|
TinTower posted:
I had to google this reference. Wow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster#Findings Sales of The Sun are still down in Liverpool because the The Sun editor blamed the fans/victims in the Hillsborough incident over the police incompetence.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2013 03:28 |
|
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 03:28 |
|
There was one good thing about Hillsborough: it still keeps Liverpool together, and it keeps most of the footballing world together. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFX07w2-4ls TinTower fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Aug 19, 2013 |
# ? Aug 19, 2013 03:46 |
|
As someone in the states, I hadn't heard about that and it's pretty infuriating. As always, blame the poor rabble so that members of a different poor rabble can be mad at them.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2013 04:58 |
|
Rodatose posted:As someone in the states, I hadn't heard about that and it's pretty infuriating. After reading the wiki, I came away with the feeling it wasn't the looters that urinated on the bodies of the victims.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2013 05:36 |
|
There are plenty of idiots who watch English football who still believe the sequence of events as published by the sun. Maggie did a lot to damage the reputation of football in England and it is not at all shocking that Hillsborough was pushed the way it was as a method of gentrifying the game and pushing the poor out. The other side of the coin though is Heysel which tends to get papered over.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2013 09:35 |
|
Byolante posted:There are plenty of idiots who watch English football who still believe the sequence of events as published by the sun. Maggie did a lot to damage the reputation of football in England and it is not at all shocking that Hillsborough was pushed the way it was as a method of gentrifying the game and pushing the poor out. Heysel is interesting because the coverup has, for the most part, actually worked. Everyone blames the Liverpool fans for making that wall collapse, as if they turned up for the game with pickaxes and blasting charges. At Heysel: - That wall was unsafe (and the owners of the stadium *knew* it was unsafe) - The owners of the stadium ignored police advice about segregation of fans, putting Liverpool and Juve fans directly next to each other on a terrace with only a temporary fence separating them (so as to maximise their ticket revenue from the seated areas) - The first missiles thrown were from the Juve fans into the Liverpool fans - the majority of the missiles thrown were lumps of the terracing itself, the stadium was in such a poor state of repair - The wall collapsed under the pressure of Juve fans climbing over it to escape advancing Liverpool fans - but they had to climb the wall because ALL THE EXITS WERE LOCKED Yes, Liverpool fans rioting was a proximate cause of the collapse, but the idea - even in some Liverpool fans heads - that Heysel was entirely the fault of the Liverpool fans is a fabrication that suited the Belgian authorities, the footballing authorities (because god knows they wanted a reason to stop English fans travelling, they really were loving terrible in the eighties), the owners of the stadium, and even the British government.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2013 09:59 |
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:The situation with email is even worse - almost all email providers use the email address as a login and have trivial password-recovery techniques, and permit diversion of a copy of all email sent to a mailbox with no further notification required (Hotmail still permit it 8 years after they were heavily criticised for it by the trial judge in R. v Stanford) and once you have access to someone's email account these days it's pretty much all over. Google at least permit 2FA but hide it well away.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2013 11:15 |
|
Zephro posted:Out of interest, which webmail provider would you say was the least bad from this point of view? I don't mean which one supports end-to-end encryption and will self-immolate rather than talk to the spooks, just which one is least likely to cave in under less serious pressure, or is less vulnerable to malicious compromise? Legally, they're all in the US so that's a wash. Google allow 2FA via smartphones, and Hotmail are experimenting with it, but ultimately expecting any third party to care as much about your privacy as you do is silly.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2013 12:44 |
|
Zephro posted:Out of interest, which webmail provider would you say was the least bad from this point of view? I don't mean which one supports end-to-end encryption and will self-immolate rather than talk to the spooks, just which one is least likely to cave in under less serious pressure, or is less vulnerable to malicious compromise? Really your only choice for even a modicum of privacy is to not use webmail and to learn to use encryption, i.e. GPG. You still wont be safe if they decide to target you because they'll compromise your machine and install a keylogger or just prosecute you under the RIP act. You will also have to convince your interlocutors to use it which is the hard bit.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2013 13:06 |
|
Zombywuf posted:Really your only choice for even a modicum of privacy is to not use webmail and to learn to use encryption, i.e. GPG. You still wont be safe if they decide to target you because they'll compromise your machine and install a keylogger or just prosecute you under the RIP act. You will also have to convince your interlocutors to use it which is the hard bit. quote:almost all email providers use the email address as a login and have trivial password-recovery techniques, and permit diversion of a copy of all email sent to a mailbox with no further notification required (Hotmail still permit it 8 years after they were heavily criticised for it by the trial judge in R. v Stanford)
|
# ? Aug 19, 2013 13:21 |
|
Since were on the subject: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/south-yorkshire-police-wanted-spend-5749493 quote:South Yorkshire police chiefs wanted to use funds donated in memory of Hillsborough disaster victims to pay for breaks in the sun for their officers, it has emerged.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2013 15:14 |
|
Zombywuf posted:Really your only choice for even a modicum of privacy is to not use webmail and to learn to use encryption, i.e. GPG. You still wont be safe if they decide to target you because they'll compromise your machine and install a keylogger or just prosecute you under the RIP act. You will also have to convince your interlocutors to use it which is the hard bit. I'm not sure if "them" is hackers or, you know... THEM in this context, but as an interesting aside - you're at least safe from government keyloggers and other trojans for now, they're still illegal (and specifically any data gathered from them cannot be used in a prosecution, and indeed their existence poisons the chain of evidence enough that it's very unlikely any forensics gathered from your computer will be admissible).
