191–200 of 205 posts
I will say it again, something has got to give. You can't have humane treatment of child rapists and fear government overreach. It is in fact possible to backdoor communication systems for lawful intercept access. It is possible to also design public auditing of such systems so that a warrant or lawful order being used to intercept communications can be logged and audited by the public. Warrants are not forever secre…
[flagged]
I will say it again, something has got to give. You can't have humane treatment of child rapists and fear government overreach. It is in fact possible to backdoor communication systems for lawful intercept access. It is possible to also design public auditing of such systems so that a warrant or lawful order being used to intercept communications can be logged and audited by the public. Warrants are not forever secre…
> It is in fact possible to backdoor communication systems for lawful intercept access Possible? Yes. Desirable? Absolutely not. > Warrants are not forever secret Says who? > check against abuse of lawful intercept can be incorporated into non-E2E encrypted protocols. Those checks are already woefully inadequate. There are plenty of examples of abuse of authority/access that just happened to be caught and went on for…
Then let's bring back public executions and cruel punishment. You know what else isn't desirable? Tolerating CSAM.
> Says who?
Alright, then secrecy of the warrant fails public audit checks.
> Those checks are already woefully inadequate. There are plenty of examples of abuse of authority/access that just happened to be caught and went on for years. Somehow you claim this is going to stop happening if we give governments MORE surveillance authority?
They already have authority just not the technical ability. You should use legal and political avenues to address a naughty government. Tolerating CSAM because you refuse to accept political realities or convince your ow citizens on the matter is a terrible thing. I don't what you are referring to regarding inadequate checks, I am proposing a system similar to CT logs for PKI except new encryption can't happen without public audit log of LEO authorizarion to intercept traffic.
> At least you admit that eradication of the internet is your end goal.
If the choice is between tolerating CSAM and eradicating the internet, the choice is easy for me, why isn't it for you? Fortunately, as you obviously know but chose to ignore for the sake of maligning me, we don't need to eradicate the internet in order to do our best to get rid of CSAM so clearly you knew that wasn't my intention but you misconstructed what I said for the sake of internet rage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think breaking encryption is a good idea, but I will say that until recently law enforcement could tap phones, rip open envelopes, and get a court order to break into your house and search it. There was never the level of privacy against law enforcement that encryption offers.
You could always just not write things down. The government is prohibited from torturing information out of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "children" excuse + most of the population saying "I don't need privacy, I have nothing to hide" is a double whammy against any form of encryption and it's just a matter of time before our Internet privacy rights are completely stripped away. A huge educational campaign is necessary to convince people and the average politician that being pro-encryption doesn't mean being criminals or pedophiles. So it's a lost b…
> The children angle is insidious... The entire rhetorical position is difficult. One of the (somewhat implicit) rules of public discourse seems to be "assume good faith". To make the argument that people should have freedom from government requires an acknowledgement that government officials regularly do more harm than good. It is insanely challenging to carry that position in a debate. Keep your eye out for the ha…
The fundamental problem is that given any permission (an extension of trust), individuals will--100% of the time--abuse it in the absence of oversight.
It's not a matter of if/when, only a matter of to what degree. But being individuals, we are empowered to choose how we grant or revoke such permissions to other individuals. If you stop trusting your spouse, you can revoke their access to your email.
Government is a superset of Individuals. There is no greater clique they are accountable to. Any permission extended (surrendered) to it is an implicit conversion of ownership. If you stop trusting your government to act responsibly with surveillance, you can't revoke that permission. It's no longer yours.
...like the toy you hand over to the playground bully because he "just wants to see it for a second." He was polite enough to state the conditions of release upfront-- but nothing on the playground compelled him to actually abide by his own terms. You find out too late he's a liar, and if you're lucky, you'll get your toy back, when he's done with it, and likely in pieces.
It's frustrating trying to protect children from amorphous threats whose access methods are abstract, virtual and obfuscated by incomprehensible technology and encryption. The question is always whether we maintain absolute anarchy or accept nanny-state dystopia.
