Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«4 »
  • Locked thread
goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Brown Moses posted:

The question you should all be asking is who was actually doing the burglaries?

Was it SI who were using serving police officers for burglaries in the 80s and 90s or have I got my sleazy fuckers mixed up?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Gambrinus posted:

What's the source for this?

Private Eye's stories about the murder of Daniel Morgan is where I heard it although I think it's come up in the coverage of this as well.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Hong XiuQuan posted:

It's a bit of a cop-out, but I think there's a warning in it: 'we do not consider, having taken into account all the relevant factors, that on the evidence available to date Sky is no longer fit and proper to hold broadcast licences.'

Seems to me if more poo poo attaches to Sky this may change.

*edit* the entire document is embedded in this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...es-Murdoch.html

You can probably find it elsewhere. I had a quick read through it and it seems fairly reasonable. Ofcom basically saying that while JM and RM behaviour is relevant to whether or not they are fit and proper there are four obstacles:

1) Not enough evidence of direct involvement;
2) Not enough evidence of direct involvement affecting Sky;
3) While JM has influence over the board as a Director and Shareholder, there are other Directors as well which could have a moderating influence; and
4) Sky has a fairly clean regulatory sheet and has been successful for the last decade.

Yeah, the fit and proper thing would only come up if the NI takeover rears its head again (or the Murdochs increase their personal shareholdings in BSkyB). Sky is only part-owned by NI and there's no evidence (yet) that they've been involved in any of this stuff.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Mr Cuddles posted:

Well I don't even know what I'm being called up for yet but yea, probably best not to discuss it any further, especially as it's not relevant to the thread.

As long as you don't discuss any details of the trial you're fine, from a legal standpoint - however your posts here might disqualify you from a jury if you disclosed them, or if you made it onto the jury and convicted someone and then your posts ITT were later discovered it might be grounds for a mistrial as generally they want jurors, where possible, to have no foreknowledge of the evidence and events to be tried. You still wouldn't be in any trouble though, unless you specifically denied having any knowledge of or connection to the events in the trial (I forget what the actual wording of the question used in jury selection is).

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Filboid Studge posted:

Why aren't we reading or hearing about the burglary aspect? Private injunction? D-Notice?

Enlightened self-interest and journalistic laziness. Until there's a nice easy "victim good newspaper bad" hook to hang the story on and beat Murdoch over the head with, like Milly Dowler for the hacking, you won't see it get big traction anywhere. It is also an ongoing police investigation and journalists are always wary of reporting them unless something really juicy comes up.

Editors are also (no doubt with an eye on the traditional Fleet Street omerta and worrying about touching Caesar without killing him) beginning to claim that people are bored with the story and it isn't worth reporting on. There might even be something to this - a lot of people I talk to, when I mention the burglary story, just tut and say "Typical, still it doesn't really matter does it?". People are already sliding it into their just-world viewpoints and mortaring it in with a skim of faux-sophistication.

Again, a properly juicy hook (and a politician won't and can't be that hook, no matter how egregious the offence against them, because politicians are just that despised) is needed to overcome this sort of outrage inertia people have. Oh they can turn into screaming brownshirts at the hint that someone might be getting a few quid more benefits than they deserve, but massive political corruption is too big for most people to handle. They need a victim to empathise with. Look at the current situation - the Tories are busily looting the public wealth to enrich themselves and their chums, Jeremy loving Hunt is now in charge of the NHS, and the only negative news story is about Andrew Mitchell swearing at a copper.

And yes, this does mean that if Watergate had happened in 2012 rather than 1972 it would have just been a tiny footnote in the history of Nixon's 8-year reign.

(A superinjunction would get massive coverage almost immediately, people are starting to come to the realisation that they are a very silly idea in the age of the internet, and D-Notices are issued by the Government only in relation to matters of national security and are not binding - if a Notice was issued it would very quickly become a very big story indeed.)

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

PaletteSwappedNinja posted:

If you were to accidentally publish an article containing something potentially libelous and then edit it out later, but the original article was still being copy/pasted, cached on Google, etc could you be held in contempt? Just curious.

Short answer no but, long answer yes unless. Cached and otherwise republished content is a massive swirling vortex of doom, legally, especially given the extraterritorial aspect of it.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Zephro posted:

I believe so, but AFAIK the other stuff is completely invented.

