Security and the internet

[Amara]

You may have heard on the news the debate over whether the UN should seize control over crutial internet functions, or whether it should go to a different international body such as the ITU, as opposed to what some see as unfair amount of control in the hands of the US...which stems from its role as a major developer of the internet, something like that anyway. This got me thinking...

Having read Dan Brown's "Digital Fortress" recently (lol), I just wonder what people's thought are on the idea of a government or, for arguments sake, an independant international body having unrestricted access to information that is entered in the internet (be it email or whatever)... should we be granted total privacy, or is our decision to use that method of media qualified by the right of such bodies to guard against potential threats using whatever means they choose. I dont know much about the laws in place already... but would be interested to learn.

The idea raises questions as to the direction of internet security. If we limit freedoms and allow more open methods of surveillance possible to external bodies, will this make us safer?

Would you be willing to give up certain privacies - to your governments or an independent telecommunications body in the interests of national/international security?

Should we be tough on internet security or liberal?

 

[Rukas]

There should be no control over the internet, period.

If this goes ahead the internet will turn into a biased form of media like the United States news. Anything less than total freedom of information and communication via the world wide web is an invasion of privacy.

To me this is like saying, "should the UN, US or whoever have the power to monitor and listen in on ALL phone conversations in the world?" It's the same principle.

They day anyone tries to control the internet is the day I go into the underground hacking scene and leave the mainstream internet for good.

To put it bluntly, its total bullshit.

Im grabbing that book of you tonight btw

 

[Amara]

There should be no control over the internet, period.

If this goes ahead the internet will turn into a biased form of media like the United States news. Anything less than total freedom of information and communication via the world wide web is an invasion of privacy.

To me this is like saying, "should the UN, US or whoever have the power to monitor and listen in on ALL phone conversations in the world?" It's the same principle.

They day anyone tries to control the internet is the day I go into the underground hacking scene and leave the mainstream internet for good.

Oh that isnt the proposal btw, it was two points.. the first part fact, the second paragraph simply hypthetical...

I wouldnt mind passing up some measure of privacy in the interests of combatting terrorism, things like that. Information has never been free anyway, its always bias - regardless of whether an agency reads it or not. It's not like they direct info, just thwart potential threads.

 

[DJ Harris]

^yeh i can see where ur coming from on that one, like to stop terrorism and wrong stuff but it should'nt be monitored or restricted for thos who wish to use it for non-illegal stuff :thumb:

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

No, the internet should remain free!

The fact is, it is the only source of information that isn't heavily censored & to lose the essence of it - it's freedom - would be devastating.

And from a personal standpoint, reading my emails is NOT on!!! That'd be an invasion of privacy which I couldn't tolerate.

 

[Rukas]

I wouldnt mind passing up some measure of privacy in the interests of combatting terrorism, things like that. Information has never been free anyway, its always bias - regardless of whether an agency reads it or not. It's not like they direct info, just thwart potential threads.

I would.

How would they monitor the net? They'd log everything. This means they would know your personal details. They would need to treat EVERYONE as a potential threat. They would go through your personal accounts and see what sort of information you look at. Say you werent a fan of Bush's newest ideas, if you happened to log onto an Anti Bush site, whether accidently or not, they could say you are a terrorist.

If you researched any Anti Government opinions; terrorist.

Monitoring the internet is like tapping phone calls, opening private mail, bugging peoples homes. Its an invasion of privacy and should not be tolerated on ANY level because once it is started, it will always snow ball into other uses.

"It's not like they direct info, just thwart potential threats."

In order to classify something a threat they must analyis it, that is an invasion of privacy. Furthermore, what is a threat? A difference of opinion could be a threat, thus anything that does not blindly follow the government in control would be a threat and freedom of speech and ideas would be totally destroyed.

 

[The.Menace]

Monitoring the internet is like tapping phone calls, opening private mail, bugging peoples homes. Its an invasion of privacy and should not be tolerated on ANY level because once it is started, it will always snow ball into other uses.

I agree. I'm against giving up any rights - internet, phones, mail, whatever. Our privacy is important and sadly they use those terrorists attacks as an excuse to cut down our rights - and it's simply sad.
People have to understand that there is no security, of course we should watch, but noone is safe 100% no matter how many rights we give up, no matter if the US go to Iran, Syria wherever. The war on terror didn't stop the terrorist to blow them stations up in London and it NEVER could have.....just like the war on drugs didn't stop the drugs at all.....

people don't understand that they watch us and that's what they want. They can't watch them people in an other country and that's where terrorism is created - givin up rights means they watch us - control us. did the cameras in London stop the terroists? Nope - but we are the ones that got, get and will get taped. The cameras don't fuck the terroists but us over.

People have to understand that they know already so much about us - there is no need about givin up more rights. If you'D ever have to chance to have a look into your file, you'd be surprised.

Also, monitoring the internet for a threat is impossible. There are so many data flows and shit, there is no way you can filter "terrorist" msg - so there is no need for that to stop terrorists, but if we give that right up, they'll use it cut down privacy.

