[Closed] Which websites have you visited?

There's always a trace left somewhere. Just using such a service anyway will flag you up under the new laws. While logging your entire history has been scrapped (but only without a warrant), basic service access will be. Tor is another one. You can use it anonymously but accessing it will be logged and that makes you someone to be on a list to keep an eye on. And then can you trust the services anyway?

I'm guessing people who need security will continue to use Tor until convinced otherwise.

FYI that piece of crap you linked to doesn't support https so is about as secure as just handing out your details to all and sundry on the street.

Blimey what sites do you guys frequent. Ah, it's a secret.

None really, I've played with Tor more from curiosity than anything else but have no real need to use it. Using it to cover your grot habits is overkill (unless its seriously grotty) due to the amount of lag in videos. Useless for torrenting as well.

What law? 😐

Pff, everyone knows i'm into bisexual fainting goat snuff.

The classic response to "why worry unless you've got something to hide is "well, if you've got nothing to hide, you won't mind if I come round and watch you having sex". Here it's watching you have a ****. Government policy inspired by punchlines.

This sort of thing makes me want to use masking just for purely innocent stuff. Possibly while leaving lots of uninnocent stuff in clear, just to rouse extra suspicion, so they can dedicate intelligence resources to seeing me argue with people in youtube comments.

Kind of my thoughts, NW. Clearly the site I linked to is in my browsing history for today because I went there checking my link (I wasn't suggesting using it for secure stuff, there are similar alternatives which will do that though, but it would do perfectly well for anything non secure you didn't want them to know about). I'm not sure the lawmakers have a clue about the way the internet works - what worries me is that presumably somebody behind this law does which implies some reason for it they're not admitting to.

They might keep a watch on you if you use Tor (or less secure proxies), but I'm not sure using a proxy is sufficient grounds to get a warrant so all they'll know is that you use proxies.

This sort of thing makes me want to use masking just for purely innocent stuff. Possibly while leaving lots of uninnocent stuff in clear, just to rouse extra suspicion, so they can dedicate intelligence resources to seeing me argue with people in youtube comments.

A few well placed hashtags, the odd inappropriate pun here and there, and they'll all be too busy scanning the "what tyre" threads on here to put any real paedo's away!

Joking aside though, as is always the case, the dedicated criminals and perverts will just have to get a bit wiser so they don't get caught. Nobody's likely to admit it under peer pressure, but a huge percentage of the population are likely to use a bit of light visual stimulation (often on their computer) to aid with a routine ham shank once in a while. In a world where 13yo girls (yes really, a mate nearly fell foul once in a nightclub!) can doll themselves up and go out drinking and pull middle aged men, how do you know that your last visual aid was actually over the age of consent or not?

The whole situation is just like the classification of Cannabis as a class B drug. It was done in the hope that it would lead to more serious class A convictions, where all it really did was give plenty of otherwise totally innocent people that were having a bit of relatively harmless fun (smoking is bad for you remember, but that's a different argument), ended up with an unjust criminal record.

we run https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/ on all devices simply because I genuinely believe that wiretapping peoples internet usage is a gross invasion of privacy and I know full well that BT are not to be trusted under any circumstances.

Privacy is a right that is very easy to lose and almost impossible to regain.

I have no desire to have people watch me have sex. I don't care whether the government knows what sites I **** off to. The two are totally different issues. Never understood why so many on here confuse the two.

I don't care if the government know which sites I'm jacking off to, as long as the missus doesn't find out which bikes sites I'm looking at 😯

I'm guessing the taxman wants to track Internet banking access especially offshore accounts

I personally thought the Aussies had a great system where they check the mortgage applications of people especially self employed who declare to the taxman much smaller incomes than they do when applying for a loan

mark90 - Member
I don't care if the government know which sites I'm jacking off to, as long as the missus doesn't find out which bikes sites I'm looking at
POSTED 5 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

This

I have no desire to have people watch me have sex. I don't care whether the government knows what sites I **** off to. The two are totally different issues. Never understood why so many on here confuse the two.

I can tell a lot about you from that comment, chiefly that you don't have many sexual tastes that could be described as 'kinky'.

Extreme BDSM images and practices are actually illegal under UK law, extreme being any act that counts as an assault (branding*, mutilation, beating of the genitals eg. riding crop to a breast or penis) even where both parties have given full consent. Under the proposed law it's reasonable to assume such 'deviants' would then be liable for prosecution not only for partaking in such activities behind closed doors but for finding out how to do so safely. A google search for "operation spanner" will yeild a lot more info about this messed up piece of legislation that says two consenting adults cannot partake in certain sexual acts that are, in the correct setting completely safe but in the rest of their free times can take part in boxing or UFC.

So no, it's not a seperate issue, not really.

*unless, confusingly, the particpants are married.

So no, it's not a seperate issue, not really.

Well not if you want to find a tedious way to link them together, no.

I'm guessing people who need security [s] will continue to use Tor until convinced otherwise[/s] hasn't used electronic communications for some time now...

Well not if you want to find a tedious way to link them together, no.

Tedious? Not really. Tenuous? Not that either. You want to keep your private life private or you don't.

Tedious? Not really. Tenuous? Not that either.

Of course it is.

How can possibly link the interest to letting seeing someone getting busy with it? I know lets say searching for tips, yeah that'll do.

[quote=Drac spake unto the masses, saying]
How can possibly link the interest to letting seeing someone getting busy with it? I know lets say searching for tips, yeah that'll do.

Well, I can't parse that reply, but let me ask a question anyway: what is your objection to people seeing you having sex?

what is your objection to people seeing you having sex?

I haven't objected. 😆

[quote=Drac spake unto the masses, saying]
I haven't objected.

🙂

A serious answer.

The point is they are separate issue, you can object against one or the other or both. Trying to link them is pretty pointless.

The point is they are separate issue, you can object against one or the other or both. Trying to link them is pretty pointless.

Well, seriously, I disagree. There are things I do that are legal but which I prefer other people don't know about. I can't see why I don't have the right to assume that those things will remain private.

Yeah I'm not disagreeing with that.

The point is they are separate issue, you can object against one or the other or both. Trying to link them is pretty pointless.

Knowing what I get off to is a pretty good indicator of what I get up to is it not? So based on that, is it not fair to surmise that people of certain persuasions may not be too happy with the fact that their sexual preferences may be held against them at some point?

The fact of the matter is neither are anyones business but myself and those I choose to participate with, I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about that. As DrJ said, you either want to keep your private life private or you don't.

I'm guessing people who need security [s]will continue to use Tor until convinced otherwise[/s] hasn't used electronic communications for some time now...

Care to qualify that?

As far as I'm aware as long as you're not running an exit node then you are relatively safe. Run a relay and you have security through obscurity.