European Politics Thread.

[PELHAM 10]

If they can't process 1% of a single days data, how are they going to get through the storage? I am illustrating that their work has to be very targeted. They will only take an interest in a few suspects with very obvious criminal histories or activity. So yet again I ask, what are you worrying about? You are more likely to win the lottery than have someone at GCHQ read 1 of your emails.

Even if some of your emails are filtered and data mined - you think the PC's will gossip about you lol?

Edited April 2, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

You have now narrowed this all down to emails, you are now trolling, stop wasting precious thread time.

If they can't process 1% of a single days data, how are they going to get through the storage? I am illustrating that their work has to be very targetted. They will only take an interest in a few suspects with very obvious criminal histories or activity. So yet again I ask, what are you worrying about? You are more likely to win the lottery than have someone at GCHQ read 1 of your emails.

YES, and so ... why implement the storage of everyone? Are you getting it yet? Because, its not about searching for terrorists, as I said that's front end explanations. The data is the key. Your actually now admitting its not possible, yet you dont give a shit, yet this will be taken anyway and can be data mined later, and you STILL are focusing on a simplistic argument.

Even if some of your emails are filtered and data mined - you think the PC's will gossip about you lol?

I rest my case, sorry Pelham, lets agree to differ becuase your now entering the world of typing bollocks. :bounce3:

Edited April 2, 2012 by mrcash2009

[gammadust 12]

(...)

Lets put that number through further filters so we are dealing with known suspects and emails containing suspicious sentences, names and key words call it 1%.

10.42 days for 2000 people, working 24hours a day, to read just 1% of the emails sent in the UK each day. And that is just email, never mind phonecalls, forums, blogs, skype etc etc. The numbers are huge!

Now you realise why I find this ridiculous nonsense that is spread around about the government spying on your email so laughable. They don't have the capability to do anything but target a small number of people. Computers can filter it but you need people to do a final analysis and make a judgement. They aren't spying on everyone - it isn't possible.

Have you heard of Data Mining concept?

Data mining (the analysis step of the knowledge discovery in databases process,[1] or KDD), a relatively young and interdisciplinary field of computer science[2][3] is the process of discovering new patterns from large data sets involving methods at the intersection of artificial intelligence, machine learning, statistics and database systems.[2] The overall goal of the data mining process is to extract knowledge from a data set in a human-understandable structure[2] and besides the raw analysis step involves database and data management aspects, data preprocessing, model and inference considerations, interestingness metrics, complexity considerations, post-processing of found structure, visualization and online updating.

(...)

The actual data mining task is the automatic or semi-automatic analysis of large quantities of data to extract previously unknown interesting patterns such as groups of data records (cluster analysis), unusual records (anomaly detection) and dependencies (association rule mining). This usually involves using database techniques such as spatial indexes. These patterns can then be seen as a kind of summary of the input data, and used in further analysis or for example in machine learning and predictive analytics. For example, the data mining step might identify multiple groups in the data, which can then be used to obtain more accurate prediction results by a decision support system. Neither the data collection, data preparation nor result interpretation and reporting are part of the data mining step, but do belong to the overall KDD process as additional steps.

(...)

Subject-based data mining

"Subject-based data mining" is a data mining method involving the search for associations between individuals in data. In the context of combating terrorism, the National Research Council provides the following definition: "Subject-based data mining uses an initiating individual or other datum that is considered, based on other information, to be of high interest, and the goal is to determine what other persons or financial transactions or movements, etc., are related to that initiating datum."

But you could also go and read the rest of that wiki entry and understand how automatically one can be flagged as a subversive member of society, let me stress the keyword here... Automatically.

[PELHAM 10]

Have you heard of Data Mining concept?

But you could also go and read the rest of that wiki entry and understand how automatically one can be flagged as a subversive member of society, let me stress the keyword here... Automatically.

Yes that is how it's done. And if you get flagged as a subversive element - whats the worst they could do to you? Read your internet history, OMG! the shame of it.

[mrcash2009 0]

The article and the arguments for and against still stand, regardless of Pelhams one man comedy perspective. You wont ever get it mate, you truly wont.

