- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1550 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
1 post omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 18108
> Clicking on daft militant wog propaganda even once could mean 15 years in prison under new law
> Anyone who views daft militant wog propaganda once online can be jailed for up to 15 years under new laws that have sparked human rights concerns.
> MPs had urged the government to scrap plans to criminalise viewing “information useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”, which goes further than much-used laws that made physically collecting, downloading or disseminating the material illegal.
> A United Nations inspector accused the government of straying towards “thought crime” with the proposal, which originally stated that people would have to access propaganda “on three or more different occasions” to commit a terror offence.
> But the benchmark was removed from the draft law, meaning a single click is now illegal.
> Journalists, academic researchers or people who had “no reason to believe” they were accessing daft militant wog propaganda are exempt.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/daft militant wog-propaganda-website-online-prison-sentence-uk-isis-a8776226.html
What is this bollocks?
Also given the current tendency of web browsers to prefetch stuff, does it count as a click if there's a link to a 'daft militant wog' propaganda on a search results page?
|>>|| No. 18110
I'm really sick and done with stupid people being in power.
|>>|| No. 18111
You're overreacting. A court is not going to convict you if you were tricked into clicking a link; this law is not aimed at you.
It's a bit like the paedos - "I only looked at that image once". Well, maybe you did, but there are 1000 of them on your computer, you're going down.
People need a sense of perspective.
|>>|| No. 18112
Then it needs clarification and oversight as leaving it like it is means it's clearly open to abuse. Oh wait that would make sense.
|>>|| No. 18113
Sure, but what if you're curious about what the jihads are saying and want to have a look yourself? What about the Anarchist's Cookbook, is that a daft militant wogic manual?
|>>|| No. 18114
I've followed the stories on ISIS from the beginning, why? I keep up on news in general but I travel all over and feel it pays to be informed. I've seen the videos and bullshit propaganda so I guess it'd be the prisons for me. Much better for governments if the citizens are forced to remain ignorant though, isn't it.
|>>|| No. 18115
Exactly my thoughts. I never thought I'd use the term 'nanny state' unironically, but here it is. I take the idea of ISIS far more seriously after (hypothetically) watching their propaganda videos and (theoretically, though I've never actually done it, officer) reading their translated materials. But yeah, just hide it all away from us so we can keep calling 999 every time we see a brown lad look the wrong way at a wheelie bin.
|>>|| No. 18116
I think the government assumes that most people are incapable of critical thought and will turn into daft militant wogs simply by exposure to material associated with the IS and terrorism. But maybe it's also a deeper lying fear of no longer being in control of public opinion and public discourse. Naturally, not even if the Islamic State were allowed to run their own news programme on Channel 5 would they probably be able to sway a significant number of people to strap bombs around their waists, but it's the idea that public opinion must be reined in firmly on these issues.
You could probably spend all day telling me that the only course of action against the Western infidels can be to set off bombs in public places as retaliation for the wars that the West has begun in the Middle East, but I would still tell you that you are nuts and should have your head checked. I would probably form an opinion about what causes you and others like you to think that way, but I would never agree with you on the idea that innocent Westerners must die as a consequence.
We really, really shouldn't be having another debate about child porn in this context, but I remember reading 15 or 20 years ago circa around the time of the Sexual Offences Act that one argument for banning and illegalising (online) child porn was that it could turn people into paedos who up until that point had no paedo tendencies at all. Among all the very reasonable arguments for banning it, this was certainly the odd one out and seems like a tall tale. And I wouldn't say it's the same with certain arguments in favour of banning daft militant wog propaganda, but you are kind of forgiven for getting that impression.
|>>|| No. 18117
>I remember reading 15 or 20 years ago circa around the time of the Sexual Offences Act that one argument for banning and illegalising (online) child porn was that it could turn people into paedos who up until that point had no paedo tendencies at all. Among all the very reasonable arguments for banning it, this was certainly the odd one out and seems like a tall tale.
It's been mentioned a few times, usually when we're having the "paedophiles cannot be rehabilitated" debate, that a lot of child sex offenders aren't actually paedos and have diddled kids because they've ended up going down a taboo rabbit hole until they can only get off from things that are incredibly extreme.
|>>|| No. 18119
I still don't think that somebody whose sexual desire all his life for all intents and purposes has only been aroused by looking at images of adult women (or men) will suddenly become a paedo just by looking at child porn. Which, on the other hand, I really don't want to be misunderstood as an argument in favour of it being legal. Valid (other) reasons for it being banned exist in abundance.