 

[Rukas]

Also, monitoring the internet for a threat is impossible. There are so many data flows and shit, there is no way you can filter "terrorist" msg - so there is no need for that to stop terrorists, but if we give that right up, they'll use it cut down privacy.

They wont be able to stop the real terrorists and hackers, what they will stop, is ordinary tax paying good citizens like ourselves who happen to disagree with a government policy from posting their views freely on the internet.

For example, anyone who ever said Fuck Bush or Fuck the US will be monitored and filed under some possible terrorist list, while the real criminals will just continue to go underground.

I mean seriously, do you think the terrorists use message boards or standard email to carry out their plans? No, if they had used a public message board im sure someone would have informed on them. They're using sophisticated encryptions.

And seriously, I hate to be stereotypical, but how many terrorists do you think surf the net? I doubt Bin Laden has wi-fi in his cave.

 

[Amara]

No, the internet should remain free!

The fact is, it is the only source of information that isn't heavily censored & to lose the essence of it - it's freedom - would be devastating.

And from a personal standpoint, reading my emails is NOT on!!! That'd be an invasion of privacy which I couldn't tolerate.

I wonder that it is "free" anyway. That was the first point of my post, there are people who see the US as having unfair control over the internet... they control vital parts or something. So the illusion of the internet being free is doubtful.

I mean seriously, do you think the terrorists use message boards or standard email to carry out their plans? No, if they had used a public message board im sure someone would have informed on them. They're using sophisticated encryptions.

You really need to read digital fortress because you are missing the point...how about the idea of a super-huge computer that decrypts codes in the interests of national security... it is not used to see what's on Rukas' mind, lol. It wouldnt be like someone is sitting there reading your personal emails, or the more laughable - reading message boards like this, because quite frankly, they wouldnt give a shit what people like you and me have to say - wouldnt give a shit! lol.

 

[Rukas]

You really need to read digital fortress because you are missing the point...how about the idea of a super-huge computer that decrypts codes in the interests of national security... it is not used to see what's on Rukas' mind, lol. It wouldnt be like someone is sitting there reading your personal emails, or the more laughable - reading message boards like this, because quite frankly, they wouldnt give a shit what people like you and me have to say - wouldnt give a shit! lol.

You need to realize how the internet works because you are missing the point.

In order to find that encrypted code, they would NEED to read your email and message boards. Where else do you think this type of stuff hides? To find codes to crack or terrorist plans or whatever their excuse is, they would need to monitor everyone and everything.

They would need to scan email and forums and news server and bbs for potential threats. How do they know a terrorist doesnt post in here or never will? They dont know, therefore they need to continue to monitor all of us.

Say the US puts this technology into place, whats to stop them from monitoring other Government's use of the internet let alone every days people? Im sure you realise things like this always snow ball and one thing leads to another. So the problem is, where does it stop? The patriot act has already been used to take away the rights of non terrorist Americans because they were a "threat." A threat to who? Terrorists are a threat to the government, therefore if one of us made posts about government corruption or any form of anti establishment posts or site or whatever, those would be a threat.

Say the US did something really bad and didnt want anyone to find out about it, well, someone one day does and they try to expose it on the internet, or even email it to some media source, those type of things could easily be caught and stopped. The internet would become a government puppet just like the media is, only showing what whoever is in control wants it to show, because anything else is a "threat" and will be removed.

And whats more, you wouldnt even be able to tell anyone about it. If you wrote an Anti US essay and posted it, it was removed, if you tried to tell anyone about it, that would be removed too.

This type of thing would through us into a techological cold war and back into the information dark ages.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

I wonder that it is "free" anyway. That was the first point of my post, there are people who see the US as having unfair control over the internet... they control vital parts or something. So the illusion of the internet being free is doubtful.

I have no doubt that there are secret elements monitoring certain activites currently - mostly illegally I'd imagine - & for that reason, yes, I agree the internet is not as "free" as we may be led to believe.

But you can be sure that if any entity were to gain legal right to monitor whatever they wanted, there would be absolutely no area for doubt as to how "free" the internet would be......

 

[Rukas]

I have no doubt that there are secret elements monitoring certain activites currently - mostly illegally I'd imagine - & for that reason, yes, I agree the internet is not as "free" as we may be led to believe.

Im sure we are monitored to some extent but because it is illegal, they can not use the information they have about people against them in a court of law, say, for piracy or whatever.


So I can email you and say Fuck Bush all I like, but they cant do anything about it. If they could legally look at my email and use it as evidence, then they could invoke Patriot Act laws against me.

 

[Flipmo]

This reminds me of Metal Gear Solid 2 where they talk about the liberty of information.

My answer to this is that there should not be any control over it. We should be able to see information without having to be scared of being 'watched' by 'big brother'.

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

I am too upset to talk about this. I'd rather have worldwide chaos than have someone "monitor" the Internet. The thought of it bothers me. I'd rather have someone telling me what I should wear!

