Internet companies could be forced to track you
in [Computers]
|
Prev: .NET
Next: Allphones scam?
From: Rod Speed on 12 Jun 2010 14:45 terryc wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> terryc wrote: >>> Clocky wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> Usual terminal govt stupidity. Anyone with even half a clue that >>>>> wants to conceal their use of the net would just use the library >>>>> net service or a net cafe. >>>> Useless if they keep records of usage of their systems, or are made to. >>> And a few have/are getting surveillance cameras. >> Completely trivial to avoid those. > Trivial in the sense of? Like I said, in NSW at least, they have to have signs saying you are on camera, so even you should be able to find a library net service or net cafe without cameras. > Going to the next one? >> Legally in NSW those have to have signs advising that surveillance is in operation.
From: Rod Speed on 12 Jun 2010 14:48 terryc wrote: > Rod Speed wrote >> How could they possibly inspect all the records of every net cafe and library in Sydney for example ? > They wont. they will just inspect the one used by the person(s) of interest. Not feasible to track what the individual uses. >> We saw the same completely mindless claims about requiring a proper >> id when buying a mobile phone etc and it turns out that anyone with >> even half a clue can get one anonymously any time they like. > So how do you do that? Just use a shop that doesnt bother to insist on ID. Or order it on the net and dont bother to provide the courier monkey with ID. Mine didnt even ask for it, even tho he was supposed to do that. Get the phone used off ebay etc. Steal a phone. Etc etc etc.
From: . on 12 Jun 2010 14:59 On 13/06/2010 4:48 AM, Rod Speed wrote: > terryc wrote: >> Rod Speed wrote > >>> How could they possibly inspect all the records of every net cafe and library in Sydney for example ? > >> They wont. they will just inspect the one used by the person(s) of interest. > > Not feasible to track what the individual uses. > >>> We saw the same completely mindless claims about requiring a proper >>> id when buying a mobile phone etc and it turns out that anyone with >>> even half a clue can get one anonymously any time they like. > >> So how do you do that? > > Just use a shop that doesnt bother to insist on ID. > > Or order it on the net and dont bother to provide the courier monkey > with ID. Mine didnt even ask for it, even tho he was supposed to do that. > > Get the phone used off ebay etc. > > Steal a phone. > > Etc etc etc. > > Go milk your cows :D You old fart :)
From: Rod Speed on 12 Jun 2010 15:08 Hunter wrote: > On 12/06/2010 7:30 PM, Doug Jewell wrote: >> Rod Speed wrote: >>> Doug Jewell wrote: >>>> It'd probably come with a requirement on ISP's to block domestic >>>> VPN traffic & proxies too. >>> >>> Pure fantasy. >> The nanny-state government is proposing mandatory web filtering. >> Assuming they get it over the line, when they discover it is easily >> bypassed by using a VPN or proxy, what do you think their next >> requirement against ISP's will be? > > > They wont ban VPN traffic, it's way too heavily utilised for legitimate purposes. > At any rate there's a good chance they're going to go belly up in the next election At one time I thought that we hardly ever give a federal govt just one term, but then I realised that the Dud has already lasted longer than Cough Witless. Gunna be fascinating to see how many the dud has so comprehensively pissed off with his arrogance that now that the polls show that they will lose the next election, he get the bums rush just like Beastly did with such lousy poll results. > and none of this insanity will see the light of day. Even if they are still the govt, they are likely to have a MUCH worse senate with the greens getting to decide everything that the coalition opposes.
From: . on 12 Jun 2010 15:31
On 13/06/2010 5:08 AM, Rod Speed wrote: > Hunter wrote: >> On 12/06/2010 7:30 PM, Doug Jewell wrote: >>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>> Doug Jewell wrote: >>>>> It'd probably come with a requirement on ISP's to block domestic >>>>> VPN traffic& proxies too. >>>> >>>> Pure fantasy. >>> The nanny-state government is proposing mandatory web filtering. >>> Assuming they get it over the line, when they discover it is easily >>> bypassed by using a VPN or proxy, what do you think their next >>> requirement against ISP's will be? >> >> >> They wont ban VPN traffic, it's way too heavily utilised for legitimate purposes. > >> At any rate there's a good chance they're going to go belly up in the next election > > At one time I thought that we hardly ever give a federal govt just one term, > but then I realised that the Dud has already lasted longer than Cough Witless. > > Gunna be fascinating to see how many the dud has so comprehensively > pissed off with his arrogance that now that the polls show that they will > lose the next election, he get the bums rush just like Beastly did with > such lousy poll results. > >> and none of this insanity will see the light of day. > > Even if they are still the govt, they are likely to have a MUCH worse senate > with the greens getting to decide everything that the coalition opposes. > > vote 1 Julia Gillard |