Terrorist Attack in Manchester (Read MOD WARNING in OP Updated 24/05/2017))

28-05-2017 12:14PM

Samaris wrote: »

Eh, when it comes to the internet, it's a constant war between the white hats and the black hats. They'll absolutely find a way around it, and another method will have to be figured out, and they'll adapt to that too, etc. That's inevitable and happens to everyone else.

Back doors is always tricky as how do you stop someone finding it and exploiting it? It'll be in the code, it'll be figured out eventually and used.

I know.

That's why I got around to wondering whether the carded encryption methods might be more effective?

The TV cards don't seem to be replaced as often as online sites are hacked, and I presume there wouldn't be as many people wanting to hack such a system for ideological reasons, as there would be people wanting to hack encryption methods that have a financial reward ( think Banks, Paypal, online retailers,etc.).

So, double encryption, and fewer potential hackers should mean more effective security, for a while, at least?

Also, if such a system were set up, would it not be better to employ hackers that are caught hacking music sites, or tv systems, for instance, to write the next encryption, and have it ready to roll out, than spending a fortune on sending them to jail for non-violent crimes, with the resulting cost to the taxpayer?

Or, if people disagree with that idea, (since, fair enough, crimes should be punished) - then have them spend their jail time with access to whatever tools they need to create these systems. Would it not be a way of "paying their way", rather than having society pay to incarcerate them for their crimes?

Anyway, it's just a thought!

I certainly have not the skills, or knowledge, to implement such a system.

I just had an idea, and thought it would be worth a mention.

28-05-2017 12:18PM

Richard Hillman wrote: »

There is no way they cannot read WhatsApp messages. It's just what they want the terrorists to believe. There have been many times when I was talking to friends about a subject and suddenly, in between conversations, I'm getting Facebook and Google ads on the subject.

I was talking to a friend recently that told me that he was accepted into a course. I asked where was it and went into Facebook before he answers. Up popped an Ad for NCI. 5 minutes later he responds with NCI.

There is absolutely no way Facebook would have been able to resist the temptation of analysing WhatsApp conversations to suit their ad service.

That's actually a fair point!

I'm heartily sick of ads for clothes and make-up sites coming up on webpages! (I've teenage daughters, who do a bit of online shopping).

That being the case - it has to be possible to monitor what individuals say, or look at, online.

Samaris · 28-05-2017 12:23PM

I was searching for a particular company that I needed to source something from in work a few weeks ago. Same company popped up in an ad on my home computer. Did not like that at all.

I suspect that this is going to become a Thing pretty soon, especially with companies like Cambridge Analytica that have found a use for all this data and have been quite happy to collect it for targeting, particularly (and this is alarming) microtargeting in elections. I also don't like Google apps recording you without your knowledge - I looked into that one and it was quite true, my partner's phone had scooped up all sorts of bits and pieces of conversations between us. (He deleted them and turned off voice activation on his phone, because I think it weirded him out too)

Google, Facebook and a few others are way too closely linked and murky in their data collection at the moment and it worries me.

28-05-2017 12:43PM

Samaris wrote: »

I was searching for a particular company that I needed to source something from in work a few weeks ago. Same company popped up in an ad on my home computer. Did not like that at all.

I suspect that this is going to become a Thing pretty soon, especially with companies like Cambridge Analytica that have found a use for all this data and have been quite happy to collect it for targeting, particularly (and this is alarming) microtargeting in elections. I also don't like Google apps recording you without your knowledge - I looked into that one and it was quite true, my partner's phone had scooped up all sorts of bits and pieces of conversations between us. (He deleted them and turned off voice activation on his phone, because I think it weirded him out too)

Google, Facebook and a few others are way too closely linked and murky in their data collection at the moment and it worries me.

Agreed. I actually turned off "personalised ads" in Google settings.

It worked for a while, and then the clothes and make-up ads started popping up again.

I've no idea whether it was a windows update that changed the setting, or maybe a browser update. I turned it off again, anyway.

I also gets emails from e-bay, suggesting items that may interest me, based on purchase history.

Which begs the question, how many Companies out there have information about my/my families browsing history? Since purchases don't seem to be necessary to have these ads pop up - just browsing the sites.

That being the case, how is it not possible for security services to be able to monitor persons of interest?

Is it a case of insufficient personnel for monitoring, or just lack of co-operation from companies like Apple/Google, etc?

I think I'm going to have a look at that thread you mentioned in the Cafe - (and probably get an education on how ill-informed my idea was, for good measure, lol!)

Really Interested · 28-05-2017 01:40PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Agreed. I actually turned off "personalised ads" in Google settings.

It worked for a while, and then the clothes and make-up ads started popping up again.