Well not *completely* invented, it's stuff like the Osborne rumour for which tenuous, circumstantial evidence existed and they were going to try to crank up the rumour mill and then drop that circumstantial evidence into the mix so as to ensure it would be interpreted as proving the rumours. They had no actual evidence, or even reason to believe that evidence existed, to support the rumours, just things like that photo that might be able to be interpreted as damning evidence.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

DaWolfey posted:

That Mail article is terrible.
We already knew about the LOL, "yes we cam!" and the "working together" lines.
To use the word horseplay, clearly meant to be interpreted as "DID THEY HAVE AN AFFAIR!? HORSEPLAY, YOU KNOW - SEX" and with the "fast unpredictable ride" line it's trying to get you to wonder if they had an affair or if their relationship was more than just friends.

Pathetic, can we shut down the Mail forever for that misleading bullshit?

I think it's a warning shot from the Mail, aimed in several directions at once. First, at Cameron directly. I don't think he had an affair with Brooks (because I don't think he has actual genitals but was vat-grown in Tory Central Office) but the tone of the texts already released is flirty enough to get the Mail readers harumphing, and I'm sure the unreleased ones are even more painful. It never hurts Fleet Street to remind politicians what can happen if you cross them.

Second, by dangling the possibility that there might be a deeper scandal unearthed by obtaining communications through illicit means (in this case a leak rather than a hack) they're trying to take the wind out of the sails of any future campaign for press regulation.

Finally, Dacre is probably relishing being able to put the boot into Brooks once again. They genuinely hate each other, and he's probably not stopped smiling since she got arrested.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Hong XiuQuan posted:

They're a little archaic and generally the preserve of the rich or the lucky. I still prefer our system to the US, where pretty much anything goes and (partly) as a result Yanks end up with the most comical news system on the planet.

E.g. in theory US media could probably get away with "Defense Secretary Lord McLoltwat: a colossal paedophile?" I'm surprised Obama isn't regularly accused by US hacks of being an immigrant benefit-sponging paedo.

Well they regularly hint very heavily he's the first two.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Scott Bakula posted:

This is probably a stupid question, but why aren't Ofcom already in charge of the press? Why not just make them have control over press complaints?

Ofcom are a bunch of pre-existing agencies - the Broadcasting Standards Council and Independent Television Commission (the latter two handling complaints about all TV and radio, the former complaints about ITV and C4), the Thatcher-era Oftel (established to regulate the newly-privatised British Telecom), from which they get their internet-business regulatory powers), and three technical bodies (IBA, RA, and RCA) which regulated all other broadcast activities in the UK) - squished together by Blair because they all overlapped each other to a greater or lesser extent (and, some have said, because the RCA's resistance to the 3G spectrum auction nearly scuppered it).

Because there's never been any statutory regulation of the Press in the UK it probably just never occurred to anyone to include it with Ofcom.

(Personally I think Ofcom are pretty bad victims of regulatory capture and apart from some token slaps on the wrist to the most egregious offenders - ones that provably don't even wipe out the profits from the offences - have been utterly toothless in preventing abuse of the telecomms industry, while conversely being ridiculously over-restrictive and in thrall to the loony right when it comes to broadcast programming, and so are the worst possible example of the kind of regulation the press should be getting)

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

A tiny and mostly symbolic detail, but today BSkyB officially bought back the shares News Corp bought almost three years ago which kicked off the takeover bid, meaning it is officially over:

http://www.4-traders.com/BRITISH-SK...yback-16369542/

(News Corp still own 39.1% of BSkyB, and made a pretty tasty profit - almost half a million pounds - on the buyback because the price is now almost as high as it got at the height of the takeover bid.)

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

ufarn posted:

It confounds me that Piers Morgan has eluded capture.

He naturally secretes a lubricant which makes him almost impossible to get a solid grip on. He's the journalistic equivalent of a hagfish.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

ufarn posted:

What's the naming convention for these operations? Is it alphabetic?

Just a big list of random words - the name is deliberately not representative of anything.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Gonzo McFee posted:

Don't think the Daily Mail would put out a story that could damage the Tory party and fellow press scum without evidence.

"Dinnae fire at yer own side unless you've got enough ammo to take em down."

I'm guessing they believe those two are down enough already and this way they get to implant the idea in people's heads that Cameron is shagging around, because that's the impression I got on first glance at that headline. (Also I wouldn't necessarily read too much into that headline because Staines is a poo poo-stirrer and likes to occasionally put red herrings in)

Having said that... are either of them actually on trial right at this moment? Or anybody else? If this is information that has come out in an in camera session of a trial it would explain the "legal problems" they have with publishing it.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

ACanofPepsi posted:

Legally you can't even speculate? Isn't the entirety of the British press run by speculation and heresay?

If it's sub judice then disclosing it is contempt of court, which will get you actual jail time rather than a slap on the wrist.

