Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

British Prime Minister Suggests Banning Some Online Messaging Apps

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 58 posts

Re: British Prime Minister Suggests Banning Some Online Messaging Apps

#11

Post by sd8f9iu »

Honestly, why do people think that a terrorist attack like this requires any dramatic changes to society? The fact is that some guys got guns and shot up a building, in the name of a currently popular, violent ideology. When will we ever be able to completely eradicate this? The number of people killed per year in the Western world due to terrorist attacks is incredibly low. Perhaps we don't need a routing of our security apparatus and freedoms to prevent what, without the inclusion of radical Islam, would be seen as an violent crime.

We got two wars in the wake of 9/11, and I don't think there was any actual increased terrorist threat.

Re: British Prime Minister Suggests Banning Some Online Messaging Apps

#12

Post by kondro »

MarcScott wrote: post #9

I wonder if I were to locally encrypt a message using AES and then send it via email to a friend, using a pre-shared key, whether I would be breaking the law or not, in Cameron's Brave New World? If the answer is yes, then how about the Vigenere cipher? The Caesar Cipher? 1337 speak? Writing my message backwards? Making spelling mistakes?

Yes, because of his intent for the changed law.

Re: British Prime Minister Suggests Banning Some Online Messaging Apps

#13

Post by dangayle »

p01926 wrote: post #8

David Cameron wasn't just arguing against encrypted messaging apps; he would like to ban secret online communication in general. It will be interesting to see how he squares this with bolstering cybersecurity, which he'll be discussing with Barak Obama later this week. How can we explain to politicians the extent to which modernity is built upon tools like encryption? How can we explain the brute fact of the possibil…

Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Re: British Prime Minister Suggests Banning Some Online Messaging Apps

#14

Post by chrisdone »

I don't anticipate Brits will be hitting the streets in the name of right to privacy and net neutrality as the French have done for right to free speech, though. We are a cowardly, dull bunch, with little regard for our liberty, I'm afraid. We are matched in this only by our leaders' outmoded worldviews.

Re: British Prime Minister Suggests Banning Some Online Messaging Apps

#15

Post by stephenr »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #7

This after attending the march in France for liberty and freedom of speech. Hypocrite. It's also worth mentioning the Mayor of London's thoughts on this: "I'm not particularly interested in this civil liberties stuff when it comes to these people's emails and mobile phone conversations. If they are a threat to our society then I want them properly listened to."

One only needs to watch Boris Johnson (mayor of London) in his top gear appearance several years ago (just the driving part is enough) to understand how utterly stupid this man is.

He is a trained seal that performs for treats.

Re: British Prime Minister Suggests Banning Some Online Messaging Apps

#16

Post by forgottenpass »

p01926 wrote: post #8

David Cameron wasn't just arguing against encrypted messaging apps; he would like to ban secret online communication in general. It will be interesting to see how he squares this with bolstering cybersecurity, which he'll be discussing with Barak Obama later this week. How can we explain to politicians the extent to which modernity is built upon tools like encryption? How can we explain the brute fact of the possibil…

It will be interesting to see how he squares this with bolstering cybersecurity

With a lie to placate the people, if he tries at all. Government (like the snooping corporations before them) only want "nobody but us" levels of security. Some countries have already manged to get it from some services (off the top of my head BBM and India).

Re: British Prime Minister Suggests Banning Some Online Messaging Apps

#17

Post by k-mcgrady »

stephenr wrote: post #15
k-mcgrady wrote: post #7

This after attending the march in France for liberty and freedom of speech. Hypocrite. It's also worth mentioning the Mayor of London's thoughts on this: "I'm not particularly interested in this civil liberties stuff when it comes to these people's emails and mobile phone conversations. If they are a threat to our society then I want them properly listened to."

One only needs to watch Boris Johnson (mayor of London) in his top gear appearance several years ago (just the driving part is enough) to understand how utterly stupid this man is. He is a trained seal that performs for treats.

I used to think that but I read somewhere an ex-employee said that it's all an act. If it is clearly it works because he's liked by too many people. The worry of course is that it's likely he'll end up running for Prime Minister someday soon.

Re: British Prime Minister Suggests Banning Some Online Messaging Apps

#18

Post by marlinspire »

According to Snowden and subsequent whistleblowers considerable resources are tasked to obsessing over political opponents , groups such as Occupy , anti-fracking and even competing business interests are targeted.

In Britain the Security Forces have long been seen as a bit too obsessed with lefties.

There is inneffective Security Theatre at airports - a political sop. What else is inneffective? Are there innefective secret things ?

I would like to see any journalist ask : Are the security services watching radical Islam enough or wasting their resources on what the electorate would consider the wrong targets ?

Will the Security Services having decryption keys to my communications make them more insecure to non-government agents ?

Will how secure the keys are be secret ?

What other governments , agencies and contractors will the keys to our communications be shared with ?

What oversight will there be ?

Re: British Prime Minister Suggests Banning Some Online Messaging Apps

#19

Post by rosser »

sd8f9iu wrote: post #11

Honestly, why do people think that a terrorist attack like this requires any dramatic changes to society? The fact is that some guys got guns and shot up a building, in the name of a currently popular, violent ideology. When will we ever be able to completely eradicate this? The number of people killed per year in the Western world due to terrorist attacks is incredibly low. Perhaps we don't need a routing of our sec…

Because people are absolutely terrible at rationally evaluating risk. Consider people who are terrified of flying, but think nothing of texting while driving. That's (if slightly exaggerated) a pretty representative example of the general human calculus of risk.

The big, scary, but terrifically unlikely event factors more significantly into our fears than the prosaic, equally deadly, but vastly more likely one.

Re: British Prime Minister Suggests Banning Some Online Messaging Apps

#20

Post by Cyther606 »

sd8f9iu wrote: post #11

Honestly, why do people think that a terrorist attack like this requires any dramatic changes to society? The fact is that some guys got guns and shot up a building, in the name of a currently popular, violent ideology. When will we ever be able to completely eradicate this? The number of people killed per year in the Western world due to terrorist attacks is incredibly low. Perhaps we don't need a routing of our sec…

Because shocking attacks get the public's attention. With all eyes on the TV screen, it's the perfect time to introduce public policy changes that strip people of their rights.

All the better if I can defend my statements by inciting a sense of nationalism or publicly shared responsibility for preventing future heinous crimes.

This is the raw video of the shooting of the French policeman: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668

Here it is in slow motion, zoomed in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_c4IUO6h7w

We are told this is footage of a 7.62mm round fired into a target at point blank range.

With no recoil exhibited by the rifle, no blood present anywhere on the scene, and no violent head or body movement on part of the person "shot" at point blank range, it's very possible that blanks were fired and that this is yet another deep event meant to mislead the public into accepting a hidden agenda.

Post reply on HN