Cameron orders GCHQ to attack "dark net"

Marketing
23

@Russell

The deep web can’t be “cracked” anyway. You can target people, but no one is creating a big skeleton key for the deep web.

I agree that’s not going to be possible with ProjectSAFE, but that is their stated objective (“collect it all”). That’s exactly what the headline says.

If they could crack Tor, they would. We’ve already seen many of the tools they’ve developed to automate and extend surveillance from the Snowden revelations. There’s a lot more been reported in those docs than in the mainstream media, so maybe you missed a lot of it? You certainly talk as if you are largely unaware of what the NSA and GCHQ have been up to.

Cameron’s announcement is just part of the campaign against encryption and privacy (cf. GCHQ Hannigan’s attacks recently), and for the mass surveillance that is already in place. It’s the new crypto wars. Part of the fightback against corporations withdrawing their secret help, and tightening up privacy for fear of losing business.

Attacking the “dark web” is both fear mongering imagery, and a genuine programme to ensure they have constant access to as much surveillance as possible. This is why they have put backdoors in telecomms hubs worldwide, weakened encryption, deployed botnets, tapped intercontinental conms cables etc etc This is how Snowden’s claim he could tap Obama’s phone at the click of a mouse became substantiated. When these measures were taken together, as revealed by documents as they were reported, they blew away all the false NSA claims about no mass surveillance and the need for warrants.

No, there is no master key to unlock the dark web, but there is an out of control system building a super surveillance toolbox designed to do exactly that. It’s why I’m here. Why are you here?

It’s a violation of human rights, that has only been achieved by keeping it secret.

24

If anyone could crack Tor, they would. Because they should. These systems need to be beaten like crazy to prove they’re secure against attack. I want the NSA spending every single dollar cracking these services in the hopes that we find one that’s uncrackable.

grumble grumble I’m not saying they’re not doing certain surveillance. I’m saying, when you have an agenda, you can find it anywhere. It’s part of obsession. But, how would you have written an article about law enforcement cracking down on child porn rings? Because that job does need doing, obviously. Lots of things need doing. I’m saying there’s nothing in the article that states they’re using any specific tactic. I’m saying that you’re projecting.

Sure is. Except the word “attack” isn’t used anywhere in that article. They said “GCHQ ordered to break up ‘dark web’ used by paedophiles.” If I said, “government plans to break up magazines with child porn” would you think I was claiming every magazine distributor was going to be monitored? You’re projecting meaning into the article.

It’s slightly semantic, I just get sad when people smear their agenda on eeevverrything. There’s a lot of intelligent people here. I don’t like seeing the Bitcoin-esque phenomenon of posting any banking article and then shoe-horning Bitcoin into it’s context. All articles about child porn aren’t about government surveillance.

25

happybeing,

Great article! I always thought that putting kids through that sort of crap was not good for them but had always assumed that the ruling class’ attitude was something like “If the boys can survive that bastardisation then they are fit to run the country!” but it looks like that even that assumption was wrong! The other thing that I suspect (I’ve never looked for any research evidence) is that there is an attitude of “It was good enough for me, so it is good enough for my son.” I think this is also a reason why female genital mutilation persists. ie A meme / tradition that people can’t break easily.

Regards,
Phil.

1 Like
26

@Russell I’d like you to explain how the NSA and GCHQ weakening encryption, putting backdoors everywhere, tapping undersea cables, recording all our Skype calls, emails, Dropbox, google docs, etc etc etc. improves the robustness of the “dark web”.

Improvements are necessary, but only because Snowden revealed what they’ve been doing. Had that not happened, their activity would have done damage only. Making us all vulnerable to criminals outside and inside government.

Please don’t paint me as having a one sided agenda and not understanding the seriousness of pedophile crime because I’m supposedly obsessed with privacy and can’t take a balanced view. Follow me on twitter and you’ll find that these are the two issues that I am most concerned about just now. I’m very vocal on both, but the UK establishment (Westminster, police, security services etc) are up to their necks in covering up and taking part in the worst forms of paedophile activity, including brutal sexual assaults and murder of young boys. But the degree of abuse, the willful blindness and complicity, is far wider than just a few politicians.

