European Politics Thread.

[batto 17]

the Govmt say they are only looking at live statistics, who it's from, who it's sent to etc.

Why bother with the content when all this juicy info is in the header?

The analogy with real mail is pure fantasy. If the content is just 4 bytes after last header what stops them from looking at it? There's no way to verify. Ok, so they'll get my name from ISP. How will they deal with VPNs and proxies? And most importantly: how will they deal with SSL? You know, when I'm doing my e-mail via Gmail for example. How can they read my jihad emails (or headers)?

I know it's inevitable but I hate your Fox News attitude. Why don't you say "right, in the end they'll monitor everything and we'll be safer" instead of "they'll monitor just this harmless thing so it's ok for you and we'll be safer"?

Edited April 4, 2012 by batto

[Baff1 0]

Google already hands them over everything upon request.

[mrcash2009 0]

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:

True, although there actual powers in order to stop it, based on the terrorist mantra will make them back down or at most compromise, its the scape goat of the decade for most things to do with invading privacy. What you will probably see is a sidelined diluted version under a different approach, kind of like whats been happening with SOPA/SOCA and so on. Push me pull me type of effect, in the end its more push slowly over the line in stages. Being critical doesn't get results, the only way would be awareness and people simply pulling the plug in protest or pressure at ISP level, but its too far gone for any of that these days (all in one tv phone and net packages and so on).

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?

And yet AGAIN, this is already in place, soooooooooo ..... why this blanket everyone version needed? You still not getting it are you Pelham. Everything you post about GCHQ is all known, this isn't about that, this is about hardware implementation for data on the fly and the big wobble of the warrant aspect and actual trust in it becuase we are told that's the case. How are you or anyone going to know you were mined or checked?

I dont see them sending you a nice letter to just explain the reasons, you will know nothing about it, and as such you wont know if they stick to the guides or not, but then as you stated right at the start you "dont give a shit" ref being mined for anything, so in actual fact im unsure why it bothers you to post more about it. Than again, those who do question it are hiding something, so the brainwash goes these days. Actually if that was the case then the ICO need to be first on the list, as they are questioning this damn them.

Pelham, Officer Gatekeeper at you service, no compromised contract needed (I joke) :)

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.

If you check into it they would be implementing the hardware in order to have the data on the fly, and its that hardware and implementation that is the interesting part of it & not really to do with Pelhams age old view of data searching that is already in place and known of. But for national security I doubt they will disclose too much to us about it (kind of a joke).

Edited April 4, 2012 by mrcash2009

[Baff1 0]

I don't give a shit because I see it as a battle already lost.

The solution is not to attempt oversight over the government that rules us, the solution is to find other methods of communication faster than they can respond to us doing so.

Freedom is a kind of arms race.

When they attempt to control something that we enjoyed doing freely, we just find something else to do that they don't yet know about.

[PELHAM 10]

If the content is just 4 bytes after last header what stops them from looking at it?

Well all of the following are possible:

1. They are under strict instructions to close their eyes if they accidentally scroll below the header.

2. A man in a brown coat from maintenance removed all of the scroll wheels with a pair of pliers.

3. They have designed the software/ hardware to retrieve/show nothing but the headers unless a senior supervisor puts in a password when authorised by a warrant.

Like you all say it boils down to whether you trust them to do what they say on this. I do, you don't. I live on a small island where the population are so nosey they all invade each others privacy every day by a factor 1000% greater than GCHQ ever will. If you could do something about the wierd old lady from down the street that peers into everyone's lounge for 10 mins while walking her dog I would be most grateful. I might call liberty about it. That coffin dodger is far more of a menace than GCHQ will ever be to me.

Edited April 4, 2012 by PELHAM

[batto 17]

@PELHAM: Whatever. They'll have real-time access to everything. Whatever you read on news doesn't really matter (will there be any boundaries for ARMA protocol? LOL). Do you know that in China you can't learn truth about communism from Internet? Of course you do...

[PELHAM 10]

@PELHAM: Whatever. They'll have real-time access to everything. Whatever you read on news doesn't really matter (will there be any boundaries for ARMA protocol? LOL). Do you know that in China you can't learn truth about communism from Internet? Of course you do...

UK != China

Lets say you are right. Once this happens GCHQ will have real time access to everything. How will I be affected? I'm still not sure exactly what I'm supposed to be affraid of?

