|
|
Charging for iPlayer
In article , Yellow
wrote: In article , says... In article , Yellow wrote: In article , [snip] Its a question of establishing a due process for when and how seach and disclosure should be done. e.g. The ISP might have to say who had been fetching from the BBC iplayer, but other aspects of their activity could be withheld or redacted or become unactionable. The fight through the courts against such a proposal would last for years, as per all the previous similar proposals. It won't happen in time, if at all, for it to be useful to any iminent legislation so it won't happen. I note your personal beliefs but don't regard them as facts. [snip] The laws and their application should suit the circumstances. Not be driven by a simplistic one-size-fits-all dogma. That is a very simplistic view point. Nice try. Response as above. ;- Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Charging for iPlayer
On 11/07/2015 13:21, Yellow wrote:
Getting folk to pay for I_Player is trivially insignificant against to door that would be left ajar if such snooping was allowed. It would be fought. I wish I could believe that. You do realise that under current law it is illegal to forget your password? (What the law says is that you must supply it when required) Andy |
Charging for iPlayer
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:59:16 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote: Getting folk to pay for I_Player is trivially insignificant against to door that would be left ajar if such snooping was allowed. It would be fought. I wish I could believe that. You do realise that under current law it is illegal to forget your password? (What the law says is that you must supply it when required) Easy. To comply with the law, you just make up anything and tell them that's your password. When they tell you it doesn't work, you say "Oh, somebody must have hacked it then. I've been wondering why I couldn't get in". Nobody can prove that you *don't* know something, and if, by the time this exchange takes place, your computer has been out of your hands, this simply strengthens your case, but it's impossible in principle to prove the absence of something anyway. I don't think the people who dream up these paranoid power hungry laws, are very good at logic. Rod. |
Charging for iPlayer
In article , Roderick
Stewart wrote: On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:59:16 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote: Getting folk to pay for I_Player is trivially insignificant against to door that would be left ajar if such snooping was allowed. It would be fought. I wish I could believe that. You do realise that under current law it is illegal to forget your password? (What the law says is that you must supply it when required) Easy. To comply with the law, you just make up anything and tell them that's your password. When they tell you it doesn't work, you say "Oh, somebody must have hacked it then. I've been wondering why I couldn't get in". Nobody can prove that you *don't* know something, and if, by the time this exchange takes place, your computer has been out of your hands, this simply strengthens your case, but it's impossible in principle to prove the absence of something anyway. If the law *requires* you to ensure you *can* provide the password then you could still be found guilty. By virtue of failing to check and maintain your ability to do as required. That said, simple passwords are easy enough to deal with if you have, say, machine access. And if someone had changed an encryption key and re-encryped all your data I suspect you'd find a court reluctant to accept you didn't realise this had happened or that it had occurred in the last minute or so without your knowledge. And simply making up a fake password on the spot might be awkward if they asked you again later and gave them something different because you'd forgotten to remember the fake. Liars need good memories. Mind you, as Bierce said: lawyers are constructed like dice to lie on any side. Usually the wrong one. :-) So having a good lawyer helps. I don't think the people who dream up these paranoid power hungry laws, are very good at logic. Its true that people often get muddled when it comes to logic. :-) Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Charging for iPlayer
Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:59:16 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote: Getting folk to pay for I_Player is trivially insignificant against to door that would be left ajar if such snooping was allowed. It would be fought. I wish I could believe that. You do realise that under current law it is illegal to forget your password? (What the law says is that you must supply it when required) Easy. To comply with the law, you just make up anything and tell them that's your password. When they tell you it doesn't work, you say "Oh, somebody must have hacked it then. I've been wondering why I couldn't get in". Nobody can prove that you *don't* know something, and if, by the time this exchange takes place, your computer has been out of your hands, this simply strengthens your case, but it's impossible in principle to prove the absence of something anyway. I don't think the people who dream up these paranoid power hungry laws, are very good at logic. I think you'll find it will be up to the magistrate/jury to decide whether you are lying or not about not having the password for the possibly incriminating chunk of encrypted data in question that the state can't (or don't want to admit they can) decrypt. |
Charging for iPlayer
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:16:10 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote: You do realise that under current law it is illegal to forget your password? (What the law says is that you must supply it when required) Easy. To comply with the law, you just make up anything and tell them that's your password. When they tell you it doesn't work, you say "Oh, somebody must have hacked it then. I've been wondering why I couldn't get in". Nobody can prove that you *don't* know something, and if, by the time this exchange takes place, your computer has been out of your hands, this simply strengthens your case, but it's impossible in principle to prove the absence of something anyway. If the law *requires* you to ensure you *can* provide the password then you could still be found guilty. By virtue of failing to check and maintain your ability to do as required. If that really is the case then nearly everyone must be guilty of password neglect. There are passwords and PIN codes for just about everything these days, phones, computers, wireless routers, bank cards, and online accounts of all sorts, and the commonest thing people do with passwords is to forget them. It must be awkward enough for them to have to ring up tech support or follow an online "forgotten password" procedure without being made guilty of an offence as well. It seems either a hopelessly impractical way of dealing with this matter, or an easy way for the forces of law and order to render somebody guilty if they feel like it. Badly thought out either way. Rod. |
