tom564

I get that a lot, although i do have multiple computers it is just they are headless. People seem surprised how you can use more that one monitor and be more productive. 

trying to remove the bezel of an LCD monitor by using a screwdriver on the screen to lever it. - It was late i was getting impatient.  

Thats until you start getting knocks on your door and branded as a terrorist as your network fingerprint showed you were using encryption, this already happens in some fucked up countries  
 
Now this is probably a long way off but we shouldn't be giving up our freedom a little at a time otherwise it'll be closer than we think 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/uk-spy-agencies-need-more-powers-says-cameron-paris-attacks
 
So it looks like Cameron wants to make it illegal for any encrypted communication to happen without the government being able to intercept and view the content provided they have a valid warrant (which we all know they follow..) This would make using encryption such as PGP illegal and could even result in company's like apple having to redesign their OS for the UK market.
 
Some problems I see:
 
1. Governments can and will abuse power
 
2. Banning encryption could result in weaker overall security, the current security situation is terrible when it comes to encryption and imposing tough restrictions in the use of crypto could result in even less implementation meaning that anyone could intercept the plain text data 
 
3. apps like snapchat / whatsapp that use encryption could become illegal to use as company's would have to adapt their app for use in the UK and could prevent international use 
 
4. It doesn't solve the problem, "The attacks in Paris demonstrated the scale of the threat that we face and the need to have robust powers through our intelligence and security agencies in order to keep our people safe." even if they had this power unless they were actively surveying the suspects they wouldn't of stopped the attack. 
 
What do you guys think?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/uk-spy-agencies-need-more-powers-says-cameron-paris-attacks
 
So it looks like Cameron wants to make it illegal for any encrypted communication to happen without the government being able to intercept and view the content provided they have a valid warrant (which we all know they follow..) This would make using encryption such as PGP illegal and could even result in company's like apple having to redesign their OS for the UK market.
 
Some problems I see:
 
1. Governments can and will abuse power
 
2. Banning encryption could result in weaker overall security, the current security situation is terrible when it comes to encryption and imposing tough restrictions in the use of crypto could result in even less implementation meaning that anyone could intercept the plain text data 
 
3. apps like snapchat / whatsapp that use encryption could become illegal to use as company's would have to adapt their app for use in the UK and could prevent international use 
 
4. It doesn't solve the problem, "The attacks in Paris demonstrated the scale of the threat that we face and the need to have robust powers through our intelligence and security agencies in order to keep our people safe." even if they had this power unless they were actively surveying the suspects they wouldn't of stopped the attack. 
 
What do you guys think?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/uk-spy-agencies-need-more-powers-says-cameron-paris-attacks
 
So it looks like Cameron wants to make it illegal for any encrypted communication to happen without the government being able to intercept and view the content provided they have a valid warrant (which we all know they follow..) This would make using encryption such as PGP illegal and could even result in company's like apple having to redesign their OS for the UK market.
 
Some problems I see:
 
1. Governments can and will abuse power
 
2. Banning encryption could result in weaker overall security, the current security situation is terrible when it comes to encryption and imposing tough restrictions in the use of crypto could result in even less implementation meaning that anyone could intercept the plain text data 
 
3. apps like snapchat / whatsapp that use encryption could become illegal to use as company's would have to adapt their app for use in the UK and could prevent international use 
 
4. It doesn't solve the problem, "The attacks in Paris demonstrated the scale of the threat that we face and the need to have robust powers through our intelligence and security agencies in order to keep our people safe." even if they had this power unless they were actively surveying the suspects they wouldn't of stopped the attack. 
 
What do you guys think?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/uk-spy-agencies-need-more-powers-says-cameron-paris-attacks
 
So it looks like Cameron wants to make it illegal for any encrypted communication to happen without the government being able to intercept and view the content provided they have a valid warrant (which we all know they follow..) This would make using encryption such as PGP illegal and could even result in company's like apple having to redesign their OS for the UK market.
 
Some problems I see:
 
1. Governments can and will abuse power
 
2. Banning encryption could result in weaker overall security, the current security situation is terrible when it comes to encryption and imposing tough restrictions in the use of crypto could result in even less implementation meaning that anyone could intercept the plain text data 
 
3. apps like snapchat / whatsapp that use encryption could become illegal to use as company's would have to adapt their app for use in the UK and could prevent international use 
 
4. It doesn't solve the problem, "The attacks in Paris demonstrated the scale of the threat that we face and the need to have robust powers through our intelligence and security agencies in order to keep our people safe." even if they had this power unless they were actively surveying the suspects they wouldn't of stopped the attack. 
 
What do you guys think?