Edited April 4, 2012 by PELHAM

[Tonci87 163]

[PELHAM 10]

Lots of face palms no tangible counter arguments? So this law is bad because it gives the corrupt oppressive UK regime more powers to oppress the people. Right I get it now - so if I were to pack up and leave to claim assylum somewhere else. Where do I go that's better?

[mrcash2009 0]

Lots of face palms no tangible counter arguments?

There are many things you smooth over with whats been posted of late too, so thats your style, "counter argument me" ... so this will be a thread 60 foot long soon then :)

So this law is bad because it gives the corrupt oppressive UK regime more powers to oppress the people. Right I get it now - so if I were to pack up and leave to claim assylum somewhere else. Where do I go that's better?

I like how you over emphasis with flippent comments to it all, and yet you say these things and we are looking at a specific subject. You come out with these blanket remarks that are just not worth the point they are making. more over reactive than the people your addressing.

3. They have designed the software/ hardware to retrieve/show nothing but the headers unless a senior supervisor puts in a password when authorised by a warrant.

Are you an insider? Are you a whistleblower? Do you work on the inside? If not ... this is what you have been given as the answer, yet we still have an issue of "warrent" and we still will not know the nature of the hardware or how it is used. In fact, you know as much as me about it or anyone else here, and you certainly dont know or even bother to acknowledge that we are talking about the NEW implementations, NOT what we already know exists.

Like you all say it boils down to whether you trust them to do what they say on this. I do, you don't.

So let it all go then, and join the happy folk that are ok with it, and let other people have concerns without being flippant to them all the time with your vast knowledge and insider information. After all you dropped the ball as soon as you started throwing "tin foil" into all of this, isnt that trolling?

Edited April 4, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

I don't know that for certain and didn't claim to - I said it's possible, if you are going to selectively quote things and then attempt to change the meaning that is a very underhand thing to do.

I have asked the same simple question a dozen times over now - what exactly is wrong with this and how will it affect me?

I'm not looking for you to pick apart word for word everything I write - just tell me why I should be concerned. What is wrong with this and how will it affect me? That is all you have to do mrcash. Here we are 6 pages further on and you still can't tell us why we should be worried.

[mrcash2009 0]

I don't know that for certain and didn't claim to - I said it's possible

No, you have clearly stated a number of times this GCHQ information is what you have learned in order for this new situation to be ok with you and used that header info to backup your point about what they will and wont do to make it ok, and as I was trying to point out with my way of putting it, you and I dont "know" and therefore should be careful to assume its all ok (that being the point of accepting it is or not).

just tell me why I should be concerned. What is wrong with this and how will it affect me? That is all you have to do mrcash.

Stop playing forum games Pelham, its now getting ridiculous. Every article out, every comment about the issues is clear for anyone to see for themselves, trying to pin on me a way to discredit by me now telling you this so "somehow" you will have an agreement on it is pathetic. We have come to a conclusion, you are ok with it, others are not.

I never came to this thread to persuade you of anything mate, I posted a valid article of concerns that is EU politics related, you think its ok, ok ... you dont think its ok fine, but if you think its ok and then justify it by only talking about a small part of it and then thats your way to tell others its ok isnt working for you.

A quote for you Pelham : "A Prison Without Bars" ... just becuase something doesn't effect you physical doesn't mean it doesn't exist and all is well for the future, it doest matter how you see it right now, as its not about YOU its about later on.

Edited April 4, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

Welcome UK to the stasi land.

You started off with that mrcash, I was simply hoping at some point you would get around to justifying it.

So to sum up, I should be worried in case this eventually leads to something worse. The mechanics of how we get there and the precise nature of the 'bogey man' are still undefined?

[vilas 477]

Quote Originally Posted by STALKERGB View Post

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.

+1000

great sentence nettrucker ! i should add + for this sentence

of course if people would look at history with more sense and open eyes, they would see that every gov (since ancient ages) had only one mission - to rule, to spend tax money on their own luxury, to have fun for your taxes forced by armed knights, army, police etc.

most of wars in history were due to small group of very greed fuckers, noone in our countries wanted to fight with each other, it was all propaganda or forced recruits etc.

in history there is a turning wheel, from one kind of feudalism by revolt to another back to feudalism in other form,

what is feudalism in other form - nobles replaced by banksters or like in post-commie states nobles replaced by ex-special service officers who turned into criminals,

people from time to time do revolution when oppression is too big, so as people's rage is coming down, than new elite want to push people to the ground, force them to work more and more and more for "elites"

[mrcash2009 0]

You started off with that mrcash, I was simply hoping at some point you would get around to justifying it.

