11–20 of 276 posts
It's like Rudd and Abbott are competing in which will come up with more ridiculous notion. And you'd think they would choose someone competent for bloody home secretary and shadow home secretary respectively.
While I think these political statements are often ridiculous, they actually have widespread public support, if my cohort of friends and family are anything to go by.
Do we have people who are better communicators? I don't think even Cory Doctorow's posts/talks are aimed at the non-technical audience.
It sounds to me like she believes throwing legislation at an issue will fix it. I mean, everyone obeys the law right?
> "However, there is a problem in terms of the growth of end-to-end encryption. "It’s a problem for the security services and for police who are not, under the normal way, under properly warranted paths, able to access that information.” What surprises me about this argument, is that their stance is that terrorists are accidentally starting to use encryption. So, by consequence, that in the past terrorists simply did…
The vast majority of terrorists are clowns who, if they happen to use encryption at all, will mess up infosec in ways that are trivial to compromise. So if the Home Secretary is saying that message encryption is a "problem" then there must be something else going on which has little to do with terrorism.
Perhaps if you're referring to home grown Islamic terrorists. However Britain does have a problem with an experienced group of rather professional terrorists called the IRA.
It sounds to me like she believes throwing legislation at an issue will fix it. I mean, everyone obeys the law right?
The very last thing I love is my country, that is for sure.
It's like Rudd and Abbott are competing in which will come up with more ridiculous notion. And you'd think they would choose someone competent for bloody home secretary and shadow home secretary respectively.
> "However, there is a problem in terms of the growth of end-to-end encryption. "It’s a problem for the security services and for police who are not, under the normal way, under properly warranted paths, able to access that information.” What surprises me about this argument, is that their stance is that terrorists are accidentally starting to use encryption. So, by consequence, that in the past terrorists simply did…
Home grown terrorists may be different, but they are already consistently detected by regular police work long before they act.
No really. I've written about this before, but I sincerely refuse to believe that the government are doing this out of ignorance anymore.
There's been too many people telling them how it actually is, but they persist.
That leads me to conclude that either they're severely mentally dysfunctional, or there's another reason for doing this. PR maybe? Votes? Something more sinister?
> "However, there is a problem in terms of the growth of end-to-end encryption. "It’s a problem for the security services and for police who are not, under the normal way, under properly warranted paths, able to access that information.” What surprises me about this argument, is that their stance is that terrorists are accidentally starting to use encryption. So, by consequence, that in the past terrorists simply did…
The vast majority of terrorists are clowns who, if they happen to use encryption at all, will mess up infosec in ways that are trivial to compromise. So if the Home Secretary is saying that message encryption is a "problem" then there must be something else going on which has little to do with terrorism.
Isn't it obvious? This has got f-all to do with terrorism. The bad guys have always hidden their communication.
What's getting the security services all riled up is that ordinary law-abiding citizens are suddenly encrypted.
And, of course, there's no way out of this. Either encryption is secure, or it's broken. If it's secure, it's secure for everyone. If it's broken, it's broken for everyone. Now we have open-source encryption methods that are trivial to implement, anyone can build a securely end-to-end encrypted communication system. [1]
The cat's out of the bag, spooks. You can't read people's mail any more. You'll have to find other ways of gathering intelligence.
[1] within reason - clown-like incompetence will always mess up. Or even just ordinary-coder levels of incompetence. But it's still harder than plaintext.