Websites to identify trolls & other data snooping

[Nick]

Because you and Matt seem to have problem reading the small black ones

[Zingari]

If the government really are concerned about cyber bullying, web users just need to be taught not to give too much information about themselves online or told not use social sites..It really is that simple

I suppose it can be tempting to befriend fellow users and be lulled into what seem personal friendships, but they really aren’t because others are obviously eavesdropping on you when you wear your heart on your sleeve this way.

Stay fairly anonymous, post opinions on general matters of concern or face the consequences seems to be the only real option, because if you broadcast too much information to total strangers by any other means , you open yourself up abuse.

I suspect that cyber bullying is not the main concern here , rather more likely is truth seeker sites that are rattling too many cages and will be ripe for shills to attack and get shut down .

[Nick]

Headline: Daggers Gives Tory Boys A Pasting

[1964FOX]

1. I have a PAYG phone topped up by cash and not linked to any account, I use Tors and proxies - this law doesn't make it any easier at all to get my data. Any person can do this at which point your hopeful new job will mainly involve you making coffee and being touched up while filing by the manager.

Your information will be a sack of crap. The law does not work, it will not catch people who don't want to be caught which is the entire point of the law. It will mine data from the general public only.

You have still not explained how it will be useful by giving a detailed reply. You have still not highlighted how it will be useful - you are still talking in terms of bullshit generalities.

I did say earlier in the thread there are other methods for establishing identities but can't say what they are, therefore can't provide the detail you require so it your choice if you believe me or not. I also said it would b difficult to trace some, it's not a perfect law. It will be easier to catch a lot more and Jo public will have a better chance of getting at their troll. Clearly the gravity of t harassment will determine the amount of tim and effort spent on tracing the offender.

I've heard that my new manager is. 26 year old ex Swedish porn star so I'm looking forward to doing the filing with her.

[davieG]

BBC

Civil liberty groups and ISPs have voiced concerns over the newly-published draft communications bill.

The controversial bill extends the type of data that internet service providers must keep.

The government said that updated legislation to take account of new technology was vital in the fight against criminals and terrorists.

But activists have dubbed it a snooper's charter.

"This is all about giving the police unsupervised access to data. It is shocking for a government that opposed Labour's plans on this to propose virtually the same thing," said Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group.

"It will cost billions of pounds and will end up only catching the stupid or the innocent. Terrorists will circumvent it."

Publishing the bill, Home Secretary Theresa May said: "Communications data saves lives. It is a vital tool for the police to catch criminals and to protect children.

"If we stand by as technology changes, we will leave police officers fighting crime with one hand tied behind their backs.

She was keen to point out that the proposals do not include reading the content of websites, email or social networks.

"Checking communication records, not content, is a crucial part of day-to-day policing and the fingerprinting of the modern age - we are determined to ensure its continued availability in cracking down on crime," she said.

But Mr Killock argues that knowing where a citizen has been online is equally intrusive.

Drawing a parallel he said: "If I'm having an affair then who I'm talking to is just as revealing as what I say," he said.

Technically feasible

The bill - an update to the controversial RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) legislation - lays out new duties for the UK communications companies.

The new proposals would require ISPs to keep details of a much wider range of data including use of social network sites, webmail, voice calls over the internet, and gaming. Websites visited could be recorded, although pages within sites would not be.

BT said that it was considering the proposals and would report back to the parliamentary committee in due course.

The Internet Service Providers' Association said that it would be lobbying MPs in the coming months.

"Ispa has concerns about the new powers to require network operators to capture and retain third party communications data," said a spokesman.

"These concerns include the scope and proportionality, privacy and data protection implications and the technical feasibility.

"Whilst we appreciate that technological developments mean that government is looking again at its communications data capabilities, it is important that powers are clear and contain sufficient safeguards," it added.

The bill faces a tough ride through parliament with Lib Dem MPs and some Conservatives calling for it to be watered down or abandoned altogether.

Trevor Pearce, director general of the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca), warned that any attempts to undermine the legislation would have a direct effect on policing.

"Any significant reduction in the capability of law enforcement agencies to acquire and exploit intercept intelligence and evidential communications data would lead to more unsolved murders, more firearms on our streets, more successful robberies, more unresolved kidnaps, more harm from the use of class A drugs, more illegal immigration and more unsolved serious crime overall.

"This would mean Soca, the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] and other agencies relying more heavily on more expensive, more risky and potentially more intrusive techniques to locate and apprehend offenders."

Soca said that it uses communications data in 95% of the serious crime investigations it conducts.

[davieG]

A federal judge in California has ruled that Apple must defend itself against a lawsuit filed after its devices were found to track users' activities.

The plaintiffs allege that Apple's apps were enabled to secretly record the movements and other actions of millions of iPad, iPhone and iPod touch users.

The case wraps together multiple lawsuits that have been filed against Apple.

The firm had argued that user agreements shielded it from liability.

But federal judge Lucy Koh said there was "some ambiguity" as to whether all the information that was collected had been permitted.

Full Report

[Rincewind]

Is it possible for somebody to be using your ISP without you knowing? Does it have to be from the same PC? Not happened as far as I know but just thinking whether someone could use a site or messageboard I do not use, do the trolling, then it is traced back to me. How do I prove it wasn't me if they use one of my user names and a simalar password and a picture of me or another pic I have stored

Just wondering if they gave a warning first. If the troll knew that they were found out they may stop. Maybe done for the least serious ones meaning less investigation and waiting for it to get worse.