(Not that it's stopped certain papers owned by certain Australians from reporting stuff so wildly that it's actually led trials to collapse because of the likelihood of the jury being biased by it...)

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Pasco posted:

So basically, they were arguing that a communication cannot have been 'intercepted' after the recipient had listened to it.

It's probably true that RIPA is unclear on this, and that this is one of those letter versus spirit of the law deals, but fortunately Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge (which is indeed the best title/name combo ever) told them to get hosed with that nonsense.

s.1 of RIPA is a little poorly-worded, referring only to communications "in the course of [their] transmission by means of a private telecommunication system.". There'a some very shaky case law on whether a voicemail (or any other non-immediate communication like an email) is a communication covered by RIPA, depending on exactly how it's accessed, but signs mostly point to a listened-to and stored voicemail *not* being a communication covered by RIPA. It's quite interesting (and a very bad sign for ACRB) that the court has apparently decided to hear arguments on this because previously courts had punted on it, waiting for the new Comms Data Bill to clarify the position - with that now stalled, it's possible that we'll actually get a solid decision on this.

However even if it's decided that a "read" communication is not covered by S.1 RIPA, they will have multiple other avenues of prosecution (Computer Misuse Act (unauthorised access to a protected computer system), Data Protection Act, Communications Act (improper use of a public communications network) off the top of my head, plus charges for whatever means were used to obtain the PINs in cases where they weren't default).

Having said that, punishments under RIPA are by far the most swingeing - 2 years in prison and up to 100,000 fine *per count*, and while the former don't add up the latter do, and as we're talking about hundreds upon hundreds of counts here, that's going to get very, very expensive.

There's an interesting further wrinkle here, but I'll need to double-check this - as I understand RIPA, ACRB will only have committed an offence if they are proven to have actually listened to the intercepted communications themselves. Paying someone to intercept a communication is not actually a crime under RIPA (again, this is as I understand it, I'll ask someone who knows more and get back on that one).

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

zylche posted:

Any idea when this will be?

I'm guessing attendees will be vigorously searched for custard.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Josef bugman posted:

Okay, so what is the story here, I looked up the chap but all I could find was one, very arse covering, guardian interview in which he basically says "not only were they put their by dedicated internet hackers, but just because I have looked for and found pictures of barely legal girls arousing doesn't mean I am a paedophile, also I accepted this caution as a legal thing but I am totally not looking for under-age girl pictures on the internet".

I don't get it at all.

The interesting thing is that the hacked emails would probably not have been sufficient to get the search warrant that discovered the illegal content on his hard drive (fruit of a poisoned tree and all that) - the gossip goes that after the hacked emails were leaked he rang Mensch and confessed all, and it was actually she who rung the police and made a report, although she's officially denied that version of events.

Of course this might be ex post facto arse covering by Mensch, spreading the rumour but officially denying it to give it some more veracity, but the point is there's a significant missing piece between his version of events, the actual verifiable facts, and what's legally possible/likely. (One other possible explanation is that he actually had something even shadier going on - he was certainly paying out a lot of money to an escorting website - and instead turned himself in for something which he knew would be juicy enough to keep people off the scent, but wouldn't end up with prison time)

e: Oops ignore that, Mensch did admit reporting him to the police, so some small amount of kudos for that.

goddamnedtwisto fucked around with this message at Jul 11, 2013 around 11:08

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Josef bugman posted:

Wow, so why doesn't the Gaurdian article mention that the guy has basically admitted to being interested in kids? I mean, alright, he isn't a child abuser (that we know of) but surely he should at least be in all of the therapy at the moment.

Quick answer - lawyers.

Longer answer - as he has no particular access to children and nobody seems to be accusing him of actually touching a child, and given limited Police resources, the caution (and his very public humiliation) is probably best all round.

Having said that I had another quick look through the hacked emails (I'll admit, having closed the window at the cock shots previously, to have just gone on second-hand accounts of what was in them) he made several posts appreciating sets from Russian modelling sites whose models were normally below the age of 10. As weak as the "well technically it's ephepophilia and natural" Reddit bullshit defence that he's been making is, that puts it in a very different light IMO.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

ultrabindu posted:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rs-8718049.html

This popped up this morning. Any ideas who's tied up in this? What precisely does "formally classified" mean?

Basically SOCA are unable to prove that the companies involved ever commissioned these companies to break the law, and so it would be wrong to release their details. It's not a fantastic decision but it's probably the right one.

(A somewhat stretched simile but a few years ago my local newsagent got done for selling booze and fags to underage kids via adults going into the shop for them. It would be a bit lovely for them to reveal my name as an adult who had bought booze and fags there while talking about these criminal charges when I was never involved in any criminal activities.)

