15 hours ago, jnrmac said:

I suggest you go an read the Australian Institute of Criminology Report into Black Deaths in Custody since the 1991 Royal Commission.

I did and it is quite illuminating. I'll copy it here for you so can you can educate yourself.

 

https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/sr/sr21

Thanks for that. Just read it. Interesting read.Regards.

On 7/12/2020 at 2:03 PM, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I'm no IT guru, but surely any new accounts and logins could require an IP address before allowing users to proceed.  IP addresses that get warned for unacceptable behavior get banned for escalating periods.

IT guy here; 

This is trickier than you may think. In short, public IP addresses (or NAT address) are the only unique IP addresses that could be used for this, and they are assigned to your home internet connection; not your devices. Think of the public IP address as the address associated with the link between your modem/router and the internet. This address is very sensitive in nature and disclosing it leaves your home network extremely vulnerable to malicious actors. 

The IP address your laptop at home gets is not unique and is given to your device by your modem/router. This will look like 192.168.0.2 or similar. Most home modem/routers broadcast networks which allocate IP addresses like this by default. What the outside world see's, such as the websites your visiting on your laptop, is your public IP. Problem here is that there could any number of unique users and devices in a home (or corporate) network. This makes IP based authorization/authentication/verification ineffective for most part as most networks have 2+ regular users with individual devices and accounts. 

What would work is the removal on anonymity from social media all together (not a popular idea with everyone!). Here's the idea; Government issue citizens a digital ID which is managed in your myGov portal that is required in some capacity to create a social media profile. This would all but solve the faceless troll issue (at least for the people not brave enough to own their abhorrent racist views publicly). You could then force (legislate) social media companies operating within Australia must a) enforce retrospective account verification with the government issued digital ID. Accounts not verified in 'x' months deactivated indefinitely. And b) require this ID verification for all new accounts. Let's see how many racist commentaries continue when the only account people can post it from is displayed exactly the same as their drivers license ... 

Problem with this; we're probably too far gone down the current path of anonymity by default. This sort of idea needed to happen 20 years ago, before Facebook was invented, not today. Back then, the internet was a different and far less hostile place. The landscape of the internet has changed dramatically, and the fundamental principal of anonymity is now, in my opinion, completely out-dated given the way social media is now a part of everyday life. 

 

40 minutes ago, Smokey said:

IT guy here; 

This is trickier than you may think. In short, public IP addresses (or NAT address) are the only unique IP addresses that could be used for this, and they are assigned to your home internet connection; not your devices. Think of the public IP address as the address associated with the link between your modem/router and the internet. This address is very sensitive in nature and disclosing it leaves your home network extremely vulnerable to malicious actors. 

The IP address your laptop at home gets is not unique and is given to your device by your modem/router. This will look like 192.168.0.2 or similar. Most home modem/routers broadcast networks which allocate IP addresses like this by default. What the outside world see's, such as the websites your visiting on your laptop, is your public IP. Problem here is that there could any number of unique users and devices in a home (or corporate) network. This makes IP based authorization/authentication/verification ineffective for most part as most networks have 2+ regular users with individual devices and accounts. 

What would work is the removal on anonymity from social media all together (not a popular idea with everyone!). Here's the idea; Government issue citizens a digital ID which is managed in your myGov portal that is required in some capacity to create a social media profile. This would all but solve the faceless troll issue (at least for the people not brave enough to own their abhorrent racist views publicly). You could then force (legislate) social media companies operating within Australia must a) enforce retrospective account verification with the government issued digital ID. Accounts not verified in 'x' months deactivated indefinitely. And b) require this ID verification for all new accounts. Let's see how many racist commentaries continue when the only account people can post it from is displayed exactly the same as their drivers license ... 

Problem with this; we're probably too far gone down the current path of anonymity by default. This sort of idea needed to happen 20 years ago, before Facebook was invented, not today. Back then, the internet was a different and far less hostile place. The landscape of the internet has changed dramatically, and the fundamental principal of anonymity is now, in my opinion, completely out-dated given the way social media is now a part of everyday life. 

 

your solution makes some sense

it is essentially the australia card id scenario which previously met such intense opposition.

the problem people see with such an id is the fear that it is the thin end of the wedge and would become widely used by many organisations, government or other wise and lead to what many see as a police state scenario. people don't trust governments.

personally i don't have a major problem with it (except for a few misgiving which are possibly solvable) and it is probably inevitable eventually anyway. many western countries have something similar.

