Total wiretapping is being introduced - page 15
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I don't know why you are so concerned about this law, but in my opinion, the devil is not as black as you make it out to be. Most users don't know what a firewall is and most certainly don't use encryption.
If it is not even the fastest policy of a country's regime to develop and improve the lives of all citizens, then for such weak countries, the restriction is to protect the regime from external forces, which may nevertheless act within the country as well.
And for your example, limitation is the regime's protection from its own citizens. For me, the restriction can be considered both evil and good, while for you the restriction is evil in any case, if I understood correctly.
Or you consider only the second variant, and I see more the first.
Given the realities and traditions in the area, this law will open new opportunities for corruption schemes
I wouldn't be surprised if after a while there was an unofficial data viewing service
Phew, what in the world are you talking about. The GSM protocol originally had homemade 64-bit encryption. To clarify, there are open encryption protocols in the world, mostly asymmetric. That is, the source code is open and there are constant competitions for hackers to crack the message. Huge computing power is required to crack the key by brute force. There is sort of hope for quantum computers just for hacking.
And it is always thought that it is the openness of the protocol that ensures its security, as hackers pick at it and try to find vulnerabilities in the algorithm. If the algorithm is clean, but the computer power for decryption is increased, just increase the key length and that's it.
When designing GSM, they thought that by making a proprietary algorithm, they would be better protected. Wrong, the algorithm was hacked 10-15 years ago (I don't remember exactly).
like that,
1 for now what we know is that the law is passed
2 tariffs haven't gone up yet.
3 the internet audience is on the rise
what is the purpose of the law? to fight terror!
Does anyone know, for instance, that BANKS have been fighting terrorism for over 15 years and have not complained - even though it would seem that this is not their function.
What is important - cases of real blockades and real reports to competent authorities have been recorded - and it may well be that some of us are alive now!
But they could have abstrusely criticized it and said how bad it all was!
The only bad thing that can be bad is a possible increase in tariffs.
Is it bad that someone reads us? Oh my god - you have to be a complete idiot not to understand that any of our e-mail can read for example the administrator of the host where our mailbox lives.
Any "private" message can become available to someone else.
a lot of emotion
the whole value of the law breaks down when attackers start using end-to-end encryption for messages
I'm exactly against the majority deciding their own fate. I'm in favour of the introduction of electoral qualifications (property, education, etc). History is replete with examples of people simply being misled, realizing that the majority is simply incapable of deeply analyzing even what they've just been told. There are very few truly educated people, even a diploma or degree is no indicator. There is no knowledge. And where knowledge ends, faith begins. Do you believe that two times two is five? An educated person KNOWS, but the rest (those same 80%), will say "well, I guess so, I guess I believe it". Some of them will simply be afraid of being called ignorant, the rest of them will simply be afraid of being called ignorant because they cannot prove otherwise.
As for "the majority does not support them", Kozma Prutkov wrote back in the mid-19th century: "People are like sausages. What they are stuffed with, they carry inside them." Remember Gaddafi - I remember people had fun celebrating his birthday in the streets, and almost a month later they stuck a shovel shaft in one place.
And this is a recent example - Brexit. The decision was entrusted to ordinary people who had no clue whatsoever about the issue.And then you watch a report where they ask the British people about how they voted and why. Many cannot clearly explain why they voted that way, they mumble vaguely. It looks like "everyone ran and I ran".
In such a scenario, those who are more visible on TV and who have more populist slogans will always win.
It's fine, I love cats and cats, and it's mutual.) I used to have a cat myself, Vasya.
We're not creating fears here, we're trying to analyse the situation from different angles. And I'm happy to see many interesting opinions expressed.
My opinion right now is this. In Russia, the economic downturn continues. For two years now, there has been a decline in trade in the food industry, by 5% a year on average. That is, people have started saving on food, with the range changing towards cheap ersatz products. I've written before, a month ago there was a wave of cheap cheese bars like Druzhba with an ultra-low price, what are they made of - a mystery. But they sell well, I asked my salesgirls. I shop there myself and I can see this trend in the regular supermarkets.
Now the question is how to draw attention away from economic problems? It is necessary to make a powerful splash and then remove it. The State Duma elections are in September. The czar needs his United Russia to win. Let's see what happens next.
Again, I'm not a Globe and I'm not predicting anything, this is just one version.
Hello cat (as I understand from your words, it's Dama :)
So it's a false move, first to scare everyone and then let them go?
But the main "electorate" is far from it.
The masses are mostly concerned with their own survival.
So the authorities can listen to GSM now?
Even you can listen if you have the money ) The tricky ones used to cost a few kilobucks, apparently everything is cheaper now. It's for the signal from a specific phone and you have to be on the same cell.
Secondly, about 5 years ago, traffic from the cell to the central station was channelled through a radio channel (those white narrow and tall rectangles, usually on tall houses) with no encryption at all. That is, it was possible to listen to all conversations in the cell without any decryption. How it is now - I don't know, I suspect it remains that way.
The traffic from the cell to the central station was channelled through a radio channel (those white narrow and tall rectangles, usually on tall houses) without any encryption at all. That is, you could listen to all conversations in the cell without any decryption. How it is now - I don't know, I suspect it still is.
These narrow white ones are the honeycomb itself. Chased on a radio relay - it's basically either a small jammed dish, or an almost flat cylinder of small diameter with the same dish in it.
Well, that is the main answer to those who raise a fuss about wiretaps!
The telephone was and is being listened to by everyone who bothers to listen - you just need some money for a more or less decent scanner :-)
the internet was readable in the past and they have been read and are still being read
Well, that is the main answer to those who raise a fuss about wiretaps!
The telephone was and is being listened to by everyone who bothers to listen - you just need some money for a more or less decent scanner :-)
the internet was readable in the past and they have been read and are still being read