No. I'm not going to go by my full name everywhere on the internet...I will admit certain sites need better policing but on here I think i've mentioned my first name. I don't want to tell people my last name because that's no ones business but mine, I'm not messaging people under the alias so theres zero harm done.
I think I maybe posting in the wrong thread, my issue mainly is that fact the WWW is open to all, and that includes young children.
I know that I could 'parent' my children and remove games from them, but for example my grandson likes 'Minecraft' and I thought it seemed like a great 'building game', I heard bad language from the Ipad and realised he was listening to who knows playing the game.
See it's the misunderstanding that's really the issue here. The issue isn't minecraft, it's somebody swearing while playing minecraft. You can hear people swearing anywhere.
Unless this kid is some sort of computer wizard, he doesn't have multiplayer minecraft PE (which is local area only last time I checked) and voice chat running too.
Most likely he was watching the Yogscast or something, who are mainly child friendly creators who build things and play adventure maps, although they swear.
So if you wanted to parent him, you should block youtube and voice chat, not minecraft. Which is a great building game.
I'm glad you aren't planning on stifling his creativity over a few words though.
What I would like to see, rather than policing the internet, is more guidance for parents as to what is safe for their kids so they can make an informed decision. (And not ruin it for the rest of us)
As for unique ID numbers, well that's probably the most dangerous thing you could do with something like the net and identification. You'll end up with a black market for ID numbers that have been obtained by security breaches and then people could have all manner of problems. That suggestion is incredibly naive and dangerous.
Absolutely agree....
Within days of it being launched you would have people downloading child porn using other peoples ID and leaving them having to explain in court how anyone could possibly breach the governments foolproof scheme.
No. I'm not going to go by my full name everywhere on the internet...I will admit certain sites need better policing but on here I think i've mentioned my first name. I don't want to tell people my last name because that's no ones business but mine, I'm not messaging people under the alias so theres zero harm done.
To be fair I don't think anyone is suggesting having to post under your real name, just removing the ability to register under a false name....
Particularly so on social media sites where you are supposed to be posting as yourself under your real name.
There is nothing wrong in using a false identity while posting on the internet. What is wrong is if you pretend to be a different sex in order to trick someone into being your buddy. I became friends with a woman in Israel because we shared the same first name. We would message etc. until one day she let slip something that made me realise she was actually a man. Why would anyone want to be a different sex is beyond me, very sad.
I think it should be ok to be anon to other users on the internet (like you are Danni,I'm Kitty) but I think the authorities should know who we really are.
That way our privacy is not invaded by strangers but the law can step in if someone decides to do something illegal on the net like cyberbullying etc.
I am more shocked with Matthew Wright claiming to have been looking at naked teenagers for 'scientific research'.
We all know there are bad things on the Internet, no need to stir up Daily Mail rage with the Internet phobic parents.
Just raise your kids properly.
And no I don't think false internet identity should be illegal. I think more people would be stalked as a result, and less people would have an anonymous forum to talk about things, which is a refreshing and even platform.
You can remain anon to the general public but the police authorities etc should be able to know who you really are so the disgusting individuals who bully people online can be caught and apprehended.
Might make cyberbullies think twice about what they are getting up to if they know the police know who they are.
A system could be implemented to protect our privacy and ensure our real identity is kept secret from each other but should be available to the police.
Within days of it being launched you would have people downloading child porn using other peoples ID and leaving them having to explain in court how anyone could possibly breach the governments foolproof scheme.
It's not just perverts downloading CP or trying to groom kids using someone else's ID, its any type of criminal (ie fraudsters and scammers), cyber stalkers, extremists; anyone who does have something to hide would be very attracted to such a system so that they can mask themselves behind someone else.
As for any government system being compromised; it would be unbelievably arrogant to think such a system would be secure; it would be prime target for organised crime. I've personally been affected by two security breaches over the part year or two. The recent adobe breach and the Autodesk breach where personal details, passwords and credit card details were obtained by hackers.
These are two of the biggest software companies in the world and they are not secure so the gov would have no hope.
It's not just perverts downloading CP or trying to groom kids using someone else's ID, its any type of criminal (ie fraudsters and scammers), cyber stalkers, extremists; anyone who does have something to hide would be very attracted to such a system so that they can mask themselves behind someone else.