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

your solution makes some sense

it is essentially the australia card id scenario which previously met such intense opposition.

the problem people see with such an id is the fear that it is the thin end of the wedge and would become widely used by many organisations, government or other wise and lead to what many see as a police state scenario. people don't trust governments.

personally i don't have a major problem with it (except for a few misgiving which are possibly solvable) and it is probably inevitable eventually anyway. many western countries have something similar.

By reflex i have always been opposed to such an ID, primarily because of the points you note -  i don't trust the government to manage security and information.

Or at least i always used to oppose such an ID.

That position is becoming increasingly illogical in a world where i willingly give up my data to google and all manner of other massive corporations. 

Just one example is flybuys - i have been swiping that card for 15 years and never once redeemed anything. And i have zero knowledge of who has access to all that data. It is is pretty scary what my purchase history would tell about me.

And in any case Mygov is not a million miles from a national ID anyway.

1 hour ago, Smokey said:

This is trickier than you may think. In short, public IP addresses (or NAT address) are the only unique IP addresses that could be used for this, and they are assigned to your home internet connection; not your devices. Think of the public IP address as the address associated with the link between your modem/router and the internet. This address is very sensitive in nature and disclosing it leaves your home network extremely vulnerable to malicious actors. 

You could say the regular IP Address is more like a post code than a physical postal address?

Edited July 14, 20204 yr by layzie

1 minute ago, layzie said:

You could say the regular IP Address is more like a post code than a physical postal address?

This analogy works well.

Fun fact; the world is actually running out of these unique addresses to assign (known as an IPv4 address). IPv4 addresses are 32-bits in length there are a total of 4,294,967,296 possible unique addresses. 

This is why a new format was created; IPv6. This addresses space is 128-bits in length, allowing for 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 unique addresses to be created. I'm not sure what that number is even called tbh, but we probably won't run out of IPv6 addresses anytime soon. 

Ok I'll stop now ... apologies for derailing the tread with this nonsense!  

I hate racists! 

3 minutes ago, Smokey said:

This analogy works well.

Fun fact; the world is actually running out of these unique addresses to assign (known as an IPv4 address). IPv4 addresses are 32-bits in length there are a total of 4,294,967,296 possible unique addresses. 

This is why a new format was created; IPv6. This addresses space is 128-bits in length, allowing for 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 unique addresses to be created. I'm not sure what that number is even called tbh, but we probably won't run out of IPv6 addresses anytime soon. 

Ok I'll stop now ... apologies for derailing the tread with this nonsense!  

I hate racists! 

The problem with IP Addresses is that they can be masked to hide your true location. I guess the company's supplying the masks can provide authorities with the persons real IP Address but then there are some companies that claim they don't keep a log of IPs or are out of the jurisdiction of local authorities.

@Smokey might be able to explain it better from a technical point of view.

2 hours ago, Smokey said:

IT guy here; 

This is trickier than you may think. In short, public IP addresses (or NAT address) are the only unique IP addresses that could be used for this, and they are assigned to your home internet connection; not your devices. Think of the public IP address as the address associated with the link between your modem/router and the internet. This address is very sensitive in nature and disclosing it leaves your home network extremely vulnerable to malicious actors. 

The IP address your laptop at home gets is not unique and is given to your device by your modem/router. This will look like 192.168.0.2 or similar. Most home modem/routers broadcast networks which allocate IP addresses like this by default. What the outside world see's, such as the websites your visiting on your laptop, is your public IP. Problem here is that there could any number of unique users and devices in a home (or corporate) network. This makes IP based authorization/authentication/verification ineffective for most part as most networks have 2+ regular users with individual devices and accounts. 

What would work is the removal on anonymity from social media all together (not a popular idea with everyone!). Here's the idea; Government issue citizens a digital ID which is managed in your myGov portal that is required in some capacity to create a social media profile. This would all but solve the faceless troll issue (at least for the people not brave enough to own their abhorrent racist views publicly). You could then force (legislate) social media companies operating within Australia must a) enforce retrospective account verification with the government issued digital ID. Accounts not verified in 'x' months deactivated indefinitely. And b) require this ID verification for all new accounts. Let's see how many racist commentaries continue when the only account people can post it from is displayed exactly the same as their drivers license ... 

Problem with this; we're probably too far gone down the current path of anonymity by default. This sort of idea needed to happen 20 years ago, before Facebook was invented, not today. Back then, the internet was a different and far less hostile place. The landscape of the internet has changed dramatically, and the fundamental principal of anonymity is now, in my opinion, completely out-dated given the way social media is now a part of everyday life. 