[PELHAM 10]

You have yet to explain what the dire consequences of this are to me. What will happen to me if I am flagged as a subversive element by those tireless data miners at GCHQ? Will they read my email? Will someone sneak into my house and leave the toilet seat up? (The wife will blame me you know!)

[mrcash2009 0]

Funny how its all about you in that last post, my final post here to you and about this so it doesn't go off on one, you have taken it down to puerile silliness, and the subject really isnt, just PM your pointlessness posts that are just bating and worthless or leave it be (in reference to the one above), we all know where we stand.

Edited April 2, 2012 by mrcash2009

[Tonci87 163]

Pelham, its not only about you.

Lets put it this way: There is a country that is ruled by one mayor party for many years, that party wants to stay in power. Suddenly an oposition is formed and growing, threatening to win the next elections and organising protests against the old party. Government uses the internet to find the organsators of the oposition and to monitor them, or even jail them because of something.

[PELHAM 10]

Pelham, its not only about you.

Lets put it this way: There is a country that is ruled by one mayor party for many years, that party wants to stay in power. Suddenly an oposition is formed and growing, threatening to win the next elections and organising protests against the old party. Government uses the internet to find the organsators of the oposition and to monitor them, or even jail them because of something.

You're telling me this could happen in the UK? The government will use this to jail members of an opposition party? Seriously?

Remember we are talking about a UK law here. I can believe it could happen elsewhere.

Edited April 2, 2012 by PELHAM

[STALKERGB 6]

There is a reason I avoid politics threads but oh well...

People see what they want when they read articles. I know they do. Half of my job is making sure they do just that. Some people will see the monitoring story as "great we will be safer!" news others will see it as "the evil regime is here!" news. I've not read enough about it so won't take a personal stance but I do wonder sometimes why some people apparently think EVERYTHING the government seems to do is to fuck us over.

[st_dux 26]

Even if the immediate effects of the law are rather innocuous, a blanket warrantless spying law, which is what this sounds like, sets a very bad precedent. Law enforcement without judicial review is fascism, pretty much, and this is always how that door is opened. As the parable goes: Raise the temperature of the water slowly enough, and the frog won't realize it's being boiled alive until its too late.

[PELHAM 10]

Even if the immediate effects of the law are rather innocuous, a blanket warrantless spying law, which is what this sounds like, sets a very bad precedent. Law enforcement without judicial review is fascism, pretty much, and this is always how that door is opened. As the parable goes: Raise the temperature of the water slowly enough, and the frog won't realize it's being boiled alive until its too late.

It isn't warrantless, not done your homework? The legislation only allows the monitoring of traffic, a warrant is required to access the content of communications. Since when is spying law enforcement? Also, it is reviewed by a panel of elected representatives and the independent Office of the Information Commissioner.

Here is another parable: The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Edited April 3, 2012 by PELHAM

[batto 17]

I do wonder sometimes why some people apparently think EVERYTHING the government seems to do is to fuck us over.

That's too general. I just think that some of those in charge hates free speech and democracy because critique and elections are not fun (which is OK according to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince).

[nettrucker 142]

There is a reason I avoid politics threads but oh well...

People see what they want when they read articles. I know they do. Half of my job is making sure they do just that. Some people will see the monitoring story as "great we will be safer!" news others will see it as "the evil regime is here!" news. I've not read enough about it so won't take a personal stance but I do wonder sometimes why some people apparently think EVERYTHING the government seems to do is to fuck us over.

Because this is what history has taught us. The worst enemy of a nation has and always will be their own government.

[PELHAM 10]

Because this is what history has taught us. The worst enemy of a nation has and always will be their own government.

Has it really? Does that apply to some nations more than others? Maybe it doesn't apply at all in some cases? I think you might have to think that through again.

[mrcash2009 0]

I've not read enough about it so won't take a personal stance but I do wonder sometimes why some people apparently think EVERYTHING the government seems to do is to fuck us over.

I couldn't help but highlight your post here, read it backwards and forwards :) No one said EVERYTHING, but lets face it monitoring "Everyone" by default whether or not you have done anything anyway (with the option to data mine it for 2 years or not) is not far off. Please list where the government has helped its people and its been a complete success? Please list where the government "serving its people" is sticking to that? Cuts, demonising the poor, attacking the middle class, there wont be a middle class later, simply Elite/Super Rich .... everyone else.