But it is very wise to stop the debate right at this point by agreeing to disagree. Last thing we want is the paedos infiltrating a terrorism debate.
So to focus back on my other argument, I think what really needs to matter is WHO accesses daft militant wog propaganda, or even instruction manuals on how to build a bomb or whatever. A "regular" person who clicks on it unwittingly will very probably not be caused to carry out a daft militant wog attack, which, when you get down to it, is what this kind of legislation seeks to prevent in the first place. So what you do then is you brand vast swaths of pretty much innocent people as daft militant wogs or daft militant wog suspects without them having done anything really wrong at all. They simply clicked on a bad link.
Also, you are probably not going to keep young impressionable minds from joining IS if you outlaw clicking on daft militant wog content. They are often socialised into daft militant wog and IS ways of thinking by direct contact with radical islamists that isn't limited to watching online videos or joining certain web forums. There is an undercurrent among eskimo youths in particular that is receptive towards IS propaganda and which would still be receptive if you banned them from using computers at all. So you need to think about how you are going to address that before you run haphazardly into passing legislation that might seem like a good idea at first glance but can really do a great deal of damage while leaving its actual purported raison d'être virtually unattacked.
|>>|| No. 18120
I think I agree with your general point - but what about the idea of exposure to extreme porn generally? Do you think that is changing society and behaviours?
I don't have an answer, and the argument is complex, but I think it is fair to say that the general availability of pornography is changing society and peoples attitudes to what is normal.
|>>|| No. 18121
>but what about the idea of exposure to extreme porn generally?
I don't think a person who likes a bit of porn now and then will suddenly automatically become a violent sex offender just by looking at extreme porn. In my opinion, it has more to do with the kind of person you already are. If you have some sort of hatred against women within you already, then maybe it isn't a good idea for you to watch violent or particularly degrading pornography, because there is a risk that you will feel that your hatred against women is normalised.
And at the other end of the spectrum, myself, I cannot say at all that I have any kind of grudge against women, and what it means for my taste in pornography is that any sort of implied sexual violence turns me off cold. I simply enjoy watching beautiful women have sex, or maybe just pose solo. Naturally I have also come in contact with extreme porn on one of those tube sites, but I can really only say that I found it repulsive. It was no turn on for me, and I certainly didn't take it to imply that that is a good way to treat women in real life.
|>>|| No. 18122
Surely the function of this law is to arrest curious teenagers and very stupid extremists, and all it does is encourage every dodgy website to put up a big 'go download TailsOS' splash page, making the job of finding the crims even harder.
Just let them keep doing it while flagging and monitoring them if you want to be actually usefully draconian. Surely the boys in the MI5 basement aren't happy about the idea of this law.
|>>|| No. 18124
When Fifty Shades of Grey went massive a few years ago, a lot of feminist writers were very keen to point out that fantasy does not equal desire - a lot of women might have fantasies about being raped or abused, but they probably don't want that to happen in real life. Just because someone wanks over a fictional billionaire battering the shit out of a naive young woman, that doesn't make them any less of an empowered feminist. It's just a fantasy about power exchange and doesn't have any bearing on their real-world sexuality.
There's a pretty obvious double standard here.
|>>|| No. 18127
> Surely the boys in the MI5 basement aren't happy about the idea of this law.
No, they usually aren't, because this kind of broad legislation produces many false positives, which authorities are then legally required to investigate and waste manpower on, while would-be offenders that authorities actually should be concerned about run the risk of slipping through the cracks of government monitoring. What is more, pretty much all the Islamist daft militant wogs that ever were, including the 9/11 ones, were known to authorities as potential offenders beforehand. It was not a lack of knowledge about them that enabled them to carry out their attacks, but the fact that government authorities and several countries' secret services simply didn't see the alarm bells.
Governments and politicians are also often really quite appallingly shit at creating legislation that actually works and addresses the main problem. Especially on such hot-button issues like terrorism, too many of them hope to just coast by on the assumption that any counterterrorism bill at all will not only do, but will also score them much desired points with the public. And the latter is really all that many of them are concerned about, and the idea that a majority of people will not want to debate the finer points of counterterrorism with them that a bill might address only very poorly.