 

I think that ultimately social media accounts need to be governed in a way that the authorities know exactly who each account belongs to. Personally I don't have an issue with my account reflecting my own identity but also understand that people may want an account name that doesn't publicly reveal their identity.  I would think mandating such a Digital ID across all social media platforms would significantly reduce online bullying, hate speech and also go along way to preventing the use of fake accounts to influence elections.

42 minutes ago, Smokey said:

This analogy works well.

Fun fact; the world is actually running out of these unique addresses to assign (known as an IPv4 address). IPv4 addresses are 32-bits in length there are a total of 4,294,967,296 possible unique addresses. 

This is why a new format was created; IPv6. This addresses space is 128-bits in length, allowing for 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 unique addresses to be created. I'm not sure what that number is even called tbh, but we probably won't run out of IPv6 addresses anytime soon. 

Ok I'll stop now ... apologies for derailing the tread with this nonsense!  

I hate racists! 

Haha no it's good! I'm reasonably tech savvy but good to hear from the experts. Actually didn't know the purpose of IPv6 so that helps. 

30 minutes ago, Demonland said:

The problem with IP Addresses is that they can be masked to hide your true location. I guess the company's supplying the masks can provide authorities with the persons real IP Address but then there are some companies that claim they don't keep a log of IPs or are out of the jurisdiction of local authorities.

@Smokey might be able to explain it better from a technical point of view.

As an example people may be able to relate to, think of the time when you could trick Netflix into thinking your in the US, allowing you to view the American content not normally available to Australians. This was achieved masking your location using a proxy server. 

A proxy server is configured to on your computers network settings to force all of your computers outgoing network requests to terminate at the proxy server first, and then to continue to the requested destination from there. The result of this is that the IP packets the destination server receives from your computer will have the proxy server as the source of the traffic, rather than your public IP address. 

I think Netflix mitigated this by blocking incoming connections to their servers from all known VPN services, which if I'm right means it can actually still technically be done. But either way it's an example of how IP addresses can be manipulated to bypass security controls.  

22 hours ago, binman said:

Invasion.

Terra Nullis - an empty land, no humans.

No treaty. 

Colonization.

Not recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the constitution 

Stealing peoples land. Making fortunes (that exist to this day) from that stolen land

State sanctioned massacres. Non state sanctioned massacres not punished.

No recognition of ownership of land of the first people for 200 plus years

Official government policy of genocide that lasted (scarcely believably) well into the 20th century.

Forcible removal of children from their families as part of the policy of genocide

Forcing children into slavery to look after white people's children and their homes

Deaths in custody - and doing nothing about it

Locking up Aboriginal children and their fathers at obscenely disproportionate rates

Official government White Australia Policy (the name says it all) that was only replaced  well past the mid point of the 20th century

The first people not being able to vote in their own country until 1967. I repeat 1967.

Mandatory detention and  dehumanizing of 'boat people' as wildly popular government policy (and the lack of awareness of the irony of such a policy)

Vilification of young Australians whose parents escaped war in Africa

The One Nation Party and it increasing popularity as reflected at the last federal election

A mining company legally blowing up caves that showed evidence of human occupation for 10s of thousands of years.

The popularity of peanuts like Bolt and Sam Newman

I could go on.

To say Australia is not a racist county is patently false. And a common delusion that ensures we remain so.

Quite a list. Disgraceful, to say the least.  

On the positive side, though Indigenous people won the right to vote in 1967, where I live the last slave market closed in 1968. As bad as the Australian list of abuses is, it isn't worse than other civilizations, and it is better in one extremely important respect: There is a list.

That is to say, while the rest of the world pretends that such abuses as those above existed only in the West, and while almost nobody knows the history of something as significant as slavery -- 

 

Australians are acknowledging that abuses have happened and are grappling with racism. No need to beat each other up about a past that can't be changed. Deal with it and make the future better. That's kind of a football way of handling things...

I'm not interested in racism and am looking forward to the day when these trolls can be tracked and dealt with accordingly.

12 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

 

Thomas Sowell.... Seriously? ?‍♂️

14 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

Quite a list. Disgraceful, to say the least.  

On the positive side, though Indigenous people won the right to vote in 1967, where I live the last slave market closed in 1968. As bad as the Australian list of abuses is, it isn't worse than other civilizations, and it is better in one extremely important respect: There is a list.

That is to say, while the rest of the world pretends that such abuses as those above existed only in the West, and while almost nobody knows the history of something as significant as slavery -- 

 

Australians are acknowledging that abuses have happened and are grappling with racism. No need to beat each other up about a past that can't be changed. Deal with it and make the future better. That's kind of a football way of handling things...