As for any government system being compromised; it would be unbelievably arrogant to think such a system would be secure; it would be prime target for organised crime. I've personally been affected by two security breaches over the part year or two. The recent adobe breach and the Autodesk breach where personal details, passwords and credit card details were obtained by hackers.
These are two of the biggest software companies in the world and they are not secure so the gov would have no hope.
Are you saying its impossible to catch criminals who do illegal things on the internet?
It's not just perverts downloading CP or trying to groom kids using someone else's ID, its any type of criminal (ie fraudsters and scammers), cyber stalkers, extremists; anyone who does have something to hide would be very attracted to such a system so that they can mask themselves behind someone else.
As for any government system being compromised; it would be unbelievably arrogant to think such a system would be secure; it would be prime target for organised crime. I've personally been affected by two security breaches over the part year or two. The recent adobe breach and the Autodesk breach where personal details, passwords and credit card details were obtained by hackers.
These are two of the biggest software companies in the world and they are not secure so the gov would have no hope.
Exactly!
Tesco recently had a breach on their system and I know the media was banging-on about Clubcard points but the amount of person-identifiable data that retailer has on people must be staggering.
Are you saying its impossible to catch criminals who do illegal things on the internet?
I didn't say that at all, but that is a complicated question.
If you decided to post something illegal on DS or make death threats to another member... anything that will get you arrested; with a regular internet connection and without trying to cloak yourself in any way what so ever, you would get a knock at the door. The ISP would reveal your identity to the authorities.
The issue comes when people cloak themselves thoroughly and make it very difficult for the authorities to tie the user to an ISP or some social media site that will reveal the identity of the person.
There was an article not so long ago about some guy in America who was wanted. He stole credit card details I believe, using exploits and hacked secure systems. They were trying to figure out the hackers identity for years and it was only down to the hacker making a silly mistake on an off day that he got caught.
So, to answer your question; the more serious criminals can be very, very difficult to catch.
Of course the worst kinds of people will make it as hard as possible. Hackers who are about to clear your bank account, hackers who are going to exploit websites to get credit card details, perverts who are going to groom your kids and so on; they will be cloaking themselves.
Your typical Twitter troll who sends death threads to outspoken feminists likely is not going to cloak themselves at all. That's why we see their ugly mugs walking too court in the Daily Mail.
My point was in reference to flowers idea for unique ID's each of us are given and use to register on websites to confirm our identities; and that was that such a system would be exploited and used to make it even harder for authorities and for criminals to hide behind other people.
As an aside, one thing I do not understand. These threads keep popping up with people saying that such and such needs to be done to protect children online. The suggestions range from the ludicrous, to the downright dangerous. You then have people with influence pushing for these same ideas.
Yet, I sit back and wonder how on earth anyone who seriously wants to protect kids online can ignore CEOPS funding cut? These people should be out on the streets protesting about that, if they really do care about protecting children online.
CEOP are the body who deal with illegal pornography and track down sexual predators (something filters won't do). They along with the IWF have virtually made CP unobtainable on the open internet. Yet, they get their funding cut as opposed to increased and yet all of these campaigners ignore it; they focus on censorship and removing anonymity (a very difficult thing to achieve) and ignore the CEOP funding issue.
That I think speaks volumes.
One of the problems is education; if we want to protect children online then CEOP are one of the most important components to that. CEOP have made CP on the open internet incredibly rare and have pushed perverts into darknets, which is what they are talking about now; infiltrating TOR and other underground/private networks.
Your typical This Morning viewer doesn't understand that stuff, so they focus on Facebook and on Google; because they know what these things are.
They switch off when you talk about CEOP funding; they won't sign no petitions. I've signed three petitions to get CEOP funding increased and it was kind of sad to see the support those petitions were getting, nothing like the support "pornwall" and other such campaigns get.
The meaningful and most effective campaign is not as obvious, it's not as visible and is not as "well known". So the masses do not support it.
The less meaningful, less effective campaign is pretty, visible and easy to get your head around, so they support it.
Sorry for the multi-posts; I'm just trying to give some context to it all.