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Munin posted:

Yeah, it's standard journalistic practice to allow the person the article is about to respond. That's why most articles alleging a company or individual did something more or less always have a "X was asked to comment but did not provide a response at the time of going to print." or "X refused to comment on the matter.".

In the US it's an excellent CYA move and generally to be recommended. In the UK some publications have become a bit leery of it due to the number of pre-publication injunctions flying around these days.

The problem is that if they don't give a right to reply and then get sued, they're liable for considerably more damages, so they're damned if they do an damned if they don't. At least a superinjunction is cheaper.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

There's one group whose involvement in all of this has been overlooked, and that's the CSPs - mobile providers particularly, but email and internet service providers too. Exploitation of weak/default pins and passwords has been known about for as long as voicemail and email have existed, and blagging of pins and passwords has been a known issue for at least as long as I've been in the industry (since 1999, god I'm old ).

It took the Milly Dowler case for most of the mobile providers to at least enforce a PIN for remote access to a voicemail box, and still most if not all allow the PIN to be changed using information trivially available for the price of a Google search. Why even bother with remote access being on by default? Less than 2% of users ever remotely access the voicemail.

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.

I'd like to pretend it's a conspiracy, that providers are secretly profiting from this, but the amount of resistance users (and management) put up to anything they see as making it even slightly inconvenient makes any kind of attempt to improve matters basically impossible. The ICO could do something about it - jacking up minimum standards for Data Protection and updating best practices which are still stuck in 1995 would be a start - but they're toothless.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

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.

The other side of the coin though is Heysel which tends to get papered over.

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.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

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.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

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).

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Zombywuf posted:

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.


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.

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 Aug 19, 2013 around 22:19

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

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.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

HortonNash posted:

Could they throw Rupert and James under the bus?

Nope, literally everything that happens in this trial will be to keep them (and Lachlan) as clean as possible. In fact, given how few guilty pleas there have been, it's almost certain that there's not enough in the prosecution case to touch them.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

HTJ posted:

The opening is a summary of the allegations and the key bits of evidence; after this they will go into the evidence in mind numbing detail.

Well, strictly speaking next comes the defence's opening statements - they'll almost certainly be shorter and pretty much boil down to reminding the jury about burden of proof and other general stuff rather than directly trying to rebut the prosecution opening statement. They'll save their best shots for the end of the trial, hoping to influence the summing-up and jury deliberations by getting the last word.

notaspy posted:

I loving love mind numbing detail. Can I just rock up to the court and get a seat (in a few weeks when all the interest boils off)?

Theoretically yes, but you'll have to get there well early to stand a chance.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

thehustler posted:

David Allen Green is reminding people that:

1) The defence will have had this evidence before the court has heard it this past few days and...
2) ...the defendants have still pleaded not guilty on those charges

so it'll be interesting to hear the defence for what has come out over the past few days. Will it be on a technicality, maybe?

My guess is that the prosecution doesn't have absolute, smoking-gun proof that any executive at NI had specific knowledge of the details of the hacking and the defence will be leaning really heavily on the shadow of a doubt defence.

It's a risky defence - particularly assuming the prosecution will be able to get clean-handed NI executives to testify that this sort of expense will have been very carefully vetted by Coulson, Brooks et. al. - but probably worth a punt.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

The strange thing to me is what Brown Moses (and others, of course) is up to is how journalism used to be done, only cheaper. It used to be that journalists were entirely reliant on local people who may or may not have been journalists ("stringers") who would post/telegram them reports of what was happening in, say, Calcutta, and the journalist would then try and piece together a coherent story from that without ever leaving Fleet Street.

It was the advent of portable cameras and easy photographic printing in newspapers around WWI that started the whole "Journalists have to be on the scene" idea which led to the current ridiculous situation where the BBC will send out a dozen reporters to stand outside a hospital where a Royal was giving birth, reading statements that had been emailled to the newsroom telling them nothing was happening and asking each other What It All Means. Despite more and more money being thrown at what is laughingly called "newsgathering", the combination of "We go live now to..." and the need to fill more and more airtime means journalists now have neither the time or the ability to actually find out what's happening in any meaningful way.

I'm deeply suspicious of the "citizen journalism" movement though, if only because on multiple occasions I've had people standing next to me in a situation telling me the exact opposite of what we could both see was actually happening, because they'd read something on Twitter. At it's best it can be very, very good but if not carefully filtered it's basically "And now we go live to Some Bloke Down The Pub Whose Brother's Girlfriend's Mum Heard Something".