It's a bit like the old witch trials in the Dark Ages really. The argument is always that if you question the wisdom of it, you are probably a witch or sorcerer yourself.
|>>|| No. 18128
Also, our culture seems to think nothing of showing people dying often violent and brutal deaths in action movies, thereby simulating a criminal act that carries one of the highest terms of mandatory imprisonment in our country's legal system, while somehow everybody gets in a huff when in a slightly poor taste porn flick, a woman gets dick slapped by two guys and called a dirty cum whore in front of the camera and appears to enjoy it. Not saying I approve of this type of porn movie, I think, as a lad, that it's repulsive, but it kind of shows you what coordinates we go by in our culture. Where the goal posts are set and all that.
|>>|| No. 18129
>It's a bit like the old witch trials in the Dark Ages really. The argument is always that if you question the wisdom of it, you are probably a witch or sorcerer yourself.
Well, exactly. I'm quite confident almost everyone posting here got called a pedo, or at least looked at very weird, for being annoyed with the encryption law stuff a few years back. The sad truth is that the 'if uve got nofink 2 hide' axiom is baked into the great unwashed, who don't have the imagination to work out why privacy might be valuable in and of itself.
|>>|| No. 18130
>Not saying I approve of this type of porn movie, I think, as a lad, that it's repulsive
It's interesting you say that, as it seems that women are more likely to search for and watch 'rough' porn, with terms like 'rough' and 'gangbang' appearing far higher in women's searches than men.
Not really relevant, just felt like mentioning it. They love it up em.
|>>|| No. 18132
>There's a pretty obvious double standard here.
I must have missed it then.
|>>|| No. 18133
>Well, exactly. I'm quite confident almost everyone posting here got called a pedo
Tread carefully now, adventurer.
>with the encryption law stuff a few years back
Governments simply don't like not being able to know what you are up to these days. I am not aware that encryption and authorities' failure to break it has ever caused any kind of daft militant wog attack to not be prevented, but that is something you don't read much about. Plenty of resources are spent and loads of different surveillance techniques are employed in tracking potential daft militant wogs. Nothing as such hinges on being able to copy a suspect's hard drive.
I think the real culprit with the whole encrpytion nonsense as well as the Snoopers Charter and everything surrounding it is governments being afraid of their own people, and afraid of missing the signs that the people will one day rise up against them, maybe even start an all out revolution. The modern world order has left many citizens in many countries deeply dissatisfied with their supposedly democratic governments, and it goes without saying that those who are in power tend to cling to it. They don't want it challenged too much by the unwashed masses. So they have established an abundance of dual-use laws, which were introduced to ostensibly combat one thing, but were then extended to be applied to other entirely unrelated things as well.
The actual end goal never was, and never will be to catch all the paedos or prevent all the daft militant wogs from carrying out attacks. But it's for governments to keep their own people under watch so those governments will be able to respond when the uprising comes.
|>>|| No. 18134
>The sad truth is that the 'if uve got nofink 2 hide' axiom is baked into the great unwashed
One thing you can do when somebody says "I've got nothing to hide" is to tell them "Well in that case, may I have a look at your smartphone? Can I download and copy your whatsapp history, your contacts, and everything else you have on it?". Hey, you've got nothing to hide from the government, and I'm certainly more trustworthy than the government. I am not going to use any of it against you, I just want to copy and keep it!"
It is part of the very definition of a free democratic country that citizens have a right to hide certain things that they don't want to share either with governments or other people. If we declare that right invalid, then we must really ask ourselves what sets us apart from the Communist Bloc. Their governments spied quite heavily on their own citizens in the exact belief that they should have nothing to hide.
|>>|| No. 18162
I never got called a paedo, but I definitely got some strange looks while I
spoke calmly and clearly raved and jesticulated about "The Five Eyes".
|>>|| No. 18165
It's all part of the plan with these things. Just remember the whole "Child pornography is great" thing with which the recording industry concocted a strategy to stamp out illicit online music sharing.
>"Child pornography is great," the speaker at the podium [Johan Schluter] declared enthusiastically. "It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites".
Unfortunately, this political ruse still seems to work, and in almost every country. All you have to do when you want to have a bill passed that curtails online privacy or freedom of information (and speech) is to say you're not doing it to infringe on people's constitutional rights, but to go after those evil paedos or daft militant wogs. What, you don't agree with it? Ergo you must be a paedo towelhead yourself.
|>>|| No. 18166
> One thing you can do when somebody
All you are going to get from that is a double-standard goalpost-moving tale about something like 'you aren't a LEA officer' or plainly get laughed at. Also, it's just too bold and in-your-face.
