Heavy VPN users are probably pirates, says BBC BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the BBC that markets its products around the world, has told Australia's government that heavy users of “IP obfuscation tools” are so suspicious that internet service providers (ISPs) should consider them as likely content pirates. The organisation states that case in a submission (PDF) to …
Yes. BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the BBC rather than the Beeb itself. It has a duty to maximise its revenues for the benefit of the BBC and ultimately the British licence payer.
On the other hand, this does seem a ham-fisted approach. Even with a VPN the endpoints are visible which provides a lot more clues than this submission suggests. If you spend the working day VPNed into a major employer with a lot of valuable IP it's a fair assumption you are telecommuting or remoting in for some other legitimate purpose. This is true regardless of how much traffic flows back and forth.
There are a few justifiable reasons for the "VPN service" providers that encrypt the first hop after which it reverts to clear text but be fair, that isn't how they are marketed, or why most of them are bought. That is to evade blocks and/or provide a layer of anonymity for illegitimate traffic of various forms.
Ignoring that simple and easily made distinction suggests fuck all thought has actually gone in to this rather than a knee-jerk "We have to protect our property" response. Fuck all is thus the amount of weight it should receive when reaching policy decisions. Sadly it doesn't seem to work like that.
Dear downvoter: I have a question for you.
What is the difference between saying "heavy downloaders are probably pirates" and "black people in baggy clothes are probably shoplifters?"
Where does the burden of proof lie? On the internet subscriber? Or on the accuser? Are we innocent unless proven "probably" guilty? Or are we guilty until proven "probably" innocent?
Please, do explain your logic.
Not just journalists Trevor, when I work from home, I am required to use a VPN to access the company network.
Likewise, our support department has around 200 VPNs set up to allow them to access our customer networks, to allow them access to the servers we look after and to remote onto problem machines to sort them out.
All of those must be moving pirated Only Fools and Horses around! Idiots!
This post has been deleted by its author
@loopy lou
A professional journalist is also something of a historian. We know damned well that nothing begins and ends exact where we are told it must be considered. Everything chain reacts. Considerations of this one event must take into account the inevitable scope creep. The loss of mission. How humans - in their very human way - will rapidly let this get out of control.
And mark my fucking words, if we allow laws to be passed that demand we prove what is in our tunnels, going to jail for refusing - or for what's in them - will happen very quickly.
"if we allow laws to be passed that demand we prove what is in our tunnels, going to jail for refusing - or for what's in them - will happen very quickly."
We're pretty much already there, what with having to reveal passwords for any encrypted files we might have.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989
The difference is that shoplifting is a criminal act of theft, and home copyright infringement isn't.
Drink-driving isn't a "criminal act of theft" either, does that mean it's OK?
The pointless argument about whether making an illegal copy is theft, or some other offence, is irrelevant. It's against the law, until and unless you get the law changed. Live with it and stop making specious anonymous excuses.
quote: "Drink-driving isn't a "criminal act of theft" either, does that mean it's OK?
The pointless argument about whether making an illegal copy is theft, or some other offence, is irrelevant. It's against the law, until and unless you get the law changed. Live with it and stop making specious anonymous excuses."
Actually the point being made, is that anyone who owns a car and is seen to be making frequent trips to the pub, should be considered a potential drink driver, and that there should be "mechanisms in place" to automatically determine if they were actually sober when making the journey. If those mechanisms cannot determine if the driver was definitely sober, then they should be assumed to be a drink-driver and the appropriate measures taken.
Guilty until proven innocent is just one part of this erosion of public rights, the other being the automatic, warrantless inspection and data gathering of all the driving public as a whole.
Presumption of guilt automatically makes it "to be avoided" in my opinion. Any system based upon a presumption of guilt inevitably ends up as Judge Death or some facsimile thereof.
Believe it or not, BBC Worldwide would agree with the assertions that you're innocent until proven guilty, and there are many legitimate reasons to use VPNs.
All they ask is that ISPs should (and they even offer to share the costs of doing this) take steps to identify customers who are likely to be abusing the system. Then they send warnings and "education" notices. Before any kind of "punishment" is applied (e.g. bandwidth throttling), the user should have several opportunities to appeal, state their case, and the whole thing be reviewed by an independent authority.
If that's not enough safeguards, what exactly would satisfy you people?
(Cue downvotes, if anyone is still even reading this far down the hatethread.)
"The pointless argument about whether making an illegal copy is theft, or some other offence, is irrelevant. It's against the law"
No - no it isn't. It's not illegal to just download or stream. Only to distribute. If you think that's not the case, then find me a single case of anyone prosecuted just for downloading ever in the UK?
' but I should go to jail because the beeb thinks that's "suspicious"? '
They are stating there should be mechanisms to verify that the traffic is legitimate, so in honesty I'd say you're being a bit dramatic there. Be punished if it's found to be illegitimate would seem to be more accurate to me. The determination/proof of legitimacy and how that works with journalistic confidentiality (or whatever - I don't know how these things work,) in your and other journalists' cases is likely to be thorny, obviously. I suppose the VMs might be presented as a cause for concern.
