How do you feel about being monitored on line?

[Conf1rm3d_K1ll]

Originally posted by MsMittens





That's a bit harsh I think. I put forth my opinion. You have a different view. Why are you associating my RIGHT to have my opinion as being "Nazistic"? I'm not saying my solution is the only solution. Heck, I haven't even said that the other view was 100% wrong. You seem quite convinced that I do not have the right to post my views. Hrmm..

Im not associating your right to have an opinion as being "Nazistic". I agree that everyone has the right to their own opinion. What I am saying is that the opinion you have, to me, appears to be something that has come out of National Socialist Germany. Say around 1938...

You appear to be contadicting yourself now...To think all this started because you were sick of being asked "do you cyber" constantly.....rofl


Ok everyone...lets give up our privacy and freedom because ms mittens is getting a hard time on IRC


The right to personal privacy is something I hold very dearly and is something I can become quite passionate about. Perhaps adding you to my ignore list was a bit harsh.

[MrLinus]

Originally posted by Conf1rm3d_K1ll

Im not associating your right to have an opinion as being "Nazistic". I agree that everyone has the right to their own opinion. What I am saying is that the opinion you have, to me, appears to be something that has come out of National Socialist Germany. Say around 1938...

derived from www.dictionary.com
Nazi: An adherent or advocate of policies characteristic of Nazism; a fascist.
NazismThe ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.

Sir, I ask you: where did I suggestion racist nationalism, national expansion or state control of the economy?

Originally posted by Conf1rm3d_K1ll
lets give up our privacy and freedom because ms mittens is getting a hard time on IRC

Sir, I ask you to point out where I said that you should give up your freedom and privacy. I am merely pointing out what exists now. Every time you post here, its done in clear text. ANYONE could pick up those packets and view what email you receive, send, what you post here, etc.

[Conf1rm3d_K1ll]

I won't be dragged into a flame war with you, ms mittens. A wise man once said-


"It's not a good idea to argue with a fool.....people might not be able to tell the difference"

[stflook]

You don't want to be dragged into a flame war? I hate to sound like a jerk, but you started the flame war. While I agree with you on anti-privacy laws, your first reply to her was excessively rude. I too am extremely pissed that anybody would be willing to give up their rights to the government, but it's no reason to throw it back in their face.

[Negative]

Originally posted by Conf1rm3d_K1ll
A wise man once said-
"It's not a good idea to argue with a fool.....people might not be able to tell the difference"

Nice quote, Conf1rm3d_K1ll... It suggests though that argumentation itself is non-productive: sane people will end up looking like foolish people whether their arguments are sane or foolish...
I can't blame MsMittens for not taking that risk, but I'll take it...

I like this one better though:

"Never argue with an idiot. They`ll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."

Guess I've got a lot of experience...

Originally posted by Conf1rm3d_K1ll
Ok everyone...lets give up our privacy and freedom because ms mittens is getting a hard time on IRC

Huh? Now who's contradicting himself? So you have the right to personal privacy, but MsMittens doesn't?

(This was a short introduction; what follows next is my actual opinion - just to make sure all the idiots are still following me)

It all comes down to this privacy and freedom of speech thing...
I don't see anything wrong with your ISP keeping logs of everything you do on the internet. Keeping logs is not the same as monitoring, imo. Monitoring your every move would be an invasion of privacy, keeping logs isn't.
Here's a little comparison: fingerprints! Fingerprints? Yes, fingerprints...
Leaving a fingerprint somewhere = your ISP keeping logs of your every move. I've never seen the FBI running around to collect fingerprints (=real-time monitoring)(I've never seen a fed at all, actually... They're not that common in Belgium).
But if you do something illegal, the FBI WILL check for fingerprints, and they WILL track down your every move on the net. I don't see anything wrong with both.

Now, about the freedom of speech... Does that involve hurting other people's feelings (like comparing someone with a nazi)? Sounds to me like a personal privacy-matter. Every privilege has its obligations... Well, they should at least. You guys have the 'privilege' to carry guns, but I guess you should be glad there come some obligations with that too...

