these days!

 

Quick background- over here the cops don't need a warrant to trace 'burner' mobiles & in light of the Boston Bombing it (appears?!) that a long held speculation could be true: the authorities may be able to trace & probe any mobile phone call, even retrospectively! ) The US Federal authorities have been building a data storage facility in Utah in recent years that's the size of a mountain....only a decade ago it wouldn't have been feasible to record the sheer volume of calls/emails/web traffic...not so much now.

Although they've denied allowing government access (outside of executed warrants) the leaked info points to Google, FBook, PayPal and others being data scraped. Many UK residents use these services based on american servers & uncle sam doesn't give a wit about EU Privacy laws... this could get messy!

 

CP mentioned P.Wrights Spycatcher book above- great read & considering what it outlined when published in 1987, is it really any wonder that big brother can watch us so comprehensively in 2013?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The State" gives itself the power to keep us safe by taking away our privacy, then abuses that power to snoop on us for anything.

The justification given is generally along the lines of "if you're not doing anything wrong you've nothing to worry about."

For example the RIPA powers have been used to prosecute dog owners whose pets have fouled the streets and smokers for breaking the ban.  

 

Interesting huffington post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/21/local-councils-abusing-anti-terrorism-powers_n_1819715.html

 

CG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The State" gives itself the power to keep us safe by taking away our privacy, then abuses that power to snoop on us for anything.

The justification given is generally along the lines of "if you're not doing anything wrong you've nothing to worry about."

For example the RIPA powers have been used to prosecute dog owners whose pets have fouled the streets and smokers for breaking the ban.  

 

Interesting huffington post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/21/local-councils-abusing-anti-terrorism-powers_n_1819715.html

 

CG

Well "The People" then have the right to total government disclosure. Lets face it, if they are not doing anything wrong or illegal they dont have anything to worry about do they x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The State" gives itself the power to keep us safe by taking away our privacy, then abuses that power to snoop on us for anything.

The justification given is generally along the lines of "if you're not doing anything wrong you've nothing to worry about."

For example the RIPA powers have been used to prosecute dog owners whose pets have fouled the streets and smokers for breaking the ban.  

 

Interesting huffington post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/21/local-councils-abusing-anti-terrorism-powers_n_1819715.html

 

CG

 

That is my worry, RIPA has been abused. the new snoopers charter will be the same unless they restrict it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well "The People" then have the right to total government disclosure. Lets face it, if they are not doing anything wrong or illegal they dont have anything to worry about do they x

 

naughty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my opinion:

 

There will never be 100% privacy. Even if you use Tails OS, Tor Mail, and Bitcoins, there will always be a way of identifying you.

 

For example, you send an email using Tormail to someone at a certain time. The NSA knows everyone logged into a Tor node at that time. The next time you email that person, they have another list. It's only a matter of time before they narrow it down to you.

 

The very fact that you use a VPN or Tor may make you suspiscious to anyone spying. The content of what you are communicating is irrelevant. It's the pattern that matters. They tracked down Saddam by tracing back the mules carrying information back to him. I don't think anyone knew what the information itself was.

 

Also, if you send, for the sake of argument, hate emails as anonymous@tormail.org to a work acquaintance in Liverpool, then a university friend in Cambridge, then your mum in Sheffield, someone clever could work out who you are just by the people you email. Not so anonymous.

 

Because it is so easy for regular people to encrypt data with things like Truecrypt, the NSA doesn't bother to read what we write. Just by analysing the pattern of communication, they can identify suspiscious characters. Also, because they keep all the logs, they can retrospectively look into a person's communication from years back and see if that person was active at the times that the 'bad stuff' was going down.

 

It's fascinating stuff this, innit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well "The People" then have the right to total government disclosure. Lets face it, if they are not doing anything wrong or illegal they dont have anything to worry about do they x

 

That's lovely !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but they can often find out where the phone was purchase, the time the person logged on in the cafe and then take a look at CCTV images. Most shops have CCTV inside these days, as well as cameras in the streets, car parks, on the roads. Not all is wiped and an image of you buying the phone, plus other information about calls made to or from it, location when making those calls(mobile companies keep this data and can work out the location a call or text was sent from GPS info) plus other information and evidence might be enough to identify a person.

It doesn't have to be you buying the phone. I doubt if CCTV images are kept indefinitely. Even if they know what you look like they would find it very difficult to identify you. You can turn the mobile off when you're at home (lots of punters have a special mobile just for punting) and recharge it in the library.