-- Edit - this isn't a response to your complaint about the downvote; that wasn't me.
"They are stating there should be mechanisms to verify that the traffic is legitimate,"
So I am guilty unless proven innocent, and that's perfectly okay with you? what's more, I have no rights to confidentiality, anonymity, privacy or protecting my sources? As soon as I am suspected of copyright infringement all my other rights disappear unless I prove that my traffic was legitimate?
And if the traffic I am working with is the next Snowden release? Or proof of corruption in the office of the ISP criminality investigator? What if I what I am transferring is my collection of personal sex tapes? Investigators and/or copyright holders have the right to view all of this at their whim because of their accusation that I am a copyright infringer?
They have zero proof of anything if I am using an encrypted tunnel. Zero. Merely accusations.
And what will happen to you if you're VPNing while black? Summary executions? Jesus H mother of almighty Christ, man...the scope of what you suggest terrifies me.
"So I am guilty unless proven innocent, and that's perfectly okay with you? "
Nope, it's not okay and I never claimed it was. You talked about going to jail because of suspicion, which wasn't what they said, either. That's what I was addressing with my first statement.
"what's more, I have no rights to confidentiality, anonymity, privacy or protecting my sources?"
This coming from the man who some time back threatened to - can't remember it verbatim - "use everything within my power to find your real name and name and shame you" with regard to another AC because you didn't like what he was saying. Should I accuse you of thinking anonymity's OK only so long as it's something you approve of, then?
"And if the traffic I am working with is the next Snowden release? Or proof of corruption in the office of the ISP criminality investigator? What if I what I am transferring is my collection of personal sex tapes? Investigators and/or copyright holders have the right to view all of this at their whim because of their accusation that I am a copyright infringer?"
Again, not what I said.
"They have zero proof of anything if I am using an encrypted tunnel. Zero. Merely accusations."
Yes - I know, thanks.
"And what will happen to you if you're VPNing while black? Summary executions? Jesus H mother of almighty Christ, man...the scope of what you suggest terrifies me."
I know you like to post things to evoke emotions in people, but really ... And again, I'm not agreeing with what the Beeb said, just pointing out you were misrepresenting it.
"This coming from the man who some time back threatened to - can't remember it verbatim - "use everything within my power to find your real name and name and shame you" with regard to another AC because you didn't like what he was saying. Should I accuse you of thinking anonymity's OK only so long as it's something you approve of, then?"
You're free to accuse me of anything you like, but the difference here is that I have no more access than that anonymous coward. I must unmask him through unearthing sources, analyzing his writing, catching him up. I don't get to use overarching superpowers to track his IP address, snoop on his login capabilities or so forth.
I have to build a case. Find evidence. Prove who he is hte hard way and that what he is saying is wrong. I am the accuser and the burden of proof in that regard is on me. As it should be.
Is anonymity sacrosanct? No. But this is the difference between a targeted investigation and a dragnet. I have a suspicion that someone is using anonymity on the internet to disseminate falsehoods, outright lies, and subtle misinformation. I believe that his actions are dangerous and detrimental to society as a whole, but my suspicion does not give me the right to superpowers and I have to investigate and build a case.
Once I have my case to hand, I do entirely intend to go to those who have their finger on the button and demand something be done. But I refuse to ask them to use their access to pull his records and information to bypass his anonymity. That's the bridge too far.
"I know you like to post things to evoke emotions in people, but really ... And again, I'm not agreeing with what the Beeb said, just pointing out you were misrepresenting it."
I don't see how. The beeb said that if we use a VPN tunnel combined with heavy usage we should be considered copyright infringers and have to prove that our traffic is legitimate. You agreed with this.
That means you are saying that we should accept being considered guilty unless proven innocent. That suspicion by a power-that-is is enough to shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. You can try to doll it up as much as you like, but the instant you demand that anyone "verify that their traffic is legitimate" as opposed to force the accuser to prove that the traffic is illegitimate you have created a system whereby we are all guilty until proven innocent.
If you want to create a system wherein "VPN + heavy usage" is viewed as a valid reason to open an investigation into an account, well...I won't like it, but I can't really counter that one easily, either. That investigation should then have to gather and provide evidence before taking action. It should at no point have the right to force someone to "prove their traffic is legitimate."
Ask for such proof? Sure. Even inform them that failure to provide such proof will mean that the investigation moves from a casual bit of bureaucracy into something more detailed. But failure to prove what they are pushing through the tunnel should never be a reason to take any action beyond "further investigation" and it absolutely shouldn't be used as a rationale for sanctions.
This is the fine line that is being danced around here. I don't claim to be the living embodiment of perfect morality or ethics...but by $deity I'm nowhere near so fucked up as to say "VPN + heavy usage = prove your innocence".
I'm going to go out and get myself a pair of baggy pants and a VPN!
Don't laugh. I'm not just trying to feel young again. I think that the age group who reacts to the world like that, is indeed aware of the current injustices and will move on. Those old farts at the BBC and MPAA and so on, aren't going to be around for ever.
