Snoopers Charter
Discussion
SystemParanoia said:
Bitcoin
Have a readup on crypto currency
I know what bitcoin is thanks Have a readup on crypto currency
. They're still going to tell the feds what the entry IP address is though, which brings them to your doorstep regardless of how you pay.
So in summary then, there's absolutely no difference except one is a DIY set-up and significantly more expensive as you're not only having to pay for the cloud server but also for all the data transferred as well, vs. a managed set-up where it's all done for you and all you need to do is pay your £29 per year. The argument over anonymity with the logs doesn't hold water either as you can for (eg.) pay for CyberGhost with bitcoin too should you choose to do so. What am I missing?
Edited by All that jazz on Tuesday 6th December 22:42
Tonsko said:
Mainly SP likes to trust himself with his logs and not hand off responsibility to a company that merely says that they don't log. I think.
also, as soon as you want to use more than one simultaneous connection, its immediately more expensive than using your own server.one connection wont protect you everywhere.
also all their plans are limited to upto 5 connections st once
your own droplet is $5 a month for unlimited connections.
that will cover everyone you know and all your/their IOT devices ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/21/dyn_dns_dd... ) , whilst cyberghost will barely just do you....
a bit like the bus or train.. great for just you... try to take the entire family, extended family, dog and all their crap, and it becomes much more expensive than just hiring a car/minibus to get the job done. with the added benefit of having full control of what you do, when you do it, and how long for... also in the minibus, everyone can talk to each other, and share and have a great time... cyber ghost, is more like everyone being in a prisoner transport van. no communication between devices.. even when on the same network whilst its active.
also if you dont mind wondering off the commonly walked path.. there are many VPS that you can find offering the same spec server for less.. sometimes under $2 p/mo if you buy in at the right time.
Edited by SystemParanoia on Wednesday 7th December 00:02
I was not aware this legislation even existed. It seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but worse yet that the outcome will be fairly useless.
ISPs required to keep a list of every domain visited by everyone using the internet and to retain that data for 12 months.
So our browsing habits will be accessible, but only at domain level, so almost entirely useless in any evidential sense.
For example, they will show that I visited The Guardian website, but not what I read. Pointless and intrusive.
ISPs required to keep a list of every domain visited by everyone using the internet and to retain that data for 12 months.
So our browsing habits will be accessible, but only at domain level, so almost entirely useless in any evidential sense.
For example, they will show that I visited The Guardian website, but not what I read. Pointless and intrusive.
One could argue that the meta-data is more useful. Security services have said countless times that if they don't have the content of what it is you're looking at, the time and extended behaviour of your activities is often far more useful anyway. Insidious.
You can donate to The Open Rights Group and Liberty Human Rights (whichever) who are looking to challenge it.
You can donate to The Open Rights Group and Liberty Human Rights (whichever) who are looking to challenge it.
SystemParanoia said:
also, as soon as you want to use more than one simultaneous connection, its immediately more expensive than using your own server.
one connection wont protect you everywhere.
also all their plans are limited to upto 5 connections st once[/footnote]
If you have the right router software you can stick the VPN on the router and share the VPN for everything within the house: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/pages/client... with a bit more tweaking you can push traffic for certain addresses via the VPN if you want to go down that route. The big advantage of sticking it on the router is that you need zero config on your PCs/Phones to then use the VPN.one connection wont protect you everywhere.
also all their plans are limited to upto 5 connections st once[/footnote]
Personally I wouldn't trust any sort of VPN provider as they will be compromised as soon as they get big enough if they don't already have a mass data collection for VPN already setup. I would suggest that TOR is better than VPN but still carries a risk that the node you are routing through has been compromised. The Five Eyes group have spent a lot of time and money making sure all the major internet backbone nodes that they can get access to have been compromised.
This new legislation pales into insignificance as to the mass data collection of all browsing that is already in place with PRISM. It is the other provisions in this legislation that are more worrying, the data collection in this legislation is just the icing on the cake.
Tonsko said:
Mainly SP likes to trust himself with his logs and not hand off responsibility to a company that merely says that they don't log. I think.
Again, perhaps I'm missing something but where is this concrete assumption coming from that the company you're renting server space from isn't maintaining logs as well?Elysium said:
they will show that I visited The Guardian website, but not what I read. Pointless and intrusive.
Picture the scene- you visited 3 tattoo removal websites. An inference can be drawn.Alternatively you visited 3 tattoo parlour websites, 2 motorbike sites, 2 abortion clinic sites then 3 cannabis websites, Wikipedia & 2 horticultural websites in quick succession. Rightly or wrongly, inferences can be drawn.
Elysium said:
So our browsing habits will be accessible, but only at domain level, so almost entirely useless in any evidential sense.
For example, they will show that I visited The Guardian website, but not what I read. Pointless and intrusive.
