Online pedophiles

[Zapp]

Chaps, we all agree this is a bad thing.  No need to fall out.

[mel b3]

12 minutes ago, Zapp said:

Chaps, we all agree this is a bad thing.  No need to fall out.

nuff said chief

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, did anyone see the TV report on this very subject , it looks like Facebook and those who are responsible for the welfare of young people who use the latter and watsapp don't care about the 1000s of online paedophiles hacking into their accounts and the numbers are extraordinary high through this pandemic,

[udderlyoffroad]

Ok I'll try again.

19 hours ago, mel b3 said:

Being pretty non techy , it had never really occurred to me , that the Internet was pretty uncontrollable. 

QED.  Nobody 'owns' the internet, it was very literally conceived to be a massively redundant network to survive nuclear war.

 

19 hours ago, mel b3 said:

I understand the reasons why(now that I've given it a bit of thought ) , but , it's just amazing that it has no fail safe setting, to stop these , and other things , from happening. 

I have no idea about your meaning, and I've re-read that many times

You appear to want some kind of 'fail safe' to the internet.  You need to define better what you're alluding to. 

You don't think that were such a thing practicable, it would've been done by now?

The only plausible solution is some kind of back door to encryption protocols - like successive home secretaries have demanded of the social media companies - to allow law enforcement agencies to listen in on traffic of bad actors.  Terrorists, paedophiles etc.

The trouble is, there is no way to do this without creating a massive security vulnerability open to exploitation by others.  The solution to this problem has quite literally eluded some of the brightest minds on the planet.

Have a watch of this, and tell me again how my tinfoil hat works.

A more detailed look at the mechanics of why this is a bad idea (tm) is below:

 

Like I said before: you lot seem to be quite happy using this technology on PW, Ebay, your online banking etc...but heaven forfend bad people use the same too?

You might as well have demand the government ban vans because they are used to commit terrorist acts, and abduct children.   Or...have them ban guns because they are used in murders?

So, if that makes a tinfoil hat wearer in your eyes Melb3, so be it.  I at least make some attempt to understand how the world around me, and the technology I'm writing this on works, before glibly demanding 'something is done', Helen Lovejoy style.

[mel b3]

26 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Ok I'll try again.

QED.  Nobody 'owns' the internet, it was very literally conceived to be a massively redundant network to survive nuclear war.

 

I have no idea about your meaning, and I've re-read that many times

You appear to want some kind of 'fail safe' to the internet.  You need to define better what you're alluding to. 

You don't think that were such a thing practicable, it would've been done by now?

The only plausible solution is some kind of back door to encryption protocols - like successive home secretaries have demanded of the social media companies - to allow law enforcement agencies to listen in on traffic of bad actors.  Terrorists, paedophiles etc.

The trouble is, there is no way to do this without creating a massive security vulnerability open to exploitation by others.  The solution to this problem has quite literally eluded some of the brightest minds on the planet.

Have a watch of this, and tell me again how my tinfoil hat works.

A more detailed look at the mechanics of why this is a bad idea (tm) is below:

 

Like I said before: you lot seem to be quite happy using this technology on PW, Ebay, your online banking etc...but heaven forfend bad people use the same too?

You might as well have demand the government ban vans because they are used to commit terrorist acts, and abduct children.   Or...have them ban guns because they are used in murders?

So, if that makes a tinfoil hat wearer in your eyes Melb3, so be it.  I at least make some attempt to understand how the world around me, and the technology I'm writing this on works, before glibly demanding 'something is done', Helen Lovejoy style.

Then  I shall politely try again , as you've still completely missed my point .

I have very little knowledge,  or interest , in the Internet,  and all things techy , beyond what I use( a couple of shooting sites , and YouTube , if I need technical information ) . I use very little tech , as it just doesn't float my boat , and I find most of it , mind numbingly boring , and totally uninspiring. 

I have made no demands whatsoever for a failsafe on the Internet.  My point was , I'm surprised,  that the Internet has been allowed to evolve,  in such a way , that it can be used for so many criminal activities , with little or no chance of stopping those criminal activities,  or bringing the perpetrators to book.