None of that had anything to do with the dark web, what’s coming out predates the internet. They had evidence. They knew who, what, where etc and from the police to MI5 and MI6 to Cabinet Ministers they were either doing it or covering it up.

So don’t be so naive that you don’t see the use of cracking down on paedophiles as the reason for to “break up the dark web”. How can you see me as having an agenda, and projecting, and not see the agenda that has been banged on about on both sides of the Atlantic ever since July 2013 when we first learned about Snowden. Keith Alexander and James Clapper denied, lied to Congress, smeared Snowden endlessly, fear mongering at every opportunity. In the UK we saw politicians and MI5 (smashing the computers at a national newspaper) intimidating journalists with anti-terror laws that have been criticized by the government watchdog as being so broad as to criminalise everyday activities as terrorism.

What do you think of your new FBI director calling for global tech companies developing a “golden key” so they can access any ensued data at any time, I wonder.

There’s isn’t one dark web for paedophiles and once for the rest of us. Even if they are only doing it to catch paedophiles, “breaking up the dark web” destroys our privacy, and makes us vulnerable to criminals, and government oppression and abuse. Given this power, it will be abused. Surely you realise that.

If you would like to see how the UK government has handled tracking paedophiles, please go read the @ExaroNews website.

Maybe we differ on what is an appropriate balance between privacy and investigative access, but I am here because in believe that unfettered mass surveillance is both a step too far, and unnecessary to deal with paedophiles (or terrorists).

Again, why are you here? This is a serious question.

2 Likes
27

This all sounds quite incredible. To imagine that the whole media industry, police, judiciary, political system etc has a deal going to protect paedophiles seems ridiculous and at least exaggerated. Though of course isolated cases are sadly to be expected amongst any people of authority.

While a handful of rapes & cover ups is absolutely horrendous and serious action must be taken against it & to reduce future abuses, I’m surprised that you think that those actions are ‘far more dangerous than ISIS’. If ISIS were taking over parts of the UK & murdering thousands of people who refuse to be indoctrinated, you may think that they are more dangerous than a handful of deviant paedophiles in high-office.

I’m not saying that there aren’t problems and serious abuses, but I think we need to keep things in perspective. The imperfections we’re living with can certainly be improved, and thankfully we’re free to improve them. I don’t think ISIS would stand by whilst people openly discussed how to remove the power base from the ISIS establishment!

Also, have a read of this and ask yourself what is more likely - is ‘Nick’ a troubled person with many issues & fantasies, or is the conspiracy all true with such a good cover up that the truth has never got out? (or is that just what they want you to believe?) http://barristerblogger.com/2014/11/16/exaro-news-playing-dangerous-game-paedophile-murder-story/

28

I didn’t say “the whole media industry, police, judiciary…”. I said they were all involved. Are you aware of how they are all implicated at the highest levels of either direct participation in brutal sexual abuse and murder of children, or in covering that up?

I seriously doubt you are, because unless you’re following the investigations closely, you would hardly know what I’m talking about. My belief is based on research and if you doubt anything I’ve said I’ll be happy to back it up. Just ask.

The question is indeed whether these are isolated cases. What is emerging is a widespread pattern. Various instances that are unconnected (e.g. Rotherham grooming and inaction by various agencies) and ones that look suspiciously connected (Westminster paedophiles from Sir Peter Hayman (ex deputy director of MI6), to the MP and Cabinet minister currently being investigated for paedophile murders at Dolphin Square, to the Elm Guest House which is looking to be connected not just with paedophiles but another paedophile murder, and more… I could go on.) Some of the information is very new, but the pattern of people reporting the Westminster abuse and investigations and prosecutions being stopped by high level figures in the police, government and agencies such as MI5 covering it up go back all the way to 1978. As new information emerges, multiple MPs, parents of missing children, low level police are coming forward (even in the last few days) to add data points which show a consistent pattern around this particular area of paedophile abuse and child murders.

