Apparently everyone using the "dark net" is a pedophile, and the UK government are considering new powers to crack down on anonymous browsing.
I have a feeling ISPs are going to start blocking TOR and such soon.
It is of no surprise to anyone that world governments are going to start doing this.
"Studies" are going to show that "the internets" are being used by pedophiles to rape children, and sanctions and laws need to be made immediately.
If you oppose this, you're a pedophile, because why else would you be against it?
There's nothing that can be done now.
The figure is referring to traffic. So 80% of traffic is CP.
Guess why? Because it's videos and shit.
The problem here is that the government is using the media to paint tor as a hub of pedos, terrorists, and drug dealers.
Then you ban tor and bam, totalitarianism achieved, with the support of a population.
Tell people you use tor and why it's important. Unless you're a pedo, then make something up. But the point is so that when non-computer savvy people see these headlines, they don't see tor users as pedos, they see tor users as you.
Although this shit blurs the lines and they might likely just see you as a pedo.
>using VPN's, proxies, spoofed IP's, Spoofed Mac Addresses, dynamic IP's are all now illegal
wow I guess britain should just arrest everyone on the internet because they don't like the way it works.
Hell I remember when some US congressman wanted to make changing your IP illegal in Minnesota. The stupid politicians who write laws and allow this shit literally would make every ISP in minnesota illegal or hell even google, and every major corporate that uses dynamic IP's would be illegal there.
Only people doing illegal things need to be Anonymous. And if you fuckers bring up 4chan your not really Anonymous on 4chan, they record your IP, your activity, and they freely give it to authorities if they request it.
Let the fuckers burn.
>changing your IP, using VPN's or proxies are now only for people doing illegal things
thats great kid, recording my IP doesn't mean shit when it changes almost everyday and your assault on basic utilities "HURR ONLY ILLEGAL PEOPLE NEED THESE" is stupid as fuck too
Is it any surprise, they want full control over out lives, to do that they need the support of the public, they can't get that with the truth so push out lies that make anything they don't control seem like a pedoparadise, that always rallies the idiotic vocal yokels.
I think if you're with someone you know and this story comes up, you should say something to the effect of:
"Well this just shows that tor works. And the government is afraid of a place on the internet where people can release information about what they're doing without being hit with espionage charges and shipped to a torture chamber."
The UK is fanatically anti-pedo.
Weird considering that pedophilia only became illegal like 40 years ago
I also suppose britain would make such software like Teamviewer and other remote log in software illegal because you're obviously logging into a server or computer to do illegal things because muh make everything illegal philosophy, No I haven't a clue what these utilities are but ban them!
I'm awaiting the EXPOSE on BBC/ITV/Channel 4 news with flashy graphics and censored computer screens showing how evil the DARK NET is.
I've already seen a handful when the last DARK NET headlines happened.
He is, that never happened.
What happened was that they got a brick through their window, and had 'pedo' spraypainted on their house.
They had to leave, but they weren't murdered by a mob.
He's mixing two real incidents.
In another incident, a man was taking pictures of children because they were vandalising his hanging baskets and he wanted pictures of them to take to the police. This got turned into neighbourhood gossip that he was a pedo, and then a mob invaded his house, beat him to death, and then set his corpse on fire.
These two incidents are very real, and they happened. The latter happened in 2014. He's mixing them but the sentiment he's projecting is more or less accurate.
>Apparently everyone using the "dark net" is a pedophile
>then i should have been in jail long time ago
Its these technologically illiterate people that spin together buzzwords and shit that makes technology hard to progress
what? dynamic IP's? only a criminal would need one of those! there can't possibly be any legitimate uses because I said so!
VPN's? paedofile tools no I don't care if people need them in everyday life at the corporate level and all sorts thats a pedo tool!
Proxies? why would you need one of those? our computers are fine the way they are just plug it in and log into the internetties no I don't have a clue how it works but ban it because muh children!
