Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Who's the spook in the room?

126 replies to this topic
Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#31

Posted 10 December 2013 - 10:42 AM

 

 

sh*t gets out of hand if people don't actively do anything to stop it. Look at America's senile parent, Britain, being locked in an old folks home where they can't watch certain things.

There is still safety in numbers. No matter how much tech stores things people actually have to make the call. Spam the hell out of the tech with flagged keywords.

I would LOVE to know where you're getting your information about the UK.

 

He's right, though.

Drawing certain cartoons is against the law here. I couldn't quite believe it when I read about that specific law, it was passed in 2008, I believe. We are censoring art that we don't understand, that appeals to an already marginalised demographic.

Then we've got the planned block on internet porn that will force us to sign away our details so the government can spy on us. I always said this country was full of prudes and bigoted reactionaries, and I've not been proved wrong yet.

Seriously, in this f*cking country you could cancel free elections as long as you claimed it was to protect 'the children'.

 

Every country is full of prudes and bigoted reactionaries. However that law, stupid as it is, isn't exactly a law that can be used to 'sign away our details so the government can spy on us.' You already signed away your details when you rented an internet connection. Or a heating Connection. Or an electricity connection. Or were too lazy to buy that toaster outright so you paid for it on a monthly payment deal.


sh*t gets out of hand if people don't actively do anything to stop it. Look at America's senile parent, Britain, being locked in an old folks home where they can't watch certain things.

There is still safety in numbers. No matter how much tech stores things people actually have to make the call. Spam the hell out of the tech with flagged keywords.

Sure, but at least those old people don't have to die slowly of cancer because they can't afford the medical bills, eh old buddy? =)


WBaker
  • WBaker

    Acatalepsis

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013
  • United-States

#32

Posted 10 December 2013 - 10:51 AM Edited by WBaker, 10 December 2013 - 10:52 AM.


I'm not knocking you Brits for anything but the internet censorship. With obamacare the problem is really now the "death councils". Only the very poor will die of cancer if they're not old.
  • biggsull likes this

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#33

Posted 10 December 2013 - 10:55 AM Edited by Nale Dixon, 10 December 2013 - 10:56 AM.

I'm not knocking you Brits for anything but the internet censorship. With obamacare the problem is really now the "death councils". Only the very poor will die of cancer if they're not old.

Which would be different to the current system in which way? I can only assume that this means you think the US should have an extensive social healthcare system covering everyone ever, you stinking communist.

 

Edit: blah blah blah NSA WOW acronym acronym acronym


WBaker
  • WBaker

    Acatalepsis

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013
  • United-States

#34

Posted 10 December 2013 - 11:36 AM


I'm not knocking you Brits for anything but the internet censorship. With obamacare the problem is really now the "death councils". Only the very poor will die of cancer if they're not old.

Which would be different to the current system in which way? I can only assume that this means you think the US should have an extensive social healthcare system covering everyone ever, you stinking communist.
 
Edit: blah blah blah NSA WOW acronym acronym acronym

f*cking trolls.

Stanley Ipkiss
  • Stanley Ipkiss

    Smokin'

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2013

#35

Posted 10 December 2013 - 12:21 PM

Somebody stop them!!!

 

TheMaskSmokin.jpg


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#36

Posted 10 December 2013 - 12:32 PM

I'm not knocking you Brits for anything but the internet censorship. With obamacare the problem is really now the "death councils". Only the very poor will die of cancer if they're not old.

I don't know why you keep bringing this up. You are aware that the rights of US internet users are far more restricted than those in most of Europe, aren't you? Just our restriction takes a different form, in that it's centralised. The government places restrictions in what is easily and readily accessible, yes, but meddles far less than US ISPs do. Plus under European laws we have far higher privileges in relation to data security than the US does.

I recommend you do some actual research into the subject instead of just grabbing headlines. It will make you much less open to critique.

WBaker
  • WBaker

    Acatalepsis

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013
  • United-States

#37

Posted 10 December 2013 - 01:00 PM

don't know why you keep bringing this up.


This is the second time you've written something to me when you didn't bother to read. Is there a prize for words written on gtaf or something?

You are aware that the rights of US internet users are far more restricted than those in most of Europe, aren't you? Just our restriction takes a different form, in that it's centralised. The government places restrictions in what is easily and readily accessible, yes, but meddles far less than US ISPs do.


