Live data from Hacker News

Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

b0ing.me

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More 'laugh at Daily Mail readers' fodder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPlEIryW8zA

Good find. Charlie Brooker is the only public voice of reason I've seen in the UK media. His work is hilarious and thought provoking and nothing in between.

Also responsible for some of the best television of the year so far (related): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTSc2nTYUGI

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good find. Charlie Brooker is the only public voice of reason I've seen in the UK media. His work is hilarious and thought provoking and nothing in between.

Also responsible for some of the best television of the year so far (related): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTSc2nTYUGI

Agreed! Definitely one of the best things I've seen for a long time.

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#44
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably because the Daily Mail is a newspaper. David Cameron is a prime minister. Those are two completely different things. A newspaper can sit and rant all it wants and be ignored[1] but if an MP/PM says they want to block porn, far more people take notice, likely because it can actually be enacted. [1] Especially if it's the Daily Mail, a crazy, backwards newspaper nobody takes seriously.

But Cameron is just doing this because the Daily Mail have whipped up such a storm. He even credits them with being responsible for this issue... ‘The Daily Mail has campaigned hard to make internet search engine filters “default on”. Today they can declare that campaign a success,’ Mr Cameron said. Source taken from a bizarrely self-congratualtory DM article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2372833/Net-porn-…

When I viewed this article last night the "Sidebar of Shame" had an article about one of the Kardashians babies wearing a string bikini, of course they were outraged "Is this appropriate?" but that didn't stop them publishing it.

Bunch of utter hypocrites

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#45

I hope it leads to more use of VPN and like. The added advantage would be that your ISP and GCHQ can not easily tap into your online activities, and you'll always have plausible cover of using VPN to hide your pornographic habit.

It is of course only a matter of time before the use of VPN becomes a regulated service, maybe similar to gun control. If you can prove that you need it professionally you will be added to a government registry and allowed to use a VPN. Otherwise, no.

To be honest, they'd have to regulate "computer networking" for that to work. It's not just VPNs, I can open an SSH tunnel to any number of machines to make web requests on my behalf.

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#46
post #22
post #4

What will be extremely interesting is when one of these databases of people who have opted in to receive pornography is leaked. Especially if it contains the names of politicians and other high profile individuals. I believe that's when the issue of privacy will start to be publicly debated and taken seriously.

Shouldn't politicians have extra ISPs that are not being monitored? I think politicians deal with so much sensitive information that they should be exempt from monitoring. Also, how are they supposed to form new policies on porn if they can't check it out unchecked?

They should not be dealing with sensitive information, unencrypted over a non-governmental Internet connection, so your point is irrelevant.

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#47

I hope it leads to more use of VPN and like. The added advantage would be that your ISP and GCHQ can not easily tap into your online activities, and you'll always have plausible cover of using VPN to hide your pornographic habit.

It is of course only a matter of time before the use of VPN becomes a regulated service, maybe similar to gun control. If you can prove that you need it professionally you will be added to a government registry and allowed to use a VPN. Otherwise, no.

There is not a single network protocol in existence that allows a signal (any data under control of the sender) that can't be used to run VPN over.

DNS. "Yes, I do lots of lookups for [long hex string].some.com", and my preferred DNS server is "[vpn provider in country which won't cooperate].com", what of it?

SMTP. IMAP. HTTP.

Pretty much any protocol allows realtime transmission of large chunks of encoded data sufficient to pass IP datagrams back and forth without much difficulty (by controlling both endpoints, so the servers might be "fake" servers - e.g. an smtp server that doesn't send messages, but accepts messages and returns overly verbose errors, or a DNS server where you constantly does "queries" that embed packets, and get responses that contains inbound packets whenever there are any.

If they were to go one further and require all traffic to pass through government proxy servers (including forcing us to knowingly accept them MITM'ing our SSL connections), then it'd be a bit more difficult, but not much: The IP datagrams would just need to be hidden in somewhat plausible looking requests and responses.

It might be slow, but it's impossible to stop because all we need is a way to pass data that they don't know to look for or can't stop. Ever read the April 1st RFC on "IP over Avian Carriers"? It's been "implemented": Print out packets as hex, strap it to a pigeon, have someone on the receiving end type in the hex digits. Obviously that is impractical, but it serves as a good reminder of just how hard it is to stop communication.

Before the internet, pirates exchanged pirated software by mailing floppies or tapes (and not just proper backup tapes - old audio tapes for home computer tape decks). That's how I got my first pirated software, 30 years ago. It got efficient enough that even before BBS's were common, pirated software could make it to pretty much every corner of the developed world in a couple of days, often beating the distributors of the real releases.

It'd also cause a surge in darknets. They keep getting surges in interests after each new attempt at restricting our freedom, and then it dies back but each time the base level of activity is a bit higher than last time.

Here's a network topology map of Hyperboria, an experimental "darknet" that exists as an encrypted network of tunnels over the existing internet, but using a new routing daemon that does encryption by default: http://norlin.ru/st/map.png - it's of course miniscule, but it's also grown from nothing to that size is a fraction of the time it took the ARPAnet.

For my part, I'm seriously contemplating experimenting with "dropping" solar cell powered wifi repeaters at a couple of spots along my commute to my local train station. I don't even have any nefarious purposes with it, nor any secrets I'm concerned about. I'd like to try it just because I'm annoyed with the quality of my mobile cell data connection, and because it'd be fun to see how long they survived, and tiny little suitable access points are getting so cheap that it's becoming viable to do just for the fun of it.

The only things stopping me are time, effort of finding suitable hardware, and that it'd need some work to be inconspicuous enough to not get some scared neighbour call out the bomb squad or something.

But we're on the verge of a situation where people can get a few grand together and get devices enough to cover a small town that are small enough and self contained enough to be "dumped" all over the place with the expectation that a high percentage of them will die or get removed every year.

The combination of more and more restrictions, and lower and lower costs brings us closer and closer to a situation where it becomes attractive and possible for small groups of people to simply start deploying their own darknets coupled with whatever tunnelling mechanisms are needed at the edges to get data to suitable exit points.

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the Daily Mail is one of the most read newspapers in the U.K. How the D.M gets away with preaching about this kind of thing baffles me though, especially because of their "side-bar of shame"

Maybe you preach about it so no-one attacks your "sidebar"? To me this OTT response from the leadership is a sign that moral conservatives are dying off and fiscal conservatives are not replacing them.

I had to read your reply a few times. I thought you were accusing me of having my own sidebar of shame.

So you think the Daily Mail tactic is kinda like, Hide in plain sight?

Re: Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really.

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you preach about it so no-one attacks your "sidebar"? To me this OTT response from the leadership is a sign that moral conservatives are dying off and fiscal conservatives are not replacing them.

I had to read your reply a few times. I thought you were accusing me of having my own sidebar of shame. So you think the Daily Mail tactic is kinda like, Hide in plain sight?

Sorry, I was not talking about your own sidebar... nobody knows about yours... it is our secret :).

...

DM has been receiving some flack from their readers for it (the sidebar) so I suspect they are trying to make up for it but ultimately knowing it draws eyeballs.

Post reply on HN