|
# ? Aug 19, 2013 16:06 |
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I'm not sure if "them" is hackers or, you know... THEM in this context, but as an interesting aside - you're at least safe from government keyloggers and other trojans for now, they're still illegal (and specifically any data gathered from them cannot be used in a prosecution, and indeed their existence poisons the chain of evidence enough that it's very unlikely any forensics gathered from your computer will be admissible). We've already seen in this thread that US law enforcement is very willing to use inadmissible data in its investigations, and then construct a fake sanitized "chain of evidence" that makes no mention of the data. They even have an official program for it IIRC. I wouldn't write off the prospect of government keyloggers and trojans just because they don't show up in court.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2013 16:21 |
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:We've already seen in this thread that US law enforcement is very willing to use inadmissible data in its investigations, and then construct a fake sanitized "chain of evidence" that makes no mention of the data. They even have an official program for it IIRC. I wouldn't write off the prospect of government keyloggers and trojans just because they don't show up in court. Believe it or not (and I almost did the same thing myself), this isn't the Snowden thread.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2013 16:24 |
|
A rather complex piece from my regular contributor on how Murdoch and pals might be trying to worm their way out of corporate charges http://brown-moses-hackgate.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/met-and-murdoch-covert-deals-and.html
|
# ? Aug 19, 2013 17:03 |
|
Zephro posted:No, like I said, I'm not worried about three-letter agencies. I just mean I'd like an email provider that won't do things like: Ah, you're pretty much hosed unless you run your own mail server, or you could use encryption. Yeah it sucks. BTW: There are many companies that have had, or still have, lovely password recovery mechanisms, including Netflix and Amazon. Yeah, companies with your credit card info. goddamnedtwisto posted:I'm not sure if "them" is hackers or, you know... THEM in this context, but as an interesting aside - you're at least safe from government keyloggers and other trojans for now, they're still illegal (and specifically any data gathered from them cannot be used in a prosecution, and indeed their existence poisons the chain of evidence enough that it's very unlikely any forensics gathered from your computer will be admissible). This depends on what THEY want. If the UK government want to prosecute me then they won't use key loggers because it's illegal and they can just use the RIP act. If on the other hand the NSA just want to rifle through my stuff for shits and giggles then they can log all the keys they want.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2013 23:02 |
|
Zombywuf posted:Ah, you're pretty much hosed unless you run your own mail server, or you could use encryption. That's pretty much always been the case though because every American agency has pretty much been allowed to do whatever they want to non-Americans (hence the years-old urban legend about NSA spying on Brits for HMG and GCHQ reciprocating on American citizens) I know it's an even weaker version of "If you've nothing to fear you've nothing to hide" but basically I've always assumed THEY can read whatever I'm doing online at any time if I'm ever likely to be up to something likely to being myself to their attention, and I'm sort of okay with that - even moreso now I know (in the UK at least) just how strong the protections are on use of both Part 1 (interception) and Part 3 RIPA ("Rubber-hose" cryptography). Part 1 Ch.2 (comms data) not *quite* so much but there's really very little they can glean from the data covered by that. Anyway this is veering dangerously off-course for the thread - the legal or otherwise powers of governments to snoop on citizens is pretty irrelevant to the illegal power of the media and other private bodies to do the same, and ultimately the latter is of much more concern (or at least should be) to the average citizen. goddamnedtwisto fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Aug 19, 2013 |
# ? Aug 19, 2013 23:16 |
|
You know the XKeyScore documents show those urban legends have become (somewhat) reality? Anyway, I do think widespread state monitoring is on topic for a thread covering topics like the police selling peoples personal data.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2013 23:44 |
|
Some would say there's very little difference between governments and private entities when every PM we've had for the past few decades was all but hand picked by Murdoch. Excluding Brown but I'm pretty sure he only got the job because some sick gently caress thought it was funny. Plus the whole trend towards privatising everything in return for a cushy job when politicians leave office.
|
# ? Aug 20, 2013 00:01 |
|
More charging decisions from the CPS:quote:Operation Elveden: Former Daily Mirror journalist and eight others to be charged
|
# ? Aug 20, 2013 13:40 |
|
My regular contributor has written a humourous piece on the status of the Royal Charter http://brown-moses-hackgate.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/schrodingers-royal-charter.html
|
# ? Aug 20, 2013 15:29 |
|
Tom Watson was on Q&A, the Australian version of Question Time, broadcast on the ABC recently. The episode can be viewed here and the download appears to be non-geoblocked. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3818772.htm He did alright but I think people in Australia failed to see the significance of things. Also those Twitter comments on the bottom of the screen are stupid sometimes.