What in the bloody hell is a an intranet? sounds like an underground dirty word for darknet trafficking! no an intranet can't be an internal network because privacy = pedo!
Why would they? The government would shit on them.
I remember when in the CCC I was watching live this guy presenting this research where he saw that 80% of traffic was pedo traffic and I immediately talked about the journalistic bottom feeders coming out of the woodwork.
Someone might remember that post.
Anyway, why would they mention that governments are leaning on the media to give the impression that tor is unsafe, for pedos, etc?
>using common internet utilities means I'm a criminal
are they going to arrest all the companies that operate in britain that use these internet utilities for everyday business because someone might use them for criminal purposes?
Legit question: why the fuck would anybody use darknet if not for cp and drugs?
It's not like using tor and encrypting your hard drives. That's like a person locking the doors to their home.
Using the dark net for anything that's not hardcore drugs and cp would be like flying to Thailand to buy a gallon of milk.
Or release a big government list of 'people who use tor'.
Imagine that shit.
Uh I don't know, maybe it's to share information anoymously. Say, information about what your government is doing to erode your freedoms and civil liberties that they'd prefer not to have you know or understand. Or say, your sex life. A politician's sex life is a scandal waiting to happen. If your scandal waiting to happen is in the hands of the GCHQ, how much influence does this politician have over anything GCHQ related? How can anyone stop them if they go too far? Without whistleblowers, how will we even know what they are doing?
If the only people who use tor are whistleblowers, politicians and journalists, there's a very short list of people to monitor.
dark net is a fucking buzzword they're falsly correlating that if you use x, y, z internet utility, tool or what ever that you're suddenly a pedo
Basically if you use things like IP spoofing or remote logins or VPN's or proxies in your everyday life for the purposes of your work, business or networking set up you're automatically on the SAME level as a pedo
oh man wanna forward some ports? I bet you're a pedo then!
oh man wanna open up a VPN for your own networking needs, reasons and pleasure? you're obviously a pedo
It's already started. Staying at parents house over Christmas and I'm constantly running into this BS.
Apply the same argument to your government. Why do they need to keep what they are doing a secret. They're not doing anything wrong, are they?
You can make the argument that they need to keep who they're doing what to a secret, but what they're doing has no reason to be secret.
>You are about to access the internet.
>Please place your thumb in the scanner on the right side of the screen.
haha, good work NSA shill
Not in Britain! Gunsma are evil horrible things, which why only the government can have them.
Knives would be banned too, if there wasn't that minor problem of using them for cooking and eating.
Keeping it real, there are no serious political dissidents in the UK or US so TOR is only for illegal activities. Theory is nice, practice is real.
That's like all the "muh freedoms" BS on 4chan. It's a meme. That is all.
But it's not a secret that the government uses guns.
The kind of secrets the governments are keeping from their voters who are supposed to be keeping the government responsible for what they are doing- is what they are doing.
>There are no serious political dissidents in the UK or the US.
When Nazis came for the Jews, the entire German people struggled and fought against the Nazis.
Hint: No they didn't. Because the Nazi government used propaganda to bland most of the population, and fear to silence the rest.
They didn't just use fear. They made the dissidents disappear. You get tortured by the gestapo, you and your family vanish, and the records of who you are and what you did vanish along with them.
Whats with UK lately banning shit left and right?
You guise have some elections,goverment change, or this is just act of politicians that dont want to solve much bigger problems and just shitpost instead?
Solving big problems is hard. It's much easier to apply bright colourful plasters (bandaids to americans) that attract voters than to deal with the heavy issues that voters aren't seen as really caring about.
Basically they want to please the primary voting groups, which are pretty much old people and middle aged women.
You know that they make it deliberately hard for students to vote by requiring them to vote in their registered home area and tend to run elections while they are at university?
aka, daily mail readers
>old people running the gov
>elections in april
>"think of the children" platform
That is it then.Expect few more services to be banned also.Good luck britbongs,more luck in the next life.