To be fair I think their intent is more to see if you've been browsing buildyuorowncarbomb.sy rather than what story on the Guardian you found most interesting.For example, they will show that I visited The Guardian website, but not what I read. Pointless and intrusive.
All that jazz said:
Tonsko said:
Mainly SP likes to trust himself with his logs and not hand off responsibility to a company that merely says that they don't log. I think.
Again, perhaps I'm missing something but where is this concrete assumption coming from that the company you're renting server space from isn't maintaining logs as well?You can also encrypt the hdd of the vpn and only ever administer it via tor.
But how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Cause were a long way from the bottom!
SystemParanoia said:
It doesn't matter if theyre hosted outside of legislative control of this new law. You just need to be somewhere that isn't gojng to roll over as soon as hmgov comes knocking.
You can also encrypt the hdd of the vpn and only ever administer it via tor.
But how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Cause were a long way from the bottom!
I was merely trying to understand why so many people trot out that running your own VPN is like some sort of Holy Grail for ultimate impenetrable protection when in actual fact we've established it has the exact same vulnerabilities as using a VPN company.You can also encrypt the hdd of the vpn and only ever administer it via tor.
But how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Cause were a long way from the bottom!
All that jazz said:
SystemParanoia said:
It doesn't matter if theyre hosted outside of legislative control of this new law. You just need to be somewhere that isn't gojng to roll over as soon as hmgov comes knocking.
You can also encrypt the hdd of the vpn and only ever administer it via tor.
But how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Cause were a long way from the bottom!
I was merely trying to understand why so many people trot out that running your own VPN is like some sort of Holy Grail for ultimate impenetrable protection when in actual fact we've established it has the exact same vulnerabilities as using a VPN company.You can also encrypt the hdd of the vpn and only ever administer it via tor.
But how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Cause were a long way from the bottom!
I already ran a vpn b4 this law. But its hosted in my home server and I use it for a site tto site link to my folks for backups and ffor them to stream media from me.. and also to protect my family when using random wifi connections on their mobile devices whilst keeping them visible to the server so they can be rsync'd reguarly. I'm also able to push popup alerts onto their devices without letting 3rd party companies being involved.
I can also provide rremote access to my and my families insecure iot devices on multiple sites without exposing them to the raw wan and have them become part of some botnet
I like that level of control and I wouldent gget that with a vpn provider. All ill be doing Is moving my vpn endpoint into the cloud and off my server.
An interesting source of commentary on this new law is from Rev K - http://www.revk.uk/ - he runs the Arnolds and Andrews ISP and has a big focus on privacy. He made lots of representations during the consultation phases of this law, sadly many of which were ignored. Obviously beside his concern for privacy, he has a financial motivation not to be lumbered with collecting and storing all his customers data for years.
esxste said:
An interesting source of commentary on this new law is from Rev K - http://www.revk.uk/ - he runs the Arnolds and Andrews ISP and has a big focus on privacy. He made lots of representations during the consultation phases of this law, sadly many of which were ignored. Obviously beside his concern for privacy, he has a financial motivation not to be lumbered with collecting and storing all his customers data for years.
That was a good read -- if only A&A were similarly priced to Zen I'd swap as he seems like someone I would want running my ISP.esxste said:
An interesting source of commentary on this new law is from Rev K - http://www.revk.uk/ - he runs the Arnolds and Andrews ISP and has a big focus on privacy. He made lots of representations during the consultation phases of this law, sadly many of which were ignored. Obviously beside his concern for privacy, he has a financial motivation not to be lumbered with collecting and storing all his customers data for years.
Interesting read, thanks. One thing I noticed in there on the post around the snooper's charter was this - "Bad news is that they may be more inclined to ask us to do retention as a niche ISP."That made me wonder, are all ISPs subject to having to retain internet connection records or, as with some government-mandated conditions in recent years, is it only the major ones, at least for the time being?
8bit said:
Interesting read, thanks. One thing I noticed in there on the post around the snooper's charter was this - "Bad news is that they may be more inclined to ask us to do retention as a niche ISP."
That made me wonder, are all ISPs subject to having to retain internet connection records or, as with some government-mandated conditions in recent years, is it only the major ones, at least for the time being?
The last thing that the ISPs had to do for the Government was implement the blocking of torrent and other piracy sites. From memory only the big providers BT, Sky, Virgin, TalkTalk and one other I forget had to do this on day one. I think the smaller providers haven't had to do this so far but some may choose to?That made me wonder, are all ISPs subject to having to retain internet connection records or, as with some government-mandated conditions in recent years, is it only the major ones, at least for the time being?
Interesting article related to that: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2016/11/uk-go... states that the proposed BBFC certification for adult sites and enhanced age verification was driven by future EU legislation that would have made the existing blocks illegal. As a lot of piracy sites contain porn (even if its just the adverts) they can be legally blocked via this new method as well.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff