Slashdot Mirror
GCHQ Tried To Track Web Visits of "Every Visible User On Internet"
An anonymous reader writes with Ars Technica's story on the relevations reported today by The Intercept that the UK's GCHQ has been tracking World Wide Web users since 2007, with an operation called "Karma Police" -- "a program that tracked Web browsing habits of people around the globe in what the agency itself billed as the 'world's biggest' Internet data-mining operation, intended to eventually track 'every visible user on the Internet.'"
Well, at least they have good taste!
That sounds ridiculous. They should have used something with more of a verbal punch, perhaps recalling banditry and tracking on a live document.
Considering the next lyrics in that song after "Karma Police" are... ..."Arrest this man".
I *totally* feel safer and more free already, and I don't even live under that regime.
Not that they couldn't just make one phone call across the pond and have whatever they want done to me in the dead of night with no trace. Yay freedom.
For all the snorting over Windows 10 and privacy... it is nothing compared to this nonsense...
And some people think, "oh, but I run Linux, so I'm safe!"
Yep, sure you are... :)
You know its getting a lot harder the tell the good guys from the bad guys, so much so I am not sure there is any meaningful difference.
Article suggests "does". The sequence will go as follows, or similar, looking at web site visits, search queries, benefitting from LE access to Facebook etc to see instant messages:
- genuine national security threats
- interest in Islamism
- anti-establishment politicians and their most powerful supporters
- all remaining politicians, to keep them in line
- high stakes economic criminals
- campaigners against government policy or government-friendly business
- the most dangerous suspects of crime, e.g. murderers
- people involved in distributing child pornography
- users of anonymising services
- people who view any pornography that doesn't pass regulations
- posters to prominent or troublesome political forums
- pirates, yarhh!
- posts to Grauniad CIF or BBC HYS
Eventually nearly everyone is either under suspicion of committing at least one crime or has said something which taken out of context looks dangerous enough to warrant further investigation should anyone want to make their lives miserable in the future. The rest have said or viewed something embarrassing enough that (you were depressed once and looked for help? Furry porno watched one curious weekend? A racist rant... oh, you were just trolling?), should they ever become relevant in any way, the media will somehow find out.
show under one roof. sucker born every minute.
You cannot accuse much less convict people for something they haven't done yet. Once you do that, we're at despotism and there's nothing stopping them from convicting you or me for whatever reason. The laws have already been pushed too far. Why do you think it's time to abandon them? How likely are you to die in a "terror" event?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
You cannot accuse much less convict people for something they haven't done yet. Once you do that, we're at despotism and there's nothing stopping them from convicting you or me for whatever reason. The laws have already been pushed too far. Why do you think it's time to abandon them? How likely are you to die in a "terror" event?
The whole point of the law is to ensure that everyone is guilty of something. That way, whenever you want to get some particular individual there is always something to catch him on.
You don't have to convict people for something they haven't done yet; theres always something they've done.
Why do you think there are so many laws and no one can be sure they aren't breaking one?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Just think of the possibilities if they had used all those resources for something useful instead of poking their noses into things that were none of their business in the first place!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
You cannot accuse much less convict people for something they haven't done yet. Once you do that, we're at despotism and there's nothing stopping them from convicting you or me for whatever reason.
Allow me to introduce you to "conspiracy to commit ____."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/se...
The UK thinking on "would be far less far reaching than they are now and intelligence gathering could be much more targeted and effective." has evolved from the Ireland issues of small groups of people meeting without cell or set locations in the 1970-80's.
The solution was to track small groups of people down the the cell level and then offer each member a personal option: work for the UK intelligence services or not.
Over the years people where successfully advance up the cell structure exposing all existing and new cells they had command and control over.
Thats why the UK likes to watch everything and connect everything as it cannot be sure of how, where and when people of interest will meet and if they can even be observed without sat or other very costly and advanced platforms per person.
The "without further authorization" shows not much has changed from the 1920's or the classic Home Office Warrant (HOW) days. The pipes are fast, wide, always expanded as domestic and international data grows and collecting it all over every generation of optical upgrade.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I mean, if they've been watching since 2007 they've definitely seen me torrenting, but eventually they'd figure out I was just grabbing various Linux distros. That's gotta be a letdown.