Some years ago I was ripped off on Ebay, I was the silly guy who brought a computer from an office clearance. I sent my money and never received the item. This was before EBays buyer protection.
I actually reported it to the police, about a week later I was called up to the station. The officers explained that my incident had been handed to serious crimes / fraud and whether I would stand witness if the gang were caught. Apparently I had became victim to a gang of fraudsters who had stole millions over sites like EBay.
The officer even gave a little light on how they do it and why they are so hard to catch (answering Kitty's question a little more).
Basically they were using fake ID to obtain council houses or rented accommodation. Setting up bank accounts with said fake ID and accommodation. This gave them a good measure of real world anonymity (making it hard to chase them).
Then they were using these addresses for a short period of time to commit fraud and then moving onto the next.
I'm not sure how easy that would be now as this was before identity theft was a mainstream concern. But that's what they were doing then and the police officer said "they are very clever and you'll likely not see your money again and they will most likely get away with it".
I was never called as witness so I assume they were not caught.
I think it should be ok to be anon to other users on the internet (like you are Danni,I'm Kitty) but I think the authorities should know who we really are.
That way our privacy is not invaded by strangers but the law can step in if someone decides to do something illegal on the net like cyberbullying etc.
What about times when the authorities have sinister motives like is it still a good idea for the authorities in Iran to know at all times who the critical anti government bloggers are? There's always the danger that non violent dissent will be made illegal here if not by this government then by a different one and then the people who do it are in a lot of trouble if the authorities know who they are. It's best that the authorities not have an automatic right to know who everyone is.
You can remain anon to the general public but the police authorities etc should be able to know who you really are so the disgusting individuals who bully people online can be caught and apprehended.
Might make cyberbullies think twice about what they are getting up to if they know the police know who they are.
A system could be implemented to protect our privacy and ensure our real identity is kept secret from each other but should be available to the police.
The issue comes when people cloak themselves thoroughly and make it very difficult for the authorities to tie the user to an ISP or some social media site that will reveal the identity of the person.
Which would still occur no matter what facilities are put in place, which is what makes the whole thing unenforceable as has been said by a number of people, yourself included I believe.
As an aside, one thing I do not understand. These threads keep popping up with people saying that such and such needs to be done to protect children online. The suggestions range from the ludicrous, to the downright dangerous. You then have people with influence pushing for these same ideas.
Yet, I sit back and wonder how on earth anyone who seriously wants to protect kids online can ignore CEOPS funding cut? These people should be out on the streets protesting about that, if they really do care about protecting children online.
Because the ones shouting the loudest are usually the most ignorant in terms of knowledge of how it works I've found.
As an aside, one thing I do not understand. These threads keep popping up with people saying that such and such needs to be done to protect children online. The suggestions range from the ludicrous, to the downright dangerous. You then have people with influence pushing for these same ideas.
Yet, I sit back and wonder how on earth anyone who seriously wants to protect kids online can ignore CEOPS funding cut? These people should be out on the streets protesting about that, if they really do care about protecting children online.
CEOP are the body who deal with illegal pornography and track down sexual predators (something filters won't do). They along with the IWF have virtually made CP unobtainable on the open internet. Yet, they get their funding cut as opposed to increased and yet all of these campaigners ignore it; they focus on censorship and removing anonymity (a very difficult thing to achieve) and ignore the CEOP funding issue.
That I think speaks volumes.
One of the problems is education; if we want to protect children online then CEOP are one of the most important components to that. CEOP have made CP on the open internet incredibly rare and have pushed perverts into darknets, which is what they are talking about now; infiltrating TOR and other underground/private networks.
Your typical This Morning viewer doesn't understand that stuff, so they focus on Facebook and on Google; because they know what these things are.
They switch off when you talk about CEOP funding; they won't sign no petitions. I've signed three petitions to get CEOP funding increased and it was kind of sad to see the support those petitions were getting, nothing like the support "pornwall" and other such campaigns get.
The meaningful and most effective campaign is not as obvious, it's not as visible and is not as "well known". So the masses do not support it.
The less meaningful, less effective campaign is pretty, visible and easy to get your head around, so they support it.
Completely agree.
