V for Vendetta was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a manual or goalpost. Britain really has gone to shit. Probably one of the last countries I'd want to move to.
Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors
201–210 of 275 posts
Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors
#202V for Vendetta was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a manual or goalpost. Britain really has gone to shit. Probably one of the last countries I'd want to move to.
Agreed, I am British and got out just before the full power of the Conservatives was realised.
I would not plan on going back any time soon, I'm sure I'm not a minority in thinking this.
Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is partly why I am an anarcho-Communist, in favour of decentralised planning or to a lesser extent market Socialism. I'm not sure what to do about giving the vote to people; arguably democracy is very good, but I would rather have per-commune direct democracy (with instantly recallable delegates or without) rather than a representative democracy. In short, I want to do away with voting for masters, as it will be…
> This is partly why I am an anarcho-Communist You believe in an oxymoron?
"Ideologically, Republicans are as liberal as they come, outside of the Libertarians."
This statement is true in the same way 'Anarcho-Communist' is. Care to guess how?
Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We have a society where we can air discussions about topics like this If anything, cases like this demonstrate how quickly that can change when you soften surveillance and free speech laws. Look at Turkey. Turning a democracy into a dictatorship took only a few years. The German government, too, is working on establishing a massive censorship complex. How can you tell it's censorship? They don't bother going after t…
Sure the German justice goes after people making unlawful postings and entire specialized police units are being established. Charges and successful verdicts regarding internet posts are nothing new at all. However, going after the posters (and even just identifying them) takes a long time. Much to long compared to the speed postings get shared.
It's not the German justice going after it, that's the point. Why would they? They're not looking to punish anyone, but simply make unwanted statements disappear.
Right now, they've appointed a private organization (Arvato) that belongs to the Bertelsmann group, which has a strong lobbying branch and is very close to the government.
So basically, a private corporation is allowed to run its own show on all ends and it'll only get worse when they turn this into a law.
German sources:
https://netzpolitik.org/2016/sz-recherche-so-arbeitet-das-fa...
https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Lobbyismus-Koenig-Bertelsma...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>However, going after the posters (and even just identifying them) takes a long time.
That doesn't justify censorship in any way. You sound like a government shill.
Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
When victims are overtaken by force, coercion, stealth, or a multitude of other reasons, you can't blame them. When a victim in their right mind offers up a secret to someone they didn't authenticate, "victim blaming" as a construct is a stretch.
There is no reason to think, in this case, that it was a person they "didn't authenticate".
It's easy to think that, IMHO. Pre-arranging a challenge, recognizing by voice, performing a call-back to a widely publicized/trusted phone number... I really doubt anything like that occurred.
And even if there was authentication, now it's time for authorization. The only authorized recipient of a password is the exact same entity with which you established the password.
Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no reason to think, in this case, that it was a person they "didn't authenticate".
It's easy to think that, IMHO. Pre-arranging a challenge, recognizing by voice, performing a call-back to a widely publicized/trusted phone number... I really doubt anything like that occurred. And even if there was authentication, now it's time for authorization. The only authorized recipient of a password is the exact same entity with which you established the password.
What do you think occurred?
Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
When victims are overtaken by force, coercion, stealth, or a multitude of other reasons, you can't blame them. When a victim in their right mind offers up a secret to someone they didn't authenticate, "victim blaming" as a construct is a stretch.
It is not a stretch. The government must not spy its citizens. Period. They are the only ones to get blame. If I get my bike stolen I am not be blamed if I use a shitty lock. If I get raped I am not to be blamed if I was too drunk to resist. If I get hacked I am not to be blamed if I was susceptible to social engineering. Yes, it is very useful for potential victims to learn how to best protect themselves. But the mo…
You're right about government spying, but my argument isn't specific to government so let's set that aside and talk more generically.
Bike theft: stealth, in my list above -- someone acted while you weren't attentive. You didn't hand over the bike, so you're not to be blamed. Even if you used no lock whatsoever, I wouldn't blame you. You could've done more, but you need to weigh the benefits against the burden of a massive lock so there's no perfect way out.
Rape: force, in my list above. You had no ability to change the outcome. I wouldn't blame you.
Hacked via social engineering: You spilled the beans. Spilling beans is avoidable with some practice, awareness, logic... this is not the same category as the others. I don't say "this is all you're fault," of course not. But unlike the bike thief and the rapist, all you had to do was ignore the attack.
Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
>government policy of using the police and security services to [...] protect company profits and the status quo If anyone needed more evidence that we are living in a bourgeois democracy rather than a people's democracy, look no further than this government policy enforced by their thugs.
Given how easy a group can be swayed and controlled given our current centralization of media/culture, our technology, and our understanding of psychology, is it possible for there to ever again be a people's democracy? Giving the vote to the people seems to be inherently giving the vote to those who control the information being fed to the people, be that an oligarchy or the government.
The only viable forms of government i see now is a benevolent enlightened dictator or a scientocracy.
The only way to remove manipulation is to remove emotion from politics. So you either need someone who knows what needs to be done and can't be influenced otherwise, or a system that is not easy to influence, like one based on facts and evidence.
Enlightened dictator is a high risk high reward type of deal though, even if he is awesome then there are no guarantees afterwards. Basically rolling dice. Of course you need to do other things too, like restricting the influence of money in politics, but even with decent politicians the masses are vulnerable to manipulation by various interests. That really is the Achilles heel of democracy. So the system needs to be transparent and based on the scientific method. It really is the only way to remain impartial and objective.
We have a long way to get there however, so I think a short term solution is to invest in education. I know it's kind of a platitude and also imperfect, but history and research has shown that education really is the defining factor between the good and the bad. A democracy needs an educated populace, monarchy was fine and natural for certain times because it pretty much the only thing that could have worked when 95% of the populace was illiterate and relatively stupid. Sudden democracy in the Middle Ages would have been a disaster. Unfortunately there seems to be a trend of anti-intellectualism recently is certain places like the UK and US. Make no mistake, whether it is deliberate or not, it is exactly what many interests want. Dumb people are much easier to manipulate.
Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A nation of cowards, really. A nation of sheep perhaps but not a nation of cowards.
Until the people of the UK stand up and do something about the criminal factions that have usurped their government, I remain of the view that it is really a very cowardly society. There is simply no other excuse for the inaction and disregard for these heinous crimes. Not to mention a significant portion of the society appears to be perfectly aligned with the need for a total surveillance state, due to an endemic na…
> due to an endemic national fear that, perhaps, the imperial acts committed in their name will come home to roost..
Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, most people I know don't know much about what we did during the age of empire and the rest broadly think Empire was a good thing for the countries we conquered.
Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I think I wasn't clear. I meant making the activities that people blow the whistle on legal/clearly defined as expected practice, rather than whistleblowing itself. If as a country we're OK with doing X and not with people whistleblowing about the country doing X, then we should make X clearly defined as legal. I don't think we should make these things legal, personally, but I think they should either be legal…
We have made surveillance legal, and provided a framework of protections, under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Before RIPA we had a bunch of different public bodies using surveillance with little control over what they were doing. After RIPA they can still use surveillance if they follow the correct procedures, and some of the abuses were reigned in. The police especially have strong powers to use surveillan…
And so something that falls entirely within both the letter and spirit of those regulations wouldn't be something a person would have protections for 'whistleblowing', right? Since it's not really whistleblowing in those cases.