So to sum up, I should be worried in case this eventually leads to something worse. The mechanics of how we get there and the precise nature of the 'bogey man' are still undefined?

In comparison the tools in place are the same, eaves dropping and so on, if you cant see the similarities then thats your issue not really mine to explain. Yet your ok with this being in place for the constant "bogeyman" to not be around so you can get on a plane ok to go on holiday, that's an interesting one.

Anyway Pelham this all getting tit for tat now, we clearly know where we stand, and I am fairly certain you could argue with yourself in a dark room, keep expecting me to justify something to you, I dont need too, the articles and the links to others explain it for themselves, im not your personal justification servant.

Please continue to chase your tail on the matter.

Edited April 5, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

I was simply looking for a little justification and explanation of why you think we should all be concerned about this. If you could provide that I'm sure you would.

As far as I can tell you and others here simply hate the authority of government because you believe it's out to get you in some way. All government is evil and everything they do needs to be resisted etc etc. Yet when someone asks you to explain why this is true, you can't. I do admire your groundless faith in your cause though lol.

Something you should do one day is apply for a civil sevice job. Go and see how it all works. It might change your opinion and with what you learned some of these discussions we have here might make more sense and be a little more constructive.

[mrcash2009 0]

I was simply looking for a little justification and explanation of why you think we should all be concerned about this.

No Pelham, you want me to answer YOU only as if your some sort of authority on justifying if something is false or not for the thread itself not the article. You say "we" dont speak for others, its yourself that wants to drag it into me justifying to you, when its for all clear to see & check further from the said article and onwards, I have said (typed) this multiple times every time you play that naive line.

As far as I can tell you and others here simply hate the authority of government because you believe it's out to get you in some way.

And thats where you are wrong, questioning authority and definitely something in reference to eaves dropping (whoever and whenever as an option) isn't something to be taken lightly at any stage. And if that's your point then you will have to ask that of all papers and people asking this, and also the commission you link previous who also raise concerns. To dilute it down to rambling interwebberz hating everything is yet another one of you exaggeration comments I have quoted before which is YOU not understanding not anyone else, and you pre conceived notions of anyone with questions.

I do admire your groundless faith in your cause though lol.

Groundless? Faith? Cause? .... well, well Pelham you really do lay it on thick for the drama and then be wrong at the same time.

Something you should do one day is apply for a civil sevice job. Go and see how it all works. It might change your opinion and with what you learned some of these discussions we have here might make more sense and be a little more constructive.

It is constructive, its questioning being monitored all the time, just getting a civil service job is not a good reason either. That's like complaining about war and reasons and then saying your disrespecting the troops ... at that level they are doing as much as they can, thats obvious, and not even really the point? But when you tag Terror and public safety on things its a blanket solution, just like the jazz pants bomber who helped introduce scanners/x rays in moments and your long waiting time at the airport.

I actually agreed with some of your points, and I also stated it doesn't answer this new hardware monitoring coming into this and what we know (getting back to the article and the point), its a constructive observation, but all you seem intent on doing now is playing the "anti" type card, and "look Cash wont answer me everyone", which wont work Pelham. And now you dilute your retort back about me having groundless faith and a cause? Deary me, you get worse & worse at scraping the barrel.

BTW - The PM button is useful too you know, let it go Pelham, you wont win any prizes, points raised, articles & subject still stand.