Unfortunately you are still not getting it

Indigenous people didn't win the right to vote, they should have had it in the first place, so it is not a positive

Deaths in custody are still happening, it is not the past

Racism is also not exclusively about the Indigenous of Australia, it is about Asians being harassed over COVID19, unfortunately led by the CinC Trump, which in his case is Clown in Chief,

Racial profiling of Africans, I had to step in at JB Hifi as the security guy waved a line of customers through but stopped 2 'African' kids for a bag check , I accused him of racial profiling, they had been in exactly the same area of store as me and had done nothing untoward, all 3 of us were quickly ushered out of the store

I could go on but won't

 

22 hours ago, bing181 said:

"A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities or acts of discrimination."

(US specific references/examples omitted.)

https://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/Definitions-of Racism.pdf

Wow, that is stunning. The underlying assumptions reinforce powerlessness. A concrete ceiling, so to speak. In that case, what's the point of expending energy on trying to improve life for people? Everyone is eternally trapped.

The ideology underlying those ideas is theistic. Beware.   

4 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Unfortunately you are still not getting it

Indigenous people didn't win the right to vote, they should have had it in the first place, so it is not a positive

Deaths in custody are still happening, it is not the past

Racism is also not exclusively about the Indigenous of Australia, it is about Asians being harassed over COVID19, unfortunately led by the CinC Trump, which in his case is Clown in Chief,

Racial profiling of Africans, I had to step in at JB Hifi as the security guy waved a line of customers through but stopped 2 'African' kids for a bag check , I accused him of racial profiling, they had been in exactly the same area of store as me and had done nothing untoward, all 3 of us were quickly ushered out of the store

I could go on but won't

 

I get it. Do you get my point?

20 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Thomas Sowell.... Seriously? ?‍♂️

Yep. No truth in it?

It's racist to say that Australia is a racist country.

23 hours ago, bing181 said:

"A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities or acts of discrimination."

(US specific references/examples omitted.)

https://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/Definitions-of Racism.pdf

Whoever wrote this needs to see a psychiatrist.

The only racism I ever see on social media is anti -white racism.  In fact, it is rampant.   And the media conveniently ignores it.

17 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

Yep. No truth in it?

He's been pretty widely criticized as someone who both misrepresents truth and doesn't cite evidence. Your choice in whose views you've decided to seek out for your confirmation bias is telling.

But while we're at it, maybe we should ask Candace Owens about the BLM movement or maybe get Trump's thoughts on social media ethics...

This thread has been useful in ways I didn't anticipate.

Edited July 14, 20204 yr by Lord Nev

5 minutes ago, GoGetRossLyon said:

Whoever wrote this needs to see a psychiatrist.

The only racism I ever see on social media is anti -white racism.  In fact, it is rampant.   And the media conveniently ignores it.

You mean to say you've posted on this thread without even reading the opening post? 

No place for Racism and Trolls. People with these ideas are the lowest SC- - S  on earth.

  Harley the good care.

 

5 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

He's been pretty widely criticized as someone who both misrepresents truth and doesn't cite evidence. Your choice in whose views you've decided to seek out for your confirmation bias is telling.

But while we're at it, maybe we should ask Candace Owens about the BLM movement or maybe get Trump's thoughts on social media ethics...

This thread has been useful in ways I didn't anticipate.

This doesn't have to be a personal thing. Just having a discussion. Sowell has been criticized in the manner that you say, but that doesn't mean he is wrong. He also accuses his critics of failing to provide evidence. For me, the jury is out on Sowell. His politics have a sniff of libertarian about them, which is a bit suspicious. But then it's not his identify that needs to be discussed, but his writing.

Maybe rather than make assumptions about me, you could direct me to a source on the history of slavery with a bit more integrity.

 

 

2 hours ago, Smokey said:

This analogy works well.

Fun fact; the world is actually running out of these unique addresses to assign (known as an IPv4 address). IPv4 addresses are 32-bits in length there are a total of 4,294,967,296 possible unique addresses. 

This is why a new format was created; IPv6. This addresses space is 128-bits in length, allowing for 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 unique addresses to be created. I'm not sure what that number is even called tbh, but we probably won't run out of IPv6 addresses anytime soon. 

Ok I'll stop now ... apologies for derailing the tread with this nonsense!  

I hate racists! 

In the immortal words of Maxwell Smart i got everything up to fun fact...

(though i got i hate racists!)

 

Edited July 14, 20204 yr by binman

4 Corners was very poignant to this very thread last night

I suggest everybody has a look