The cutting of the funding for CEOPS is a bloody travesty, they have been hugely successful here in the UK and have also been a major influence working with other similar agencies Worldwide, particularly in the US and Russia, to drive the paedos underground and almost off the open internet.
Are you saying its impossible to catch criminals who do illegal things on the internet?
Where did he say that?.
The majority of bullies and trolls who infest Twitter and Facebook don't care about people knowing their identity. Hence the reason they usually end up in court when being particularly vile and crossing the line into law breaking.
But it is becoming more difficult for the authorities to track and trace the really bad criminals, the paedos, the terrorists, organised crime groups.
Each time there is a proposal, or a law, that curtails the privacy of law abiding citizens someone, or some company, produces new systems that allow people to take back their privacy. These systems become easier to use, so more people who have nothing to hide, they just don't like the idea of an all controlling government monitoring their every move, start to use them. Amongst them will be criminals too who will also take advantage of new systems that are more secure than older systems.
Constantly pushing for new laws that curtail the privacy of the ordinary, law abiding person results in a constant moving of the goalposts and increases the take up of systems designed to protect privacy and stop government snooping. It is often counter productive, something even SOCA, MI5 and MI6 have publicly stated.
Recently we heard about the arrest of the owner of The Silk Road. A hidden market place on the TOR encrypted darknet. The headlines were full of TOR being compromised, but the reality was different. TOR wasn't compromised, instead the owner of the site made some fundamental mistakes on both TOR and the open internet, that allowed the authorities to piece together his identity. The same was true of the arrest of the guy running the largest web hosting company on TOR. Again it wasn't TOR being compromised, it was him making mistakes that allowed the authorities to piece together his identity from things he posted on TOR and on the open internet.
But there are still criminals on such services that are, and probably will remain out of sight.
But the other side of the coin is that TOR has been an absolute godsend to anti government activists on China, Iran and other countries to protect themselves and their identities, and allow us in the West to know some of the nastier things these governments do to their citizens.
But the other side of the coin is that TOR has been an absolute godsend to anti government activists on China, Iran and other countries to protect themselves and their identities, and allow us in the West to know some of the nastier things these governments do to their citizens.
China and Iran argue that their internet filters are also to protect people from inappropriate content online. Maybe that was a lie or maybe they had good intentions at the start and only blocked child porn. But whatever it was it has ended up as political censorship and I'm worried that this will happen in Britain too at some point. Even if I believe that the government will only initially use it to block child porn the examples I have given show how that will inevitably be expanded to an increasing amount of sites.
China and Iran argue that their internet filters are also to protect people from inappropriate content online. Maybe that was a lie or maybe they had good intentions at the start and only blocked child porn. But whatever it was it has ended up as political censorship and I'm worried that this will happen in Britain too at some point. Even if I believe that the government will only initially use it to block child porn the examples I have given show how that will inevitably be expanded to an increasing amount of sites.
It is highly likely.
The filters are already to be extended to also block what the government class as extremist sites too. The problem is that some government ministers have labelled perfectly legal and law abiding protest groups, such as Boycott Workfare, as extremist groups. Plus this government have made no secret of their desire to be able to shut down Twitter, Facebook and other sites during times of crisis, and we have already had sites blocked, and even domains seized, under the name of protection of copyright without any judicial oversight at all, especially by the City of London Police.
Comments
See it's the misunderstanding that's really the issue here. The issue isn't minecraft, it's somebody swearing while playing minecraft. You can hear people swearing anywhere.
Unless this kid is some sort of computer wizard, he doesn't have multiplayer minecraft PE (which is local area only last time I checked) and voice chat running too.
Most likely he was watching the Yogscast or something, who are mainly child friendly creators who build things and play adventure maps, although they swear.
So if you wanted to parent him, you should block youtube and voice chat, not minecraft. Which is a great building game.
I'm glad you aren't planning on stifling his creativity over a few words though.
What I would like to see, rather than policing the internet, is more guidance for parents as to what is safe for their kids so they can make an informed decision. (And not ruin it for the rest of us)
Within days of it being launched you would have people downloading child porn using other peoples ID and leaving them having to explain in court how anyone could possibly breach the governments foolproof scheme.
To be fair I don't think anyone is suggesting having to post under your real name, just removing the ability to register under a false name....