 

[The.Menace]

Say the US puts this technology into place, whats to stop them from monitoring other Government's use of the internet let alone every days people? Im sure you realise things like this always snow ball and one thing leads to another. So the problem is, where does it stop? The patriot act has already been used to take away the rights of non terrorist Americans because they were a "threat." A threat to who?

right! I couldn't agree more with everything Rukas said, in fact that's what I tried to say before, dunno if you got that. Like Ruk said, if we give up rights (as happend before) OUR privacy gets cut down - terrorists find ways to hide.

It's simple, if they would find a way to perfectly monitor the www, well as a terrorist I just wouldn't use the inet no more.....so who get's monitored in the end? Like Ruk said, we - the people, not the terrorists.

Besides that 2 give this right up wouldn't help, cause that will never work. First of all there are so many data to store and control, it's not possible. If there'd be a super computer, aiight, you still need a prorgam to actually scan the data. So what would he scan for? words like "bombs, terror, blowing up". As a terrorist, you simply wouldn't use them words and you're msg is perfectly fine. So no terrorist will be found - but of course you could use the prorgam to scan for "fuck bush" and therefor find out who's against the gov. But are those people terrorists? Nope.

That's exactly what I mean with "we, the people are the ones that get fucked over through givin up rights" ..... Think about it how many way there are to hide a msg in the internet if you really want to.
First of all, encryptions like Ruk said. But you don't even need that.

How many different languages do we have on this planet? 1000? 10 000? You'd make sure you supercomputer understands the words you scan for in every dialect spoken in afrika for example. After you did that, you still are not safe cause what if the terroists don't use those words like I said before - so you would have to make the computer actually understand language. That's not possible again, cause not even you as a human can understand what me and my homies talk about if we don't want to, simply because we might use terms etc that have for us a different meaning then for you - simply because we grew up together. It's like if I talk to my homie on the phone, I might say - hey, you come to my place today, right? Yeah - you bring the girls right - Yeah. Aiight, see ya. Period. I just order some weed. How would you make a computer understand that? You can't - and if you could, you'd again have to make sure he understands every language spoken on this earth..... It's impossible, but if we could do it, we still wouldn't be safe cause what if the terrorists start to invent their own language.. you know like we did as kids in school. Make it a lil more complex and it actually would work. If you can scan my own language with my own terroists terms that only a couple of other terroists know about, I give you props. And then I wouldn't use the net no more, simple as that.

So what I try to say is, to cut down our privacy won't stop them. I didn't even talk about Hackers now, cause I'm sure even if they have a sysem to scan, people will find a way to work around it, Hackers do that for ages.

 

[Valeoz]

The FBI already monitered the internet. I'm sure most of you heard of the infamous Carnivore, it's not in use anymore though since the beginning of this year.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/carnivore.htm

 

[LL COOL PAC]

You may have heard on the news the debate over whether the UN should seize control over crutial internet functions, or whether it should go to a different international body such as the ITU, as opposed to what some see as unfair amount of control in the hands of the US...which stems from its role as a major developer of the internet, something like that anyway. This got me thinking...

Having read Dan Brown's "Digital Fortress" recently (lol), I just wonder what people's thought are on the idea of a government or, for arguments sake, an independant international body having unrestricted access to information that is entered in the internet (be it email or whatever)... should we be granted total privacy, or is our decision to use that method of media qualified by the right of such bodies to guard against potential threats using whatever means they choose. I dont know much about the laws in place already... but would be interested to learn.

The idea raises questions as to the direction of internet security. If we limit freedoms and allow more open methods of surveillance possible to external bodies, will this make us safer?

Would you be willing to give up certain privacies - to your governments or an independent telecommunications body in the interests of national/international security?

Should we be tough on internet security or liberal?

Having experienced at first hand the true idiocy of the policymaking formulas of government with respect to the illegalisation of magic mushrooms, I would lobby for as much surveillance as the government wants, but only provided that this surveillance be used only to prevent activities that cause actual bodily harm to people. I currently don't suspect the government of having sinister intentions and accusations of a slippery slope into an orwellian nightmare are, in my view, wide of the mark.

 

[Preach]

the fact that the government has control and may use all the information on the internet as evidence in whatever case, doesn't mean they will actually go through, and read every instant message being sent, every email being sent, and every website being made to try and pin stuff to people. it simply means that if person x is a suspected terrorist bomber, they can dig up all information that has gone back and forth from this person to other people that may or may not have been involved, and the information they find can so be used to take this person down. if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of. on the contrary, if you're a pedophile, a terrorist, or a criminal in any other way, you get what is ultimately coming to you, and what you deserve.

i agree that using this unrestricted access to bring down teenagers who download music, kids under 18 who download porn, and people who post up pictures of themselves with a badass bag of weed on messageboards, shouldn't be allowed. that's just stupid. i know it is all illegal and my opinion on this is biased, because i have smoked weed and i have downloaded music (and i did download porn when i was under 18 ). but this doesn't really scare me and i don't think i'll feel "watched". i have no skeletons in my closet so i don't think it's gonna affect me.

 

[Kadafi Son]

epic thread

 

[Chronic]

Closed for useless upping.