This is something marketers and the smarter folks at the aforementioned LEAs grasp rather alright. Background data collection isn't really noticeable. Facial recognition roll-out (happening now or going to happen in the near future) and other forced identification techniques are way less commanding than ID check at a security check-point. Being performed at scale it gives you the modern variant of Richelieu's 'six written lines' to tar and feather almost everybody you don't like. Add an old art of parallel construction and there is a big tempting artefact of power waiting to be wielded.
I digress. What works better is making the intrusion apparent and personal. I've seen people turning from red to white when they by accident got a glance at the 'dossiers' amassed by the banks they use. Pretty same reaction when exposed to a mild interrogation - can't vouch here, just what I was told by some my acquaintances. Even the most ardent nothing-to-hiders seem to not weather it well. Unfortunately, it isn't something you can do easily.
Polite sage for veering into off-topic.
|>>|| No. 18167
I think most people simply wouldn't believe the scope of information even a private company can have on you, let alone the government, and you're spot on that it's because it's so passively collected.
Because of this I'm genuinely reluctant to be too detailed but I have a friend who works somewhere and when he first started, and when he receives subsequent security checks for promotions, that my name pops up because someone in my very distant family, someone I have no blood relation to and have never actually met, was part of some action against some government.
My friend's never told me what comes up in my file, obviously, as that'd be very illegal, but if he had, I imagine it would have been a sickeningly detailed report of the most obscure locations and websites and people I'm involved with. People I've worked with who had committed crimes long before I met them, things like that, probably. I'd imagine I'd have been a little disappointed that this place hadn't showed up, too. But I don't know any of that because he never told me.
And the worst part is that my bank, Amazon, Facebook, Lenovo and the chinese government, they all know even more relevant and personal information than any of that. They don't just know who I am, they know how I think and how I act when I'm alone.
It's easy to see why people would laugh you off or call you paranoid for telling them any of this, but this is still only the stuff we actually know about.
Sage because I'm sad now. It's too fucking late to do anything, even if we ever could have.
|>>|| No. 18192
In my experience pointing out the potential for personal corruption is far more effective at tackling the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" mentality than anything else. There will always be people who trust 'the government' (without even really thinking too much about who that might be), perhaps more scarily there are people who trust companies whose names they recognise, Google, Amazon etc.
But if you point out that these organisations are made up of individuals and that those individuals might be personally corrupt they seem to get it. Edward Snowden talking about the fact that his colleagues would trade intercepted sexts around their offices was very effective for this reason. It's why many people who are nerdy enough to understand the dangers of Facebook are happy to join in with the mainstream "haha, Zuckerberg looks like a robot lol, he's such a creep" bullshit, the sad fact of the matter is that it gets more bums on seats to your 'This is Why You should Delete Facebok' seminar than an actual explanation of why a single basically privately owned company knowing every detail of every human's personal life is a bad idea.
|>>|| No. 18194
I'm not sure what's worse, all that information being in the hands of one company, or the company with all that information being headed by an idiot. Jeff Bezos actually knows a thing or two about his business. Bill Gates is, by all accounts, a pretty smart person. Elon Musk's status as a proper mad genius is legendary. Zuck built a shitty web app to help him pick up birds, and whenever anything goes wrong he just sticks his head in the sand and is suddenly unreachable by anyone.
|>>|| No. 18196
In reality it makes zero difference. I've just had better luck explaining it to lasses I've met on a night out that way than going all technical on them. If the information exists, in any way, it can eventually be seen by someone we'd rather didn't. It's as simple as that.
|>>|| No. 18231
The "your phone is listening to you" meme is an interesting example. It's not true for fairly straightforward reasons, but a lot of people are a) pretty certain that their phone is listening to their conversations and b) remarkably blasé about it.
The truth is, if anything, more sinister - you keep seeing ads for things that you've talked about buying but haven't searched for because advertising algorithms have access to a huge amount of your personal data and they're increasingly good at reading your mind. Amazon have the explicitly stated goal of cutting out the process of ordering - they want to reach the stage where they know what you'll want better than you do, so they'll just send you stuff pre-emptively and you'll be delighted with it.
|>>|| No. 18232
>Amazon have the explicitly stated goal of cutting out the process of ordering - they want to reach the stage where they know what you'll want better than you do, so they'll just send you stuff pre-emptively and you'll be delighted with it.
