Oh come on. Grow up. Assuming your "theory" of multiple access points, and a bad man doing the dirty with those points. You truly think his mobile movements cannot be tracked? These guys are clever. And they know a lot more about it than you or I. Most of any real legal case is about circumstantial evidence. The proof is very diffcult to catch. If they had to "grab" computers, for fidning the evidence, they would have been runnig an openly police state for years.
They use the circumstantial to decide whether or not to act. The circumstantial gives them a reason to grab a PC/whatever with the actual proof. What? You think the "terrorists" are the worst or darkest? Not even close my friend. In the middle of the deepest darkest part of your mind, you might find a scary thing. In the middle of that, is the brightest part of some people's minds! these are the twits who need stopping.
By the way. What is a "perp". It was not in my English-Arab dictionary.
Io totally agree, and that was my point. Missed by most. The internet is an extremely dark place. My objection is to allowing the dark people to hide, permanently. Of coursae they hide. Of course they exist. Christ, there are some truly screwed up individuals. I have had to deal with it more than once.
My point is, that by being "responsible" about my actions, I have the freedom to act. I don't care that my ISP knows what I am doing. I don't care that my ISP can catch this message and give it to the right wing (Christian) fundamentalists in the United States.
What worries me, is that this Guy, instead of asking the world at large for help, has provided a legal precedent which will certainly be abused in the coming months/years. Until some truly awful event, is so uncontrevertible, it can over turn the original decision.
Who has to die for that? A child? An African? An African child? And who will scream about "right wing extremism" then? Or catholic cover ups?
The decision was wrong, and only time will prove me right. For what it is worth, I think you and I actually agree. We just do not see it in the same light, but may be that has to do with how much of the darkness you have truly seen!
People talk about "an expectation of privacy". Others discuss the situation relative to toher countries. As an ISP administrator I have seen some (hopefully darkest, but probably not) parts of the net. There are some really sick people out there, and I would imagine that Germany suddenly became an attractive labour market to these people.
Let me explain. I do not "expect" privacy. I do not "expect" all ISPs to spend millions of Euros on logging mechanisms based on each user records. The impact of this is huge. Currently all user activities are normally written to a single log file. The files are normally rotated based on time. This does not apply to telco records, which are stored differently, due to billing concerns. Anyway, in order to extract one user's activities, one requires each line in the log files (relevant to a user) to be searchable, and identifiable, then easily deletable. This will mean vast databases, huge storage requirements (it is not just the data, but the indexing, and more logging for the database activities, etc). not to mention another opportunity for goverments to set up a new office, to monitor which logs are generated, by which ISP. What about changes to logging systems? Will that now require Federal authorisation?
So what do I expect? Well, I expect ISPs to behave in a responsible manner. If someone wants to look at my ISP records, I will galdly sign a piece of papar to let them. Why? Because if some bureaucrat wants to find out I spent >40 mintues browsing slashdot this morning, I don't care. We do not live in a police state (and I am not going to tell you where I do live;-). But, we do live in a state with enough freedom for people to do some truly awful things, and publish their feelings on the internet. These people should be catchable and stoppable, quickly. I do not expect the authorities to let my doctor intercept my e-mail transmission (I hope the UK is listenting there). I do expect the relevant qaulified people to be allowed to access my information, if they go through the approved channels, and make a formal request to my ISP.
Terrorism is not an excuse. Most governmental monitoring is relatively trivial for a cell based organisation to work round, and I am sure they do.
Think about the reality. How many terrorists are there? And how many twisted people? I am not just talking about perverts, but race hate, etc also apply. Would you like the person next door, to be able to publish pictures of your kids on the net, and then hide his tracks. Or would you be prepared to tolerate an occasional question, based on clicking a link in a spam mail? Even if that was by accident? So long as the questions are discrete, or everyone gets them (either would result in the fact that I would not be instantly guilty, by association with the question), then it is fine.
Of course, it is in the nature of "authorities" to lose control of their own employees, and for this to be abused. This is more common in the UK, than in France or Germany. Belgium is a different problem, as they seem to have statue authorised paedophilia, anyway. But this abuse just leads to more debate, and further reviews of the legislation, which is what democracy is all about.
Most people have no idea how much of their activity is traceable. Anonymizers? They don't work. If I want to track a user activity, I can, and I can trace it back to the source telephone number, which has an address, and a physical piece of copper connecting it. Have I ever done this? No of course not. I have much more interesting things to do at work. This is a disaster for the ISP industry, and for the community as a whole, and certainly not for the individual who boasts in the bar about having his records erased.
Wake up people. This is not about freedom. Has anyone asked what the plaintiff has to hide? I hope he gets cyber-stalked by a hate group, who are now able to hide their tracks. Rough justice, but if one child is hurt as a result of this case, then it will be some justice (not enough IMHO).