I've no idea whether it was a windows update that changed the setting, or maybe a browser update. I turned it off again, anyway.

I also gets emails from e-bay, suggesting items that may interest me, based on purchase history.

Which begs the question, how many Companies out there have information about my/my families browsing history? Since purchases don't seem to be necessary to have these ads pop up - just browsing the sites.

That being the case, how is it not possible for security services to be able to monitor persons of interest?

Is it a case of insufficient personnel for monitoring, or just lack of co-operation from companies like Apple/Google, etc?

I think I'm going to have a look at that thread you mentioned in the Cafe - (and probably get an education on how ill-informed my idea was, for good measure, lol!)

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-incredible-story-of-how-target-exposed-a-teen-girls-pregnancy-2012-2?IR=T

I assume many in the IC community are doing the same well we know a lot of their tactics now thanks to wikileaks!

end of the road · 28-05-2017 03:36PM

joeguevara wrote: »

Think about what your saying!

Maybe it's time to do something different. What we are doing now is not working. How about stop protecting murderers because other people might be interested in terrorism. If it's downloaded, lock them up, reverse the burden of proof and make them prove they accessed it for a genuine reason...just a thought

reversing the burdin of proof is against democracy, the rule of law, and the right to a fair trial and to fair justice. the authorities have to be the one to prove the guilt.

Danzy · 28-05-2017 03:45PM

end of the road wrote: »

reversing the burdin of proof is against democracy, the rule of law, and the right to a fair trial and to fair justice. the authorities have to be the one to prove the guilt.

The challenge of Multi Cultural societies, if things like the above are valued by a society why tolerate cultures and belief systems where they are not, where they are in fact considered by many to be immoral and deeply wrong.

Discodog · 28-05-2017 03:58PM

One thing for sure, if they can read whatsapp, they won't tell us. Codebreaking & decryption are useless if the sender knows that you can read it. Much better to tell the World that you can't.

Junkyard Tom · 28-05-2017 04:02PM

Isn't the whole internet thing a red herring? He probably learned to make that yoke in Libya? I'm not going to google 'h0w 2 m'ache b0m's' but I'm sure instructions can only get you so far, no?

TimeToShine · 28-05-2017 04:06PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Isn't the whole internet thing a red herring? He probably learned to make that yoke in Libya? I'm not going to google 'h0w 2 m'ache b0m's' but I'm sure instructions can only get you so far, no?

Libya has plenty of real ammunition, they don't need makeshift DIY stuff.

Fart · 28-05-2017 04:23PM

Discodog wrote: »

One thing for sure, if they can read whatsapp, they won't tell us. Codebreaking & decryption are useless if the sender knows that you can read it. Much better to tell the World that you can't.

Backdoors on phones. No need to spend a trillion years decrypting the message history.

Easy *cough*

njs030 · 28-05-2017 04:25PM

Fart wrote: »

Backdoors on phones. No need to spend a trillion years decrypting the message history.

Easy *cough*

Why did the FBI have to take apple to court if it's so easy?

28-05-2017 04:30PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Isn't the whole internet thing a red herring? He probably learned to make that yoke in Libya? I'm not going to google 'h0w 2 m'ache b0m's' but I'm sure instructions can only get you so far, no?

Maybe he did. But how do you think either him, or the other people who join ISIS get in contact with them in the first place?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure some of these guys/gals were recruited directly - but how do you think the others, who weren't directly recruited, managed to make contact?

ceadaoin. · 28-05-2017 05:03PM

I haven't caught up on his thread fully so apologies if this has already posted but security services have identified 23,000 jihadists living in the UK, of which 3000 pose an active threat

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/huge-scale-of-terror-threat-revealed-uk-home-to-23-000-jihadists-3zvn58mhq

I know the full story is behind a paywall but the only other places Covering it that I can see are breitbart and the express which would just be denounced as right wing fake news if posted here.

Intelligence officers have identified 23,000 jihadist extremists living in Britain as potential terrorist attackers, it emerged yesterday.

The scale of the challenge facing the police and security services was disclosed by Whitehall sources after criticism that multiple opportunities to stop the Manchester bomber had been missed.

About 3,000 people from the total group are judged to pose a threat and are under investigation or active monitoring in 500 operations being run by police and intelligence services. The 20,000 others have featured in previous inquiries and are categorised as posing a “residual risk”.

BoatMad · 28-05-2017 05:17PM

Fart wrote: »

Backdoors on phones. No need to spend a trillion years decrypting the message history.

Easy *cough*

SO easy the UK Gov are considering a law forcing service providers like Whatsapps to provide decrypted feeds

the reality is Govs cant break current properly executed encryption

BuilderPlumber · 28-05-2017 05:36PM

Exeggcute wrote: »

Why Iran? Iran is at war with ISIS and have all but driven them out of Iraq. They are now giving them a good kicking in Syria.