Particularly so on social media sites where you are supposed to be posting as yourself under your real name.
I think it should be ok to be anon to other users on the internet (like you are Danni,I'm Kitty) but I think the authorities should know who we really are.
That way our privacy is not invaded by strangers but the law can step in if someone decides to do something illegal on the net like cyberbullying etc.
You can remain anon to the general public but the police authorities etc should be able to know who you really are so the disgusting individuals who bully people online can be caught and apprehended.
Might make cyberbullies think twice about what they are getting up to if they know the police know who they are.
A system could be implemented to protect our privacy and ensure our real identity is kept secret from each other but should be available to the police.
It's not just perverts downloading CP or trying to groom kids using someone else's ID, its any type of criminal (ie fraudsters and scammers), cyber stalkers, extremists; anyone who does have something to hide would be very attracted to such a system so that they can mask themselves behind someone else.
As for any government system being compromised; it would be unbelievably arrogant to think such a system would be secure; it would be prime target for organised crime. I've personally been affected by two security breaches over the part year or two. The recent adobe breach and the Autodesk breach where personal details, passwords and credit card details were obtained by hackers.
These are two of the biggest software companies in the world and they are not secure so the gov would have no hope.
Are you saying its impossible to catch criminals who do illegal things on the internet?
Tesco recently had a breach on their system and I know the media was banging-on about Clubcard points but the amount of person-identifiable data that retailer has on people must be staggering.
I didn't say that at all, but that is a complicated question.
If you decided to post something illegal on DS or make death threats to another member... anything that will get you arrested; with a regular internet connection and without trying to cloak yourself in any way what so ever, you would get a knock at the door. The ISP would reveal your identity to the authorities.
The issue comes when people cloak themselves thoroughly and make it very difficult for the authorities to tie the user to an ISP or some social media site that will reveal the identity of the person.
There was an article not so long ago about some guy in America who was wanted. He stole credit card details I believe, using exploits and hacked secure systems. They were trying to figure out the hackers identity for years and it was only down to the hacker making a silly mistake on an off day that he got caught.
So, to answer your question; the more serious criminals can be very, very difficult to catch.
Of course the worst kinds of people will make it as hard as possible. Hackers who are about to clear your bank account, hackers who are going to exploit websites to get credit card details, perverts who are going to groom your kids and so on; they will be cloaking themselves.
Your typical Twitter troll who sends death threads to outspoken feminists likely is not going to cloak themselves at all. That's why we see their ugly mugs walking too court in the Daily Mail.
My point was in reference to flowers idea for unique ID's each of us are given and use to register on websites to confirm our identities; and that was that such a system would be exploited and used to make it even harder for authorities and for criminals to hide behind other people.
Yet, I sit back and wonder how on earth anyone who seriously wants to protect kids online can ignore CEOPS funding cut? These people should be out on the streets protesting about that, if they really do care about protecting children online.
CEOP are the body who deal with illegal pornography and track down sexual predators (something filters won't do). They along with the IWF have virtually made CP unobtainable on the open internet. Yet, they get their funding cut as opposed to increased and yet all of these campaigners ignore it; they focus on censorship and removing anonymity (a very difficult thing to achieve) and ignore the CEOP funding issue.
That I think speaks volumes.
One of the problems is education; if we want to protect children online then CEOP are one of the most important components to that. CEOP have made CP on the open internet incredibly rare and have pushed perverts into darknets, which is what they are talking about now; infiltrating TOR and other underground/private networks.
Your typical This Morning viewer doesn't understand that stuff, so they focus on Facebook and on Google; because they know what these things are.
They switch off when you talk about CEOP funding; they won't sign no petitions. I've signed three petitions to get CEOP funding increased and it was kind of sad to see the support those petitions were getting, nothing like the support "pornwall" and other such campaigns get.
The meaningful and most effective campaign is not as obvious, it's not as visible and is not as "well known". So the masses do not support it.
The less meaningful, less effective campaign is pretty, visible and easy to get your head around, so they support it.
Some years ago I was ripped off on Ebay, I was the silly guy who brought a computer from an office clearance. I sent my money and never received the item. This was before EBays buyer protection.