Don't agree with that line that says 'Who you are talking to is just as revealing as what you say.'

What if it's a boss, work colleague, in-law, postman, milkman or even a shop-keeper.

[Finnegan]

Just for the record, if this was a Labour idea, Webbo'd be dead against.

[Guest MattP]

1. I have a PAYG phone topped up by cash and not linked to any account, I use Tors and proxies - this law doesn't make it any easier at all to get my data. Any person can do this at which point your hopeful new job will mainly involve you making coffee and being touched up while filing by the manager.

2. An IP address is not linked to a person

Your information will be a sack of crap. The law does not work, it will not catch people who don't want to be caught which is the entire point of the law. It will mine data from the general public only.

You have still not explained how it will be useful by giving a detailed reply. You have still not highlighted how it will be useful - you are still talking in terms of bullshit generalities.

This is the problem, stop assuming everyone who is trolling is doing it like you, a lot will be doing it from bedrooms etc and contract phones where contacting the company and forcing them to reveal it does make it a lot easier to trace these people.

Look at the problems they had tracking down Sean Duffy, with this law in place I imagine it would have taken a fraction of the time it did to track that sad loner down in his bedroom.

I agree with what Webbo has said, you seem to think that as you can't catch everyone doing it there is no point in even trying to catch one.

Just for the record, if this was a Labour idea, Webbo'd be dead against.

If it was a Labour idea it wouldn't have made 6 pages in a thread either.

[Guest MattP]

Headline: Daggers Gives Tory Boys A Pasting

I LOVE it when people use Tory Boy as an "insult", says a lot about them.

[21st Century Fox]

"It will cost billions of pounds and will end up only catching the stupid or the innocent. Terrorists will circumvent it."

[Guest MattP]

"It will cost billions of pounds and will end up only catching the stupid or the innocent. Terrorists will circumvent it."

How will it cost "billions of pounds"? - I don;t think terrorism is the prime reason for this law either.

[21st Century Fox]

How will it cost "billions of pounds"? - I don;t think terrorism is the prime reason for this law either.

£1.8bn

[Guest MattP]

£1.8bn

How on earth have they put a figure on that already? Does that include the time saved on cases like Sean Duffy etc in the future? You can't put a price on it as you don't know what's going to happen yet.

[21st Century Fox]

They haven't yet factored in the cost of the rovers that'll track down these criminals.

[Zingari]

I doubt very much if the governments we elect have any say in this sort of stuff. Surely this is self evident as Labour was pressing to do pretty much the same a few years back.

The real power behind the scenes will keep forging ahead by gradually changing our opinions in underhand ways such as the old “problem reaction solution” trick.

No doubt some event or series of events will take place that will lead them to claim that, “if only we had the power to snoop we could have stopped this, but we’re hamstrung by all those civil liberty folks”

[Rincewind]

And by people that don't trust governments so much that they'll think the whole worlds plotting against them and no polictian tells the truth.

Actually most of that I think is true.

[1964FOX]

How will it cost "billions of pounds"? - I don;t think terrorism is the prime reason for this law either.

Agree, nothing to do with terrorism, that's dealt with in a completely different way.

[1964FOX]

Headline: Daggers Gives Tory Boys A Pasting

I am s far away from a Tory boy as you can get and I support it, oddly enough people from different ends of the political spectrum can agree on some things.

[Webbo]

We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason.

This is a good reason.

Try doing what neither Matt or 1964 have managed - try posting HOW this law will make a difference given that as has been proved it is unenforceable and circumventable. Stop wibbling with your generalised nonsense and answer the simple question...

So what do you say to the victims? Shit happens, it's your own fault for going on the internet?

If it's so easy to circumvent why is it a threat to civil liberties?

Just for the record, if this was a Labour idea, Webbo'd be dead against.

If it was a Labour idea you'd be all for it.

[Webbo]

Headline: Daggers Gives Tory Boys A Pasting

You reckon?It's all about perception I suppose.

[MooseBreath]

Potential threat: letter bombs

Equivalent solution: government has the right to open everyone's mail

Potential threat: burglary

Equivalent solution: government has the right to install cameras and microphones in houses

Potential threat: verbal abuse

Equivalent solution: government has the right to force people to wear microphones at all times and keep recordings of everything everyone ever says

Would anyone who supports the snooping charter support the above?

[Rincewind]

I have CCTV installed outside my house The police have not been round everyday though to check the footage.

Some of my mail went AWOL though the other week. It was recorded and it was signed for somebody other than me. I would suspect a Big Brother type operation if it was signed P C 999

[Webbo]

Potential threat: letter bombs

Equivalent solution: government has the right to open everyone's mail

Potential threat: burglary

Equivalent solution: government has the right to install cameras and microphones in houses

Potential threat: verbal abuse

Equivalent solution: government has the right to force people to wear microphones at all times and keep recordings of everything everyone ever says

Would anyone who supports the snooping charter support the above?

So what do you say to the victims of cyber stalking?

[davieG]

This is a good reason.

So what do you say to the victims? Shit happens, it's your own fault for going on the internet?

If it's so easy to circumvent why is it a threat to civil liberties?

If it was a Labour idea you'd be all for it.

It was a Labour idea and the Tories were dead against it.