You are right to say this is fantastical. It’s one of the reasons the allegations were easily dismissed as crackpot for so many years. I’m not prone to exageration or believing things that are not evidenced, if you knew me you might take this more seriously, or you can just do your own research. The mainstream media are still not ready to say much about it, but it is breaking. This week ExaroNews reported that it is suddenly inundated with journalists who are putting forward ridiculous scenarios. ExaroNews are worried that the arrival of the mainstream media on the story could cause a lot of trouble by going overboard - in the manner that you thought I was (massive conspiracy etc.), causing victims to lose faith and not come forward, evidence to lose credibility etc.

There’s no doubt this is real, and that it goes to the highest level in the branches of the establishment you mentioned. I very much doubt the “whole” is corrupt, but like Savile at the BBC, I also doubt that many were unaware of what was happening. I hope we find out as much as possible.

BTW ISIS are not yet a serious threat to the UK, but if we continue the same pattern of response as we have in the past, one of their successors surely will be.

29

I’m not following the investigations at all. Do they do the investigations in the open?

I know from your comments that you are very thoughtful, so I’m not being dismissive, especially as this is an area I know very little about. Saying this, I wonder how you can have knowledge of something that the police haven’t yet cottoned onto and the legal system hasn’t processed, unless pretty much the whole ‘system’ is trying to cover things up? (which is why it seems like a bit of a conspiracy theory)

I guess we’ll see how it turns out, and I hope that justice is done.

I do think the authorities are right to investigate ways of finding paedophiles, but agree that destroying / preventing everyone’s privacy is not the way to do it.

30

I was referring to the ExaroNews investigation, which while not carried out in the open, has been the source of both credible reports of events (yet to be proven one way or another) the trigger for multiple police investigations: initially into paedophile abuse, and just a couple of weeks ago, into four paedophile murders, one by an MP at the time, and one in front of a Cabinet Minister at the time.

It’s not that I just believe these stories as presented, i know they may either be untrue or simply impossible to substantiate. It’s that there are lots of threads which weave together, without the need for a big conspiracy (though some conspiracy would be very likely). In several cases those threads are not in dispute.

As more and more emerges, almost daily just now (via ExaroNews and people picking up in their reporting others add new fragments to what is known), it becomes increasingly implausible that the claims are without foundation. Whether they can lead to prosecution, who knows.

My take is that we need to take claims seriously, and that if this does go as deep as claimed, it is very important to get to the bottom if this. And to do that requires that those involved, the witnesses and particularly the victims, are given the opportunity to come forward. We’ve seen that this generally doesn’t happen unless something generates publicity around the activities of powerful figures involved to the extent that victims and witnesses are moved to speak up.

Remember Savile, and how despite decades of abuse, and so many victims, he was able to continue unchallenged. All those victims either stayed silent or were simply dismissed when they tried to report those crimes. Many witnessed abuse but let it pass for the same reasons - who would believe them.

Remember the abandoned Newsnight report about Savile, even when investigative journalists were sure of their facts, the broadcast was stopped. And only when the truth broke through into mainstream media could other victims be brought to tell their stories.

In this case, that stage has not yet been reached, but is I hope approaching, and we’ll see what results from that.

1 Like
31

Sorry but I have to take issue with this statement following your claims in the Magical Mystical Tour of the"Quantum Consciousness" thread: In this, you argued along the lines that “intuitive knowing” (or faith in other words) was as valid a method to arrive at a conclusion about the nature of reality, as actual scientific evidence. This form of reasoning forms a large part of your belief system/world view - therefore I believe your statement to be demonstrably false.

I just can’t see the “ample evidence” from the articles or anything you’ve said. It appears to consist of the allegations of 1 person called “Nick”. I just can’t get my head around a group of MP’s all raping and murdering boys in a club regularly and nobody (political adversaries, journalists etc) ever getting wind of it - the conspiracy would be huge.
Anyway, yes I would like some evidence please.

32

Hi @al_kafir where have you been. I missed you!

Anyway, if you want me to justify a statement, please quote the words you wish me to back up.

