eye of the cyclone

is there life on earth, or are we just dreaming…


    SEARCH BOX: If a search engine brought you here, but you can't see what you are looking for, or if you want to find other entries with the same (or differerent) 'key words' try the SEARCH BOX! or check out the ALL POSTS! button in the MENU BAR at the top of the page
  • Advertisements


Posted by lahar9jhadav on September 7, 2012

WORLD GRID 2014 Far be it from me to stir up fear concerning the www, the net, the grid, the matrix etc., but from where i sit there has been a huge movement from the core working it’s way to the fringes deleting, anathematising, disappearing.  I don’t know about you, but i get the distinct feeling that the web is shrinking. On the other hand ‘social networking’ is increasing, :) and ‘that’ of course is OWNED by only a minute number of CORPORATIONS.  Mmmm….

VARIOUS governments of so called democracies like the UK and Australia are in the process of enacting LAWS which will keep everything you do on the internet stored by your isp’s for years – emails, searches etc. so that the Government can keep tabs on you. 

Let’s say that a government succeeds in grabbing all your information, emails, searches etc. HOW LONG WILL THEY KEEP IT FOR? ETERNITY?

And all the tracking that has been done on you already by search engines etc will also be available.

Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has sharply criticised the government’s "snooper’s charter", designed to track internet, text and email use of all British citizens, as "technologically incompetent".

He said Wikipedia would move to encrypt all its connections with Britain if UK internet companies, such as Vodafone and Virgin Media, were mandated by the government to keep track of every single page accessed by UK citizens.

The entrepreneur said he was confident there would be a general move to encryption across the internet if British-based communication service providers were required to collect and store data for 12 months from overseas companies, such as Google and Facebook, for possible access by the police and security services.

He said the British government would have to resort to the "black arts" of hacking to break encryptions: "It is not the sort of thing I’d expect from a western democracy. It is the kind of thing I would expect from the Iranians or the Chinese and it would be detected immediately by the internet industry," he told MPs and peers.

His intervention came as leading UK internet companies, including Vodafone and Virgin Media, also raised concerns about the responsibility for retaining and storing sensitive data from overseas third-party companies, which, they said, would damage their commercial relationships and entail a competitive disadvantage.


Don’t use search engines that track you and store your searches!

Use https instead of http.  That’s the encrytpion that Wales’ is talking about in the above quote.

CHECK OUT: Electronic Frontier Foundation


Stop using online email services which have a bad record – YOU KNOW THE ONES…one begins with a G. for example  Personally I’m going for online email in a European country which I use for the mundane stuff on the net.

USE ENCRYPTION on your emails.  A pain, but if you want your privacy you will have to work at it.

It’s sad that it has all come to this, but Government’s have made the mistake that just because they CAN scrutinise everything you do, THEY SHOULD.   

BUT DON’T DESPAIR: all this intervention is actually going to hit the old guard the worst and new lovely independent players shall arise to fill the vacuum.



Transcript from ABC (Australia) “7.30 REPORT” August 01

LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: They’re questions we’d all like straight answers to: how safe is your personal information online and how much power should authorities have to monitor it?

The Australian Government’s updating national security laws to make sure intelligence agencies and police can track criminals and terrorists online.

But the plan’s sparking strong opposition from privacy campaigners. Some have taken extreme measures, hacking into a major internet company to prove their point.

Hayden Cooper reports.

HAYDEN COOPER, REPORTER: It’s just after dusk on a school night and Sydney mother Dana Levy watches on as her two boys wrap up their soccer practice. It’s an ordinary Tuesday evening, save for one thing: the family’s been dragged into a cyber war over national security, innocent victims of a hacking attack on their former telco provider AAPT.

These are some of the customer names. Just thousands of them. And your name is on this list.

DANA LEVY: Frightening. Really. It really is. It’s scary to think that it’s so easy.

HAYDEN COOPER: Thousands of phone numbers, email addresses even bank accounts of former and current customers have been hacked. Some of that has been exposed for public view. The hackers are the group known as Anonymous. Formed in 2003 to fight internet censorship and surveillance, their motivation, they say, is to protest against what could be the biggest revamp of Australian national security laws for a decade.

NICOLA ROXON, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: New technology I think has changed the way that criminals can plan their attacks, the way they can hide what it is that they’re doing and we want to make sure that the agencies are able to keep up with the activities and techniques that criminals are using.

