EU legislation will allow authorities search your PC remotly without a warrent.

BaconZombie

Do you have a copyright logo or image in your temporary internet folder?
If so that you are technically breaking copyright law and the below applies.


RTDH:

The first part is right, but the second is wrong, they have outsource most of this to private companies.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Do your or your kids have any unauthorized downloads? Mp3s, movies or material from torrent sites? A French proposal last year sought an internet ban for up to six months on individuals caught wilh illegal material on their PC.


The Authorities will set up "search robots" just like a Google search engine that will track PC's that are downloading unauthorized material. They can then hack into the HDD of any offending PC and use is as evidence in a prosecution. None of this can be fully effective until the EU enforces registered administration access which i can see is only around the corner.

LEIN

Riot in Brussels ftw.

Who is with me??

thelordofcheese

lisbon_lions wrote: »

Absolute bollox, the scenario I offered was by way of example - call it tabloid if you may but the reality is that such an individuals privacy is at risk here, be they 14 or 84.

Moving onto your 2nd observation, there are unscruplous people out there in every profession, and do I hope your ability to think affords you this.

Unfortunately your propensity to think does not go sufficiently far enought to see that your right to privacy is being eroded.

I'm calling you on your gutter level tabloid style "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" nonsense. it's a clear appeal to fear, basically saying that if this goes ahead it'll be a golden age for unscruplous people to rape and exploit teenage girls.
Which is, of course bullshit. And it also shows that either you've no conviction in any of the real dangers of such power being granted, or you think that people in general are too stupid to realise the dangers unless you lie to them (ironically, the same thing that you'd immediately accuse any government of doing if they defended this).
Both of these damage your cause more than anything.

Until you stop trying to use such tripe i'm going to ignore your posts even if i happen to agree with you. You can make the case against this without having to be so trashy in your arguments.

Cow Moolester

BOFH_139 wrote: »

Do you have a copyright logo or image in your temporary internet folder?
If so that you are technically breaking copyright law and the below applies.


RTDH:

The first part is right, but the second is wrong, they have outsource most of this to private companies.

Actually it doesn't.
The only way the police have the authority to search a person's computer under the new legislation is if the offence they could be committing carries a prison sentence of over 3 years

lisbon_lions

If a tabloid type approach succeeds where rhetoric fails, then so be it - I make no apology for that. Nor why should I, i dont want to wake up in the not too distant future to be in a monitoring state any more than you do.

Tom65

Eh... 'remote searching' has been allowed for quite some time in the UK (a little research tells me since 1990 and the Computer Misuse Act). Where the EU comes in is that it will allow the British government to 'remotely search' someone's PC (in the UK) on behalf of French or German (for example) police. So, if you're going to blame someone, blame the British.

Secondly, some people seem to be getting very annoyed at the fact the police might find out you broke the law and downloaded music or movies illegally. Your high horse has died - you did something illegal, you don't get to complain about the police finding out.

Boskowski

noblestee wrote: »

Im not a paedophile, an internet fraudster, an identity thief or a terrorist. So unless you are, who cares?

That one had to come didn't it? I'm not all of that either but I still don't think I want my privacy to be at the discretion of some state body.

Boskowski

Tom65 wrote: »

Secondly, some people seem to be getting very annoyed at the fact the police might find out you broke the law and downloaded music or movies illegally. Your high horse has died - you did something illegal, you don't get to complain about the police finding out.

Right, and you're quite prepared to surrender everybody's right to privacy so that some media companies can protect their revenues. Cos that's where it's all going to go. First it was about terrorists (don't get me started on that even), than paedophiles (I mean how could you argue against that, right, very clever), now it's everything that may attract a prison sentence over 3 years. Next you have a fkn SWAT team coming down on you 'cos you dropped a cigarette butt on the street or what?

ART6

<3BeingIN6th wrote: »

At the end of the day, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about.

I wonder how many Jews in Germany in the nineteen-thirties comforted themselves with that?