There are no UK parties that are willing to grant further civil liberties, and the big 2 have a history of taking away civil liberties. The SNP want to take private property from landowners to build council housing, the Greens want some form of "fair" utopia, presumably where your rights end where my feelings begin and UKIP are a slippery lot who want the votes without outlining their exact plan. There are no good parties in the UK in term of, bluntly put, freedom.
>Even though child-abuse material makes up only 2% of the sites available on the dark net, it accounts for about 83% of visits to such websites.
>only 2% of the content
WEE GOTTSSTA PROTECT DAA CHILLLUUUUNNNNSSSSSS
Oh my god what excellent fucking spin. That title is SO FUCKING MISSLEADING
HERE I AM IMAGINING THAT TOR GIVES REASON FOR PAEDOS AND MOLESTORS TO MAKE THEIR DISGUSTING VIDEOS TO SATIATE THE DEMANDS OF BILLIONS OF PAEDOPHILES WORLD WIDE
WHEN IN RE-AL-I-TY ALL IT IS IS KIDDIE DIDLERS ACCESSING CONTENT THAT ALREADY EXISTS!
SO WHAT THE MOTHER FUCK DO WE GET FROM THIS CUNTS? WE GET THAT BECAUSE 2 PER FUCKING PERCENT OF CONTENT ON TO TOR IS CP WE GOTTA
NEVER MIND FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR LEGITIMATE CONTENT (WHICH PROBABLY IS WHAT THE OTHER 98 PER CENT IS, WITH THE ODD FAKE CONTRACT KILLER AND EDGY ANARCHIST GROUP THAT DOES NOTHING BUT BITCH AND MAYBE GLASS SOME BOURGIES)
Fuck this shitty fucking country.
Monster Raving Looney is my "Rejected Vote" party of choice.
Or just actually reject your vote. For those of you who don't know, submitting an invalid vote (e.g. voting for everyone, writing "FUCK THE POLICE" across it, etc.) actually ends up on the official statistics as "Rejected Vote" as opposed to "Did not vote".
>No, the greens are actually pretty good with the civil liberties thing.
Are they? The Green leader rubbed me the wrong way when I watched her segment on "Bite the Ballot". Seemed very keen on wealth redistribution.
This is what happens when you push people underground. No amount of legislation is going to stop me from finding children attractive. What we need is a safe environment for people like me to get therapy and discuss the problems without persecution. The fact that lolicon isn't even legal over here speaks volumes.
More poor people than rich people = workers revolution.
You do the wealth distribution thing to stop the bolsheviks hanging you from lamp posts.
Enough wealth distribution so that people don't go hungry.
Someone needs to explain to the plebs that upping tax rates != more tax revenue.
Obvious thought experiment: 100% tax rate. Everyone with money emigrates. Poor people starve because there's no money left for benefits.
Who gives a shit about the upper and upper-middle class? They're not the problem. They run businesses, pay taxes, they're good.
It's the super rich funneling billions of pounds to offshore bank accounts that are the problem.
I don't wish to sound like a 'hurr 1%', but seriously, how many billions of pounds do you really need?
I don't even really care if it's taxed or not- so long as it's SPENT. Reinvested in their company or something.
I'm not overly worried about internet privacy. I mean look how many tools we have at our disposal when there really isn't much of a need for them for most people.
I'm confident that any attempted crackdown on anonimity will just drive development of more advanced anonimity tools.
The Americans have the same problem: both of the big parties are in the pockets of the likes of Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc, who want to track the shit out of you with the NSA's help. Democrats want a country where your rights end where my feelings begin. Republicans want to turn everybody Catholic, and use most of the "think of the children" talk to censor things they don't like. And the only other party that comes close, the libertarians, would hand the country off to the corporations and let us turn into a corporate dystopia. There is no hope for america
>The British have the same problem: both of the big parties are in the pockets of the likes of Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc, who want to track the shit out of you with GCHQ's help. Labour want a country where your rights end where my feelings begin. Conservatives want to turn everybody C of E, and use most of the "think of the children" talk to censor things they don't like. And the only other party that comes close, UKIP, would burn all of our international bridges and turn us into a backward hermit-like nation.
