EU Parliament Debates Installing A Black Box On Your Computer
It must have been getting harder to track your every move by just making the ISPs do all the work.
EU Parliament Debates Installing A Black Box On Your Computer
It must have been getting harder to track your every move by just making the ISPs do all the work.
How do you say "Big Brother" in Italian....?
But its for the childrens!!!!
Saw that on /. but as was noted it isn't as if that is a seriously put forth idea. Its just some politician looking for a bit of attention. That will pretty much not fly in any country that isn't a totalitarian regime.
[Rant mode on]
berkeley this bull E36 M3 ! I have had to listen to this for years and guess what the kids are ALLLL berkeleyed up.Maybe if we did less the kids would do MORE.
[Rant mode off]
ThePhranc wrote: But its for the childrens!!!!
Now I do not want people to misunderstand me I love kids but every time some jack wagon wants to ram something through they say "Do it for the children" I am tired of hearing it.
Paul B
The absolute longest it would take any black box that controls connection to the internet to be cirvumvented is however long it is until the next DefCon. Honestly, I'd be shocked if something like that wouldn't be hacked in the first day it was "available" public.
In reply to stan: "grande fratello" according to Google Translate...
Although, think about it, would it really be that hard for gov'ts to censor or even shut down access to the internet or sites and such?
ReverendDexter wrote: The absolute longest it would take any black box that controls connection to the internet to be cirvumvented is however long it is until the next DefCon. Honestly, I'd be shocked if something like that wouldn't be hacked in the first day it was "available" public.
TOR (i.e. onion routing) is your friend.
Considering how many speed cameras there are in the U.K., I'm not surprised that they are thinking about this.
After watching one or 2 episodes of the BBC series MI5, I decided that I was glad I DON'T live in the U.K. and it got me to wondering just how much the U.S. might be like that already.
In reply to JoeyM:
Depends on how the black box works and where it lives in the network stack.
If it's in your computers fixin' your internets, you'll need to combine something like TOR with some sort of application-level data encryption before the black box ever sees it.
Of course, I'm not too worried about that; they'd never make linux drivers for it, lol.
More likely it sits between your computer and the router, or on the backside of your router, in which case Tor is the way to go.
I don't have children, not going to have children and have taken steps to ensure I don't have children. So F the children. Whiny little needy bastages always needing food, clothing, instruction and taking away your free time. What good are they anyway?
In reply to Bobzilla:
I agree with everything you've said. Do you have a dog? Dogs suck. Total pains in the ass. But I adore my dog. Kids are like that but times a thousand.
Bobzilla wrote: I don't have children, not going to have children and have taken steps to ensure I don't have children. So F the children. Whiny little needy bastages always needing food, clothing, instruction and taking away your free time. What good are they anyway?
Mowing the law and taking out the trash what they are good for.
integraguy wrote: Considering how many CCTV cameras there are allowing the police to watch every public space in the U.K., I'm not surprised that they are thinking about this.
FTFY.
ThePhranc wrote:Bobzilla wrote: I don't have children, not going to have children and have taken steps to ensure I don't have children. So F the children. Whiny little needy bastages always needing food, clothing, instruction and taking away your free time. What good are they anyway?Mowing the law and taking out the trash what they are good for.
After you invest about 44,000 hours of labor into 'em, that is.
I liked this part:
...specifically whenever an image of sexually abused children is detected.
Are these images supposed to be tagged with descriptions that label them as child abuse? Maybe the black box checks the ID of everyone in the images first. I want to be in the room when they define the parameters for the algorithm that identifies "images of sexually abused children".
ReverendDexter wrote: After you invest about 44,000 hours of labor into 'em, that is.
Don't they usually just do a C-section sooner than that?
Now coming to an America near you, thanks to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX):
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20084939-281/house-panel-approves-broadened-isp-snooping-bill/
Another bill with a misleading name. I work in IT/networking, and I can tell you that this bill does nothing to protect children from predators. Instead, it gives LEOs and lawyers carte blanche to store and look up everywhere you have been online for one year, regardless of whether or not you are suspected of a crime (bye-bye, 4th Amendment), instead of only retaining your data for 90 days IF you have been suspected of a crime. Plus, LEOs, and ISPs are immune from any repercussions from misuse of this data, or if hackers get into the databases. You can bet if this bill passed then hackers will do anything they can to get into the databases, and I don't trust ISPs enough to be able to stop them.
Even if this appeals to you authoritarian-types, the cost of building, maintaining, and securing these data centers would be massive. It would not surprise me at all if the ISPs come running to the government to get taxpayer money to help fund their building.
Lofgren said the data retention requirements are easily avoided because they only apply to "commercial" providers. Criminals would simply go to libraries or Starbucks coffeehouses and use the Web anonymously, she said, while law-abiding Americans would have their activities recorded.
Kind of like registering your gun. Honest people will. Criminals will steal one and file off the serial number.
Salanis wrote: I liked this part:...specifically whenever an image of sexually abused children is detected.Are these images supposed to be tagged with descriptions that label them as child abuse? Maybe the black box checks the ID of everyone in the images first. I want to be in the room when they define the parameters for the algorithm that identifies "images of sexually abused children".
More importantly, if they can figure out how to tag them, why not just remove them?
ThePhranc wrote:Bobzilla wrote: I don't have children, not going to have children and have taken steps to ensure I don't have children. So F the children. Whiny little needy bastages always needing food, clothing, instruction and taking away your free time. What good are they anyway?Mowing the law and taking out the trash what they are good for.
They pick stuff up off the floor faster than I can, that's for sure. :)
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:Salanis wrote: I liked this part:More importantly, if they can figure out how to tag them, why not just remove them?...specifically whenever an image of sexually abused children is detected.Are these images supposed to be tagged with descriptions that label them as child abuse? Maybe the black box checks the ID of everyone in the images first. I want to be in the room when they define the parameters for the algorithm that identifies "images of sexually abused children".
Because you want to arrest people?
You'll need to log in to post.