BOFH_139 wrote: »

The right to privacy is something that EVERY human is entitled, this is another slip down a VERY slippery slope and will be hard if not impossible to recover from very soon.

Very true. I have lived long enough and travelled enough to be satisfied that every intrusion into people's lives by governments and law inforcement agencies is fundamentally dangerous and will eventually lead to repression - but always for the best reasons.

Cow Moolester wrote: »

Actually it doesn't.
The only way the police have the authority to search a person's computer under the new legislation is if the offence they could be committing carries a prison sentence of over 3 years[/quote]

"Could" be committing??? I could be committing a murder at this moment instead of just sitting here with a glass of good Irish whiskey, so why don't they pounce on me just in case? I though our criminal justice system required a crime to have been committed and proven beyond all reasonable doubt in front of a jury of one's peers -- not "could be". This sounds like another EU initiative based on the French system that you have to prove your innocence rather than the prosecution having to prove your guilt. Possibly someone can prove me wrong on the latter point since I am no expert on French law

Terry

Scaremongering at its best.

Interpol, the CIA, the FBI, Scotland Yard, the Gendarmes etc. are all out to get you.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

They're watching you right now.
You know the way that you never hear about these things until someone messes up or until the details are released under official secrets acts?
You'll hear all about it in 30 years time.

That 16 year old from down the road who was presumed kidnapped or murdered is actually in a high security French prison for downloading a Britney Spears album.

coffee_cake

shenanigans1982 wrote: »

Lets all look up porn so when they search through our PC's they will think all we do is look at porn.

dont we?

dr.bollocko

ART6 wrote: »

I wonder how many Jews in Germany in the nineteen-thirties comforted themselves with that?

:eek:
Really? You want to equate the EU looking at some people's PCs with the holocaust?

Cuddlesworth

Bit hypocritical to say for years that black hats are breaking the law but its ok to do the same as long as the Super gives the wink. There is a huge amount of work that goes into a search warrant and afterwards if your lawyer finds anything wrong with one tiny part of it all information and evidence collected is generally null and void.

Who is going to monitor the people that do this?
Who is going to train them?
Who is going to pay for the cost involved?
Exactly how important will this information be in the evidence chain?
How likely is it that if full control of your pc is obtained, that evidence can't be planted?

Boskowski

<3BeingIN6th wrote: »

Scaremongering at its best.

Interpol, the CIA, the FBI, Scotland Yard, the Gendarmes etc. are all out to get you.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

They're watching you right now.
You know the way that you never hear about these things until someone messes up or until the details are released under official secrets acts?
You'll hear all about it in 30 years time.

That 16 year old from down the road who was presumed kidnapped or murdered is actually in a high security French prison for downloading a Britney Spears album.

Of course they are not, but making a mockery of people who are concerned with civil liberties is not a very intelligent to be doing in my book, I could say ignorant even or worse.
These powers in the hands of the authorities are way out of proportion. Or would you agree that the police should be allowed into your house without a warrant on mere suspicion of you being guilty of a crime that may bring on a 3 year prison sentence?
Maybe you should google on what's actually happening in England already. Where over-eager public servants feel free to rummage through your police files, credit history, binbags, you name it, 'cos you had the cheek to apply for children's allowance or a rent supplement. You give these people these powers and they or someone else will abuse them. Not that hard to understand and no reason to mock us as tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy freaks.

ART6

<3BeingIN6th wrote: »

Scaremongering at its best.

Interpol, the CIA, the FBI, Scotland Yard, the Gendarmes etc. are all out to get you.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

They're watching you right now.
You know the way that you never hear about these things until someone messes up or until the details are released under official secrets acts?
You'll hear all about it in 30 years time.

That 16 year old from down the road who was presumed kidnapped or murdered is actually in a high security French prison for downloading a Britney Spears album.

I'm not sure if you are responding to my post, but if you are then you have lost me completely. Did you intend to be sarchastic?