Maybe we should all just keep seeding old and new versions of all the distros so GCHQ has something to keep themselves busy - they're obviously not interested in actually going out and tracking down terrorists.
#DeleteChrome
saying bad things about the poofs is not terrorism. Its just bulling at worst, trolling at best. There's a difference between discussion and actively trying to physically damage people.
Maybe that's the line to draw, in which case we'd never arrest anyone until after they'd killed a load of people, but maybe that's the price we pay for your attitude towards theses criminal's liberties.
For me terrorism is telling people what they should do, bullying them into submission with constant attacks on their views. All the time ignoring the tricky question of what we can do to protect innocent citizens from terror attacks while still respecting civil liberties.
The word "terrorist" has a clear-cut and unambiguous definition. A terrorist is someone who deliberately and intentionally targets and attacks non-combatant civilians to further his political goals.
When the Normans took control of England in 1066, one of the first things they did was create the 'doomsday book' (basically a record of who owned what for taxation purposes).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Anybody who lives here knows our government is very sneaky about their eventual descent to out and out fascism. They have worked very hard over the last few decades to be able to monitor everywhere you go in the real world, everything you say over distance and everything you do in the online world.
Why would a government working for and behalf of the people want a dossier on the physical movements, conversations and browsing details of every single one of the people it supposedly serves? Nothing but good intentions, right? Can't possibly do anything bad with all that information, right?
Added - this group is the GNAA and not (likely) APK. I had to edit the hell out of this post to make it pass the lameness filter.
That is a fairly old copypasta. They can be found and still have (or had) their IRC channel up. They're not thriving but they're active, sort of. I think they're growing up and in need of fresh blood.
They, among other groups, would make an interesting study. If it were my field then I'd consider doing the research and authoring a paper or two based on it. As it stands, I sometimes consider doing it though I'd never get it published because I lack the credentials - regardless of authorship's quality. I've been actively observing these folks, folks of this ilk - if you will, for quite some time.
Watching people and reading things like comments at online message boards is one of my favorite hobbies. I've been watching the trolls since the BBS days. I don't (usually) go for trolling personally. It's not my style and I'm generally too polite to intentionally piss people off unless I've good reason for doing so. That doesn't mean that I don't admire their work. There's a difference, in my mind, between being ignorant and being a bit of a performance artist.
Socrates would be considered a troll if he had internet access. I bet he'd have, and insist on using, an AOL email address.
A good troll will not only make you react in a disproportionate manner but will also give one/others pause to rethink their already concluded thought patterns. In fact, good trolling (and I'm presuming such exists even if folks might argue) is fairly rare and often requires quite a bit of work. Anonymity and protection from physical repercussions means we see more online trolls than we see IRL trolls.
I suspect that many of these folks would be missing teeth if they tried their antics in the real world.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I certainly don't agree with them but that you think you're the arbiter of what is and isn't welcome is, in fact, a greater problem than racism, homophobia, or any other type of bigotry. That you think you've a right to control the conversation or to insist that others adhere to your level (when you've certainly no right to determine such) is a far greater social problem than racism is.
That you tell them that you're the authority of what is and isn't quality or welcome is pretty much the definition of why you're not welcome and are getting the push back that you are. I'd submit that you're the one who is not welcome here but, in fact, you are welcome here - we have an ignore feature and can selectively read what we wish. Be that as it may, and you're certainly welcome to participate, we're laughing at you and not with you.
That you think you're capable of deciding for others is laughable. That you think your opinion is valuable is laughable. That you think you're qualified to determine what is and isn't welcome is laughable. That you think you're able to decide the merits of conversation is laughable. That you think you're somehow able to control the conversation is laughable. That you think you're somehow entitled to control the conversation is laughable.
You, ma'am, are doing more harm to society than the racists, sexists, homophobic, xenophobic, or other freaks are. However, yes, do continue to push your agenda. Some of us get great amusement from it. It's like watching two mentally retarded people fight over a donut. Fortunately the majority of us are sane and capable of critical thinking.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It's sad, but as European politicians pontificate about the evils of the US, and consider banning sending personal user data to the US, they conveniently overlook their own spy agencies are even more intrusive.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
This definition would cover GCHQ/NSA themselves, no? Any definition of the word that covers all actual terrorists seems to cover a lot of people who aren't.