Incorrect. Did your friend tell you this? I hate to be the bearer of bad news but your friend lied.

Plus under European laws we have far higher privileges in relation to data security than the US does.


In reality, however, you don't. So what is the point of those laws?

I recommend you do some actual research into the subject instead of just grabbing headlines. It will make you much less open to critique.


I wrote I have this opinion based on associated press articles. If you're not going to bother to read please don't bother to post. You could have been useful and posted some actual information with sources but you didn't. I welcome critique and discussion if you'd like to try again.

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#38

Posted 10 December 2013 - 01:12 PM

 

 

I'm not knocking you Brits for anything but the internet censorship. With obamacare the problem is really now the "death councils". Only the very poor will die of cancer if they're not old.

Which would be different to the current system in which way? I can only assume that this means you think the US should have an extensive social healthcare system covering everyone ever, you stinking communist.
 
Edit: blah blah blah NSA WOW acronym acronym acronym

f*cking trolls.

 

Oh go read a book you gorilla.


Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Olympics
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#39

Posted 10 December 2013 - 01:30 PM Edited by Raavi, 10 December 2013 - 01:34 PM.

You could have been useful and posted some actual information with sources but you didn't. 

 

Like you did.. Wait a second, you provided jack sh*t. You're basically yelling "you're wrong" without providing any argument let alone evidence that suggests otherwise, thus refuting, well.. nothing. You could just as well have posted a picture of a monkey taking a sh*t, that would've added equally as much to the discussion as that what you posted. So here's a word of advice, next time you fire a gun, make sure it's loaded.

 

OT: I'm more bothered by the fact that tech giants are selling my private information.


WBaker
  • WBaker

    Acatalepsis

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013
  • United-States

#40

Posted 10 December 2013 - 01:35 PM


 

 

I'm not knocking you Brits for anything but the internet censorship. With obamacare the problem is really now the "death councils". Only the very poor will die of cancer if they're not old.

Which would be different to the current system in which way? I can only assume that this means you think the US should have an extensive social healthcare system covering everyone ever, you stinking communist.
 
Edit: blah blah blah NSA WOW acronym acronym acronym
f*cking trolls.
 
Oh go read a book you gorilla.

Sorry if I'm wrong about you trolling. With some of your posts it kinda made me think that.

I am in favor of universal healthcare. I know it's a popular belief the US is broke but we can afford to take care of our citizens. It's not a communist ideology so much as a compassionate one.

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#41

Posted 10 December 2013 - 01:37 PM

 

 

 

 

I'm not knocking you Brits for anything but the internet censorship. With obamacare the problem is really now the "death councils". Only the very poor will die of cancer if they're not old.

Which would be different to the current system in which way? I can only assume that this means you think the US should have an extensive social healthcare system covering everyone ever, you stinking communist.
 
Edit: blah blah blah NSA WOW acronym acronym acronym
f*cking trolls.
 
Oh go read a book you gorilla.

Sorry if I'm wrong about you trolling. With some of your posts it kinda made me think that.

I am in favor of universal healthcare. I know it's a popular belief the US is broke but we can afford to take care of our citizens. It's not a communist ideology so much as a compassionate one.

 

I was being satirical.

 

On the point of the US being broke though, the US has the highest medical spending in relation to GDP in the world, which is kind of Ironic.


WBaker
  • WBaker

    Acatalepsis

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013
  • United-States

#42

Posted 10 December 2013 - 01:44 PM


You could have been useful and posted some actual information with sources but you didn't. 

 
Like you did.. Wait a second, you provided jack sh*t. You're basically yelling "you're wrong" without providing any argument let alone evidence that suggests otherwise, thus refuting, well.. nothing. You could just as well have posted a picture of a monkey taking a sh*t, that would've added equally as much to the discussion as that what you posted. So here's a word of advice, next time you fire a gun, make sure it's loaded.
 
OT: I'm more bothered by the fact that tech giants are selling my private information.

Guy could have written that magical gnomes steal socks. What exactly should I refute ridiculous claims with?

The NSA has been in the news for spying on foreign powers. That's going to happen regardless of what gets written on a piece of paper. Maybe you guys weren't allowed to see that.

