Britain’s MI6 chief warns of ‘unprecedented’ terror threat to UK

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, YeahSiam said:

 

Maybe, maybe not but I doubt my activities and my desire to enhance my privacy come as high up on their list of priorities as international terrorism.

 

I'd say RuamRudy has it right. It's more about control than anything else.

[impulse]

12 minutes ago, YeahSiam said:

If those "great big computers" that can "do anything in the electronic world" were any good, how is it that they've consistently and categorically failed to intercept communications between terrorist cells plotting attacks in Paris, Brussels or even on their own soil?

 

Perhaps because when everyone is targeted for special scrutiny, nobody is, really.  Forgetting the privacy issues, keeping a close eye on everybody is pretty exhausting.  Even for supercomputers.

[YeahSiam]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd say RuamRudy has it right. It's more about control than anything else.

Look, we could go around in circles on this issue forever and a day but I'm happy with the steps I've taken to enhance my privacy.

You go ahead and access the internet through unshielded connections if you like.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, YeahSiam said:

Look, we could go around in circles on this issue forever and a day but I'm happy with the steps I've taken to enhance my privacy.

You go ahead and access the internet through unshielded connections if you like.

I assume there is no such thing as working encryption and don't put anything on I don't want someone to see.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Perhaps because when everyone is targeted for special scrutiny, nobody is, really.  Forgetting the privacy issues, keeping a close eye on everybody is pretty exhausting.  Even for supercomputers.

Of course they don't check on EVERYONE. That would be impossible given the billions of e mails alone.

I think it's well known the computers search for key words or patterns.

The people that would get checked by a human being would be everyone that is connected to a known suspect.

[YeahSiam]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

I assume there is no such thing as working encryption and don't put anything on I don't want someone to see.

 

I've seen a hacker intercept naked wi-fi signals sent across wireless networks and I've seen the difference when a software VPN is used so I don't need to assume anything.

The evidence was right there.

 

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I assume there is no such thing as working encryption and don't put anything on I don't want someone to see.

 

That's a start- and that's my strategy with emails and posting- but then there's those algorithms that can torpedo you.  (My post #40)

[impulse]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course they don't check on EVERYONE. That would be impossible given the billions of e mails alone.

I think it's well known the computers search for key words or patterns.

The people that would get checked by a human being would be everyone that is connected to a known suspect.

 

Impossible today, maybe.  But they can hoover up everything, and save it for the day the technology makes it very possible.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎10‎.‎12‎.‎2016 at 1:27 AM, The manic said:

They are doing the wrong thing. we might as well be living in a Muslim dictatorship .  the next bill going through parliament is to censor sex on the Internet .  Pathetic.

Yes to pathetic, but who in their right mind is going to ever log onto a sex site knowing that doing so is recorded for ever? Just imagine someone in 20 years time wanting to be a politician, and getting a blackmail threat about how they used to watch "anal babes in a threesome with a goat" or some such 30 years ago.

For an example, just look at the insanity that occurred when Trump was outed for talking with Billy about groupies.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Porn websites in the UK will be banned from showing a huge range of sex acts under proposed new law

 

I can find no mention anywhere of this being demanded, or even requested, by any Muslim organisation or individual.

 

Perhaps you can do so; or is your comment nothing more than an ignorant assumption based upon prejudice?

He doesn't say that Muslim organisations are demanding it, he is saying that it will be like living in a Muslim country if it is passed. As one that has lived in a Muslim country, that would be a very bad thing for any right minded person, IMO.

[impulse]

22 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

...about how they used to watch "anal babes in a threesome with a goat" or some such 30 years ago.

 

I thought I took that one down...  Damn the interweb!

[soalbundy]

On 12/9/2016 at 0:53 PM, RuamRudy said:

 

But no government has detected any plot through their mass surveilance programs. They simply cannot keep you safe through the collection and indefinite storage of anyone's private online activity.

 

You have every right to object to being subject to a terrorist attack, but the snooper's charter will do absolutely nothing to prevent any attack in the future. You have given away yours and your descendents' right to privacy because you fell for a cynical lie. This law is there to be used against you, not the threat they pretend to be fighting.

Mr Alex Younger said that MI5 has disrupted 12 terrorist attempts in the UK, i don't think this was done by lip reading 

[impulse]

23 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Mr Alex Younger said that MI5 has disrupted 12 terrorist attempts in the UK, i don't think this was done by lip reading 

 

Kind of convenient that they can't tell us how they did it, what kind of plots they were, who was involved, or how many millions of innocent people's privacy rights they had to violate to stop those 12 alleged plots.  