|
# ? Aug 27, 2013 12:59 |
|
Brown Moses posted:More charging decisions from the CPS: How close are we to having Piers do his "teddy bear making GBS threads into a teacup" routine in a cell?
|
# ? Aug 29, 2013 02:42 |
|
Tangentially related but an official watchdog investigation by the information commissioner has been announced, looking into companies accused of using Private Detectives to "Blag" personal information. May have some knock on to the press investigations but at least things are moving on the "Blagging" front.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2013 16:42 |
|
Keith Vaz and HASC will be publishing the names of the blue chip companies involved with hacking on Monday, should be interesting.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 17:18 |
|
Is that under parliamentary privilege or did he talk the police around?
|
# ? Sep 3, 2013 17:21 |
|
Mr. Squishy posted:Is that under parliamentary privilege or did he talk the police around? It's being reported that Vaz gave them an ultimatum - you publish it, or we will.
|
# ? Sep 4, 2013 00:33 |
|
According to twitter, SOCA have changed their mind... https://twitter.com/tomsymonds/status/375977961637568512 (BBC Home Affairs Correspondent, so should be reasonably accurate).
|
# ? Sep 6, 2013 14:51 |
|
And so it begins... again: quote:Sunday Mirror confirms phone-hacking investigation http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24059941 Luckily Piers Morgan doesn't know anything about that sort of thing so I'm sure he's not remotely worried.
|
# ? Sep 12, 2013 11:49 |
|
Loonytoad Quack posted:
|
# ? Sep 12, 2013 12:41 |
|
Has there been any movement on the publication of Blue-Chip Hacking companies? Last I saw, SOCA maneged to nix it by claiming there was nine companies that had legal proceedings against and had three companies and one person removed from the list who were allegedly involved (Which the times named as Allianz, Delloite, Credit Suisse and Simon Cowell) that put a block on Keith Vaz's plans to release it. Seems like there's a lot of police interference on publishing the list.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2013 17:59 |
|
In more New sUK news, turns out nobody will pay £1 for tits and poo poo puns on the internet http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/sep/16/sun-paywallsGreenslade for the Graun posted:Sun online's disastrous paywall start as traffic plunges by 62% Oh dear.
|
# ? Sep 17, 2013 01:14 |
|
On the other hand, given the terrible money that web advertising pays, it wouldn't surprise me if they were making more money despite the drop in readers.
|
# ? Sep 17, 2013 12:58 |
|
While I wish nothing but harm on The Sun and all who sail in her, it's received wisdom that erecting a paywall on a previously free website is expected to result in around a 90% reduction in traffic. These numbers for The Sun actually seem disappointingly positive, so let's hope it does eventually prove disastrous.
|
# ? Sep 17, 2013 14:24 |
|
Pasco posted:While I wish nothing but harm on The Sun and all who sail in her, it's received wisdom that erecting a paywall on a previously free website is expected to result in around a 90% reduction in traffic. I'm more interested in the sociological impact than whether or not it hurts murdoch's bottom line. If a large portion of the websites' original readership is no longer reading it, where have they gone to get their news? If it's the mail then , but if it's driving people to (marginally) better sources of information like the beeb then I couldn't be happier...
|
# ? Sep 17, 2013 14:49 |
|
StarkingBarfish posted:I'm more interested in the sociological impact than whether or not it hurts murdoch's bottom line. If a large portion of the websites' original readership is no longer reading it, where have they gone to get their news? If it's the mail then , but if it's driving people to (marginally) better sources of information like the beeb then I couldn't be happier... I can't remember where I saw this - probably in a former version of this thread - Sun readers who have to pick something else typically buy The Star instead.
|
# ? Sep 17, 2013 15:09 |
|
Firing Cirrus posted:I can't remember where I saw this - probably in a former version of this thread - Sun readers who have to pick something else typically buy The Star instead. Wasn't that for the physical medium rather than the website though? Even the star is a minor improvement, mind you.
|
# ? Sep 17, 2013 15:22 |
|
The reviews for The Sun app since they went pay-only are amusing: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.co.thesun.mobile Loonytoad Quack fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Sep 17, 2013 |
# ? Sep 17, 2013 15:35 |
|
StarkingBarfish posted:Wasn't that for the physical medium rather than the website though? Even the star is a minor improvement, mind you. I hope that's sarcasm. The Daily Star is pretty much the house rag of the English Defence League and makes the Daily Mail look like the Morning Star. It really is the worst newspaper in Britain and only the pathetic readership figures it gets prevent it from being far more dangerous than it is.
|
# ? Sep 17, 2013 16:27 |
|
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 03:28 |
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I hope that's sarcasm. The Daily Star is pretty much the house rag of the English Defence League and makes the Daily Mail look like the Morning Star. It really is the worst newspaper in Britain and only the pathetic readership figures it gets prevent it from being far more dangerous than it is. That shows how much I know- I thought it was zero content, but left leaning? Or am I getting mixed up with the Mirror?
|
# ? Sep 17, 2013 20:57 |