I don't know what your government allows you to see. I might as well talk to North Koreans about the Supreme Leader.

My big point is that censorship is bullsh*t. Forget anything else I said since on a mobile I'm really not in a position to post a essay with sources.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#43

Posted 10 December 2013 - 01:52 PM


You could have been useful and posted some actual information with sources but you didn't. 

 
Like you did.. Wait a second, you provided jack sh*t. You're basically yelling "you're wrong" without providing any argument let alone evidence that suggests otherwise, thus refuting, well.. nothing. So here's a word of advice, next time you fire a gun, make sure it's loaded.

Quite.

As for the source of information, it's first-hand. I work in information security. Therefore I have to have an understanding of the legal framework that's applicable to it. There are several prudent points that such vague outright dismissals kind of ignore.

The first is the difference between European and American contract law. We see this in the enforcement of T&Cs for services. In Europe there exists a specific rule of proportionality when it comes to contract law- that is, that caveats made that aren't demonstrably relevant to the provision of services are legally void, and that extensive terms not relevant to the service or obfuscated in any way are unenforceable. Compare and contrast with the US where a contract is a contract regardless of scope or even whether it has any applicability.

We can see this in the behaviours of the US ISPs. They engage in DNS hijacking and blacklisting done on entirely arbitrary terms and with no transparency or oversight. At least in Europe when DNS blacklisting takes place it is done by authorities that are actually subject to public oversight.

Then you have attitudes to customers. In Europe, profiting from or using the personally identifiable information of service customers is illegal without their explicit permission. In the US, such information can be freely used by a provider as long as that explicit permission is present in the terns of service. In Europe, ISPs cannot legally disclose information about their customers to bodies other than law enforcement without a court order. In the US, ISPs happily hand out data on their customers for personal profit, as well as to shady copyright trolls and other paralegal bodies without so much as contacting their client base.

Then there's the actual blacklisting itself. Some of the US providers deliberately use DNS hijacking to obfuscate criticisms of their service. They make gaining access to services that limit their ability to collect data on their customers very difficult because, hey, they can make much more money selling your private wares than they can selling you broadband. This I'd why we have different EULAs for Google and Facebook amongst others in the UK and Europe-because there's legally a great deal more that they can do with their user's data in the US.

Is the European model perfect? No. Does top-down limitation on access to child pornography and illegal downloads actually work in practice? Not really. But to try and pretend it's some Orwellian conspiracy and that the US is somehow more free because of it is as laughable as it is ignorant.

WBaker
  • WBaker

    Acatalepsis

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013
  • United-States

#44

Posted 10 December 2013 - 01:56 PM


 

 

 

 

I'm not knocking you Brits for anything but the internet censorship. With obamacare the problem is really now the "death councils". Only the very poor will die of cancer if they're not old.

Which would be different to the current system in which way? I can only assume that this means you think the US should have an extensive social healthcare system covering everyone ever, you stinking communist.
 
Edit: blah blah blah NSA WOW acronym acronym acronym
f*cking trolls.
 
Oh go read a book you gorilla.
Sorry if I'm wrong about you trolling. With some of your posts it kinda made me think that.

I am in favor of universal healthcare. I know it's a popular belief the US is broke but we can afford to take care of our citizens. It's not a communist ideology so much as a compassionate one.
 
I was being satirical.
 
On the point of the US being broke though, the US has the highest medical spending in relation to GDP in the world, which is kind of Ironic.

True but that spending is akin to state sponsored mugging. In a hospital, tissues are charged at $80 a box. I paid $300 for a couple of aspirin once. The supposed benefit to this is that the money will attract more qualified doctors and that will result in better medical care (surgery survival stats for Americans are good relatively).

Honestly the only thing I liked about Obamacare was the ability to negotiate these prices and that was cut. The prices are f*cked and That's apparently not changing any time soon.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#45

Posted 10 December 2013 - 02:35 PM

Unfortunately I don't think the current environment in the US is conducive to a properly functioning centralised and free at the point of access healthcare system. A bit depressing really as, when properly implemented (see, Western Europe) it results in the highest standards of care in the world at a cost lower than the hybrid public/private systems.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#46

Posted 10 December 2013 - 04:30 PM

We're still talking about spying on the general public, right? I wanted to address something you'd said, sivi - and I'm just going to paraphrase - that people remain largely ignorant/apathetic to the amount of personal information they share passively already and are ripe for gleaning personal details.

