Watch your Back!

[Six30]

You lot do realise that Andrew and Edward are not Phillip's.......allegedly?

 

Yeh... they are Prince Charles

[Guest]

But anyone who actually thinks that they understand what has been going on lately

is sadly deluded!

Nothing's been right since the clocks changed

[Mawsley]

Nothing's been right since the cocks changed

I have no opinion regarding the parentage of Royals.

[Glorian]

WELL THEN from now on I'm downloading all my porn on the free WiFi at McDonalds.

 

Tried it.. doesn't work

[Gin]

Just watching the news how money's going to be tight during a period of uncertainty and Britain will be in the red for a lot longer.... but the queen is taking 370 million of tax payers money to get her digs done up.. use your own money like the rest of us have to you doddery old Parasite .

I do get your point, though that rebuild will bring in revenue from dignitary visits and tourism, I agree it's a lot..

However that is 0.021% of our national debt. We have far bigger fish to fry!

 

But anyone who actually thinks that they understand what has been going on lately

is sadly deluded!

Nothing's been right since the clocks changed

This did make me laugh

[TC1474]

I do get your point, though that rebuild will bring in revenue from dignitary visits and tourism, I agree it's a lot..

However that is 0.021% of our national debt.

 

Totally agree with your comment, and I seem to recall that the money is not being coughed up in one lump sum but spread over a 10 or 15 year period as the work is undertaken, so I guess on annual basis that percentage drops further?

[Joeman]

Given the size of the building, 370mil for a complete renovation sounds cheap!! Queeny must be employing some dodgy cash in hand eastern Europeans to do the work as I can't imagine any London builder doing it for that price.

[Jacobyte]

Totally agree with your comment, and I seem to recall that the money is not being coughed up in one lump sum but spread over a 10 or 15 year period as the work is undertaken, so I guess on annual basis that percentage drops further?

 

How the hell are they gonna stick to budget if it's based on a 10-15 year plan??

Or do you think they've already factored in that we're shipping all the cheap labour out of the country in 2 years time once Brexit kicks in?

[TC1474]

How the hell are they gonna stick to budget if it's based on a 10-15 year plan??

Or do you think they've already factored in that we're shipping all the cheap labour out of the country in 2 years time once Brexit kicks in?

 

I am no economist so I have no idea. The point I was making was that it is not an amount that has to be stumped up in a lump sum as the work will be done over a number of years.

[RantMachine]

The important thing is that we all need to rally round and support the monarchy, because if we ever abolish them you can guarantee that the yanks will somehow view it as a moral victory and become even more insufferable

[Mr Fro]

...you can guarantee that the yanks will somehow view it as a moral victory and become even more insufferable.

Erm... Ollie... Have you met your wife?

Oh, and I'd "do" Queenie's crib for £369.8 million.

[RantMachine]

...you can guarantee that the yanks will somehow view it as a moral victory and become even more insufferable.

Erm... Ollie... Have you met your wife?

I tried talking about communism once, it did NOT go well

[Arwen]

I wasn't going to post about this topic, as I feel it is completely wrong. But meh... why not

At my work I have access to monitor, view, track and generally snoop around on everyone's account and everyone's internet browsing. Just because I have access to do this however, does not mean I routinely collect massive amounts of data on my users and store it for later perusal. Also, just because I have access, does not mean I go ahead and snoop on people. Morally It is just wrong.

With the changes in the law, many more people now have these abilities to snoop on, and must collect vast amounts of data on, a massive percentage of the public. I see a few issues with this aside from the moral issue.

1. Not every system admin is moral.

2. Not every network secure. The more people/companies have access and snooping data on people, the more likely it is 3. will happen.

3. This data could be used for all sorts of nasty schemes if fallen into the wrong hands. Regardless if terrorism worries are in the data or not.

In my opinion. it is a shift from "innocent until proven guilty" to "everyone is guilty unless you let us monitor you 24/7".

Not a good move in my eyes.

[Guest]

What Arwen said!

When you're actually working with this stuff every day you realise the implications of all this......and where it could lead!

[Joeman]

Nothing you do on a company computer is private yet many treat company equipment as their own.

Nothing you do on a home computer is private either, yet again most believe it is.

Unless you activity take steps to encrypt and secure your communications nothing you do in the electronic world is private.

The trick is to balance the benefits you gain from using technology against the risks of having your communications intercepted.

Innocent people don't generally know this, which is why many post their entire lives on social media.

Criminals know the risks very well which is why they actively take steps to secure their communications.

These new eavesdropping laws won't catch professional criminals who know exactly how to communicate in a way that can't be understood by anyone other than the intended recipients, so the new rules won't make much difference to national security imo.

[Arwen]

Criminals know the risks very well which is why they actively take steps to secure their communications.

These new eavesdropping laws won't catch professional criminals who know exactly how to communicate in a way that can't be understood by anyone other than the intended recipients, so the new rules won't make much difference to national security imo.