"You're free to accuse me of anything you like, but the difference here is that I have no more access than that anonymous coward. I must unmask him through unearthing sources, analyzing his writing, catching him up. "
And this would prove what? That you stalk people you disagree with and NetKop them? You're proud of this? All because *you* claim what the AC sez is wrong? Doesn't the AC have the right to his opinions or take on matters? Or is it just you that have that right?
Might I suggest you make your case, refute his points and let the marketplace of ideas pick the winner. You sound more than a bit obessive...
"And this would prove what? That you stalk people you disagree with and NetKop them? You're proud of this? All because *you* claim what the AC sez is wrong? Doesn't the AC have the right to his opinions or take on matters? Or is it just you that have that right?
Might I suggest you make your case, refute his points and let the marketplace of ideas pick the winner. You sound more than a bit obessive..."
Freedom of speech isn't absolute. It never has been. And when what you say becomes actually dangerous laws in virtually every country allow for action to be taken. I honestly believe that the AC in question's bold-faced falsehoods are a danger to readers. That leaves me with two moral choices: challenge him at every turn (which is impossible, as he appears to be paid to astroturf full time, whereas I have work to do) or put the effort in to prove he's violating the rules and have him censured.
Similarly, the "marketplace of ideas" concept only works if both sides are being forthright (or at least as forthright as they know how to be.) When one party to a debate is outright lying and has zero moral compunction about doing so then they can say anything and proving it becomes nearly impossible, especially if they manage to be vague and weaselly enough about what they're saying.
What's more, most of my family are shrinks. The tools and techniques of manipulation and coercion are fairly well known to me. They are deployed by this individual with great skill.
In addition, who you are matters a great deal in the arguments you present. When a lot of what you are presenting is forceful opinion as opposed to dry facts that can be dispassionately analyzed the individual spouting the opinion matters.
So, unless you are one of those people who (wrongly) believe that all humans are impervious to manipulation and coercion, that we are all perfectly rational individuals who always make rational choices (provable bullshit, by the way) then what this fellow is up to very, very wrong. I am attempting to gather enough evidence to prove it.
Let's say I see a car park itself just outside my condo complex every single night and stay there, engine running, for 12 hours a night, every night. People come up to the car, the window is rolled down, some furtive movements that look like items being exchanged occur and the person leaves. Dozens of people interact with this car ever single night for weeks. The car is always in the same place.
Let's say that I get the license plate number, perhaps some video of the exchanges, and maybe even proof that exchanges with minors. I wait patiently and get a few shots of the faces of the folks in the car. I then check this against publicly available databases for local gangbangers in an attempt to determine which of the various local police forces and/or which specific task force I should bring the information to in order to achieve the quickest response.
Is that stalking? Or being through? Or should no citizen ever report such things because that's a violation of the rights of the drug dealer?
As far as I'm concerned, analyzing the actions of the drug dealer while they are in public, in front of my condo complex is not stalking. Following the bugger home could be stalking, and not something I'd do. But gathering intel on their activities in public in front of my home, and then figuring out A) should something be done about this B) who the hell are these people and C) who best to report this to all seems perfectly rational to me.
And thus it is with the anonymous coward in question. I believe that what he is doing is reprehensible. Not because "disagreeing with Trevor Pott" is somehow bad - for the love of $deity, please disagree with about things! I'm no bastion of perfection or absolute integrity! - but because of a combination of the techniques used and the sheer volume of posts.
In point of fact, the scope of the operation is part of the issue. It is a fairly well known group psychology technique that the more you repeat something (and the more you repeat it under differing circumstances) the more you can convince people of anything, even if it is demonstrably false. If you encounter a lie told as truth at every turn you will eventually accept it as truth, often questioning your own sanity and/or perception of the world at large.
This is one of the reason astroturfing campaigns are so viciously effective. Look at - for example - the Tea Party. The entire thing was functionally a Kotch Bothers propaganda arm funded by them through FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity and a few other outfits. They through massive amounts of money and manpower at it and it succeeded beyond their wildest dreams*.
Personally, I like a good, vigorous debate. A great example is this thread. There are people disagreeing with me here and I think that's a good thing. Many of you have valid points, and they need to be raised. My morality and ethics deserve questioning just as much as anyone else', and - believe it or not - I do honestly consider the points made by those arguing in opposition to the views I present.
That doesn't mean that I have been convinced that I am wrong - so far on the topics in this thread, I have not been so convinced - but I believe that you are all right to raise the issues and let others decide. I am just as capable of hypocrisy and simply outright being wrong as anyone else out there.
With the exception of when someone hides their bullshit under the anonymous coward button, if I find someone particularly annoying (say, for exmaple, jake), then I can simply "ignore" them. It's a feature us "gold vultures" get. And that's a great solution to folks like Matt Bryant or jake.
These are annoying twatdangles that irritate the piss out of me, but they don't present their arguments using the tricks of the psychomanipulative trade. More to the point, they have the courage to allow their comments to be consistently attached to a single pesudonym, so their commenting history can be easily reviewed and someone reading the tripe they have on offer can make an informed decision about believe (or not) what they have to say. (Something, BTW, that the anonymous coward very purposefully prevents by using the AC button for every single post.)