>There is not hope for Britain.
Got the numbers for that? Because Edward Wolff's federal Reserve analysis showed that something like the richest 1% inherited only 10% of their wealth (2001), and I'll be willing to bet the 2014 data is similar, certainly nowhere near more than half.
Blue blood man. Class is a pretty obsolete term anyway.
I'm thinking about roman class how the aristocracy were clearly in a different class to the mercantile class, but the merchants were just as rich, if not richer.
But the point is how much wealth do you really need? At what point does your wealth concentration damage the society that enabled you to amass that vast amount of money?
>think up some more while filling out the captcha
>you hit a post hotkey when you think you're actually typing in the message box
How well is the 4chan wilderness working for you?
Make a post consisting of the word "more" on a thread on /b/ with fully clothed teens and get banned for a day. Replying to the fucking threads gets you banned.
And they money in those accounts isn't hoarded there like the rich are fucking Smaug. They do something with it. They may not re-invest into the economy they made their money in (although their companies/partners/subsidiaries, etc will still make money for the origin country) but it will be spent somewhere. And if they pas it on to children or children's children, they will spend it, too. Sometimes investing in more business or blowing it on dream houses, but they're still spending.
gee wiz why am I not surprised?
>Factors such as race, ethnicity, national origin, or religious affiliation alone are not suspicious. For that reason, the public should report only suspicious behavior and situations (e.g., an unattended backpack in a public place or someone trying to break into a restricted area) rather than beliefs, thoughts, ideas, expressions, associations, or speech unrelated to terrorism or other criminal activity. Only reports that document behavior reasonably indicative of criminal activity related to terrorism will be shared with federal partners.
Not defending the american goverment or saying they are not justifying their budget by making scarecrows but they are not as near as a police state as the UK
No, they really don't. Except for the very top squirrel that is afraid that other squirrels will want to steal from him, the squirrels want to get to the top.
Oh, so it is an Anglo-Saxon thing. I don't live in any of those uncountries, but from down here it really seems Airstrip One is a special nasty kind of fuck up.
This is what the government wants you to believe. Literally. When silkroad 2.0 was taken down, the media reported that tor was broken. It wasn't. He left his real name on the silkroad server.
When that 81% of tor users can be deanonymised thing came out, the media reported it as if tor was broken. It wasn't. The study was a simulated attack, not an actual attack. The simulation was done under the premise that an attacker had complete control over the network.
The NSA still hates tor.
And so they will tell you not to use it.
Don't believe them.
The UK is fanatically brainwashed on a lot of things, thanks to Rupert Murdoch
He uses it to attack his enemies, any accusation of pedophilia and it ruins someone's life. He recently used thus tactic on the BBC, coming out with total shit about Saville to punish the BBC for wrecking one of his horrid papers
Do you know he used to have 3 fucking papers in the UK, all pretending to be for certain groups? Then he uses each group to further his goals
>Call someone who can't defend themselves on account of being dead a paedo.
>Dag a bunch of his still living friends through the mud, only manage to make accusations stick to a *very* small number, but ruin carrers anyway.
>I'm sure Saville was a total beast of a man goys! Not made up nonesense.
Watch out for shows that will have dialogue like this:
>Ah! He's using Tor
>can you crack it?
>with a 16 bit encryption matrix, it's a 64kB data buffer to solve!
>I mean yes, but it'll take a few hours
I did know, actually. His journalists have been known to blackmail people (sources) into revealing information about people, one I remember was the threat "We'll publish something about you"- the something being an affair or something like that. Doesn't matter if it's true, if it's in a newspaper people will believe it. And so the journalist gets dirt on someone else with the threat of throwing dirt.