[freeOn]

Well we all think that the government has power to read our private e-mails but how come they were not able to read the ones that the terroists used. Obviously there had to be some type of survailience and if the terroists were using e-mail how come they government didin't give any warning or try to stop what happened on 9-11. That just doesn't make sense.

[Dome]

Well the government did blame everyhing on PGP(pretty good privacy) because suposadly the terrorist used that to encrypt all the e-mails and web data transmitted.

They governments wants a personal "BackDoor" key to all PGP or Encryption programs, wich would be dumb because what stops a multi milionair from having someone code an encryption scheme that doesnt have that "BackDoor" key... all it would do is bring down the businesses in the US because people wouldnt trust any "secure" things that are done online

[Terr]

Originally posted by Dome
Well the government did blame everyhing on PGP(pretty good privacy) because suposadly the terrorist used that to encrypt all the e-mails and web data transmitted.

I think they haven't yet found any encrypted communications that were sent by the terrorists. I mean, it's really ironic and pretty arrogrant of the FBI/CIA/etc to go on this 'we want backdoors because we need them' spiel. To the best of my knowledge the only messages they've found regarding the attacks were NOT encrypted, and they STILL didn't stop it from happening. This is just something the secret services have wanted for a long time, and this is a convenient excuse for getting it. But it's still a... how to put it... foolish and selfish thing to do.

Just because bad guys might be in one or two houses, does that mean that you should wire ALL houses with secret explosives in the event of a mini-war?

[darkes]

In reply to Mskittens:
==============================================
And that shows another issue with the whole concept
of "monitoring the Internet". Who's laws should be used for example? US? UK? China? Iraq? What is legal in one country (in this example) the UK, may not be acceptable in another (perhaps Canada and US). I believe in Canada you are required to have a search warrant to take a computer if you suspect it to be part of a crime, e.g., hate crime.

As for your government using their "contacts" to get information that is supposed to be secure, I can see why you distrust your government. I haven't heard or seen that in Canada (at least to my limited knowledge)

This, I suspect, is part of why there are varying degrees and views as to what is acceptable of government involvement and what is not. But maybe that's just me.
==============================================

I agree with your point as to which countries law should apply (obviously a problem with the net).
I think you misunderstood my post. The point I was making was that private investigators (not the UK government, which already has access to all this information), can find out a lot of extra details.
I think it is very alarming that it is possible (with enough $) to find out details about someones credit rating (together with details of all their credit cards & other private information), and in some cases what their record is on the PNC (police national computer).

[Anirak]

Originally posted by MsMittens


But here is the issue: This is a public place. Everything you are doing online is being seen by someone. I see what you post. That's hardly a private thought then. Individual machines connected to the Internet are private property. You still need a search warranty (to my limited understanding of the law) to be able to legally go through someone's file system.

If you want privacy online, encrypt your packets. That's what encryption is for. Or use an anonymizer, which should, in theory protect you from someone tracking you usage. But even now, WITHOUT government's tracking ever packet, how much privacy do you think you have? I remember watching a show about hacking done by the CBC (Canada's Public Television and Radio Station) and they had interviewed a "security consultant" that apparently never used the internet (he was american I believe). He had challenged friends to find information on him on the internet. They came back with a file folder about an inch thick including official transcripts from colleges, birth certificate and driver's license.

There are numerous thoughts out there. I would prefer to see the Internet in its original form: as a forum to transmit ideas and concepts and to share information. It is now a giant billboard. It isn't. Are we going to let advertisers control the Internet?



Actually, I have read 1984 a few times along with Brave New World. Excellent works of fiction. And they are that. Fiction. And it represents the extremes in politics and life. I firmly believe that somewhere there is a happily medium between full regulation and de-regulation. If you go to either extreme, it is not healthy for a system.

But that's just my opinion.

Realistic fiction. If there is a biography ab out a boy when He was 12 years old, but the author changes the age to 13, that book no longer is non-fiction, but realistic fiction. Fiction, can be very real, just hasn't happened yet, or a slight detail has been changed.