NEIL GAUGHAN, ASST COMMISSIONER, AFP: The current act needs a complete overwrite, and that’s part of this process we’re going through at the moment.

HAYDEN COOPER: For the spies of ASIO and the detectives of the Australian Federal Police, the world of counter-terrorism and crime fighting has changed. The internet is the new battleground and the craft of surveillance is a lot more complicated than it used to be. Assistant Commissioner Neil Gaughan is at the forefront of the effort and leading the push for an update to the law.

Encryption’s killing us.

NEIL GAUGHAN: Encryption’s killing us. Encryption is extremely difficult for us. It’s very expensive, very clunky, very slow to decode encrypted internet protocols. What the act is asking is for is that companies be required to provide law enforcement with decoded information so that we don’t have to go through that clunkiness.

HAYDEN COOPER: The changes they want are widespread and significant. They include streamlining the process of obtaining surveillance warrants, extending interception powers to social networking and Skype, forcing people to surrender computer passwords and allowing authorities to install tracking software on a suspect’s computer. As Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon must ultimately decide how much power to give.

NICOLA ROXON: Well I think we should always taken credibly seriously any request made from law enforcement agencies, but they also need to be balanced with what is appropriate.

HAYDEN COOPER: But there’s one proposal that generates the most online heat, the idea of forcing internet service providers to track the online movements of every customer and hold that information for two years. It’s known as data retention, and to the police, it’s the Holy Grail.

NEIL GAUGHAN: What we’re asking for is data retention to be across the board. So, it’s in relation to if you and I emailed each other, not the content of that particular communication, but the context, i.e. when it took place, where we were when we did it, time, date.

What about browsing history?

HAYDEN COOPER: What about browsing history?

NEIL GAUGHAN: Oh, look, I think that in a perfect world that’s the sort of thing that we would also be after, but there needs to be some balance here. And you’ll note that with the discussion paper, privacy is front and centre.

HAYDEN COOPER: And that’s where the cyber saboteurs of Anonymous have crashed into the debate. We tracked down the activists in an online chat room where they claim their hack into AAPT confirms that internet service providers simply cannot safely store user data.

ANONYMOUS ACTIVIST (in online chat room, male voiceover): "The size alone from this one incident should make people stand up how vast the banks of data collected on individuals and business is."

HAYDEN COOPER: The data includes details from major Government departments, the Federal Police themselves, even foreign embassies. Anonymous is releasing it to bolster the case against the changes.

PHIL KERNICK, CQR CONSULTING: It contains personal private data about all the account holders of AAPT, about all the contracts, about all of their staff. This information is extraordinarily sensitive. ISPs can’t keep their own corporate sensitive contract information safe. It’s madness to believe that they’re gonna be able to keep everybody’s personal data safe as well.

data retention is a dangerous idea.

HAYDEN COOPER: Information security expert Phil Kernick is one that believes data retention is a dangerous idea.

PHIL KERNICK: Criminals are looking at ways to make money. We put all of the sensitive information about your internet browsing history together at an ISP, that’s a great target for criminals. Imagine that you’ve done something you’re not so proud of at some point in the past. Criminals get hold of this and decide to blackmail you over it.

HAYDEN COOPER: As for Anonymous, they’re threatening to release more of AAPT’s data, but whatever they do, they’ll be watched.

NEIL GAUGHAN: In a democracy, we don’t protest by committing criminal offences, which is basically what these guys have done. I don’t believe in the term "cyber hactivism". It’s a criminal act. They’ve stolen information. They’ve posted it online.

HAYDEN COOPER: Although a victim of the Anonymous hack, Dana Levy understands the point the group is trying to make about the storage of vast reams of data.

DANA LEVY: It’s like an invitation, isn’t it?

HAYDEN COOPER: And now as the politicians consider the trade off between national security and personal privacy, she worries about what it means for her.

DANA LEVY: Details are there, but we do what we can with the banks and with other institutions to keep it as secure as possible. And to think that it’s so easily attainable and then for the Government again to propose to make it even easier, it’s almost preposterous, I’d say. Yeah.

LEIGH SALES: And the Attorney-General stresses no decisions will be made until the issue has been considered by a parliamentary committee.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s