 

Or how many of those 12 plots were like the TVF posters who talk trash about taking revenge on anyone who would dare to disrespect them, with absolutely no intention to follow through.  Thai police could clean up preventing attacks here on TVF if they took every threat seriously.  The BIB could use those successes to scare the public and  increase their anti-terror budgets by billions of baht.   We'd lose about half of the members, though.

[thaibeachlovers]

32 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Mr Alex Younger said that MI5 has disrupted 12 terrorist attempts in the UK, i don't think this was done by lip reading 

It could have been done by undercover agents. I doubt that we will ever know how.

[RuamRudy]

21 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Mr Alex Younger said that MI5 has disrupted 12 terrorist attempts in the UK, i don't think this was done by lip reading 

 

On a superficial level, I would respond with a remark such as 'well, he would say that, wouldn't he?'.  But if you google 'How many terrorist plots has mass surveillance stopped?' you will find plenty of articles from credible sources which say that, at most, it has merely assisted in cases where the authorities were initially alerted through more traditional policing methods. Conversely, you will find no evidence to back up his statement.

 

However I am, obviously, unable to disprove him, but if you are prepared to look below the headlines and comprehend just exactly what powers the IPA confers, it should surely ring alarm bells. For example, our government is now legally allowed to lie in court without consequence, meaning that anyone who faces prosecution based upon those lies cannot counter those claims.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Kind of convenient that they can't tell us how they did it, what kind of plots they were, who was involved, or how many millions of innocent people's privacy rights they had to violate to stop those 12 alleged plots.  

 

Or how many of those 12 plots were like the TVF posters who talk trash about taking revenge on anyone who would dare to disrespect them, with absolutely no intention to follow through.  Thai police could clean up preventing attacks here on TVF if they took every threat seriously.  The BIB could use those successes to scare the public and  increase their anti-terror budgets by billions of baht.   We'd lose about half of the members, though.

If the cops were to arrest a TVF poster in LOS I think the political forum would lose every poster that is in, or intending to visit, LOS.

[impulse]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If the cops were to arrest a TVF poster in LOS I think the political forum would lose every poster that is in, or intending to visit, LOS.

 

If it's anything like the OP, they wouldn't have to reveal that they're being arrested based on anything related to TVF.  

 

All we'd know is that they foiled a terror plot.  Imagine the TVF feeding frenzy on that one...

[RuamRudy]

Just now, impulse said:

 

If it's anything like the OP, they wouldn't have to reveal that they're being arrested based on anything related to TVF.  

 

All we'd know is that they foiled a terror plot.  Imagine the TVF feeding frenzy on that one...

 

I think it could be even more subtle than that. As most TV posters probably wouldn't fit the ISIS demographic, there are myriad other ways they can get you.

 

That backdoor which they have forced Microsoft to install and made it illegal for anyone to ackowledge, allows for them to log onto your computer and stick a few MB of highly illegal photos into some dark recess of your hard drive. All they need to then is to alert another government agency of the photos' existence, stand back and watch the results.

[CharlieK]

5 hours ago, YeahSiam said:

 

I didn't search the web for privacy-enhancing software.

 

you didn't read the article did you? if you use a VPN or TOR you have been tagged by the NSA.

 

[soalbundy]

9 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

 

you didn't read the article did you? if you use a VPN or TOR you have been tagged by the NSA.

 

who cares, i would be a waste of time for them. I use a VPN because it was offered to me by my ant-virus program.

[soalbundy]

3 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Kind of convenient that they can't tell us how they did it, what kind of plots they were, who was involved, or how many millions of innocent people's privacy rights they had to violate to stop those 12 alleged plots.  

 

Or how many of those 12 plots were like the TVF posters who talk trash about taking revenge on anyone who would dare to disrespect them, with absolutely no intention to follow through.  Thai police could clean up preventing attacks here on TVF if they took every threat seriously.  The BIB could use those successes to scare the public and  increase their anti-terror budgets by billions of baht.   We'd lose about half of the members, though.

It would be pretty stupid to tell the terrorists by way of a newspaper report how they managed to scupper their attacks.

[CharlieK]

9 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

who cares, i would be a waste of time for them. I use a VPN because it was offered to me by my ant-virus program.

 

I don't care either, but it would be naive to think they couldn't track you if they wanted to. I doubt very much that they would track any normal user of the internet who uses TOR or a VPN. But they could if they wanted to or thought you might be up to something nefarious.     

 

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by CharlieK

[7by7]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He doesn't say that Muslim organisations are demanding it, he is saying that it will be like living in a Muslim country if it is passed. As one that has lived in a Muslim country, that would be a very bad thing for any right minded person, IMO.