 

Terrorists can meet face to face and just use code words when they want to co-ordinate activities. No reason for the authorities to suspect anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my opinion:

 

There will never be 100% privacy. Even if you use Tails OS, Tor Mail, and Bitcoins, there will always be a way of identifying you.

 

For example, you send an email using Tormail to someone at a certain time. The NSA knows everyone logged into a Tor node at that time. The next time you email that person, they have another list. It's only a matter of time before they narrow it down to you.

 

The very fact that you use a VPN or Tor may make you suspiscious to anyone spying. The content of what you are communicating is irrelevant. It's the pattern that matters. They tracked down Saddam by tracing back the mules carrying information back to him. I don't think anyone knew what the information itself was.

 

Also, if you send, for the sake of argument, hate emails as anonymous@tormail.org to a work acquaintance in Liverpool, then a university friend in Cambridge, then your mum in Sheffield, someone clever could work out who you are just by the people you email. Not so anonymous.

 

Because it is so easy for regular people to encrypt data with things like Truecrypt, the NSA doesn't bother to read what we write. Just by analysing the pattern of communication, they can identify suspiscious characters. Also, because they keep all the logs, they can retrospectively look into a person's communication from years back and see if that person was active at the times that the 'bad stuff' was going down.

 

It's fascinating stuff this, innit?

That's so true, the more sophisticated the counter surveilance measures are, the greater the behaviour signature which reduces the likelihood of achieving anonymity.

CG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The police don't do work for other agencies. They investigate criminal matters. The things you list are for HMRC and local authorities to worry about. The police also currently have to apply for a warrant to access data records, in order to get one of these granted they have to show good reason ie serious crime not the sort of things a local council is responsible for chasing up. Change of use requires specific changes to have been made to the property and the type of activities the business will attract, along with a whole host of other criteria which many people working from home in a variety of businesses do not actually meet - same goes for the commercial waste thing. 

 

RIPA was introduced in the UK to enable legal investigation of the most serious of criminal activity. Hard to argue against attempts to keep it safe...

 

The biggest users of RIPA have been local councils, investigating refuse collection issues, people make false declarations on schools admission forms, etc. It gets abused! The previous government was one of the least respecting of civil liberties in the UK in modern times.

 

To quote Benjamin Franklin... "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that an element of paranoia is taking hold here. Information gathering has been going on all our lifetimes, it has just become more sophisticated as the technology we use grows.

With 60 million plus mobile phones , at least that amount of e mail addresses and all other things like bbm, whatsapp etc, the data flying around must be immeasurable.

I really think that the police have bigger fish to fry than waste energy on men visiting escorts which is not even illegal. Also the rules on Ripa have been tightened..

Moss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of how a law that was meant for one thing is used for something completely different. Mark Lancaster was convicted of voyeurism and 'trafficking women for sexual exploitation'. He pretended to be recruiting female students for sex work, he got them to have sex with him for free and filmed them. He is guilty of something, I don't think he's an innocent, but nobody has explained how this is in any way related to anything that a normal person could call trafficking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see nothing wrong with that conviction.

Trafficking need not be by force, it can be by trickery. This scumbag was trying to con students into having sex in return for ( non existant) financial gain ie paying their tuition fees. As they were students travelling to see him, that could be called trafficking.

I fail to see what is wrong with applying existent laws to keep people like him off the streets.

Moss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that an element of paranoia is taking hold here. Information gathering has been going on all our lifetimes, it has just become more sophisticated as the technology we use grows.

With 60 million plus mobile phones , at least that amount of e mail addresses and all other things like bbm, whatsapp etc, the data flying around must be immeasurable.

I really think that the police have bigger fish to fry than waste energy on men visiting escorts which is not even illegal. Also the rules on Ripa have been tightened..

Moss

While I fully agree that it's easy to get unnecessarily paranoid about this stuff, esp given the benign UK legal escorting environment, a few related observations:

 

The amount of information...or more specifically the ability to both store & process it is no longer 'immeasurable'- a decade ago, yes but with compression tech & advancement of algorithmic data diving, not any more.

 

It's a fair observation that the cops have much bigger priorities & for 'regular' punters (unless you also happen to be a drug/human trafficker or jihadist etc), they're never going to tap you on the shoulder.....But here's a thing, as has been seen in recent years in USA- that 'watch-list' is no longer confined to just aforementioned categories. Elliott Spitzer got caught via snooping on his financial transactions (appreciate that specific case wouldn't be pursued in UK but bear with me here)...say the Inland Revenue was after a guy for back taxes & work out he's renting all his rental flats to Escorts, who knows where that could land in future.