Pelham you make me laugh mate now, are you posting for the sake of getting the last word in? Copy & paste Parables, all knowing assumptions that your government somehow is immune from corruption and anything like "others are", haha, you crack me up, couldn't not take you serious from this point onwards. You are a great example of how corruption will rule because your so blind not to even see it, even in its most obvious form. Its either that or your playing a forum game of "let me say the opposite" just to get your post stats up, not sure :)

Fun times ahead.

Edited April 3, 2012 by mrcash2009

[Tonci87 163]

FPDR Pelham you really don´t seem to understand it, I think the discussion might be pointless.

[PELHAM 10]

Pelham you make me laugh mate now, are you posting for the sake of getting the last word in? Copy & paste Parables, all knowing assumptions that your government somehow is immune from corruption and anything like "others are", haha, you crack me up, couldn't not take you serious from this point onwards. You are a great example of how corruption will rule because your so blind not to even see it, even in its most obvious form. Its either that or your playing a forum game of "let me say the opposite" just to get your post stats up, not sure :)

Fun times ahead.

No government is immune from corruption. I was not the first to post parables, I thought you might like that one lol. I am still waiting for someone to tell me how this is going to bring about the end of life here in the UK as we know it. If I am blind please open my eyes. all the tall tales so far don't add up.

For your info here is the policy document:

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/cyber-security-strategy

(caution - government website - do not visit without wearing your tinfoil hat)

---------- Post added at 01:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------

FPDR Pelham you really don´t seem to understand it, I think the discussion might be pointless.

Explain it then, you said the UK government will use this to imprison opposition politicians!?? How is that going to happen? You are telling me that later this year the UK will turn into a 1 party dictatorship. If I have missed something let me know?

The above policy document was published in it's first form under the last government in 2009. So all 3 main parties have now had this as official policy (present Gov seem to have u-turned on it).

Edited April 3, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how this is going to bring about the end of life here in the UK as we know it.

Your wording, no one elses.

If I am blind please open my eyes

....

You are telling me that later this year the UK will turn into a 1 party dictatorship. If I have missed something let me know?

You have to be joking now, please Pelham, tell me your just saying this to get a rise?

Edited April 3, 2012 by mrcash2009

[st_dux 26]

It isn't warrantless, not done your homework? The legislation only allows the monitoring of traffic, a warrant is required to access the content of communications. Since when is spying law enforcement? Also, it is reviewed by a panel of elected representatives and the independent Office of the Information Commissioner.

To be honest, no, I haven't really done my homework on this law; I was basing my post on the news snippets posted here. If a warrant is required to access the content of communications, this isn't as bad as I originally thought, although I am curious as to how one can monitor traffic without accessing any content.

[mrcash2009 0]

If a warrant is required to access the content of communications, this isn't as bad as I originally thought

That's all in place already ... so why this open "version" .. this is the thing to look at more than anything. We already have security in place, point is, it wants to push further and further.

[PELHAM 10]

To be honest, no, I haven't really done my homework on this law; I was basing my post on the news snippets posted here. If a warrant is required to access the content of communications, this isn't as bad as I originally thought, although I am curious as to how one can monitor traffic without accessing any content.

Well an analogy that is being used is GCHQ are reading the address labels on the communications, from, to and time taken, how often etc. It's sort of the equivalent of your local postman reading the adresses on your envelopes and noting how much mail you get and who from, although they get much more than he would as they get the two way traffic and much else. The Governments argument is that if your postman doesn't need a warrant to read the outside of your envelopes why should they when collecting that sort of data from electronic comms? If they notice suspicious patterns and your name is linked to some sort of crime I imagine they will then get a court order to dig further.

What this is mainly about is that all this info will have to be stored by ISPs at government expence. This law will put the funding and hardware in place along with the data links to GCHQ. Where they never get this sort of thing right is explaining the safeguards. The data will be protected from the Gov by warrant and from the ISP by the Data Protection Act. Hopefully the Information Commissioner will get his act togther and give some clarity to this after Easter.