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Brown Moses posted:

Well, if a group or government makes a claim and doesn't support it with some sort of evidence I tend to approach it with a certain level of cynicism, especially in situation like you have where Russia is putting out an increasingly convoluted story about the August 21st Sarin attack.

Another example of this is something I was told about only in the last couple of days. Apparently a major US newspaper was planning a big piece about me and Human Rights Watch's work on the August 21st attack, before the UN report was published. Supposedly they asked a US intelligence official for their opinion on my work, and they said it was all nonsense, and shouldn't be trusted, so the nearly complete article was spiked. Of course, then the UN report is published and it turns out I was totally right about everything, so it hardly gives you much faith in the information these agencies are producing.

I'm sure you and most here have seen it, but Adam Curtis absolutely eviscerates MI5s ability to do its job (and with it reporting of intelligence stories) in BUGGER, a blog post on the BBC site.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Comstar posted:

I have no confidence, or have seen any evidence to provide any confidence, that intelligence agents are in any way shape or form, reliable, accurate or able to be trusted.

The only possible reason they can provide factual information is by relying on public and private informants such as BM, or illegal hacking that should put them in jail along with the News of the World.

That's a little over-broad. In their small-scale work they do very, very well - from Double Cross to current counter-terrorism work, they're pretty efficient with a minimum invasion of privacy/liberty.

It's at the larger scale, when they're forced (or allowed) to speculate and build their own worlds that things go pear-shaped really quickly, which is the point of the article - that they can and will invent enemies where none exist. Conversely they have a huge blind spot in the opposite direction, where they believe that any information (for example the tipoffs about the 7/7 bombers) that has not come from their own investigative efforts is fundamentally weaker than their own beliefs. The latter is arguably a good thing though, given the former - I think we're all happier with the idea that the occasional loan nutter will get through compared to the kind of total lockdown and massive wholesale invasion of privacy and liberty that would be required to prevent them.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

baka kaba posted:

The Wongabomber

Oops.

Mind you in terms of damage to the country you have to wonder how Al-Quaeda stack up against the financial sector...

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Comstar posted:

Spies are not good at counter-terrorism. They only help CREATE terrorism, which admittly they have shown a good record of doing.

Police, courts and the use of law and justice are good at counter-terrorism. Intelligence agencies are not. They have no ability or actual want or need for any *minimum* invasion of privacy/liberty. They only want, and get the maximum amount, and be outside and above the law to do so.

It's a pretty massive claim to say that they're creating terrorism when we're talking about the British intelligence services. I can sort of see the argument in abstract when you're talking about the aggregate actions of the West against the Muslim world, when you factor in things like rendition and drone strikes, but I was referring specifically to what MI5 et. al. are up to.

(For what it's worth I would definitely characterise the activities of the CIA over the last 60 years in that way - and also a perfect example of what happens when intelligence agencies are given that sort of overly-broad and un-overseen brief)

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

ewe2 posted:

I've no idea, I'm guessing they got the router and figured out the missing MAC addresses. I'm fascinated by Coulson's lawyer here: am I imagining it or is Coulson possibly going to rat on the others?

ARP and NAT tables, on consumer-grade broadband equipment, are entirely transient - they not only wouldn't survive a reboot they wouldn't even survive the disconnection of the device in question. I assume it's a combination of wifi authentication and DHCP logs, both of which are at least logged albeit in a pretty small buffer.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

HCO Plumer GCB GCM posted:

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

Just as well nobody mentioned the possibility of Uncle Rupe being in there then, eh?

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Banano posted:

So hang on, the content of an issue of Lesbian Lovers is at the core of perverting the course of justice or did the Brooks decide to dispose of a pedestrian grumble mag at the same time as evidence of criminality?

The point was that everything in that bag was very obviously stuff Charlie didn't want the police to find. They hid it (and then apparently got the NI head of security to hide it more) when they knew plod were going to pay them a visit.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

Gambrinus posted:

Someone remind me what NDS is please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDS_Group#BBC_Panorama

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

SedanChair posted:

Is it just me, or does "bagman for right-wing media scum" seem to be shaping up to be rather a fun job?

I've worried from the very beginning that - if you take morality out of the equation - working for one of these blagging firms sounds like massive, massive fun. I've worked on the other side of that fight for many years and it's dull as gently caress.

(I actually turned down a job offer from Southern Investigations in 2000. I knew very little about them at the time, but they were offering such a ridiculous amount of money for what seemed like pretty cursory skills that I knew something was up. Turns out just for once I backed the right horse)

  • Locked thread
«4 »