 

Broader point being that it's gotten much easier for the authorities to spy on citizens via phone/email/money flows & other pattern recognition methods; If the current laws aren't wholly confined to what they're supposed to target (serious crime/terrorism prevention) this may lead to regular punters getting (albeit peripherally) swept into a broader net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I fully agree that it's easy to get unnecessarily paranoid about this stuff, esp given the benign UK legal escorting environment, a few related observations:

 

The amount of information...or more specifically the ability to both store & process it is no longer 'immeasurable'- a decade ago, yes but with compression tech & advancement of algorithmic data diving, not any more.

 

It's a fair observation that the cops have much bigger priorities & for 'regular' punters (unless you also happen to be a drug/human trafficker or jihadist etc), they're never going to tap you on the shoulder.....But here's a thing, as has been seen in recent years in USA- that 'watch-list' is no longer confined to just aforementioned categories. Elliott Spitzer got caught via snooping on his financial transactions (appreciate that specific case wouldn't be pursued in UK but bear with me here)...say the Inland Revenue was after a guy for back taxes & work out he's renting all his rental flats to Escorts, who knows where that could land in future.

 

Broader point being that it's gotten much easier for the authorities to spy on citizens via phone/email/money flows & other pattern recognition methods; If the current laws aren't wholly confined to what they're supposed to target (serious crime/terrorism prevention) this may lead to regular punters getting (albeit peripherally) swept into a broader net.

The family of Stephen Lawrence were spied on by undercover police. London Greenpeace were infiltrated by an undercover policeman and he was co-author of a leaflet that got London Greenpeace into a libel case. "Mr Lambert is under investigation for sexual relationships with four women while undercover, fathering a child with one of them before he left in 1989."

 

In neither case are we talking about terrorists or criminals. These are peaceful people who are victims of undercover police. So don't think that the police would never be interested in you. "If you have nothing to hide, then you've got nothing to fear" they say. More like if you don't have an opinion on anything, don't bother to vote, don't read newspapers, don't give a damn about the effect of any of the purchases you make, then you have nothing to fear. Anyone who thinks, anyone who cares, anyone who is a campaigner, or anyone who embarrasses the government or security services or the police will be targeted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see nothing wrong with that conviction.

Trafficking need not be by force, it can be by trickery. This scumbag was trying to con students into having sex in return for ( non existant) financial gain ie paying their tuition fees. As they were students travelling to see him, that could be called trafficking.

I fail to see what is wrong with applying existent laws to keep people like him off the streets.

Moss

They travelled to see him, so that's trafficking? I don't understand that. Are you working on the principle that he's a bastard so society should treat him as badly as possible because he deserves it and more, so it doesn't matter what is done to him? Even if the law doesn't make any sense? There are plenty of people who feel that way about punters. Think of Harriet Harman and her desire to close down PunterNet.

 

Trafficking should involve people being held against their will. Otherwise you are just trivializing the word and making the fight against genuine trafficking more difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Obama was talking about how  the National Security Agency has been keeping secret databases of Americans’ electronic and telephonic communications.

 

 

He says that we need to have this to protect people from terrorism. What he said doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

I can go into any one of hundreds of internet cafes all over London and open a Googlemail account. So can any terrorist or career criminal. Nobody can link that Gogglemail account to me.

 

I can go into a shop and buy a cheap pay-as-you-go mobile phone. Nobody in the shop will make me fill in a form and check the information against my passport.

 

So it seems to me that anyone can have '100 percent privacy' should they choose to do so. Terrorists and criminals can meet face to face to plan their evil deeds. They can refrain from typing words like 'bomb' when they email each other anonymously and use pre-agreed replacement words if they need to.

 

I don't see how this is going to prevent terrorism. I think it will be used against ordinary people. Just like the 'money laundering' law is used against sex workers and sex shop owners. Just like the 'extreme pornography' law which is used against anyone who has on their computer a video of a woman doing something naughty to her pony.

 

As far as I can see, anyone with a bit of intelligence can have 100 percent privacy. Most people who want to use the internet from their homes won't have it and could lose out.

you go into an internet cafe and open a gmail account. At that moment the IP and all the other details are logged. Then these can be cross referenced with CCTV in the store or around that neighbourhood, and the location of any active telephone in the same location can be logged. This repeated whenever you log into that account and bingo they will find you. 

 

Anonymity requires real and constant discipline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0