The following text is a reproduction of my last blog post, titled, Or Pnershy Bayvar: Ovt Oebgure Vf Jngpuvat. Reactions were mixed. Jon Bishop deciphered it and commented in kind. Jillian York thought it was Icelandic. And Jeff Hurt is apparently unsubscribing from my blog feed as a result. So. Here is it again; and maybe this time, you will understand why it was encrypted.
By means of background, I tweeted these messages within the past 10 minutes:
Forget about Facebook developers taking your privacy when you install third-party applications. At least there’s a warning and you have the choice to opt-out. No such luck with the United Kingdom government!
The BBC recently reported that British police are stepping up surveillance to “track all e-mails, phone calls and internet use, including visits to social network sites.”
I respect the idea in the name of bettering society to defeat terrorism and crime, but I’m a little squirmy with the notion of an internet service provider bowing to local police, MI5, and other authorities.
Like the government eavesdropping on telephone connections, this UK order, if passed, would require ISPs (or CSPs as they’re known across the pond) to provide contact information of the sender and receiver.
Here’s the kicker:
But, recognising that the internet has changed the way people talk, the CSPs will also be asked to record some third party data or information partly based overseas, such as visits to an online chatroom and social network sites like Facebook or Twitter.
Security services could then seek to examine this data along with information which links it to specific devices, such as a mobile phone, home computer or other device, as part of investigations into criminal suspects.
In other words, if I’m comprehending this correctly, a British citizen could be tweeting with me or you–and MI5 (and by extension, Interpol I would assume) would know.
I dunno. This sounds very Big Brother-esque and that’s why I encrypted this blog post. I’m sure you can figure it out, as it’s a well-known protocol. (But then again, if I can encrypt this and you can decipher it, who’s to prevent MI5 to prevent it too?)
Thanks to the anonymous EMT employee for the tip. Photo credit: litmuse.
If you do as Jon Bishop did (and maybe others too), click the link at the bottom, attributing the “RZG rzcyblrr sbe gur gvc” or “EMT employee for the tip.” See his blog post; look familiar? Then, scroll through the comments there, many of which are similar to yours. There’s a link in the comments that leads to a cypher to turn English into encrypted English. Do you see? Do you, now, understand why I encrypted it?
No related posts.
Comments:
Ari Herzog is an online media strategist and Newburyport City Councilor-Elect.
978-558-0008
ConvoTrack
{ 10 comments }
…and here I thought you were the Zodiac Killer
Man, did you just open a huge can of discussion here. It should be common practice to always assume that no matter what you are doing online, that “someone” can see it and will find it. Maybe we should just sign an open disclosure statement saying what kind of sites we will be visiting and what we will be doing online.
I’m thinking right now of Pete Townshend, who openly told the British authorities that he was going to do research on child porn sites as he believed he was sexually abused as a child.
DaveMurr´s last blog post..Take A Moment and Look Around
Jillian York did NOT think it was Icelandic; Google Translate thought it was Icelandic.
That said, surveillance practices (studied by the folks where I work) are certainly alarming, but I personally don’t believe being secretive is the answer. Honestly, it makes me want to be MORE public with my thoughts.
Jillian C. York´s last blog post..On Diversity in Gender
First, thank you. For those of us that are not tech geeks, government officials, Big Brother or have experience with the well-known protocol, this is easier to read.
Second, I knew the post was about Big Brother because I recognized the picture of Hal. I just didn’t understand if your point was to make me hunt for a cipher, experience Big Brother Bureaucracy or you had something important to say. I felt dumb and stupid because I could not find the cipher even after clicking all the links. I didn’t want to go on an Easter Egg hunt nor did I want to work for it. I wanted straightforward talk, especially from an influencer like you, which is what I usually get from you.
Anyway, thanks for responding and thanks for listening. Now, about that Twitter follow thing….
It wouldn’t surprise me if the government was monitoring social media sites. Really, they probably have someone monitoring every piece of information they can get off the internet, that is publicly displayed or that some hacker can find a way into.
~ Kristi
Kikolani´s last blog post..Fetching Friday – Resources Mashup, #FollowFriday, Thesis, and Star Trek
Agree w/other Jillian and which is why I blurt out everything on my blog. Nothing to hide and it saves someone the time of looking it all up – I’m sure they would anyway, but there is no such thing as secrecy here.
Gillian Swart´s last blog post..Check it out boys & girls
Definitely creepy.
I don’t think we should assume everything we write online is searchable, especially if you’re on a secure and encrypted server. But I do think we should be careful what sites we trust with our public information. Facebook is one site I will never, ever trust, regardless of how open they make the governing/terms of service process or how restrictive you can apply your privacy settings. I just don’t trust that that can’t be breached. Twitter is another one I’d never trust, nor would I divulge info on blogs that I wouldn’t want everybody in the world reading.
Basically what that means for me is anything I write online is something I’m making public knowledge, and if my employer or mother or the government reads it, it’s not going to get me into trouble. This layer of wary prudence exists in the back of my mind each time I hit “post” on a blog or share something on Facebook or Google Reader or whatever. I also wouldn’t do my online banking (typically) away from my home computer, whose security is under my control and surveillance, nor would I make a private phone call on a bus coming home from work or at my workplace.
That said, I’m not thinking in my head that when I do online banking or when I send an email or make a phone call the government can be watching or monitoring key words or bugging a phone conversation without me knowing. I think that crosses a line of what should be a secure and private communication channel.
BTW, this is somewhat off topic, but one time, someone wanted to play a joke on me. On the memo line of a personal cheque, he wrote “Colombian drug money.” I’m not sure the privacy of banker-client relationship… I mean, if I had actually deposited that cheque and the government was doing a search on drug moneys at that bank, could they take that cheque and have me questioned/a suspect in the investigation?
For a second I thought I was on the Icelandic “24″ RPG site!
Actually, this should come as no surprise as things have been moving this way for years. Has anyone ever heard of “Echelon?” It’s a government program designed to capture ALL electronic communications of all forms (and I’m sure their algorithms just flagged me as a minor threat).
Neal Wiser´s last blog post..Star Trek vs. Windows (Can One Franchise Predict the Success of Another?)
I’m going with always behave as if you’re being watched, recorded, evaluated and judged. Heck, if someone isn’t doing that by now, shame on them.
It’s enough that we post stuff out in the open that folks should get that their boss, mother, wife, children, significant other, deacons, etc can and will find what they share.
Todd Jordan´s last blog post..Bad Monkeys by Matt Ruff – Review
I don’t know about you, but I’m getting fed up with being treated like a criminal whatever I do. CCTV, airport security and now this. People used to comment on how bad American was in this way, and how nice it was not to be like that in the UK, and it’s saddens me that that has changed.
It is my belief that the less you trust people and the more you treat them like they are criminals, the more likely they are to commit a crime.
Do your law enforcement protectors trust you?
Comments on this entry are closed.