I’m going to ignore your misrepresenting what I’ve said previously in another topic, just not let it pass without this comment. That’s something which you said was pointless discussing further, and ended your participation so please don’t bring it into this thread. If you want to pick it up again, please do so there.

EDIT: Before replying, read the following, new today. There’s a pattern here is my contention, not yet proof (as I acknowledge above), but something that needs to be taken seriously, and given publicity in order to help gather evidence and discover the truth.

[Media ‘gagged over bid to report MP child sex cases’]
(Media ‘gagged over bid to report MP child sex cases’ | Child protection | The Guardian)

33

New report tonight on former police offers taking allegations to Operation Fairbank at the Met:

A source close to the investigation said that the two former police
officers alleged: “There was a significant paedophile group in
Parliament who were untouchable to the police.”

They provided new information on Sir Cyril Smith, the former Liberal MP,
and Sir Jimmy Savile, the BBC star, who were exposed as paedophiles
after their deaths. They have also provided potentially important
information on former MPs and living perpetrators of child sex abuse.

The two ex-officers even said that they were aware that boys were
being killed by the ‘Westminster paedophile network’, but were unable to
take any action because the perpetrators were so powerful.

34

Maybe this the reason for this Cameron Order, wether it’s an Op is another question.

While Markets Get Seized: Pedophiles Launch a Crowdfunding Site

In case any Law Enforcement agent or agency is feeling bored: one of our dark net sources provided us with some information on an illicit, dark net operation that could use some of your government resources. Recently, a person or group reached a new low when it started promoting a new “Darknet crowdfunding site” aimed at child pornography producers looking to make some money from their “content.” This crowdfunding site describes the “unfair” reality where child pornography producers are unable to earn money from their “productions.” Since people share child pornography videos for free on Tor’s various CP sites right after the first copy is sold, according to the site, producers miss out on a large portion of the potential revenue that could be “earned.” The new site aims to tackle this problem by offering a crowdfunding platform for child pornography producers:

35

I think if it was a credible reason he might have mentioned it.

My point is that there’s an obvious pattern here, across the Five Eyes, of justifying ever more invasive surveillance (amongst other things), which goes beyond even what the law allows - hence FBI and GCHQ bosses attacking companies for meeting customer needs for security by encrypting customer data.

The head of GCGQ is unaccountable, yet now lobbying politically, beyond politically, and Cameron rather than saying hey that’s my job is all part of this team mind game to roll back privacy and security in favour of state control, inside and outside what they can get through parliament. It’s yet another a shocking attack on democracy, as if it wasn’t in intensive care already!

36

Aww, you were doing so well up until this. Don’t be snarky. I was taking you quite seriously until this.

I’m pretty sure we’re in agreement. I just don’t think every article pertains.

37

Why “snarky”, I am being serious?

I ask because I don’t know, based on what you’ve written in this thread in particular. What is it that you personally want from SAFE, why are you here?

38

This is probably a better conversation for a different thread. It feels like we’re drifting off topic.

39

We’re already well off topic, and I don’t see you not answering as being to do with that. Which just increases my confusion and curiosity man. What is your motivation for being here?

40

Do you mean here in this particular thread, or on the forum?

EDIT: I think you mean the entire forum.

I’m here because I believe distributing how the web works shakes some of the cobwebs off the current system. It’s a massive steps closer to what the internet really should be: a giant hard drive. Individuals working together and competing to create a powerful network.

But the freedom of the network creates a looking glass, shining who we are as a society back at us, unfiltered. That’s fascinating, liberating stuff.

For me, even more personally, in regards to arts and entertainment, it pushes us a step closer to the inevitable moment where artists and entertainers can distribute their work on a better protocol without a gatekeeper taking a cut. We’re also moving closer to a inevitable system where all media can be cloned without any tracking.

The dark angle of this is that criminals benefit on the same level as anyone else, which is to be expected. My hope is that this forces law enforcement to use different, less forceful and invasive methods.