Edited April 5, 2012 by mrcash2009

[vilas 477]

if someone benefits from current system than he won't argue with system

Something you should do one day is apply for a civil sevice job. Go and see how it all works

i know how it works, i know how it works from police, from court (judge assistant) and i know if from market surveillance and from ministry of something etc.

if someone has conscience and morality working inside gives best arguments against,

almost decade of experience of 4 persons is enough ?

working in it gave following experience:

- to parliament and gov high positions goes mostly one kind of people - greed, who want to spend tax money on their luxury life,

- law is set to the following way - let it be more and more complicated and arbitrary cause then advocate will be rich, and some "sons and daughters" will have job,

- promises before election are plain bullshit , the same people that shout in TV for lower tax , on private say "we need new limousine here, we must raise taxes, cause my cousin needs job but he can't do anything cause he just finished poor school",

- those people who argue in front of TV cameras, on backstage drink together,

- some decisions are not with the law, but you have to make them or you will be fired cause there was only oral (not written) order to do it , after you do it there is a hook on you,

i know how it works, i know... "hi mister policeman, viceminister is calling, son of my friend had caused accident, please delete proofs or you will get into serious troubles and loose job, bye bye"

or "this car costs 100 000 , but if we buy it for our office, we can keep it a month and sell you for 50 000, so you will give us 20 000 okay and keep the rest ?"

or "my daughter's boyfriend needs job, but he won't find it anywhere cause he not graduated, do you have any 4000 PLN job for him?"

Edited April 5, 2012 by vilas

[PELHAM 10]

No Pelham, you want me to answer YOU only as if your some sort of authority on justifying if something is false or not for the thread itself not the article. You say "we" dont speak for others, its yourself that wants to drag it into me justifying to you, when its for all clear to see & check further from the said article and onwards, I have said (typed) this multiple times every time you play that naive line.

Well you started this subject and made a comment about the Stazi UK, that is why I'm asking the question. I have read your link and many others. Can't find anything in them apart from much inaccurate speculation so I thought you might have something to add?

@Vilas - no need to repeat your experiences of Poland a) this is a UK issue and b) you have posted all that before.

[vilas 477]

you really think that elites among countries are different ? all "ruling and rich" are the same among whole globe

during history too, nobles in 17th century were the same

[mrcash2009 0]

Well you started this subject and made a comment about the Stazi UK, that is why I'm asking the question. I have read your link and many others. Can't find anything in them apart from much inaccurate speculation so I thought you might have something to add?

You dont know, and therefore you (we) dont have the assurance enough even yet how far it will go to claim it will be ok, simple as that. Stasi comment is the nature of the monitoring in all factors, CCTV, and now this on top of what we have already known to be "keeping us safe" as you mentioned about GCHQ.

If your waiting for me to say "this is just like the stasi, and now we will all be taken to camps whenever we put anything bad at any time becuase everything will be live monitored all the time" you wont, I was never coming from that angle, my concerns lie with later on "once its implemented", that is my addition, and its mirroring the stasi in stages. Its just done better now because its not seen or recognised so much, which is why even though this all comes over time you still poo poo most of it as it unfolds with paranoia suggestions and tin foil comments.

You defended you point about GCHQ to suggest how bad it wont be, but, that is also inaccurate speculation becuase we are not after the fact yet, its very implementation in addition to everything else is what im referring too and always was. If you want I can pre post something in a PM so you can vet it, before I post in these threads if you wish, just to make sure about my input?

Edited April 5, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

Well then - perhaps next time you will wait till you know something concrete before posting wild, innacurate and offensive statements? You see if you want to speculate about how bad things might be, I can speculate how good they might be it's a fantastic waste of time isn't it?

[mrcash2009 0]

Well then - perhaps next time you will wait till you know something concrete before posting wild, innacurate and offensive statements? You see if you want to speculate about how bad things might be, I can speculate how good they might be it's a fantastic waste of time isn't it?

Wild ... mmmm, a massive stretch I have posted based on the current surveillance in the UK right now even without this, check the overview of the stasi,and align it with the UK, and tell me how utterly "wild" that notion actually is. Now you throw in the offensive card? That is priceless, if what I posted in some places is offensive I would like to see it when that really does actually happen.

I wont wait for anything, the article is in, the story is out, the notion that it is all in and ok isn't fully true and therefore I can post based on why is it need (the question) with what we already have in place (your justification it was ok), see it any which way you like my friend.

Edited April 5, 2012 by mrcash2009

[kernriver 4]

Some people also have very vivid imaginations lol

This law is only relevant between 2 entities - The Security Services and ISPs so it can't spread to local government. So you got that wrong. You don't know how the law works or how government is organised, that is probably why you are so confused? I do realise other laws were misused but they have been repealed or changed so nothing is set in stone. I and no one I know was ever stopped and questioned, I understand a few people hoping to post something on YouTube engineered trouble for themselves.