I'm now fully aware (thanks to several other members ) how and why it works in the way that it does .

If the government feels the need to track me via my , mobile phone , bank accounts , Internet usage , then they can crack on ,because I really don't care.

I do have several questions though .

Do you find it acceptable for paedophiles to use the Internet to groom children for sex ?.

And who is Helen Lovejoy ?.

[udderlyoffroad]

4 minutes ago, mel b3 said:

I have very little knowledge,  or interest , in the Internet,  and all things techy , beyond what I use( a couple of shooting sites , and YouTube , if I need technical information ) .

So...you do use it?  Huh.  

Did you actually watch the videos?  

6 minutes ago, mel b3 said:

I have made no demands whatsoever for a failsafe on the Internet.  My point was , I'm surprised,  that the Internet has been allowed to evolve, 

Laws are only applicable to the nation state in which they have jurisdiction.  Attempting to regulate or control the development of something as supranational as the internet is pretty much impossible.

 

8 minutes ago, mel b3 said:

If the government feels the need to track me via my , mobile phone , bank accounts , Internet usage , then they can crack on ,because I really don't care.

That is hardly relevant, because they already do.

What I and others are worried about - no not tinfoil hat wearers, actual security professionals - is what the government is asking for beyond the powers they already have.

 

13 minutes ago, mel b3 said:

Do you find it acceptable for paedophiles to use the Internet to groom children for sex ?.

No. 

Do you find it acceptable that criminals use screwdrivers and pry bars to break into your house?

I'm surprised that screwdrivers have been allowed to evolve so that they can be used to break into houses.

 

21 minutes ago, mel b3 said:

And who is Helen Lovejoy ?.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

[mel b3]

58 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

So...you do use it?  Huh.  

Did you actually watch the videos?  

Laws are only applicable to the nation state in which they have jurisdiction.  Attempting to regulate or control the development of something as supranational as the internet is pretty much impossible.

 

That is hardly relevant, because they already do.

What I and others are worried about - no not tinfoil hat wearers, actual security professionals - is what the government is asking for beyond the powers they already have.

 

No. 

Do you find it acceptable that criminals use screwdrivers and pry bars to break into your house?

I'm surprised that screwdrivers have been allowed to evolve so that they can be used to break into houses.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

I'll leave it at that buddy , because quite frankly , it's just boring 👍. 

[udderlyoffroad]

So boring that you felt the need to start a thread about it.

[udderlyoffroad]

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

What I and others are worried about - no not tinfoil hat wearers, actual security professionals - is what the government is asking for beyond the powers they already have.

Now that the OP has given up and taken his ball home:

Where does the answer lie?

Create back doors to encryption, you break the internet and modern life as we know it.  Forget working from home, or even ordering something (relatively) securely from A1 Decoy, or even signing into PW.

But the same encryption is used by those who would do us and our children harm.

As yet this problem has challenged crypto experts the world over, who haven't come up with a solution.

Beyond the utterly asinine: "Screw privacy, I have nothing to hide", which obviously doesn't pass the smallest level of introspection at all - usually said by people who have curtains on their windows and don't use their real names on a forum.

3 hours ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

it looks like Facebook and those who are responsible for the welfare of young people who use the latter and watsapp don't care about the 1000s of online paedophiles hacking into their accounts

Their parents?

Home truth time:

Facebook has no obligation to protect your kids, you are not their customer.  You are the product.

I think I'm correct in saying FB doesn't allow users below the age of 13 at any rate.

[chrisjpainter]

44 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

So boring that you felt the need to start a thread about it.

I think Mel meant arguing with you, seeing as he got his answers entirely without having to go through 12 rounds of attitude along the way.

The reality is we can only be as safe as we choose to make ourselves. But children and young people don't necessarily have the experience and insight to spot when something's dangerous. What they do have is a a society and culture that is social media and internet driven and the tools to use it, but not use it safely, which makes them very vulnerable. To paraphrase the great Dr Malcolm, they don't see the danger in what they're doing; they wield the internet like a child who's found his dad's gun. They get so preoccupied with what they can do, the forget to stop and think as to whether they should. Parents have to take more responsibility to help keep their child safe, because the internet cannot be made 100% safe. STOP, LOOK, LISTEN is still being hammered into children, so I think it's time to be as diligent with internet safety as we are with road safety.