I believe very strongly that we all have an ethical duty to one another. The Register's comments section is a community. One where the "police" are overburdened and only get to attend to issues on a very part time basis.
The last time I raised an issue about a commenter with the powers that be (Eadon) they nuked the individual completely. Not just a suspension, or even a ban, but an actual nuke. Expunged everything the person ever wrote from the database.
That wasn't what I wanted at all. I was thinking a suspension was a good plan for the simple fact that the individual in question was attacking the writers of the publication, and going way overboard. Sadly, it was long enough ago I don't remember too many of the details - just the broad strokes - and by nuking the entire posting history I can't just call it up and say "here are the hundred or so posts over a two day span that made me raise the flag".
In this case we have an AC I think is a dozen times as much of an issue as Eadon ever could have been, in that I honestly and truly believe this AC is setting out to manipulate and coerce people to their detriment. But I don't believe in simply asking the overburdened "police" of this little community to Ferguson the fellow because that's easiest. Instead, I intent to learn from my mistakes by gathering the evidence, making my case and seeking a rational and proportionate response.
Now, if if you have a problem with the above, that's your right. But at least take the time to understand the situation beyond the mundane simplicities of easily digested "sound bites".
*See http://www.npr.org/2011/02/25/134040226/in-wis-union-battle-focus-on-billionaire-brothers and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers for a decent overview. "Five years ago, my brother Charles and I provided the funds to start the Americans for Prosperity," David Koch said at an AFP rally in 2009. "And it's beyond my wildest dreams how AFP has grown into this enormous organization." Etc.
So your idea of "dangerous" is a man, using his own money, supporting an elected Governor? Who won the recall by an educated and more liberal than most electorate? Whose point was to require that union members pay a bit more, more in line with what their counterparts in private enterprise pay for their portion of a benefits package?
My God, thank you for fighting this fight! Where would we, the unenlightened great unwashed, be without our betters doing our thinking for us.
I was wondering what it was that the AC had written that had you so disturbed you would spare no effort to silence him. I thought maybe he was advocating murdering people or something, but gasp, it turns out it is far worse than that. The evil doer dared have a different political persusion than you.
Clearly he needs to be named and shamed and put in the public stocks for his thought crime!!
As a matter of fact, I do consider the Kotch brothers to be highly dangerous and a massive detriment to society as a whole. And I do believe in transparency regarding political funding and limits to that funding. I also believe Citizens United was one of the biggest mistakes the United States has ever made and that the influence of any one individual over politics via monetary donation need to be limited. (Though I understand why that's not at all popular amongst corporations or the rich.)
If you do not - or cannot - understand the whys and wherefores of that, well then it's no surprise that you and I have some radically differing ethical beliefs as regards the extent of freedom of speech.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're probably one of those who believe that freedom of speech should be absolute because you don't believe that "manipulation" of others is even possible. You probably are one of those who believes in the innate right to "convince" someone to do what you want using any technique whatsoever short of the application of physical force.
I wonder if you believe in emotional or psychological abuse, or if you believe that is something made up by "liberal hippies?" *shrug* I could, of course, be wrong about your beliefs in this matter, but your arguments sounds suspiciously similar to the kind of ultra individualist tripe I've heard before...and flat out don't buy.
I don't have a problem if you have different political beliefs than I do. I really don't. But I do have a problem with anyone of any political persuasion using psychological manipulation as a means to their ends. And just so we're clear, there are examples of individuals and organizations that do just that on both sides of USian politics, and in most other countries I have studied.
The difference is, a lot of those other countries have taken significant steps to outlaw it. (Though much to my shame, Canada's conservative party has spent the better part of the past decade trying their damnedest to dismantle such protections.)
The world isn't black and white, and when you wade into the grey things become very, very fuzzy.
" I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're probably one of those who believe that freedom of speech should be absolute because you don't believe that "manipulation" of others is even possible."
The act of attempting to persuade another to see your point is now the heinous crime of "thought manipulation?" This can be applied to anyone making an argument for their side. But some arguments are more equal than other arguments, eh?
And BTW, Citizens United also allows Labor Unions the same rights as it does the evil greedy corporations.
Yes count me amongst the free speech freaks of the world.
Short of inciting crime or putting people's lives in direct danger, freedom of spech should approach absolute. Tryanny is otherwise...
"The act of attempting to persuade another to see your point is now the heinous crime of "thought manipulation?" This can be applied to anyone making an argument for their side. But some arguments are more equal than other arguments, eh?"
Not at all. Laying out your argument for others to consider and/or act upon is not and should never be banned. No matter how vile your argument is. That said, "laying out your argument" is completely different from "manipulating people". Scope and methodology matter and they are the difference between debate and manipulation.
"And BTW, Citizens United also allows Labor Unions the same rights as it does the evil greedy corporations."
And why should labour unions have the right to manipulate others? Two wrongs make a right? Also: not all corporations are greedy and a great many are not evil (though a great many are).