GCHQ don't have the resources or interest to read everyones email. They are looking for major security threats to the nation, nothing else.

They have requested this apply to all citizens because they a) don't have a complete list and b) don't want to compromise investigations by handing lists of names to ISP's.

I really don't give a shit about anyone following my internet habits, reading my email, opening my post because they will never find anything illegal.

I hope this makes life much more difficult for thoase engaged in illegal activity and terrorism and I feel nothing for them. If this means that sometime in the future I can get on a plane and go on holiday without standing in a line for an hour and removing my belt and shoes I will be perfectly happy.

RE David Davis - he is a very sad, bitter man who had his political carrer ended a few years ago after poorly run leadership campaign . He will say anything to get revenge on his political enemies (much like gorgeous George Galloway).

I know this is from a few pages back, but I have to comment, in the light of the discussion that's been going on.

This way of thinking is not uncommon, actually it's very common.

When there was a referendum last year on Croatia entering the EU, I saw on TV young people saying they want to enter EU because we could cross the border, with Slovenia for example, more easely, without waiting.

What a great arguement. Last month I went to Slovenia and I crossed the border in no time, I didn't even have a passport, I had ID card.

People just don't see, or don't want to see, the bigger picture (future).

BTW, I'm against EU.

[vilas 477]

hehe

as this is European politics topic so also EU topic

i remember few years ago private discussion with one person from BI forums (from UK) and he told me he has farm and limits, i couldn't believe that he cannot plant what he wants on his own land in UK

but later i met new girl, she is farmer, she has farm and ... oops

she had to liquidate gooses, cows, chickens cause EU ordered so, she has only pigs left, what is more "funny"

EU pays, refunds here for not producing !!

they ordered to cut chickens, to cut cows, but now in her farm she gets money for doing-nothing (tax money)

she wanted to produce meat as before, but she was forbidden (producing limits) and threatened by tickets , woow,

what economical sense is of EU when it forbids you to produce something and pays you for siting on ass ?

if you will produce (for example fishing) you will get ticket , wooah, this must collapse, and now they talk about Greece that in Greece there is growing poverty and hunger even, so what kind of democracy do we talk if for example 80% or 90% of Greek society is against government and their decisions, but police forces are keeping this Greek gov. with EU gov ?

what would be if more and more farmers will get "limits on producing" ?

meat is more and more expensive , meat prices rises, but farmers are forbid to have more cows ? what is the economic sense of it ?

why my girl had to resign from having cows and chickens and now i must pay for meat 20% more in shop for ham (than 2 years before) ?

prices of sugar raised soo much last year , nearly twice, but... farmers get limits on sugar beet ?

i remember prices of meat few years ago and buying meat from farmers on local market or local shops, now farmers like my new girl have to resign from production ? some fishermen also had to resign and put off their boats to the beach, cause they had offer "ticket or payment for sitting on ass" , so prices of fish also raised (while our salaries decreased even for 10% in last 2-3 years) or EU wants to kill us by poverty and hunger in future ? what is a economical sense of limiting production for farmers when prices of food are raising ? normally noone before EU controlled farmers , you could have how many pigs you want, now she can have only prescribed number +1 for own family needs, so when you have wedding and need 2 pigs, you cannot have +2 for own need, or you must hide such second pig when control comes ? it should be problem of farmer how many pigs he want to have , the more you produce the better profit you get, not "sit on you ass, here are money, or i will sue you and you will have problems" :/ this must collapse

before meeting this girl i had no idea that such economical nonsense exists

in PL people start to call EU - eurokovhoz

i also remember advertisements before joining EU, yea..

freedom of crossing borders without passports, hahah, Germans living near border with my country know this issue the best, when their car is stolen or bike is stolen :]

no-control on borders, but big control of... those who are politically against, lots of forces are pushed to control internet (freedom of speech) but lack of control on criminals (which are supported with heaving better conditions in prison, lower punishment)

what the hell is our future coming to in EU ?

- we must work more than before,

- criminals have lower sentences,

- gov. tries to control political opposition,

?

EUSSR ? it is not even USSR, cause there you had job guaranteed, lazy job, safety on streets

or all around goes to situation in which there will be one gov on all countries + criminals on streets keeping society silent ? divide et impera in it's best ?

Edited April 6, 2012 by vilas