Call me an idealist, but that's what I see as the proper evolution of any advancing civilization, let alone the internet. This sentiment - and I know it's not what you're getting at - smacks of victim blaming. It's deffering blame from stalkers, snoops, and identity thieves. And it's the same sentiment I see used often to defend spying on civilians. It's kind of insidious.

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#47

Posted 10 December 2013 - 04:39 PM

We're still talking about spying on the general public, right? I wanted to address something you'd said, sivi - and I'm just going to paraphrase - that people remain largely ignorant/apathetic to the amount of personal information they share passively already and are ripe for gleaning personal details.

Call me an idealist, but that's what I see as the proper evolution of any advancing civilization, let alone the internet. This sentiment - and I know it's not what you're getting at - smacks of victim blaming. It's deffering blame from stalkers, snoops, and identity thieves. And it's the same sentiment I see used often to defend spying on civilians. It's kind of insidious.

I don't think his statement is condoning the actions of spying, just relating a fact. It's sort of a double standard to link every facet of your life to a network accessible by all whilst suggesting people shouldn't access personal details. Besides which, it's not victim blaming if you're actively careless. Nobody is held against their will to link every single web and social media page to each other and post as much detail about their personal life as possible. Sure, nobody 'deserves' to be stalked, snooped on and have their identity stolen, but they should be and easily are aware that they're putting themselves in that position.


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#48

Posted 10 December 2013 - 04:51 PM

Don't you see how analogous that is to telling a woman she shouldn't dress sexy if she doesn't want to get raped?

It's not like rape is some precious situation that lives in a different world of logic and reason. There's no irony in the chronic oversharer being upset about having her emails redflagged and webcams commandeered - just a crime against humanity.

But again, pretty sure I bent over backwards there trying to say that I know that's not what sivi was getting at. :p

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#49

Posted 10 December 2013 - 05:08 PM Edited by Nale Dixon, 10 December 2013 - 05:08 PM.

Don't you see how analogous that is to telling a woman she shouldn't dress sexy if she doesn't want to get raped?

It's not like rape is some precious situation that lives in a different world of logic and reason. There's no irony in the chronic oversharer being upset about having her emails redflagged and webcams commandeered - just a crime against humanity.

But again, pretty sure I bent over backwards there trying to say that I know that's not what sivi was getting at. :p

 

Yes I see the analogy, but the point stands. There's such a thing as damage limitation. Nobody deserves bad things happening to them, but if you're going to play dice then you have to understand that there are external forces which can load the game in your favour or against it. For the record though I don't think that the government should be conducting surveillance on their citizens, but the fact is that they are and laws opposing surveillance aren't really going to change this. Hence why it's not really surprising to me that this sort of thing happened is happening and will likely always happen. The only way you can prevent it is, as I said, damage limitation.


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#50

Posted 10 December 2013 - 05:09 PM

...or violent revolution!
  • Mr. House likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#51

Posted 10 December 2013 - 05:10 PM

Otter, as usual you've made a totally rational extension of one of my points and left me on the back foot. All I can say is that I agree that surveillence should be targeted when it incurs into the private life of the individual, but if the individual has already made public that information no amount of complaining makes it private again.

I've seen entire multi-national companies' intranets be brought to their knees in penetration tests, down almost entirely to how easy it is to steal the identities of their staff and escalate your access. With a suit, a lanyard, a clipboard and what I find on Google I could probably walk into the restricted data centre of pretty much any telecommunications provider on the planet. People are seriously, dangerously unaware of exactly what can be done with what they happily plaster over the internet.

I have no sympathy for people who end up in hot water for doing this. People who post pictures of them doing illegal things on the sane Facebook profile with their address kind of deserve it. But to me this is distinct from targeting people specifically. I tend to think of it like burglary. Someone jimmies your window to steal your TV, they're the equivalent of what you outline. Someone walks through your unlocked door to do it, well they're still a thief but the victim must hold some responsibility for enabling this. Neither is justifiable without good reason. But you leave your TV on the street and someone takes it, that's what we see a lot of here. Or to be more specific, you leave your TV with a mate and they sell it- which is basically the relationship between users, service providers and law enforcement.