This is very VERY wrong, you sound as if you trust your government to do the "right" thing. I don't, your privacy is a right, why should we give that up? Well these people have the ability to undermine it with mass global surveillance under the excuse of "terrorism". In the UK we have had numerous situations where people have had their homes raided and residents arrested because they were on a "list", how are these lists generated?
 
Let's go to the NSA for a bit.
The NSA have XKeyscore, a computer system designed for the targeting of individuals and organisations. Now the NSA has a system where an employee cannot report another employee, they can only report themselves. So who is to report someone for exploiting the system?
 
Who remembers Aaron Swartz?
The people who wanted to put him away wanted to make an example out of him, they chose HIM specifically.
Kevin Mitnick was chosen and made an example out of.
 
The governments work for the people, by doing things like this they betray us.
 
This kind of practice is unacceptable.

I disagree with banning / censoring anything, the internet should be open and people able to have free choice imo 

Finding the right balance sounds fine and dandy in a idealistic sense.
But i don't think it holds any meaning in a practical sense. All that would
amount to is you putting complete and utter trust in the government to not
abuse their power, which i'm not really ok with. I don't think there is an
"inbeetwen" either they don't have access and keep tabs on your stuff
or they don't. The fact that they may not care about you does not make 
it okay. (suddenly one day they decide otherwise)
 
A poll with 161 answers is absolutely worthless, that hardly represents the
internet. Heck it wouldn't even represent a single city. And while i cannot  access
the site. I think it's safe to assume that only certain groups of people saw the poll
and participated on a site called "yougov" giving you a even more limited if not
just to be discarded representation of peoples opinion.
 
Give me something with a few million votes actually containing a practical
proposal.

Yeh, noone to watch the watchers 
 
Terrorism is not as much of a problem in comparison as they want us to think, too many times they have used it as a way to push legislation and policies, look at the TSA for example. The loss of privacy and freedom in the name of security isn't worth the trade off imo.  

Wouldn't it be great to live in a world where every country's government cared for the privacy of everyone else?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/uk-spy-agencies-need-more-powers-says-cameron-paris-attacks
 
So it looks like Cameron wants to make it illegal for any encrypted communication to happen without the government being able to intercept and view the content provided they have a valid warrant (which we all know they follow..) This would make using encryption such as PGP illegal and could even result in company's like apple having to redesign their OS for the UK market.
 
Some problems I see:
 
1. Governments can and will abuse power
 
2. Banning encryption could result in weaker overall security, the current security situation is terrible when it comes to encryption and imposing tough restrictions in the use of crypto could result in even less implementation meaning that anyone could intercept the plain text data 
 
3. apps like snapchat / whatsapp that use encryption could become illegal to use as company's would have to adapt their app for use in the UK and could prevent international use 
 
4. It doesn't solve the problem, "The attacks in Paris demonstrated the scale of the threat that we face and the need to have robust powers through our intelligence and security agencies in order to keep our people safe." even if they had this power unless they were actively surveying the suspects they wouldn't of stopped the attack. 
 
What do you guys think?

Fixed

When you someone expects you to know to fix all technology quickly without having even touched it before.

I get that a lot, although i do have multiple computers it is just they are headless. People seem surprised how you can use more that one monitor and be more productive. 

I have had someone complain that their printer was not printing, they had not plugged it in via USB or AC. Parents also complain that the computer is slow so when i offer to upgrade it  they say it is fine.   

Ok my mum has been using a computer for several years today i showed her how to print to a network printer so she wouldn't keep getting me to print stuff. 10 minutes later i get asked how to print downloaded documents, i told her to open it and press print. Her response was: how do i open it ?,  I told her to double click on it and she said she didn't realize you could do that... She had been using the file preview to see what was in documents. 

I have had someone complain that their printer was not printing, they had not plugged it in via USB or AC. Parents also complain that the computer is slow so when i offer to upgrade it  they say it is fine.   

When you someone expects you to know to fix all technology quickly without having even touched it before.

I have had someone complain that their printer was not printing, they had not plugged it in via USB or AC. Parents also complain that the computer is slow so when i offer to upgrade it  they say it is fine.   

When you someone expects you to know to fix all technology quickly without having even touched it before.

Namecheap + OVH (linux VPS) 

I have had someone complain that their printer was not printing, they had not plugged it in via USB or AC. Parents also complain that the computer is slow so when i offer to upgrade it  they say it is fine.   

Their free VPS's run linux and will not have a desktop environment installed.  And with 128MB of RAM you are not going to want to install a desktop environment. in fact for any VPS i don't see the need to have a GUI, SSH access is all you really need, if you need a windows VPS with a desktop environment you are going to have to pay.