 

His point was clear; he was implying that the move to block certain pornographic sites is being proposed to appease Muslims when it is actually being proposed to protect children.

 

Many people say it is heavy handed and it is up to parents to monitor and control what their children view, whether on the net, TV, DVD wherever. A sentiment with which I have much sympathy.

 

Of course many countries block websites of which they disapprove; Thailand for example.

[7by7]

Britain has foiled 10 terror attacks in two years, say police

Quote

(Senior national coordinator for counter-terrorism policing, Neil) Basu said: “We continue to work at a relentless pace with our key partners, currently dealing with around 550 live cases at any one time. The counter-terrorism network and security services have successfully foiled at least 10 attacks in the last two years, with 294 convictions for terror-related offences.”

 

The police and security service are not, of course, going to reveal exactly how they identified and located suspects and gathered the necessary evidence to obtain a conviction; but only a complete naïf would think that internet surveillance was not involved.

 

Of course, no matter how successful the security services are the chilling message from the IRA after they failed to kill Thatcher in the Brighton bombing is as true today as it was then: "Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once – you will have to be lucky always."

[YeahSiam]

22 hours ago, CharlieK said:

 

you didn't read the article did you? if you use a VPN or TOR you have been tagged by the NSA.

 

No why would I?

Who gives a toss what Trustedreviews thinks? Hardly authoritative, is it?

Anyway, you're welcome to keep making it up as you go along.

I guess one has to have something to do in Thailand

[dick dasterdly]

On 12/11/2016 at 9:49 AM, YeahSiam said:

Look, we could go around in circles on this issue forever and a day but I'm happy with the steps I've taken to enhance my privacy.

You go ahead and access the internet through unshielded connections if you like.

Does it really matter?

 

At the end of the day many of us are concerned about governments using these laws to gain access to all our internet information - even though we know that we are ordinary people of no interest to the surveillance authorities.

 

Let's be realistic, no terrorist in their right mind would mention a 'key' word that would be considered worthy of closer targeting!

[Sule9]

They had been doing their job very well compared to their US counter partsm

[dick dasterdly]

On 12/11/2016 at 11:22 AM, RuamRudy said:

 

On a superficial level, I would respond with a remark such as 'well, he would say that, wouldn't he?'.  But if you google 'How many terrorist plots has mass surveillance stopped?' you will find plenty of articles from credible sources which say that, at most, it has merely assisted in cases where the authorities were initially alerted through more traditional policing methods. Conversely, you will find no evidence to back up his statement.

 

However I am, obviously, unable to disprove him, but if you are prepared to look below the headlines and comprehend just exactly what powers the IPA confers, it should surely ring alarm bells. For example, our government is now legally allowed to lie in court without consequence, meaning that anyone who faces prosecution based upon those lies cannot counter those claims.

I think that's only true to a certain extent?

 

I'm thinking about a case more than a decade ago where a company was prosecuted for breaking the arms embargo - but the judge allowed some evidence to be provided (that the govt. had tried to have ruled inadmissible under the 'secrecy' laws) that showed the company was given the 'go ahead' by government agencies?

 

IIRC, the company was eventually acquitted.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

His point was clear; he was implying that the move to block certain pornographic sites is being proposed to appease Muslims when it is actually being proposed to protect children.

 

Many people say it is heavy handed and it is up to parents to monitor and control what their children view, whether on the net, TV, DVD wherever. A sentiment with which I have much sympathy.

 

Of course many countries block websites of which they disapprove; Thailand for example.

That's not how I read it at all. Whatever.

 

I'm sick of being restricted in what I can do or watch because some parents won't control their spoiled brats. PC gone insane.

[YeahSiam]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

Does it really matter?

 

At the end of the day many of us are concerned about governments using these laws to gain access to all our internet information - even though we know that we are ordinary people of no interest to the surveillance authorities.

 

Let's be realistic, no terrorist in their right mind would mention a 'key' word that would be considered worthy of closer targeting!

 

Yes it does matter.

If I can make it difficult - if not impossible - for people I don't trust (governments) to build a profile of me based on what I view online or what I put in my emails, and all it costs me $60 a year, I figure it's worthwhile.

If I can confound the efforts of the wi-fi sniffer/snooper out to get at passwords stored in my browser or out to steal my identity to enable fraudulent activity then, again, I figure it's worthwhile.

 

You say no terrorist would use a "keyword" but you're wrong.

Sure, the masterminds aren't stupid enough but the cannon fodder foot soldiers aren't particularly bright.