Charging for iPlayer
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:25:28 +0100, Andy Furniss [email protected] wrote:
You do realise that under current law it is illegal to forget your password? (What the law says is that you must supply it when required) Easy. To comply with the law, you just make up anything and tell them that's your password. When they tell you it doesn't work, you say "Oh, somebody must have hacked it then. I've been wondering why I couldn't get in". Nobody can prove that you *don't* know something, and if, by the time this exchange takes place, your computer has been out of your hands, this simply strengthens your case, but it's impossible in principle to prove the absence of something anyway. I don't think the people who dream up these paranoid power hungry laws, are very good at logic. I think you'll find it will be up to the magistrate/jury to decide whether you are lying or not about not having the password for the possibly incriminating chunk of encrypted data in question that the state can't (or don't want to admit they can) decrypt. How could anyone tell that a chunk of data is encrypted? How could anyone justify calling it "possibly incriminating" if they don't know what it is? Even if it is known that a chunk of data is encrypted, how is it possible to prove that some individual knows how to decrypt it? Rod. |
Charging for iPlayer
Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:25:28 +0100, Andy Furniss [email protected] wrote: You do realise that under current law it is illegal to forget your password? (What the law says is that you must supply it when required) Easy. To comply with the law, you just make up anything and tell them that's your password. When they tell you it doesn't work, you say "Oh, somebody must have hacked it then. I've been wondering why I couldn't get in". Nobody can prove that you *don't* know something, and if, by the time this exchange takes place, your computer has been out of your hands, this simply strengthens your case, but it's impossible in principle to prove the absence of something anyway. I don't think the people who dream up these paranoid power hungry laws, are very good at logic. I think you'll find it will be up to the magistrate/jury to decide whether you are lying or not about not having the password for the possibly incriminating chunk of encrypted data in question that the state can't (or don't want to admit they can) decrypt. How could anyone tell that a chunk of data is encrypted? In the case of a large file on disk - I guess because it's not something known. How could anyone justify calling it "possibly incriminating" if they don't know what it is? Well I guess no one would end up in court without other evidence/factors. Even if it is known that a chunk of data is encrypted, how is it possible to prove that some individual knows how to decrypt it? It's up to whether you are believed in saying I don't know how it got there/what it is/don't have the password. I don't know how many convictions there have been, but there was one (the first?) that made the national news after the law came in. It's possible he just flatly refused to give access though. If only he had pretended to have forgotten I guess all would have been OK :-) |
Charging for iPlayer
In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote: How could anyone tell that a chunk of data is encrypted? There are a number of ways to assess that. The obvious one is, of course, to see if any of the programs on the machine (or on other machines with generally used software) can load it and 'recognise' it OK. Another is to do stats on the patterns of symbols (bytes or milti-byte words). Many programs and filetypes have statistical fingerprints, just as human languages do. A file whose stats come up as 'random' with (near) equiprobable symbol chain patterns, etc. and which nothing recognises would smell strongly of being encrypted. Higher level stats might then give more specific clues. Files also have datestamps, of course. Indeed the OS may log such events as saves or commands. So any 'recent' such files would indicate the user must have known how they were created in terms of the software used, any password required, etc. If they didn't have to give a password to encrypt then a key relative will probably be on the machine. Having many files to examine also gives the analyst more clues as they can look for patterns across a series of examples. Form of what spooks call 'traffic analysis'. And of course, if they have your hard drives they can also look at the places where files used to be a well, for more clues. Deleting something may simply mean you removed the record of where to find it in the obvious directory. The actual data may remain until something else overwrites it. There's more to this, of course, but bear in mind that some people do this kind of cracking as a serious legal business. If they struggle to make sense of the files it sort of implies that some serious effort went into preventing them from doing so. If nothing else, that tends to make them want to spend more effort to investigate. Even if it is known that a chunk of data is encrypted, how is it possible to prove that some individual knows how to decrypt it? Erm, the point AIUI was that the user is *required* to know how to do so. i.e. they have to provide a password (and associated with that, I assume, sufficient detail to identify the encryption method and/or encoding name. e.g. determine which program was used.) 'Forgetting' *all* that shortly after recent use might seem a wee tad implausible in court if the data shows all the signs of heavy recent encryption. Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com