 

Exactly.

So why are they doing it?

[Guest]

It's going to get worse before it gets worse.......

[Joeman]

Criminals know the risks very well which is why they actively take steps to secure their communications.

These new eavesdropping laws won't catch professional criminals who know exactly how to communicate in a way that can't be understood by anyone other than the intended recipients, so the new rules won't make much difference to national security imo.

 

Exactly.

So why are they doing it?

I think it's because they feel they need to be seen to be doing something, because when the next big attack happens, they don't want people to say "why werent you monitoring them?".

Trouble is that the next big terrorist attack is going to happen anyway, despite these laws. Terrorist activity wont be organised by email or conventional communications methods that the authorities will be monitoring, terrorists will use much more subtle ways...

Just imagine if we were terrorists and we wanted to coordinate an attack. We could first download a multiplayer roulette game (there are thousands to chose from) to our phones and each of the numbers on the board could represent a different target or time to attack. We could communicate in plane site on a public roulette game simply by placing chips on numbers and nobody would be able to tell the difference between our terrorist activity and the other players in the game...

Example: Chips placed on number 8 for buckingham palace, then on 5 and 1 for 5th January, then 12 and 30 for the time.... Red for suicide bomb, black for car bomb.... once complete, log off, uninstall the app, smash up the phone and throw it in the river... the authorities wouldnt stand a chance if i ever decided to activate my terrorist group....

(disclaimer, if the palace is bombed on 5th Jan at 12:30 - it wasnt me!!)

[Hoggs]

and Joe was never heard from again

[Six30]

Criminals know the risks very well which is why they actively take steps to secure their communications.

These new eavesdropping laws won't catch professional criminals who know exactly how to communicate in a way that can't be understood by anyone other than the intended recipients, so the new rules won't make much difference to national security imo.

 

Exactly.

So why are they doing it?

I think it's because they feel they need to be seen to be doing something, because when the next big attack happens, they don't want people to say "why werent you monitoring them?".

Trouble is that the next big terrorist attack is going to happen anyway, despite these laws. Terrorist activity wont be organised by email or conventional communications methods that the authorities will be monitoring, terrorists will use much more subtle ways...

Just imagine if we were terrorists and we wanted to coordinate an attack. We could first download a multiplayer roulette game (there are thousands to chose from) to our phones and each of the numbers on the board could represent a different target or time to attack. We could communicate in plane site on a public roulette game simply by placing chips on numbers and nobody would be able to tell the difference between our terrorist activity and the other players in the game...

Example: Chips placed on number 8 for buckingham palace, then on 5 and 1 for 5th January, then 12 and 30 for the time.... Red for suicide bomb, black for car bomb.... once complete, log off, uninstall the app, smash up the phone and throw it in the river... the authorities wouldnt stand a chance if i ever decided to activate my terrorist group....

(disclaimer, if the palace is bombed on 5th Jan at 12:30 - it wasnt me!!)

 

Meanwhile ... Outside Joes house...

[Guest]

Given the size of the building, 370mil for a complete renovation sounds cheap!!

cheap chinese crap

[Throttled]

For what it is worth, RIPSA 2000 (the Scottish version) in my experienced was well run, authorised only when necessary and wholly directed at criminal activity where those involved were know criminals, or surveillance was set up to catch a criminal preying on a vulnerable person.

[XmisterIS]

They've been doing this for years, only now it's been codified in law. The UK is a strange mix of very free and very draconian, always has been.

Also, relatively speaking, we are freer now than at any time previously in history. E.g.:

50 years ago - homosexuality was illegal.

100 years ago - women could not vote.

150 years ago - a man could only vote if he possessed property worth 40 shillings or more (most didn't - that was a LOT of money back then).

And back even further:

400 years ago - we were ruled by a monarch who held absolute power.

600 years ago - it was illegal to grind your own wheat into flour, you were obliged to take it to the local miller, who would charge exorbitant tax-in-kind. You would then be taxed again by the landowner and again by the church on the remainder of your produce. You would therefore live your life in abject poverty, without much hope of ever escaping it, while a small number of elite enjoyed eye-watering levels of wealth. Sounds similar to today's monetary imbalance between the rich and everyone else, but it wasn't. It was much, much worse. There was no middle-class, really. You were either dirt poor, or you were rich and powerful, or you were clergy. The only exceptions were the tradesmen, who could attain social mobility. If you could get yourself a trade when you were young, you had a chance to pull yourself up out of poverty, otherwise, if you missed the boat, you were pretty much doomed to a life of servitude and a level of poverty that hardly exists in the UK today. That's why so many people nowadays are called Miller, Cooper, Fletcher, Smith, Sawyer, Carter, Tanner, etc, etc - because when people started taking surnames for the early censuses of the late 18th century, they wanted to be associated with success. Before that, names weren't really fixed. You'd be "Thomas of Yeovil", rather than "Thomas Smith", for example.