[mrcash2009 0]

I found this article very interesting:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/backlash-over-plans-to-monitor-all-internet-use-7609010.html

Internet companies will also reportedly be told to install hardware allowing GCHQ to examine "on demand" any phone call made, text message or email sent and website accessed, in "real time" and without a warrant. Similar proposals were abandoned in 2009 by the Labour government.

Interesting mixed bag of reports, we shall see wont we. I name it the "one shaft fits all" method, but, again, we shall see how long this drags on until slowly its open season (your childrens future).

Where they never get this sort of thing right is explaining the safeguards.

Funny that isnt it.

Hopefully the Information Commissioner will get his act togther and give some clarity to this after Easter.

He is compromised to only say the official line, so I already expect the good cop version and the sugar coated "to keep you safe" mantra using lots of terrorist and bad people stats. Although this will be interested to see unfold, a bit like the whole Murdoch inevitable outcome over time ... im being cynical now, lets just say im looking at my watch :)

Edited April 3, 2012 by mrcash2009

[batto 17]

Well an analogy that is being used is GCHQ are reading the address labels on the communications, from, to and time taken, how often etc. It's sort of the equivalent of your local postman reading the adresses on your envelopes and noting how much mail you get and who from, although they get much more than he would as they get the two way traffic and much else. The Governments argument is that if your postman doesn't need a warrant to read the outside of your envelopes why should they when collecting that sort of data from electronic comms? If they notice suspicious patterns and your name is linked to some sort of crime I imagine they will then get a court order to dig further.

This is complete bullshit that may score maybe on Fox News. It's seems that you actually don't know how are things encoded and transmitted so please do you homework first and then please explain to me:

1. What will they be actually looking at?

2. How can they notice suspicious activity from it?

3. How can they get my name from it?

Thank you.

[PELHAM 10]

He is compromised to only say the official line, so I already expect the good cop version and the sugar coated "to keep you safe" mantra using lots of terrorist and bad people stats. Although this will be interested to see unfold, a bit like the whole Murdoch inevitable outcome over time ... im being cynical now, lets just say im looking at my watch :)

The independent thing is at odds with what the policy is, the Govmt say they are only looking at live statistics, who it's from, who it's sent to etc.

Why is the Information Commisioner compromised? It's an independent office and is usually very critical. You will be able to see just how hard they work in the public interest from their website:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/

---------- Post added at 03:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 AM ----------

This is complete bullshit

If you don't know and can't work it out for yourself why don't you email GCHQ directly and ask them? Address is on the website ;) Also look up analogy in a dictionary - I know that it isn't encoded that way lol.

They will be using the header fields - the header field displays all the info they want, the ISP has a record of your name, address and bank details and will provide that info once a warrant is received. Why bother with the content when all this juicy info is in the header?

Received: from lists.securityfocus.com (lists.securityfocus.com [205.206.231.19])

by outgoing2.securityfocus.com (Postfix) with QMQP

id 7E9971460C9; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 08:01:36 -0700 (MST)

Mailing-List: contact forensics-help@securityfocus.com; run by ezmlm

Precedence: bulk

List-Id: <forensics.list-id.securityfocus.com>

List-Post: <mailto:forensics@securityfocus.com>

List-Help: <mailto:forensics-help@securityfocus.com>

List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:forensics-unsubscribe@securityfocus.com>

List-Subscribe: <mailto:forensics-subscribe@securityfocus.com>

Delivered-To: mailing list forensics@securityfocus.com

Delivered-To: moderator for forensics@securityfocus.com

Received: (qmail 20564 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2012 16:11:57 -0000

From: YJesus <yjesus@security-projects.com>

To: forensics@securityfocus.com

Subject: New Tool : Unhide

User-Agent: KMail/1.9

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Disposition: inline

Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 16:41:30 +0100

Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Message-Id: <200601051641.31830.yjesus@security-projects.com>

X-HE-Spam-Level: /

X-HE-Spam-Score: 0.0

X-HE-Virus-Scanned: yes

Status: RO

Content-Length: 586

Lines: 26

Edited April 4, 2012 by PELHAM