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on. Grow up. Assuming your "theory" of multiple access points, and a bad man doing the dirty with those points. You truly think his mobile movements cannot be tracked? These guys are clever. And they know a lot more about it than you or I. Most of any real legal case is about circumstantial evidence. The proof is very diffcult to catch. If they had to "grab" computers, for fidning the evidence, they would have been runnig an openly police state for years. They use the circumstantial to decide whether or not to act. The circumstantial gives them a reason to grab a PC/whatever with the actual proof. What? You think the "terrorists" are the worst or darkest? Not even close my friend. In the middle of the deepest darkest part of your mind, you might find a scary thing. In the middle of that, is the brightest part of some people's minds! these are the twits who need stopping. By the way. What is a "perp". It was not in my English-Arab dictionary.
Hi,
Io totally agree, and that was my point. Missed by most. The internet is an extremely dark place. My objection is to allowing the dark people to hide, permanently. Of coursae they hide. Of course they exist. Christ, there are some truly screwed up individuals. I have had to deal with it more than once.
My point is, that by being "responsible" about my actions, I have the freedom to act. I don't care that my ISP knows what I am doing. I don't care that my ISP can catch this message and give it to the right wing (Christian) fundamentalists in the United States.
What worries me, is that this Guy, instead of asking the world at large for help, has provided a legal precedent which will certainly be abused in the coming months/years. Until some truly awful event, is so uncontrevertible, it can over turn the original decision.
Who has to die for that? A child? An African? An African child? And who will scream about "right wing extremism" then? Or catholic cover ups?
The decision was wrong, and only time will prove me right. For what it is worth, I think you and I actually agree. We just do not see it in the same light, but may be that has to do with how much of the darkness you have truly seen!
People talk about "an expectation of privacy". Others discuss the situation relative to toher countries. As an ISP administrator I have seen some (hopefully darkest, but probably not) parts of the net. There are some really sick people out there, and I would imagine that Germany suddenly became an attractive labour market to these people.
;-). But, we do live in a state with enough freedom for people to do some truly awful things, and publish their feelings on the internet. These people should be catchable and stoppable, quickly. I do not expect the authorities to let my doctor intercept my e-mail transmission (I hope the UK is listenting there). I do expect the relevant qaulified people to be allowed to access my information, if they go through the approved channels, and make a formal request to my ISP.
Let me explain. I do not "expect" privacy. I do not "expect" all ISPs to spend millions of Euros on logging mechanisms based on each user records. The impact of this is huge. Currently all user activities are normally written to a single log file. The files are normally rotated based on time. This does not apply to telco records, which are stored differently, due to billing concerns. Anyway, in order to extract one user's activities, one requires each line in the log files (relevant to a user) to be searchable, and identifiable, then easily deletable. This will mean vast databases, huge storage requirements (it is not just the data, but the indexing, and more logging for the database activities, etc). not to mention another opportunity for goverments to set up a new office, to monitor which logs are generated, by which ISP. What about changes to logging systems? Will that now require Federal authorisation?
So what do I expect? Well, I expect ISPs to behave in a responsible manner. If someone wants to look at my ISP records, I will galdly sign a piece of papar to let them. Why? Because if some bureaucrat wants to find out I spent >40 mintues browsing slashdot this morning, I don't care. We do not live in a police state (and I am not going to tell you where I do live
Terrorism is not an excuse. Most governmental monitoring is relatively trivial for a cell based organisation to work round, and I am sure they do.
Think about the reality. How many terrorists are there? And how many twisted people? I am not just talking about perverts, but race hate, etc also apply. Would you like the person next door, to be able to publish pictures of your kids on the net, and then hide his tracks. Or would you be prepared to tolerate an occasional question, based on clicking a link in a spam mail? Even if that was by accident? So long as the questions are discrete, or everyone gets them (either would result in the fact that I would not be instantly guilty, by association with the question), then it is fine.
Of course, it is in the nature of "authorities" to lose control of their own employees, and for this to be abused. This is more common in the UK, than in France or Germany. Belgium is a different problem, as they seem to have statue authorised paedophilia, anyway. But this abuse just leads to more debate, and further reviews of the legislation, which is what democracy is all about.
Most people have no idea how much of their activity is traceable. Anonymizers? They don't work. If I want to track a user activity, I can, and I can trace it back to the source telephone number, which has an address, and a physical piece of copper connecting it. Have I ever done this? No of course not. I have much more interesting things to do at work. This is a disaster for the ISP industry, and for the community as a whole, and certainly not for the individual who boasts in the bar about having his records erased.
Wake up people. This is not about freedom. Has anyone asked what the plaintiff has to hide? I hope he gets cyber-stalked by a hate group, who are now able to hide their tracks. Rough justice, but if one child is hurt as a result of this case, then it will be some justice (not enough IMHO).