171–180 of 276 posts
In US, Russia hacks into Hillary's email server and politicians on Capitol Hill start using Whispering Systems' Signal and begin to understand why strong encryption is necessary.
Don't worry too much, someday Vladimir Putin will show to the UK government why strong encryption is a good idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
as I mentioned in an above reply.. what about campervans?
I'm no legal expert but I think when they're parked up in an appropriate place (private land, layby, that kind of thing) they're considered a temporary residence? Who knows with our convoluted english common law!
In the UK, this may be your own private domicile, but you can still be harrassed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As predicted by Randall Munroe some years ago: https://xkcd.com/504/
Granted, guns have serial numbers and there is a list of registered owners. My argument falls apart there.
I wouldn't look to that as an example of a well-functioning regulation system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found the John Oliver episode about Snowden to be very good at conveying the ideas of privacy. Just mention that the govt can decrypt your dick pics and sexting if these laws pass.
You know this argument might well work for Theresa May.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read so many arguments advocating strong encryption, all of which I agree with, and many of them are simplified as best we techies can - check out some of Troy Hunt's posts. But even avoiding the tech aspect completely, there is one thing the government simply refuses to accept. Banning strong encryption will not stop people using it. It will stop the 'good' and generally innocent populace using it and severely…
I think the strongest argument for an American audience who is unfamiliar with technology is that encryption should be included under second amendment rights. "Guns don't hurt people, people hurt people", "blaming the manufacturer for the actions of the operator", "even if we ban them, bad guys will still use them", etc. If the right to bear arms is defined as the right to protection against totalitarian government I…
If one accepts that part of the intent of the Second Amendment was to allow citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government (but please, let's not start the usual argument about asymmetric warfare), strong encryption capabilities would certainly be an important component of that in the modern era.
But that's just my stance, as someone who likes guns and crypto.
Oh god, I despair of this country. After a decade of conservative I have never been so disillusioned. I feel like I am stuck in a rut or like, I don't belong here. It is a horrible feeling. Deep down I know that the government is stuck in 1740 and by the time that millennials walk the halls of power, their parents will have signed away all their rights. The very last thing I love is my country, that is for sure.
It's not as though 'millennials' are so big on rights, take a look at Twitter to see how happy people are to suppress e.g. free speech as long as they're the ones who get to do the suppressing.
In UK, Murdoch's "News of the World" hacks into the phones of hundreds of people and politicians continue the debate about privacy as if it doesn't matter. In US, Russia hacks into Hillary's email server and politicians on Capitol Hill start using Whispering Systems' Signal and begin to understand why strong encryption is necessary. Don't worry too much, someday Vladimir Putin will show to the UK government why stron…
I do find it interesting that UK politics has not yet been visited by the email leak fairy. I don't know what conclusions to draw from this though.
> When pressed on what kind of metadata she wanted, she replied: “I’m having those conversations in private.” Well I would like to know who she's having those conversations with, when she's having them, and how long they last. I think it's important that she share this information with us. So that we can catch criminals.
If this is what they want, then they should convict the extremists first, and then make sure they don't have internet behind bars. Until then, they are still citizens, and you have no right to treat them specially.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you remove the technological protections, the communications become accessible not only to law enforcement but also to malicious people - cryptography doesn't care if you have a warrant or not. A particular communications channel either is secure from anyone or it's vulnerable to everyone. If UK home secretary argues that we shouldn't be allowed to use secure channels, then that does imply that all such communicat…
The superficial solution to this is not to outlaw cryptography completely, but to require those who make cryptography available to keep master keys and/or logs. I know that these are not a real solution as they can be leaked or abused, but it's best that we don't pretend not to hear this argument. We should make clear that these are insufficient and that there's nothing wrong with private communications truly remaini…
not "best", even if "reasonable, yet complicit". Best would be neutering these governmental bodies who are so accustomed to forking us whenever we roll over.