[udderlyoffroad]

14 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Parents have to take more responsibility to help keep their child safe, because the internet cannot be made 100% safe. STOP, LOOK, LISTEN is still being hammered into children, so I think it's time to be as diligent with internet safety as we are with road safety.

Agree entirely.

But it seems that is a minority viewpoint.

As for 12 rounds of attitude: He started a thread saying "I don't understand this but" then almost immediately invoked Helen Lovejoy's law, and presto the thread descends into the emotive.

Well sorry, but that boils my urine.

We will all suffer the consequences if government acts too rashly on this.  And that's just the intentional consequences.  Never mind the unintended consequences.

I say again, those who profess not to care about privacy draw their curtains at night, and then log onto PW using pseudonyms.

I just don't understand the cognitive dissonance.  Maybe I'm on a spectrum?

[Deker]

On 24/03/2021 at 14:06, Vince Green said:

Big brother can watch me as much as he likes. The internet is like a cess pit with all the perverts and scammers. At some stage, like it or not, action has to be taken. If it hurts well, so be it

unfortunately it won't just be 'big brother' watching you, every single thing you do on the internet would be transparent, initially people think that's ok I have nothing to hide BUT:

• user accounts and passwords
• banking details
• credit and debit transactions
• what you buy
• what you read
• what you watch

it would only be minutes before peoples identities were stolen or even just their online financial accounts wiped out, unfortunately we rely on the internet now and as with anything that big there's criminals and lots of them.

It really isn't as simple as it seems and it's one of those things that the buck needs to stop with the user, make sure all security requirements are met, no clicking on random 'funny things' that a pal has sent, even down to only letting youngsters online when you're with them (kinda like taking them shooting, you wouldn't let them play with a loaded gun on their own in a bedroom, but you would let them use one under supervision).

Years ago I was on an Ethical Hacking course and in the introduction to the course we were told in no uncertain circumstances to do any financial transactions on the shared wifi as it would be getting sniffed as part of the course, it was about 15 years ago and standard security is MUCH better now but at the time it was VERY easy to watch the data flow over the network (passwords and all) and even redirect it through our computers to read and alter things!

Edited March 26, 2021 by Deker

[mel b3]

52 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

I think Mel meant arguing with you, seeing as he got his answers entirely without having to go through 12 rounds of attitude along the way.

The reality is we can only be as safe as we choose to make ourselves. But children and young people don't necessarily have the experience and insight to spot when something's dangerous. What they do have is a a society and culture that is social media and internet driven and the tools to use it, but not use it safely, which makes them very vulnerable. To paraphrase the great Dr Malcolm, they don't see the danger in what they're doing; they wield the internet like a child who's found his dad's gun. They get so preoccupied with what they can do, the forget to stop and think as to whether they should. Parents have to take more responsibility to help keep their child safe, because the internet cannot be made 100% safe. STOP, LOOK, LISTEN is still being hammered into children, so I think it's time to be as diligent with internet safety as we are with road safety.

Spot on Chris 👍. 

[discobob]

I work in IT and the company I work for engaged an external company to develop a new product and engaged very few “grunts” on it. Then it was released and it was a way of gifting things that could be personalised. I asked if the images being used were being run through any image verification system - er no was the response. I just said congratulations you have developed a distribution system for peado’s and left the company wide open to being done. 

it was silently dropped shortly after. 
 

as we are talking about security I will leave this here - if you get it you get it

[Lloyd90]

This thread is like a spoof of people who like to criticise anything / The Government. 
 

Someone who self admittedly knows very little  about the subject, yet is able to point out the flaws, and how it can be easily fixed... when in reality the smartest and best people in the world can’t resolve the issues and the actual complexity had gone straight over the persons head. 
 

 

It’s the equivalent of the people down the pub propping up the bar saying “if they put me in charge I’d sort it out in no time!” 🤦‍♂️

[mel b3]

2 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

This thread is like a spoof of people who like to criticise anything / The Government. 
 