"Short of inciting crime or putting people's lives in direct danger, freedom of spech should approach absolute. Tryanny is otherwise..."
Well I strenuously disagree with you. The world is not binary. There are gradations of acceptability and there are limits to the methodologies one should be allowed to employ in making their voices heard, regardless of your political persuasion or which arguments you are putting forth.
One thing does jump out at me in your comments, however. The strawmen you are injecting into my arguments imply very heavily that you believe I am a supporter of your political opposition (you appear to be a USian Republican) and you have apparently ascribed to me every one of the political beliefs that you associate with "the enemy". Unquestioning support for Labour Unions, for example.
It should be pointed out that A) I'm not American. B) I am something of a centrist (by Canadian standards, anyways) with a belief in fiscal conservatism, but social progressiveness. My beliefs are fairly nuanced and not fully represented by any political party in any country I am aware of, though Canada's Liberal party and I currently agree on more of the broad strokes than any of the other parties here seem to.
A good example of where things are not remotely so black and white is that I do absolutely support the right of workers to collectively bargain - and hence the right for labour unions to exist - however, I believe that there needs to be strict controls on the powers and scope of labour unions specifically because of the historicity of their involvement with the political process and the use of some frankly appalling tactics of manipulation on their own members.
Collective bargaining of workers to represent those workers as a unified front to employers? Fully support. That same entity involving itself in municipal, provincial or federal politics? Absolutely, 100% against. As stringently as I am against the involvement of corporations in same.
I am for the right of the individual to make informed decisions. That means transparency of all major social constructs, for corporations to unions to government and beyond. Individuals deserve privacy and human rights; social constructs do not. I do not accept corporations, unions or governments as "people" excepting as minimally necessary to perform their function in our society.
"Influencing people" is not one of those functions. "Manipulating people" is absolutely not, and in my opinion should be considered a criminal act. (Again, this is about the methods, not he message.)
Social constructs such as corporations, unions, governments, NGOs and so forth exist to serve the people. We do not exist to serve them. The should stay the hell out of our business - and our heads. Personally, I'd lump religion in there too; if I want to join your religion, I'll do so. You shouldn't have the right to spend squillions evangelizing at me attempting to "convert" me.
And that's what it's about. Choice. The right to make informed, rational choices with as free and clear a mind as possible. Not under threat of coercion, not with someone or something holding money, your job or some other aspect of your future hostage. The right to learn, to research and to make up one's mind without our own psyches, instincts and history being used against us.
Evidently, you don't feel we should have that choice. Manipulation of the weak by the powerful seems to be just groovy by you, and the more money you have the more you should be allowed to exert control over others, politics and $deity knows what else.
And if my beliefs make me evil to you - or anyone else - then I'm okay with that. Can you say the same?
You fail to define manipulation in any meaningful way, it appears to me that any position you disagree with falls under the umbrella of postions being somehow forced on people. Choice? Are you saying people are forced to read/listen to these positions you dislike? OP ED pieces are somehow mandatory reading, watching certain newscasts required?
How exactly would you prohibit such "manipulation?"
Who decides which opinions are "manipulation" and which are attempts at persusasion?
Who decides which thoughts are good, which are bad?
You?
Citizens United was affirmed as correct by minds who saw that political speech should never be regulated or muted. I'm certain this angers many who wish it was and see it as an impediment to the furtherance of their agendas...
I for one claim no special powers to know what the workings of other minds entails, wether they are being convinced or if they are being manipulated. Anyone who claims they can is delusional. Those who wish to stifle the political speech of another, for whatever reasons, are tyrants.
Your defining me as a US Republican, while wrong, is nothing more than ad hominem. You wish to paint anyone who dosen't agree with your nebulous definitions, or your political agenda as a bogeyman and have choosen that particular stripe to paint them with.
It is not your place, or anyone's for that matter, to decide/define "thought manipulation." Elitists love to try, after all they know better than others and do these things for the people's own good, being superior to them and all...
Your worldview leads to a totalitarian state...
You fail to define manipulation in any meaningful way
Actually, I have defined it several times, but by adding the little addition "in any meaningful way" you are giving yourself an out to simply say anything I come up whit isn't "meaningful" if it would prevent you from forcing people to believe what you want them to believe.
it appears to me that any position you disagree with falls under the umbrella of postions being somehow forced on people.
Demonstrably wrong. I have an issue with the methods, not the message. Disagree with me all you like. $deity knows I can be as wrong as the next man. Don't manipulate people.
"Choice? Are you saying people are forced to read/listen to these positions you dislike? OP ED pieces are somehow mandatory reading, watching certain newscasts required?"
Actually, to a certain extent, yes. Is one single Op Ed piece an issue? No. Ten or Twenty over a decade? No. IS even one a day, from the same identifiable individual an issue? Provably not.
Where it becomes an issue is where concerted bombardment campaigns are used; where the message is repeated virtually verbatim by multiple sources on every channel imaginable. Writers of various flavours, television, radio, banner ads, text ads, billboards, you name it.