Iranians are Shia, not Sunni. If ISIS launch an attack inside Iran, they will be making one hell of a mistake because the Iranians will stop at nothing to defeat them.

Iran, Russia and Syria are all fighting ISIS and yet there is ample evidence that Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have all aided and abetted ISIS through various means.

Only last week a Syrian army convoy en route to take on ISIS was bombed by the U.S.

Serious questions need to be asked regarding the relationship between Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and Turkey and ISIS

Frankly it stinks.

ISIS have benefited most from America's actions in the Middle East. 9/11 was bait to get America involved in wars that would take out the enemies of Sunni extremism in the Middle East.

Iran is one of the only countries actually doing something about ISIS and have helped Iraq rid themselves of them. Turkey cynically use ISIS to keep the Kurds under control. I cannot ever understand why America is always licking up to Saudi Arabia, the world's greatest sponsor of Sunni terrorism and extremism. I think Al Qaeda and ISIS related terror is not going to end until the ideology of Saudi Arabia changes. Saudi Arabia is like a medieval Catholic dictatorship transplanted into the modern world. Its poison has been spread to all the other countries it has got its claws into and its alliance with America has only egged them on in their drive to dominate the Islamic world with their hardline, warped interpretation of this faith.

BoatMad · 28-05-2017 05:47PM

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

ISIS have benefited most from America's actions in the Middle East. 9/11 was bait to get America involved in wars that would take out the enemies of Sunni extremism in the Middle East.

Iran is one of the only countries actually doing something about ISIS and have helped Iraq rid themselves of them. Turkey cynically use ISIS to keep the Kurds under control. I cannot ever understand why America is always licking up to Saudi Arabia, the world's greatest sponsor of Sunni terrorism and extremism. I think Al Qaeda and ISIS related terror is not going to end until the ideology of Saudi Arabia changes. Saudi Arabia is like a medieval Catholic dictatorship transplanted into the modern world. Its poison has been spread to all the other countries it has got its claws into and its alliance with America has only egged them on in their drive to dominate the Islamic world with their hardline, warped interpretation of this faith.

Given the vast majority of actions by the US in Iraq was against the Sunni peoples , I think you have the wrong end of the stick.

The Iranians may defeat ISIS , but the Sunnis remains the upwards of half the population in Iraq. Elsewhere its largely Sunnis , ( shias in syria account for about 15% of the pop)

Hence given the past persecution of the Iraqi Sunnis by the Iranian sponsored puppet Iraqi Gov and Iranian backed militia , we will see ISIS V2.0 bursting on the scene anyway

homerjay2005 · 28-05-2017 06:03PM

notjustsweet wrote: »

I'm not against it, it's impractical, it's a breach of human rights and it wouldn't work.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

the people who have been arrested for being terrorists this week, didnt become terrorits over night. im pretty sure, the evidence available to authorities today, would have been available to them last week, the week before etc had they did their job and raided these places.

human rights of criminals is now costing lives and this needs to change asap. its bizzare how people on here are actually giving the perception, that they are giving justification for terrorism.

BoatMad · 28-05-2017 06:05PM

human rights of criminals is now costing lives and this needs to change asap. its bizzare how people on here are actually giving the perception, that they are giving justification for terrorism.

Those that would trade freedom for a little security , deserve neither

BoatMad · 28-05-2017 06:08PM

human rights of criminals is now costing lives and this needs to change asap. its bizzare how people on here are actually giving the perception, that they are giving justification for terrorism.

and No . those people are not giving justification , they are seeking to understand it and its origins and seeking to present that to close minded people like you , that think this is some form of insane madness that just arrived out of nowhere. Its you that then seek to present that as someone " justifying " terrorism. The Old " your with us or against us trick"

28-05-2017 06:40PM

BoatMad wrote: »

Those that would trade freedom for a little security , deserve neither

That's a nice glib quote.

So, how many innocent victims should we tolerate in return for this "freedom and security"?

Because I would regard someone trawling through my Internet browsing History as more of an invasion of privacy, than an issue regarding freedom.

The greatest freedom we can have is the freedom to live!

homerjay2005 · 28-05-2017 06:41PM

BoatMad wrote: »

Those that would trade freedom for a little security , deserve neither

we are told, only 0.001% of the population are involved in terrorism, be it directly or majorly indirectly.

there is no logic on the planet that should or could accept the current threats to every innocent person in the world at risk of upsetting that 0.001%.

you call it freedom, i call it standing up to terrorism and keeping our people and children safe.

BoatMad · 28-05-2017 06:42PM

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a nice glib quote.