I actually reported it to the police, about a week later I was called up to the station. The officers explained that my incident had been handed to serious crimes / fraud and whether I would stand witness if the gang were caught. Apparently I had became victim to a gang of fraudsters who had stole millions over sites like EBay.
The officer even gave a little light on how they do it and why they are so hard to catch (answering Kitty's question a little more).
Basically they were using fake ID to obtain council houses or rented accommodation. Setting up bank accounts with said fake ID and accommodation. This gave them a good measure of real world anonymity (making it hard to chase them).
Then they were using these addresses for a short period of time to commit fraud and then moving onto the next.
I'm not sure how easy that would be now as this was before identity theft was a mainstream concern. But that's what they were doing then and the police officer said "they are very clever and you'll likely not see your money again and they will most likely get away with it".
I was never called as witness so I assume they were not caught.
What about times when the authorities have sinister motives like is it still a good idea for the authorities in Iran to know at all times who the critical anti government bloggers are? There's always the danger that non violent dissent will be made illegal here if not by this government then by a different one and then the people who do it are in a lot of trouble if the authorities know who they are. It's best that the authorities not have an automatic right to know who everyone is.
I can see them now spouting endless BS along the lines its a billion to one chance etc etc.
The facilities to do this are already in place.
Which would still occur no matter what facilities are put in place, which is what makes the whole thing unenforceable as has been said by a number of people, yourself included I believe.
Because the ones shouting the loudest are usually the most ignorant in terms of knowledge of how it works I've found.
Completely agree.
The cutting of the funding for CEOPS is a bloody travesty, they have been hugely successful here in the UK and have also been a major influence working with other similar agencies Worldwide, particularly in the US and Russia, to drive the paedos underground and almost off the open internet.
Someone with a highly unusual or unique name is going to be very exposed.
Where did he say that?.
The majority of bullies and trolls who infest Twitter and Facebook don't care about people knowing their identity. Hence the reason they usually end up in court when being particularly vile and crossing the line into law breaking.
But it is becoming more difficult for the authorities to track and trace the really bad criminals, the paedos, the terrorists, organised crime groups.
Each time there is a proposal, or a law, that curtails the privacy of law abiding citizens someone, or some company, produces new systems that allow people to take back their privacy. These systems become easier to use, so more people who have nothing to hide, they just don't like the idea of an all controlling government monitoring their every move, start to use them. Amongst them will be criminals too who will also take advantage of new systems that are more secure than older systems.
Constantly pushing for new laws that curtail the privacy of the ordinary, law abiding person results in a constant moving of the goalposts and increases the take up of systems designed to protect privacy and stop government snooping. It is often counter productive, something even SOCA, MI5 and MI6 have publicly stated.
Recently we heard about the arrest of the owner of The Silk Road. A hidden market place on the TOR encrypted darknet. The headlines were full of TOR being compromised, but the reality was different. TOR wasn't compromised, instead the owner of the site made some fundamental mistakes on both TOR and the open internet, that allowed the authorities to piece together his identity. The same was true of the arrest of the guy running the largest web hosting company on TOR. Again it wasn't TOR being compromised, it was him making mistakes that allowed the authorities to piece together his identity from things he posted on TOR and on the open internet.
But there are still criminals on such services that are, and probably will remain out of sight.
But the other side of the coin is that TOR has been an absolute godsend to anti government activists on China, Iran and other countries to protect themselves and their identities, and allow us in the West to know some of the nastier things these governments do to their citizens.
China and Iran argue that their internet filters are also to protect people from inappropriate content online. Maybe that was a lie or maybe they had good intentions at the start and only blocked child porn. But whatever it was it has ended up as political censorship and I'm worried that this will happen in Britain too at some point. Even if I believe that the government will only initially use it to block child porn the examples I have given show how that will inevitably be expanded to an increasing amount of sites.
It is highly likely.
The filters are already to be extended to also block what the government class as extremist sites too. The problem is that some government ministers have labelled perfectly legal and law abiding protest groups, such as Boycott Workfare, as extremist groups. Plus this government have made no secret of their desire to be able to shut down Twitter, Facebook and other sites during times of crisis, and we have already had sites blocked, and even domains seized, under the name of protection of copyright without any judicial oversight at all, especially by the City of London Police.