If you want to kick it up a notch of unacceptability, start paying people in positions of authority - ministers, teachers, guardians, politicians, celebrities - to repeat the message.
Now I've just described traditional advertising, which is bad enough. But today's world doesn't end there. In today's world you can use massive amounts of cheaply available research into various socio-economic - and increasingly, Facebook, Google and Microsoft-provided individual - pain points to craft ever more individually targeted messages.
So far from your simplistic portrayal of my objecting to one person saying "this is what I believe" we have moved into "you should believe this" on all mediums at all ours of the day and night straight through to "I know that [issue] is a problem for you and [emotions] are causing [consequences] we will alleviate this if only you support what we believe."
Only now we don't need to get to know the people we're trying to bamboozle. We can do this either automatically or using an "accuracy by volume" approach. After all, repeat something enough times and even the person doing the chanting starts to believe it.
How exactly would you prohibit such "manipulation?
I would ban (or at the very least heavily regulate) certain methods of disseminating "opinion", with more stringent regulation for different purposes and types of entities.
Who decides which opinions are "manipulation" and which are attempts at persusasion?
An opinion cannot be manipulation. The means used, however, very much can be.
Who decides which thoughts are good, which are bad?
"Bad thoughts" actually do have a definition, and usually amount to issues on the schizophrenia spectrum. Usually that's something along the lines of "causing harm to others", and they are typically as unwelcome to the individual experiencing them as they are to those who might end up on the receiving end.
Citizens United was affirmed as correct by minds who saw that political speech should never be regulated or muted. I'm certain this angers many who wish it was and see it as an impediment to the furtherance of their agendas...
Citizens United was the biggest mistake that the United States ever made.
I for one claim no special powers to know what the workings of other minds entails, wether they are being convinced or if they are being manipulated. Anyone who claims they can is delusional.
So you claim you don't know how the minds of other people work and you are absolutely certain that there is no difference between "convincing" and "manipulation". You them proceed to call anyone who is versed in psychiatry, psychology, social dynamics or a half dozen other fields "delusional".
Cute.
Those who wish to stifle the political speech of another, for whatever reasons, are tyrants.
I don't see where I have said that the political speech of others should be stifled. I have said that certain means and methodologies should be restricted universally. By all means, present your opinion, but in a manner that allows people the opportunity to choose to engage with you, or not, as they please. Don't overwhelm any individual communications channel with that opinion, and certainly don't overwhelm all channels.
Don't use dragnetted information about people's lives, combined with Big Data and algorithms to find the words/combination of words/"hot button items"/etc that will give you the highest statistical chance of manipulating someone into doing what you want.
Present your case, let the other side choose to engage with it - or not - and move on. If they engage, then by all means have a rigorous debate, but keep it to the clean. As close to the facts as possible (though questioning the validity of opinion based on the trustworthiness of the emitter of said opinion is generally valid) and accept the outcome - win or lose - with some form of grace.
Your defining me as a US Republican, while wrong, is nothing more than ad hominem.
I don't see how? Unless you take being called a US Republican as a really terrible insult...
You wish to paint anyone who dosen't agree with your nebulous definitions,
Uh...no. First of all, I'm not the one who comes up with the definition for terms like "manipulation". These have actual definitions in the various mind, social and political sciences. The Wikipedia article on the topic is actually a good place to start, but it's only a very brief overview. Despite that, it's quite long and the list of links to other relevant topics at the bottom is huge.
If anything I've discussed here seems vague it is because I am trying to distill what amounts to a Master's degree's worth of knowledge down into the character limit of these forums in a manner that can serve as a decent overview for someone who doesn't even believe in psychology. (You aren't a scientologist, are you?)
or your political agenda as a bogeyman and have choosen that particular stripe to paint them with.
You have no idea what my political agenda even is. So how can you define what it isn't? I have no need to "paint" people who disagree with me as the boogyman. There are people out there - scientologists, for example - who very much so are boogymen. Republicans aren't boogymen. Lost, confused, and tragic, perhaps, but not boogymen.
Also: being as how I'm not USian, what is the point of painting someone who disagrees with me as a US Republican? I might as well call them "squirrels made out of cheese". There is no benefit to me in doing that; it cannot affect my country's politics or advance anything I believe in by doing so.
No, I asked if you were a US Republican because a lot of what you were saying sounded very aligned with their message and I was attempting to determine if you were simply resorting to their talking points - at which point I would simply hit "ignore", because you would have proven yourself incapable of actually thinking past the propaganda handed you - or if you actually believed what you were saying.
It is not your place, or anyone's for that matter, to decide/define "thought manipulation."
You're wrong. There are entire disciplines of science where making that call is in fact part of the job, and they use empirical evidence to do so.
Elitists love to try, after all they know better than others and do these things for the people's own good, being superior to them and all...
Waitaminute, just a ways up in this conversation you accused me of trying to paint everyone who disagreed with me as a "boogyman". And here you are wielding the word "elitist" as though it were the vicious club of boogymanery. You, sir, are a hyprocrite, and I collect my $200.