I don’t believe in anarchism or libertarianism. I don’t think the market is the answer to everything. I think we need leaders because we need leaders. If that sounds circular, it’s because it is. Lack of power creates a vacuum. The vast majority crave leadership, and will find it regardless of what your or my beliefs are. Hell, we do it here. David Irvine is constantly deified here (against his wishes, frequently). Even in a forum rife with anarchists, we still find the leader.

So I don’t believe these technologies will necessarily free us, but they’re a step closer to intellectual freedom. We crave knowledge. I believe knowledge breeds individuality, caring, understanding, sympathy.

I’m here to support the system that hopefully will get us closer to all that.

That’s all tangential though, imo.

While I believe your gripes are true, and that corruption does exist, and that governments would love to have unadulterated access to all systems “to protect,” I also think the actual context of the article is not align with your gripes. Again, just the scope of this one particular article.

I do not disagree with anything anyone has said in this thread.

But I also don’t think the article is about anything anyone is talking about, insofar as every article about CP isn’t about government censorship.

I think you’re basing an entire discussion on misunderstanding what he’s saying. You want to talk about how CP is used as an excuse to take away our rights to privacy. There are millions of examples where that does happen. I just don’t think this particular article does that. I think they’re just saying that they’re hunting CP rings.

And this is the part where you ignore what I say, tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, peg me as blindly following X or Y government, so on and so forth.

Then I’ll repeat myself, say I agree with you, but then tell you the article isn’t about government censorship.

And hopefully by seeing the loop, we’ll stop repeating it.

enormous sigh

EDIT EDIT: this is such a stupid discussion I’ve sparked… its literally about semantics. It’s about nothing.

41

Thanks. That’s exactly what I needed to hear, and makes me much happier about who you are.

Why you need to write the following to me I don’t know, because it’s not something I recognise myself having done:

And this is the part where you ignore what I say, tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, peg me as blindly following X or Y government, so on and so forth.

I understand very well what you ate saying. What bothered me is that your view doesn’t make sense to me in the context of what is happening post Snowden. To me it is naive to take the words in the article at face value, when each week there is evidence of a campaign from US & UK security services and politicians.

“Breaking the dark web” is ambiguous, but again, the context and evidence makes it very obvious to me that he is not only talking about targeted investigation based on evidence, but seeking evidence by enabling mass surveillance and watching everyone.

I fully understand your interpretation, i just don’t understand how you can get there. I know you are intelligent. I am doubtful how well informed you are of the security landscape, and the political machinations. I’m mindful that we will have different backgrounds, mindsets and psychology, which is why I asked you to elaborate on why you are here. Thanks for answering so fully.

I still don’t understand the reasons why we see this article differently, but it’s not the first time I’ve felt that, so I’ll continue to be curious about it. You seem to want me to judge it in isolation, why? I refuse to ignore the wider context, and given that it is ridiculous to me, to think that in this instance, the UK PM is talking about proper targeted investigation, after everything else he’s been doing to undermine my privacy, and hide the activities of our security services behind laughable “checks and balances” such as the self discrediting Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).

The ISC’s latest investigation, into the failure of MI5 to prevent the gruesome murder of soldier Lee Rigby on a London Street, was published this morning. I’ve not read it, but listened to the Chairman’s summary this morning, who made little of MI5’s failure to track the perpetrator, or to request his communications from US internet companies - which would have shown his intent to commit this murder. Instead, Malcolm Rifkind said that if MI5 had asked for those communications, of a suspected terrorist, the US companies “might not have provided them” and were therefore “providing a safe haven for terrorists”. This, and the “oversight” provided by the ISC are a very sick joke, but one which our PM is very happy with.

EDIT

EDIT EDIT: this is such a stupid discussion I’ve sparked… its literally about semantics. It’s about nothing.

I don’t agree! You’ve picked up on the key issue (which I have taken for granted), namely, what does David Cameron want to achieve when he talks about “breaking the dark web”, because as we’ve agreed, SAFE is part of the dark web.

42

Heh, yeah, all that other “looping” stuff was just me being a big angry baby [insert baby emoticon here].