I am not paranoid and I don't believe that everyone is out to get me. But I am very concerned about the increasing surveillance that is going on (always, as I said, for the best reasons). I have this uneasy feeling that EU governments of late are heavily biased towards control rather than service, and as a result we have, for example, cameras watching us instead of police officers patrolling. I don't want to be watched covertly in everything I do, on the assumption that I "might" be planning some crime. If you are not also concerned, perhaps I could refer you to the experience of history -- East Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba, China.......Privacy and freedom have to be defended or the creeping erosion of them will one day catch all of us unawares. And before you use your powers to ban me, I do not consider that I am trolling.:D

Capt'n Midnight

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Bit hypocritical to say for years that black hats are breaking the law but its ok to do the same as long as the Super gives the wink. There is a huge amount of work that goes into a search warrant and afterwards if your lawyer finds anything wrong with one tiny part of it all information and evidence collected is generally null and void.

Who is going to monitor the people that do this?
Who is going to train them?
Who is going to pay for the cost involved?
Exactly how important will this information be in the evidence chain?
How likely is it that if full control of your pc is obtained, that evidence can't be planted?

How likely is it that if full control of your pc is obtained, that evidence can't be planted?
BINGO !

as for training people, it would be far easier with automated searches
they already have the ISP records so why do they need to do this too ?

but a live search bypasses any encryption



but seriously Microsoft have 89,809 employees , how could be agents ??
adobe systems have 6,677 and there are lots of other large software companies
also no doubt many people in the open source community are patriots of one sort or another.
MD5 signed certs have been broken and DNS / Routers can be compromised so you can't even be sure that you have "genuine" software.
But lets say you have genuine software, and no one has slipped anything past QA you still aren't safe from government mandated backdoors, and lots of AV / security whitelist them. Some security software is written in Israel* so lots of data protection laws don't apply and even if they did you can imagine how difficult it would be for their security forces to pass up on such an oppertunity.

If you are paranoid look up nsakey

This you could not make up - all US wiretaps were controlled by Israel. Who wants to hide stuff or plant evidence, but relax it's just used to steal business secrets , isn't it ?
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ketcham.php?articleid=13506

The Israeli-run Verint is today the provider of telecom interception systems deployed in over 50 countries.
...
"when the equipment was bought from the Israelis, it was agreed that no one except [Verint] personnel was authorized to touch the systems....Source code would never be available to anyone."

https://www.indymedia.org/de/2007/07/890043.shtml - government trojans whitelisted by antivirus products.

galwayrush

....Turns off remote assistance.................:rolleyes:

MackDeToaster

CreepingDeath wrote: »

To make it more difficult for terrorists and criminals to communicate.
If someone uses strong encryption, then they might get special attention.

Your right though, serious criminals probably already use advanced encryption.

That's just it though. The only guys that are getting caught are the complete numpties. All this sort of thing does is force an arms race and those with something genuine to hide will always be ahead. I use Ubuntu and on the latest version ran the full encryption option, the tech is easily available and the genie can't be put back in the lamp.
There's laws out already saying you have to hand over passwords to encyrpted files and volumes on pain on jail, but they're already useless because of plausible deniability - hidden crypts and files within crypts etc.

So my conclusion, this is absolutely useless. It's just politicians and vested interests (security forces, tech/it/security companies, etc) pumping out a cloud of fud in order to appear to be doing something and/or get big contracts, whereas all it really serves to do is attack people's freedoms. Bull****tery of the highest order and to be opposed at every step.

Boskowski

galwayrush wrote: »

....Turns off remote assistance.................:rolleyes:

and terminal services and a ton of other stuff

BaconZombie

Why? It can be remotely turned back on in under 3 seconds.

galwayrush wrote: »

....Turns off remote assistance.................:rolleyes:

galwayrush

BOFH_139 wrote: »

Why? It can be remotely turned back on in under 3 seconds.

Can it be removed then?

LEIN

galwayrush wrote: »

Can it be removed then?