Someone who self admittedly knows very little  about the subject, yet is able to point out the flaws, and how it can be easily fixed... when in reality the smartest and best people in the world can’t resolve the issues and the actual complexity had gone straight over the persons head. 
 

 

It’s the equivalent of the people down the pub propping up the bar saying “if they put me in charge I’d sort it out in no time!” 🤦‍♂️

I'm guessing that you're having a personal dig at me here Lloyd.  

If you are then you're completely wrong , and most probably just  trying to start a spat .

First things first ,  can you show me where I said that it can be easily fixed ?. If you can't show me that , then your post is a complete fabrication , and just a childish attempt at getting a rise.

I asked questions,  and expressed surprise that it's allowed to happen . Quite a few knowledgeable and grown up members have answered those questions now .

You carry on having a dig though if it makes you feel superior 👍. 

 

[Lloyd90]

3 hours ago, mel b3 said:

I'm guessing that you're having a personal dig at me here Lloyd.  

If you are then you're completely wrong , and most probably just  trying to start a spat .

First things first ,  can you show me where I said that it can be easily fixed ?. If you can't show me that , then your post is a complete fabrication , and just a childish attempt at getting a rise.

I asked questions,  and expressed surprise that it's allowed to happen . Quite a few knowledgeable and grown up members have answered those questions now .

You carry on having a dig though if it makes you feel superior 👍. 

 

Not really. More a reflection of this thread generally. 
 

There are many other similar threads.
 

People bashing the Government over their handling of Brexit. 
 

People bashing the Government over their handling of Corona virus. 
 

People bashing the Police saying they are useless and unfit etc. 
 

People bashing teachers. NHS. Social services. 
 

 

We must have had the full spectrum on here by now. 
 

 

 

No need to get your knickers in a twist Mel. 
 

Not superior, I certainly don’t have all the answers. 

[Newbie to this]

54 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Not really. More a reflection of this thread generally. 
 

There are many other similar threads.
 

People bashing the Government over their handling of Brexit. 
 

People bashing the Government over their handling of Corona virus. 
 

People bashing the Police saying they are useless and unfit etc. 
 

People bashing teachers. NHS. Social services. 
 

 

We must have had the full spectrum on here by now. 
 

 

 

No need to get your knickers in a twist Mel. 
 

Not superior, I certainly don’t have all the answers. 

Heaven forbid people expressing their opinion on the Internet, whatever next....  Police actually arresting criminals who are in the middle of committing their crime, rather than watching it happen, perhaps 

[Lloyd90]

54 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Heaven forbid people expressing their opinion on the Internet, whatever next....  Police actually arresting criminals who are in the middle of committing their crime, rather than watching it happen, perhaps 

Thanks for proving my point 👍🏻🤣

 

I’m sure you could sort out Policing no bother. 
 

You have no actual experience in Policing I take it? 

[Newbie to this]

10 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Thanks for proving my point 👍🏻🤣

 

I’m sure you could sort out Policing no bother. 
 

You have no actual experience in Policing I take it? 

And thanks for proving mine.

Heaven forbid, people express an opinion different to yours hey!

Oh and sorry for expecting the Police to actually arrest a criminal caught in the act, I mean, it's not like it's their job or anything!

[Lloyd90]

29 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

And thanks for proving mine.

Heaven forbid, people express an opinion different to yours hey!

Oh and sorry for expecting the Police to actually arrest a criminal caught in the act, I mean, it's not like it's their job or anything!

Why don’t you join up? 
 

Police are having a big recruitment drive at the moment. 
 

 

[Newbie to this]

3 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Why don’t you join up? 
 

Police are having a big recruitment drive at the moment. 
 

 

So I can police people hurting other peoples feelings and take the knee or stand by watching statues being desecrated or pulled down. No thanks.

Maybe if the police ever become a 'force' again and start upholding the law, rather than following some warped political agenda. But I won't hold my breath.

I mean is it so much to ask for the police to actually arrest people in the process of committing a crime, instead of watching it!

[clangerman]

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

 

I mean is it so much to ask for the police to actually arrest people in the process of committing a crime, instead of watching it!

stopping crime is easy you just get mc donald’s to open up nearby new one near me is always full of coppers