This will still have to require active consent though before they start doing that with you. And they won't be able to just bury that clause somewhere in your Amazon Prime Terms of Service update.
|>>|| No. 18234
Given the spectacular sales success of the Echo devices, I think people will eagerly sign up.
|>>|| No. 18235
>And they won't be able to just bury that clause somewhere in your Amazon Prime Terms of Service update.
Not for a few years, anyway.
|>>|| No. 18240
Cue people who bought books about murder being sent axes and rope. Be interesting to see if that counts as intent.
|>>|| No. 18244
Except for the fact that it is listening, although maybe not in the way people imagine.
If you have Siri or OK Google or whatever turned on, for it to work, it has to be constantly analysing input from the microphone, and looking for the audio signature of "OK Google".
|>>|| No. 18245
After 9/11, the FBI in America actually kept tabs on libraries to see if people had checked out certain books that would allow conclusions as to their political views.
I think this programme was officially discontinued, but it goes without saying that your online purchases are probably still secretly monitored by authorities just as much as everything else you do. At least certain "red flag" items. You'll probably be fine ordering a new pair of shoes via Amazon.
I believe authorities stepped in a few years ago when a lad bought copious amounts of ammonium nitrate fertiliser over the Internet. And it then transpired that info about his purchase was automatically forwarded to government authorities in charge of overseeing "suspicious" activities like that.
Anders Breivik used ammonium nitrate for the bombs he set off in Oslo's city centre on the day of his rampage. I believe the only way he was able to do this under everybody's radar was that he had registered himself as an agricultural business. Which naturally needs a few bags of ammonium nitrate now and then.
|>>|| No. 18246
My point was more that if you just give amazon's algorithms the idea that you're going to make a bomb so it sends you all the active ingredients without you actively asking it to, can you be charged for that?
If it decides you have a subconscious desire to murder your spouse and sends you a weapon which you then use in the heat of the moment, is that premeditated or not?
Or a more realistic scenario: it realises someone is growing at least a bit of weed so it sends them scales, which at least in the US being caught possessing scales with your weed is used as evidence of intent to supply which has a whole different jail sentence attached.
|>>|| No. 18247
I need to get into the tiny plastic shovel market. Far better margins than weed, by the look of it.
|>>|| No. 18248
Just order anything you need in the run up to Christmas. If anyone asks, it was a gift for someone.
|>>|| No. 18250
Yeah, 30 tonnes of ammonium nitrate for my farmer friend. He loves that stuff. Also a few tonnes of sugar and red diesel for my sweet-toothed off roading buddy.
|>>|| No. 18252
That's sort of the point though - there's a separate low-power coprocessor that can only understand the wake word. It's not actually recording or storing anything you say until that wake word is triggered.
They did the same thing with pressure cookers after the Boston marathon incident.
|>>|| No. 18255
I've lost count of the number of conversations where I've had to just go along with the idea that they're recording and transmitting everything simply because the persons telling me so were so adamant about it.
|>>|| No. 18259
Amazon could easily push an update to your Echo that makes it listen to everything, all the time.
Would you notice the power usage increase slightly?
|>>|| No. 18265
IIRC the microphone array, wake-word chip, LED ring and microphone mute button are all on a separate board to the main SoC - the wake-word chip can't hand over to the main SoC without lighting the LED ring and the SoC can't override the mute button.
I could be wrong on this and Amazon could design in all sorts of devious backdoors, but I think they've made a fair effort to balance privacy and convenience.
|>>|| No. 18270
Alexa's being rolled out on some distinctly tier-2 hardware, not just Amazon stuff.
Securely updating the firmware on those - well, it's down to the provider. Amazon stick their oar in, but there's no way they audit anything. It's going in as infrastructure in new build houses. Going to be a lucrative market in tearing it all out and replacing with something that works properly in a few years.
|>>|| No. 18271
Fair point - a lot of IoT stuff is complete dogshit in terms of security and maintainability.
|>>|| No. 18284
Because it's still convenient. My mum doesn't give a shit if the government listens to her, she's an old woman and just wants to be able to ask Alexa to play her music for her so she doesn't have to learn how Spotify works. Also in her words - "well they say my phone does the same thing don't they? What's the difference?" and she does sort of have a point, doesn't she? ECHELON is still a thing and even us paranoid nerds won't go as far as refusing to carry a GPS linked microphone in our pockets everywhere we go.
|>>|| No. 18296
Didn't someone get burnt once for ordering pressure cookers and something else?
All online purchases and cc transactions are most assuredly monitored by dozens of third parties anyway, for various reasons.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]