Terminate you internet connection!

galwayrush

Damo9090 wrote: »

Terminate you internet connection!

HAHAH.
Anyways, who cares.4 people on 2 computers here,different ages, intrests. that should confuse any cyber spy.:D

Terry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRwwYWlbP2U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXZMZ-XvvzI

LEIN

<3BeingIN6th wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRwwYWlbP2U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXZMZ-XvvzI

Lol they are coming for you after those videos! :P

Davidius

In a perfect world, you'd be fine if you'd nothing to hide. Come to think of it in a perfect world, there'd be no crime.

But the world's not perfect. I always imagined that was the main reason warrants existed. To help prevent abuse.

gerky

As I said in a previous thread I hate the old "well unless your doing something wrong" excuse, privacy isn't a privilege it's one of our basic rights.

Should someone be able to find out your health problems? No.

Should someone be able to find out your sexual preference/history/problems? No.

How about your bathroom habits? No.

These are no different than any other area's of your life, as long as its legal its nobody else's business but yours.

And I know people say its only a small thing and that we are overreacting but all these little things add up and from a persons internet history and computer you can tell a huge amount about them, their work, health problems, sexual preferences, and so on.

If the last decade or two should tell us anything its that the more information and databases there are, the more abuses and breaches of that information there will be.
There have already been several cases in this country alone of abuses of data.

Donald-Duck

Cow Moolester wrote: »

I read about it in an article. There are pretty much only 2 ways they will do this:
1) Park outside your house and access your computer through the wireless network
2) Send you an e-mail with a virus attachment. Once you download it, it will give them access to your computer.


I also sort of agree with RTDH on this...too far a step IMO. I have nothing to hide but that still doesn't give anyone any permission to search through my stuff. That's pretty much your privacy thrown out the window.

I am sorry but you are completely wrong, thats how your 12 year old neighbour might do it.

Donald-Duck

gerky wrote: »

As I said in a previous thread I hate the old "well unless your doing something wrong" excuse, privacy isn't a privilege it's one of our basic rights.

Should someone be able to find out your health problems? No.

Should someone be able to find out your sexual preference/history/problems? No.

How about your bathroom habits? No.

These are no different than any other area's of your life, as long as its legal its nobody else's business but yours.

And I know people say its only a small thing and that we are overreacting but all these little things add up and from a persons internet history and computer you can tell a huge amount about them, their work, health problems, sexual preferences, and so on.

If the last decade or two should tell us anything its that the more information and databases there are, the more abuses and breaches of that information there will be.
There have already been several cases in this country alone of abuses of data.

Well technically a warrant gives the police access to your personal life. The article clearly says it will be only used in cases where someone is strongly suspected of illegal behaviour, and no this isn't going to get you sued for downloading the latest album.

And since some of you think they'll spy on everyone in the world at the same time, its simply not possible.

And no, they can't break the all encryption. If you use 256bit encryption that is not just loads of words put together then it would take decades to be cracked.

Run_to_da_hills

Donald-Duck wrote: »

Well technically a warrant gives the police access to your personal life. The article clearly says it will be only used in cases where someone is strongly suspected of illegal behavior, and no this isn't going to get you sued for downloading the latest album. .

May be not now, but if some strict totalitarian ruling power takes over and passes some zero tolerance legislation on crime the door is wide open. At one time one could be deported to Australia for swiping a loaf of bread.

Donald-Duck wrote: »

And since some of you think they'll spy on everyone in the world at the same time, its simply not possible. .

Yes they can, the authorities will use automated search robots that will automatically sus out offenders and subsequently spit out email warnings, to those that persist doors will be kicked in. Serious revenue is lost through illegal downloading and it all adds up.

Donald-Duck wrote: »

And no, they can't break the all encryption. If you use 256bit encryption that is not just loads of words put together then it would take decades to be cracked.

Microsoft and third party security software may be forced to allow authorities gain access through spyware blocking programmes.