>inb4 that one CSI show where its two people using the same keyboard so that they can "counter the hacks faster"
or another instance
>oh man we can't hack the password to this phone to get those secret documents!
meanwhile if you just plug in the phone as an external device you can access any of the documents so long as its not encrypted
another fancy one
>I got their IP address, hacking now!
Don't forget it's easy to find people willing to sell their stories about how they were molested
My point wasn't quite the technononsense that the shows use, that's not a big deal, my point was that the technononsense would give people the impression that software like tor was unreliable and only used by criminals (which then why is it used by criminals?). Okay contradiction aside, people are fed impressions rather than facts.
>linux is for hackers
>that "doxxing" is some huge ass crime when its so fucking easy to do because millenials put ALL their information on the internet
>he hacked my account
your password was easy as fuck to guess
>he stole my information
you put it out there for everyone to see
>they doxxed me and they mailed me death threats
you put your information on the internet to such an incredibly degree that anyone with a little googling can effectively find anyone's address
I want to share a personal experience of when I was younger:
When I was younger I played Diablo 2. (I still do). I fell for one of those social engineering password stealing things which tricked me into doing something like /msg *passwordsupport <user> <pass> like a fucking idiot. I told my friends that I got 'hacked' because I was embarrassed at being such a moron.
So this is what influences my judgement on when I see people claim they got hacked.
I kept sending emails and letters to the BBC about that and the other biased GG articles they ran on BBC news.
Harassment and threats to go to a paper about BBC bias does curb them. I haven't seen shit about GG since on the BBC
>I haven't seen shit about GG since on the BBC
I think that was more due to the hot air everyone was blowing flying away. It was an emotionally driven shitstorm based on misunderstandings, and once the emotions cooled, people stopped caring.
I like the one where some filthy slut does a porno shoot and then screeches about invasion of privacy and nudes leaking when people post the freely available pics that they themselves put on the fucking internet.
GG is still ongoing and still making huge hits against Gawker and it's not being reported any more
The liberals at the BBC took the opportunity to peddle their agenda while they could and it backfired
there was a NY senator who wanted to make it that people had to post their names with their IP's which didn't mean fuck because you can enter what ever name you want and use what ever IP you can get your hands on so it didn't mean diddly squat
> Except for the very top squirrel that is afraid that other squirrels
Say you work hard gathering nuts for winter then some fucking squirrel comes along and tells you have to give 10% of your nuts away because he worked out where you hide them what would you do?
>costing a huge and cancerous network peddling filth to millions of users money
>millions of dollars in fact
H-hold yourself to a higher s-standard, Gawker is n-nothing
Back to bed SJW
You guys know that the NSA can't even compromise tor, right? They've tried a lot of things including some fairly complicated timing analysis techniques. Silk road was brought down because of DPR's idiocy and lack of opsec.
hey, look, I know you think you're high after swallowing that much nutmeg and so you think you have to post stupid shit on the internet, but you really don't. PS: you have to be 18+ to be here
All hidden services shut down during Operation Onymous were hosted in the same 2 hosting providers, one in Germany and the other one in Bulgaria.
SR2 had an infiltrated agent, after a year they managed to dox the individual and knew info about the server location (Bulgaria), they inspected the servers and found many other Hidden services, which were all taken down. Some of them even had private keys stored from other hidden services, which allowed them to search for sites on Germany (the other provider), the websites which werent taken down because it wasnt hosted in these 2 places were Pink Meth and THW, because doxbin had the private keys of both on its server. Now doxbin and Pink Meth are back, the police couldnt get any info from those guys.
It's funny because half of parliament and BBC presenters are most likely secret pedos
You're thinking of Salad/Noise
>Hope is a negative emotion. Refer to Pandora's box.
I never got that out of that story, although I read it in the original Latin in a class.
Now I'm less hopeful. I thought the box just contained anything.
probably. Australia is even worse. The politicians have their own tiny little state set aside for the australian government (australian capital territory) and it's also the porn capital of australia. Figure that one out.