Maybe it's time we consider kicking kids off the internet altogether before surrendering any more personal rights to a bully with the weight-class of an entire institution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can self defense not be a natural right? Someone comes into your home is beating your child and you're not home. Should your wife be forced to fight a man twice her size with her natural hands or is it ok for her to shoot the guy trying to kill her kids? Same situation. You are home. Should you be forced to engage the criminal with your bare hands knowing that if you lose the fight your kids will be murdered?
Please spare us the appeals to emotion. The context here is owning something to provide "effective self defense" - so where do we draw the line? Can I decide that only owning a gun is not enough against the other gun owners so I need something more effective? GP's claim is this right justifies owning a weapon that can easily kill. That's far beyond "effective" in my view.
I think that's the definition of effective. Someone breaks into my home high on pcp, the most effective way to stop them hurting my family is killing them. Is that not a true statement? What is a more effective way to do it, knowing that failure potentially means the death of your kids? I'm not going to engage them with a tazer, there's the chance they will walk right through it, then what?
Anthony Smith, the current #5 ranked light heavyweight in the UFC is 6'4 and probably walks around at 230lbs. A guy on drugs broke into his house and Smith fought him and could not put him down. This is a guy that could defeat 99% of people on earth in a fight. I'm a big strong guy, Smith would absolutely murder me. Why would a normal civilian choose to fight a home invader with their fists when a more effective option is available? What if 2 people break in?
"Can I decide that only owning a gun is not enough against the other gun owners so I need something more effective?" I don't think firing a rocket launcher at someone in your house is going to be as effective as a firearm due to the potential for collateral damage. Also tanks play hell with my new wooden floors. Claymore mines are always a risk when stumbling around in the dark when the dog has to go outside. There is no other rational more effective choice than a firearm for someone defending their home provided they know how to use it.
If you're real argument is that no one should be able to kill someone else even if they are a home invader here to murder your family then Im not sure what to say. I guess I would like to know what you would do in that situation knowing what losing means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, Britain's obsession with banning knives/sharp objects appears to be unique - many countries have no such restrictions and yet they don't seem to have a stabbing epidemic.
>many countries have no such restrictions and yet they don't seem to have a stabbing epidemic Are you implying there's a stabbing epidemic in Britain? (apologies if I'm misunderstanding that) Britain doesn't have a stabbing epidemic[1]. It's a meme Media attention made the obsession, not whatever actually happens in the real world. Ah, if only people cared as much about heart and brain diseases :( [1] https://worldpo…
1) There is in fact a need to curb knife crime, without these measures people would die a lot more.
2) There is no significant risk of knife crime, UK uses arbitrary law application to harass undesirable individuals and/or instill a "harmless mindset" into its subjects.
Not sure what's worse.
I will say it again, something has got to give. You can't have humane treatment of child rapists and fear government overreach. It is in fact possible to backdoor communication systems for lawful intercept access. It is possible to also design public auditing of such systems so that a warrant or lawful order being used to intercept communications can be logged and audited by the public. Warrants are not forever secre…
This is a disgraceful, anti-intellectual attitude.
And this is from country where certain celebrities abused children for decades in plain site without any encryption. Where children of entire towns were mass-abused also in plain site and under the nose of police. Where members of Royal family are known kiddy fiddlers without anything serious happening to them.
plain sight*
> The government, and prominent child protection charities have long argued that encryption hinders efforts to combat online child abuse - which they say is a growing problem. So take using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. What they should be doing, is rather then increase the risk of for the majority who use encryption for valid reasons (privacy, not nefarious), is invest in services to allow individuals to gain help,…
> So take using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is worse. Encryption does protect children instead of endangering them. So these "charities" aren't even doing their job.
And the next step is wide scope censorship like that instituted by the CCP. The ideas that we should censor politically inconvenient truths like the migrant crisis are already in the UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The poor man’s not even in labour anymore, let him rest!
Nitpick: he is a Labour member but not a member of the Parliamentary Labour Party, so he sits in the Commons as an independent.