It's a false analogy to claim that people dumping their private lives on the internet gives law enforcement the right to incur into their privacy, but I never suggested that nor would I ever. My point was that the number of people who are being directly incurred on is minute and the majority are targeted via either what they put in the public domain or what they trust to people that they probably shouldn't. Same rules apply for cybercrime.
  • Otter likes this

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#52

Posted 10 December 2013 - 05:19 PM


I've seen entire multi-national companies' intranets be brought to their knees in penetration tests, 

Oh baby, tell me more about 'be(ing) brought to their knees' and 'penetration tests'.


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#53

Posted 10 December 2013 - 05:23 PM

Oh there you are, Peter. :p

@ sivi - completely agree, though I gravitate more towards the loaning your TV to a buddy then never getting it back scenario. There certainly is an element of blind, unearned trust out there...

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#54

Posted 10 December 2013 - 05:48 PM Edited by sivispacem, 10 December 2013 - 05:49 PM.

I've seen entire multi-national companies' intranets be brought to their knees in penetration tests, 

Oh baby, tell me more about 'be(ing) brought to their knees' and 'penetration tests'.

I love to penetrate physically with tools whilst in costume, and then I'll penetrate further by hand. I like to take pictures and leave souvenirs so people can see what I've done. Once I get in I like to tinker with their racks and stick my dongle in their ports so that they can share my infection.
  • Otter, TheFoxRiverFugitive and Mr. House like this

biggsull
  • biggsull

    Foot Soldier

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2013

#55

Posted 10 December 2013 - 05:49 PM Edited by biggsull, 10 December 2013 - 05:58 PM.

 

 

sh*t gets out of hand if people don't actively do anything to stop it. Look at America's senile parent, Britain, being locked in an old folks home where they can't watch certain things.

There is still safety in numbers. No matter how much tech stores things people actually have to make the call. Spam the hell out of the tech with flagged keywords.

I would LOVE to know where you're getting your information about the UK.

 

He's right, though.

Drawing certain cartoons is against the law here. I couldn't quite believe it when I read about that specific law, it was passed in 2008, I believe. We are censoring art that we don't understand, that appeals to an already marginalised demographic.

Then we've got the planned block on internet porn that will force us to sign away our details so the government can spy on us. I always said this country was full of prudes and bigoted reactionaries, and I've not been proved wrong yet.

Seriously, in this f*cking country you could cancel free elections as long as you claimed it was to protect 'the children'.

 

 

They have programs to put video cameras in peoples private residences, for a couple years now. They arent satisfied with watching you outside your home, they want to watch you have sex and sleep too. Its in the name of helping families with problem children, no doubt poor families on the dole will have their income pulled if they dont comply, in the future.

 

£400 million ($668 million) will be spend on installing and monitoring CCTV cameras in the homes of private citizens. Why? To make sure the kids are doing their homework, going to bed early and eating their vegetables.

 

http://www.wired.com...-private-homes/

 

Thats 5 years old now. Did you know about it?

 

Big brother is watching you, you better eat what youre told and be in bed on time. You might get a visit from child protective services.

 

People in the US are having kids taken away if their parents refuse to drug them with ADD medication.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#56

Posted 10 December 2013 - 06:02 PM Edited by sivispacem, 10 December 2013 - 06:08 PM.

Sorry but that's utter bollocks. Where? Who is putting cameras anywhere? I'm not even entirely sure what you're suggesting. That they're breaking into citizens' homes without due cause to plant cameras so they can watch you wanking? Care to prove that? Or are you saying that the owners of flats and houses are putting cameras up in them? In which case why the f*ck not? They're their property, they can do what the hell they like.

That Wired article is unadulterated tripe. It's the very height of irrational paranoia that the US far right feeds. For one, its source is the Daily Express. Now, the Brits amongst us are fully aware of the quality of the Express' output. I'm just surprised they didn't find a way of implicating it in Diana's death.