It had all evils contained inside it. All fled away to wreak havoc in the world when they found men again, but hope, that was too heavy to escape and always stayed close to every men's heart.
I guess you wouldn't believe me if I said I had a gf, so I won't bother
I still have hope about something in particular that gets to me everyday, but now I don't like the hope as much.
Emotions being positive or negative depend on each culture. For a modern example, see ambition.
Fun fact: back in the days, melancholy was one of the seven deadly sins. Over time, perhaps because of endemic occurrence inside monasteries - why did I throw my life away? - it morphed into sloth.
Hope, the expectation of the impossible to happen without base on reality, indeed is bad.
>Hope, the expectation of the impossible to happen without base on reality, indeed is bad.
Okay. I'm glad my hopes have some basis in reality.
I just hope the research fucking progresses enough in the next few years. It's supposed to.
what the fuck do you need TOR for?
TOR is literally useless and 90% of what goes on in darknet is disgusting and stupid.
>inb4 gubbament gon take our webnets, long live TOR viva peru ect ect ect
It's okay if you're a worthless human being.
For the rest of humanity who isn't worthless, having privacy against those who want to threaten us is important.
Nothing to lose nothing to hide.
because thats what you are you fedora tipping faggot.
Obviously peadophilia is a bad thing, but I don't see it as a great of a threat as the news in the UK would have you believe. I tried explaining this to my friends, saying that focusing efforts and funds on the peado witch hunt was misplaced. And that the total, merciless persecution of paedos is over board. I made the point that life sentences for the ownership of "just a couple of photos" was harsh. Instead, offenders should be given psychological help as long as they haven't acted on their perversions, possibly excluding a cheeky want every now and then. Maybe a decrease in stiff sentences and social stigma would encourage more peadophiles and other individuals with abnormal fetishes would step forward and receive the help they need.
My new nickname among my friend group is "just a couple of photos". Normalfags really have been brain washed.
Instead of focusing on the moral issues- which normies don't give a shit about because they don't think pedos are human, and would just as willingly line them up in ditches and shoot them as the nazis would do to jews and soviets, but about how denying pedos help is actually risking children's safety too.
Pedos cannot get help in the current system. Health workers are legally obliged to consider any pedo a threat to children, and as such have to report them to the police. Incoming sex offender registry, arrests, computers seized, family disrupted, and then jail time if they find anything, and beaten to death in the street if they don't and they send you back home.
With that kind of future to someone who wants to not molest kids but are inflicted with the urges to do so, how is this not endangering children?
there was a thread yesterday. it's not traffic, it's requests to the HSDir, or something like that...
this is the presentation: http://streaming.media.ccc.de/relive/6112/ (video)
read the comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8816013
it should be listed here in a couple days: http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/
stop using buzzwords, you fucking faggots
>Was this thought to be techno babble or were they just mocking people?
I've heard that they purposefully make it inaccurate, but you can never know if they're lying about that or not.
>the tweet could constitute an offence under The Communications Act
Britbongistan is now officially a sharia and sjw state. Don't hurt my feels or sharia or else you will be fucking stoned to death, non-muslim cis-scum.
And rich people can just fuck off the country while most people cant yet are being taxed as "the rich", the problem is taxation itself and government thinking your money its actually theirs and you're lucky to keep some, but only if you are a good anon.
Fuck that shit, why tax anyways, were far past money being something in limited quantities, why not just make government print its spending money instead of taking it from people, that way inflation would be a function of gov spending.
Hell they dont even need to pay for the paper since we're moving towards digital currency which reflects the productivity of the people of that country anyways.
Am I the only one who wants UKIP to be elected?
I mean obviously I'm not, they've won a couple seats in bi elections.
But who else thinks they, even with all the far right horseshit, actually want to do something.
I mean I don't necessarily agree with everything they want to do, but it's something.
Better than nothing and using good old British optimism and making big issues out of shit nobody really cares about or wants to happen in order to appear as if they're actually doing something.