So, how many innocent victims should we tolerate in return for this "freedom and security"?

Because I would regard someone trawling through my Internet browsing History as more of an invasion of privacy, than an issue regarding freedom.

The greatest freedom we can have is the freedom to live!

I would prefer to place my society and myself in harms way , then to submit to further erosions of civil liberty

If we have to die for our freedoms, so be it, we died for them before

Eroding civil liberties in an inane attempt to buy security is the sign of a collapsing society where fear rules and the innocent are usually the next to be persecuted ( internment etc )

Thanks but no thank s

BoatMad · 28-05-2017 06:45PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

we are told, only 0.001% of the population are involved in terrorism, be it directly or majorly indirectly.

there is no logic on the planet that should or could accept the current threats to every innocent person in the world at risk of upsetting that 0.001%.

you call it freedom, i call it standing up to terrorism and keeping our people and children safe.

Terrorism is typically the result of a reaction to events in an asymmetric conflict, where onesie deploys advanced military assets and the other side has to fall back on simple and personal tactics

the key to " defeating " terrorism is to attempt to fix the underlying sources of that conflict ( stop bombing innocents by the west in the ME , would be a start )

or has the conflict in NI not taught you anything

GT_TDI_150 · 28-05-2017 06:58PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

we are told, only 0.001% of the population are involved in terrorism, be it directly or majorly indirectly.

there is no logic on the planet that should or could accept the current threats to every innocent person in the world at risk of upsetting that 0.001%.

you call it freedom, i call it standing up to terrorism and keeping our people and children safe.

So only 30-40 people are directly or inderctly involved in terrorism in this country? ... me thinks that stat is way off (IRA and all that)..

If the stats refer to muslimist extremist terrorism then the thought of 30-40 beinv present/active in ireland is a worry surely...

pjohnson · 28-05-2017 07:03PM

BoatMad wrote: »

I would prefer to place my society and myself in harms way , then to submit to further erosions of civil liberty

If we have to die for our freedoms, so be it, we died for them before

Eroding civil liberties in an inane attempt to buy security is the sign of a collapsing society where fear rules and the innocent are usually the next to be persecuted ( internment etc )

Thanks but no thank s

So you wouldn't mind your child dying thanks to one of that lot since you can talk about a strong society and solid civil liberties? That whole "happy to die" thing is quite similar to the ilk you are tryna protect from justice so that makes sense I guess.

fly_agaric · 28-05-2017 07:03PM

BoatMad wrote: »

I would prefer to place my society and myself in harms way , then to submit to further erosions of civil liberty

If we have to die for our freedoms, so be it, we died for them before

Eroding civil liberties in an inane attempt to buy security is the sign of a collapsing society where fear rules and the innocent are usually the next to be persecuted ( internment etc )

Very brave of you but I think realistically everyone has their limit, even if you haven't reached it. I'm sure there would come a level of violence & threat where you'd be begging for a Stasi, internment without trial etc to save you! Principles are no good when you're dead anyway.

BoatMad · 28-05-2017 07:11PM

fly_agaric wrote: »

Very brave of you but I think realistically everyone has their limit, even if you haven't reached it. I'm sure there would come a level of violence & threat where you'd be begging for a Stasi, internment without trial etc to save you! Principles are no good when you're dead anyway.

NO , there would not be such a situation , I personally would prefer that innocents are killed in the defence of civil liberties then to see them eroded by those in power that seek to use fear to invoke reductions in civil liberties, and in most cases such liberties are lost forever

our freedoms were hard fought for, through revolutions, wars of independence, conflicts, often in the face of huge odds and sophisticated opponents. I would not see them traded for any " security "

BoatMad · 28-05-2017 07:15PM

pjohnson wrote: »

So you wouldn't mind your child dying thanks to one of that lot since you can talk about a strong society and solid civil liberties? That whole "happy to die" thing is quite similar to the ilk you are tryna protect from justice so that makes sense I guess.

I am fully behind the legitimate use of the legal criminal and justice system to identify, prove and place before the criminal justice to determine their fate and its so determined to be guilty to be incarcerated for as long as is deemed appropriate.

The state must never descend to the level of criminality to prosecute its opponents, that road leads to the destruction of civil society

So you wouldn't mind your child dying

straw man argument.

BoatMad · 28-05-2017 07:17PM

I'm sure there would come a level of violence & threat where you'd be begging for a Stasi, internment without trial etc to save you! Principles are no good when you're dead anyway.

A reading of the interwar history of the Weimar republic, will no doubt make you aware of the perils of turning to the state and handing it massive powers in order to try and make you feel " safe "

Terrorist Attack in Manchester (Read MOD WARNING in OP Updated 24/05/2017))

Comments