In fact, the damn article makes this pretty clear:

UPDATE: Further research shows that the Express didnt quite have all its facts straight. This scheme is active, and the numbers are fairly accurate (if estimated), but the mentions of actual cameras in peoples homes are exaggerated. The truth is that the scheme can take the most troublesome families out of their homes and move them, temporarily, to a neutral, government-run compound. Here they will be under 24-hour supervision. CCTV cameras are not specifically mentioned, not are they denied, but 24-hour supervision certainly doesnt rule this out from the camera-loving Brits


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#57

Posted 10 December 2013 - 06:45 PM

I also want to say that I can not find a single other article about this supposed scheme, even googling the words 'cctv cameras britain homes' only comes up with that article, the express article that cites it as a source and a facebook page with the logo prisonplanet.com stamped on it so quite frankly I don't even think this ever happened except in the minds of the Daily Express.

 

Note that the wired.com link has four links itself. One is The Daily Express. Another is metafilter, which cites it's source as techradar, which cites it's source as the daily express. The other two are dead links. The Daily express doesn't even have a source, despite itself being a source to the other websites.

 

However with a little googling I found what the f*ck the Daily Express is referring to. Now I'm pretty lazy and I don't really care to look in too much depth, but I cannot find one jot of CCTVs being installed in people's homes in this archived government webpage  http://webarchive.na...e.aspx?id=12910


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#58

Posted 10 December 2013 - 06:53 PM

It really does amaze me just how little attention people pay to the quality of sources they use to substantiate arguments. I mean I get the whole not knowing what the Daily Express is, but missing the entire massive caveat on the end basically saying "yep this is sh*t" is kind of a giveaway.

TheFoxRiverFugitive
  • TheFoxRiverFugitive

    Sly Fox

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012
  • United-States

#59

Posted 10 December 2013 - 07:11 PM

Unfortunately I don't think the current environment in the US is conducive to a properly functioning centralised and free at the point of access healthcare system. A bit depressing really as, when properly implemented (see, Western Europe) it results in the highest standards of care in the world at a cost lower than the hybrid public/private systems.

But that health care system is socialist! This is 'Murrica and you and Obammy aint gonna trample on our rights!

  • sivispacem likes this

biggsull
  • biggsull

    Foot Soldier

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2013

#60

Posted 10 December 2013 - 07:33 PM Edited by biggsull, 10 December 2013 - 07:52 PM.

It really does amaze me just how little attention people pay to the quality of sources they use to substantiate arguments. I mean I get the whole not knowing what the Daily Express is, but missing the entire massive caveat on the end basically saying "yep this is sh*t" is kind of a giveaway.

 

Russia today is a good source, right?

 

http://rt.com/news/u...rveillance-939/

 

UK has cameras in school bathrooms and change rooms. Thats not invasion of privacy or anything, thats not having your naked kids watched by random adults with questionable intentions... is it?

 

I didnt read the Wired article, its a known news story that was widely published, RT ran a segment on it that I cant find.. being its 5 years old.

 

They have flags banned in the UK, they punish football clubs for singing songs. Its an authoritarian nanny state which sticks its nose as far as it can up the asses of every private citizen.You can easily be charged just for voicing your opinion.. It is not a free society, nor is the US.

 

If I lived in the UK and put the blue starry plough flag up as my avatar, I could be charged for it.For a flag representing an ideal of Ireland controlling its destiny from the plough to the stars.

 

When a person does something the government doesnt like in the UK, they make a rule up for it if one doesnt exist... Like that hacker from a few years back who had a website they didnt like but was breaking no laws, they just made one up for him.

 

 

Also.. because this is much better than just putting cameras in their home:
 

 

. the scheme can take the most troublesome families out of their homes and move them, temporarily, to a neutral, government-run compound. Here they will be under 24-hour supervision. CCTV cameras are not specifically mentioned, not are they denied, but 24-hour “supervision” certainly doesn’t rule this out from the camera-loving Brits.

 

 

Oh okay, so taking people out of their homes without having broken any laws, forcing them into a government run facility and watching them 24/7 is totally cool? Thats even worse bro.

 

Thats one step away from government raised children who arent told about the world by their parents, that is the next step you realize.

 

The caveat is because Wired took a massive amount of heat for that, being they are a huge publication and it was factual... no doubt the UK government sh*t a brick at being sussed.

 

 

Its a 5 year old story, ofcourse the articles arent bursting off the front page... think how many stories are related to the UK and CCTV's. Theres a f*cking ton of them because its a big deal.Wired is a reputable magazine, as reputable as say rolling stone or time. If not more reputable considering the latter 2 showing their being controlled opposition over the last decade.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users