Also: the ability to use empirical evidence to determine things (like when a human brain's cognitive centers are being bypassed during decision making in response to external stimuli) is not "elitist". It's science. Unless you are saying that science itself is elitist and that we should all collectively reject science...at least when it disagrees with the political agenda you are trying to push....
Your worldview leads to a totalitarian state...
Actually, the evidence is rather to the contrary. Nations which have placed limits on speech - especially limits on the means and methodologies allowed have been shown to be far more stable, with much less social strife and a higher standard of living than the US.
At least, when you use "standard of living" measurements that includes "a decreased wealth gap", "% of the population engaged in the political process" and "level of political corruption" as standards. I understand that these are standards rejected by the Republicans and thus not generally accepted in the USA as part of their standard of living calculations.
Anyways, have fun with all that anger against the "elites". I hope you find what you're looking for in life.
So much argument over principles and so little specifics - what exactly did this AC say / how did they say it to invite a campaign of umasking by you Trevor? I agree that there are some very underhand manipulative techniques that should not be used. But without knowing what case is actually being referred to here, we can't tell if you're right to object or if, as your opponent argues, you're simply hounding someone for having different political views. Where is this argument that you're both referring to and what is it they're saying?
@h4rm0ny well it's not any one argument. It's the culmination of them. In large part it's a massive campaign of disinformation regarding Microsoft versus anything that even remotely smells of a Microsoft alternative. There's nothing particularly "political" about it at all. (And I have no idea why Mr "not a Republican" assigned "political" as a relevant motivation here.)
Normally, I honestly wouldn't care. Hell, "which OS is better" trolling is a part of internet culture. I trolled a bunch of Apple fanboys in a thread here a few days ago and it was good clean fun. I've no problem - most of the time - with this sort of tomfoolery. Gods know you and I have had some decent arguments, h4rm0ny.
But this guy is different. He shows up in virtually every thread that even tangentially mentions Microsoft or one of it's competitors and he lays it on thick. Toes the Microsoft Marketing party line 150%, and blows with wind. The party line changes? So does what he says. Someone has a complaint? He'll viciously attack the individual, their preferences, their heritage, anything and everything.
Now, again - for the most part - that's all good. But then this AC gets into dispensing advice. A lot of the advice is wrong; sometimes dangerously wrong. And a lot of what he says is provably a lie, or - at best - a gross stretching of the truth.
One thread? Ten threads? One hundred threads of this, even and it might not be a problem. But every single one for years on end and it moves from "trolling" to "a systematic campaign of disinformation and conversion".
If you replaced "Microsoft" with "Scientology" in a significant number of his posts and then had him say those same posts out loud in a public place I could get his ass locked up in at several western nations. The dude has some cult-like "glorious leader" worship shit going on with his Microsoft fetish and it damages my calm.
I will put up with creationists and deniers, I'll deal with $company fanbois and even the ultra-conservative types. I'll have a good argument with someone who screams red bloody murder about "nobody has the right to tell him what to do" then demands blacks be given a curfew and that he have the right to vote on the dispensation of women's vaginas.
But this guy is absolutely something else. Sheer persistence and volume combined with a skillful weaving of truth, partial truth an outright lies into a web of deception I've seen too often before.
The details of my issue with this particular individual are wrapped up in years worth of posts. Suffice it to say that it absolutely isn't something so prosaic as "he disagrees with me". I like people who disagree with me. I married my wife because disagrees with me; loudly and at length. I'm a commenttard damn, it. I like arguing!
No. It's the techniques used. The callousness of how he handles interactions with others...it's a slew of things. I know that doesn't help provide you the "go do this link, declare Trevor crazy, proceed to pick apart one thread in isolated context to show how" that you want, but that's life.
I'm the first to admit the possibility that I could very well just be nuts, and who knows, maybe I am. As regards this specific individual, however, I'm well convinced that the AC in question is using well practiced tools and techniques of psychological manipulation. And it is just as wrong to use it to promote your favorite corporation's interests as it is your political party of choice.
"And if the traffic I am working with is the next Snowden release? Or proof of corruption in the office of the ISP criminality investigator? What if I what I am transferring is my collection of personal sex tapes?"
*Tee hee* Trevor spends all day uploading his sex tapes (and all night making them).
P.S. I actually upvoted your posts!
AC, you're missing the point. The "mechanisms to verify that the traffic is legitimate" *are themselves* a problem. Any such mechanism would involve at the very least some kind of inspection on your private tunnel. Doing that on a profile basis, i.e. on everyone who has a lot of VPN traffic, is completely unacceptable: the real world analogy would be, as Trevor describes, to stop and search every black man with baggy clothes.
It doesn't matter that you're found innocent after the inspection; *the inspection itself* is a violation of your rights. Overruling your right to privacy can be done, but it should require a court order, not "just because".
"..to stop and search every black man with baggy clothes."
Or as was the case for a neighbour of mine, pull over a young black barrister 134 times in 18 months when he was driving his 7 series BMW, yet strangely, not once when he was driving his wife's 5 year old Honda Civic.
The authorities are already happy to profile people as criminals when they want to, let's not give them another excuse.
Oh, and the harrassment of my neighbour only stopped when he refused to speak to the officer and was hauled before the beak for 'obstructing the police in the pursuance of their duty'. It helped that, as a barrister, he had access to records of the previous tugs.
"pull over a young black barrister 134 times in 18 months when he was driving his 7 series BMW"
That's entirely justifiable - government crime statistics show that young black guys are far more likely than the population as a whole to commit crimes like stealing expensive vehicles - or to finance them via drug dealing - so it makes perfect sense that the police check people like that more often than the rest of the population. I fully support such common sense targeted approaches.
I was thinking on something to say to you dear AC, to help you understand why that even the mere suggestion of "here should be mechanisms to verify that the traffic is legitimate" is bad.
But I only would say to you: F**K YOU, it is because of people like you that we'll end all in trouble.
Guilty until proven innocent: TOTALITARIANISM
They are stating there should be mechanisms to verify that the traffic is legitimate
Own a screwdriver? You must be a burglar then. Knife? Must be a murderer then.
But don't worry. There's mechanisms to prove your innocence.
Takes years, money, and many who are innocent wind up being convicted. But that's ok. there's these mechanisms to make sure that never happens.
Really..
(Got a nice bridge to sell you too if you're interested...)
Organizations like the BBC already do geolocation on IP addresses to filter non-UK traffic. It surely can't be beyond the ability of their IT staff to get the ranges of IP addresses used by the major "VPN to bypass copyright" providers, and just blacklist them as well? Target the people that they know are facilitating piracy, rather than target everyone who might be doing it and require them to prove they aren't.
This is exactly the same argument that was used, and failed, to try and ban VCRs. Just because they might be used to infringe copyright doesn't mean that they don't have other, legitimate, uses, and the US courts refused to ban them because of that. The same should be true of VPN use. It might be easier for the BBC to get the ISPs to do their work for them, but their laziness doesn't justify a "guilty until proven innocent" attitude.
"Organizations like the BBC already do geolocation on IP addresses to filter non-UK traffic. It surely can't be beyond the ability of their IT staff to get the ranges of IP addresses used by the major "VPN to bypass copyright" providers, and just blacklist them as well?"
As somebody who has to pay the telly tax to support the Beeb, I'd suggest that instead of canvassing overseas regulators with bad ideas to try and support a token revenue stream, the idle, useless bastards actually focus some attention on producing something worth watching for domestic audiences?
I'm surprised anybody would want to pirate anything the BBC has produced in the past five years.
"Organizations like the BBC already do geolocation on IP addresses to filter non-UK traffic. It surely can't be beyond the ability of their IT staff to get the ranges of IP addresses used by the major "VPN to bypass copyright" providers, and just blacklist them as well? Target the people that they know are facilitating piracy, rather than target everyone who might be doing it and require them to prove they aren't."
This is exactly what they should be doing, they should just whitelist all residential IP address ranges and block all others as suspicious get around methods.
Outlawing VPNs is beyond stupid and is something the RIAA would suggest. But then again the RIAA would strongly suggest the entire internet be shut down to save their dinosaur business, even though you have reverted mankind back to circa 1980s.
This post has been deleted by its author
I'm not the down-voter, because I mostly agree. But isn't this comment OTT:
"but I should go to jail because the beeb thinks that's "suspicious"?"
If that were what BBC America were suggesting it would be appalling - but they aren't. Maybe we can focus on the real problem rather than hyperbole.
I'm not the down-voter, because I mostly agree. But isn't this comment OTT:
"but I should go to jail because the beeb thinks that's "suspicious"?"
If that were what BBC America were suggesting it would be appalling - but they aren't. Maybe we can focus on the real problem rather than hyperbole.
No, this is the real problem. Let's say that I am suspected of copyright infringement because of "VPN + Heavy usage". I am then faced with "prove your innocence by showing the traffic that went through the VPN or {unspecificed badness}." I refuse. Now what? I lose internet access? I'm fined? They get a warrant for my computer?
Then what? They discover the next Snowden's treasure trove on my PC and I go directly to jail? A dark little whole from which I will never emerge?
This goes beyond just "we're looking at your traffic and demanding you prove what that traffic is for purposes of copyright enforcement". Copyright enforcement is the thin end of the wedge and this opens a door to metric fuckloads of badness.
The Beeb's take on this is bad enough. If it were adopted, a "benign" mechanism now exists to demand a peek inside your tunnel. And then tunnels will have to go through MITM proxies...
Once you remove the presumption of innocence for copyright purposes, where does it stop? And where do the sanctions and consequences end? Why should any of us condone opening pandora's box here?
I usually give short shrift to slippery-slope logic but the history here is compelling. Each legislative cycle we see a over-the-top bill or three proposed and, after much gnashing of teeth and cries of woe, a law is enacted with the "lesser of numerous evils" as a "compromise." And the cycle recurs the next legislative cycle.
I wonder why I have overwhelming sympathies for frogs?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
