Earlier quoted context omitted.
She's probably being led by the intelligence services on this, and of course they have ulterior motives, their ultimate project is to collect all signals, or as many as they can manage, which apps like whatsapp are thwarting at present. Why can't we collect all the signals all the time? This is incredibly dangerous for our society, no-one should have that much power. That power isn't about terrorism (or even very use…
An intelligence led response to terrorism is a result of learning from Northern Ireland. Internment caused harm; talking to the terrorists brought peace. Don't forget that while they were talking to the IRA politicians were saying in public "we don't talk to terrorists".
UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
191–200 of 394 posts
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#192> "That is my view - it is completely unacceptable, there should be no place for terrorists to hide." I am sure a ban on encryption would work. Hey, guys, I just had a great idea. Let's ban bombs, knifes, and driving into people. That would fix the terrorism problem. Once it is illegal, no terrorist would dare do it!!! I'm wondering why Churchill didn't think to ban the Enigma machine. If only England was led by smar…
The difference is that it's relatively easy to detect when people use encrypted communication. You can just arrest them. It's not so easy to detect whether someone is planning to drive into people.
Compare like with like. It's plenty easy to detect whether someone is driving. Whether they're planning to drive into people has the same level of difficulty as whether their encrypted communications are about terrorist activity, so shouldn't we ban cars? And buses and planes and anything else with wheels or an engine?
If we banned planes that would certainly have prevented 9/11. What better argument could there be?
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#193I watched Amber Rudd interviewed by Andrew Marr this morning and the scariest thing about it was that Marr completely agreed with her. Rather than providing an opposing viewpoint and counteracting her points, he agreed with the idea that it was unacceptable for people to be allowed to use encryption and that it was terrible these companies were using it as a selling point. All he pushed her on was if she would enforc…
This isn't all that surprising, given that the government has repeatedly threatened the BBC with the loss/alteration of their charter for being critical of the government and not sufficiently jubilant about Brexit. ITV owning the BBC would arguably be a greater disaster than watered down coverage. For a corollary see the paucity of coverage on the mass demonstration in London yesterday.
We saw prominent features on the BBC, furious headlines from the Daily Mail and self-congratulation from the Guardian. What would you have considered sufficient coverage for yesterdays demonstration?
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
"What could we have done to prevent this attack" Actually there is a lot they could have done to help him in his obviously troubled life but that doesn't fit with conservative ideology.
We can't help everyone. It's naïve to think we can, 100% of the time, help all people. Even the most socially progressive system on the planet will have people slipping through the cracks- we have to be able to deal with that eventuality too.
True but at the moment we have a particularly poor record of helping people with mental illness. This guy didn't slip through the cracks, he was totally ignored along with many others who are struggling.
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
She's probably being led by the intelligence services on this, and of course they have ulterior motives, their ultimate project is to collect all signals, or as many as they can manage, which apps like whatsapp are thwarting at present. Why can't we collect all the signals all the time? This is incredibly dangerous for our society, no-one should have that much power. That power isn't about terrorism (or even very use…
Probably more blackmailed than led by the intelligence services. This is why the deep state is so intent on surveilling the politicians. And why when they discover the political class engaging in crimes they do not bring them to justice (like the Westminster paedophilia scandal). They like to keep all their dirt on file so they are easily controlled and can be forced to enact the draconian laws the deep state wants.
I imagine they reserve blackmail for cases where it is deemed necessary; given the views of the PM and HS, I doubt any blackmail is necessary.
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
They all are intent on crippling any chance the UK has at becoming stronger in high tech industries. I'm so sick of getting "this is an adult resource and you can't view it" anytime I search for information about a drug (pharmaceutical, not just "weed LSD and lols"). Great fucking way to encourage your future chemists. Maybe ban keywords like JavaScript, PHP and SQL while at it, them's the powerful drugs maaan.
> I'm so sick of getting "this is an adult resource and you can't view it" anytime I search for information Switch ISP, or contact your current one to disable this. They don't all do it by default, or at all.
Or use a VPN service.
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can't help everyone. It's naïve to think we can, 100% of the time, help all people. Even the most socially progressive system on the planet will have people slipping through the cracks- we have to be able to deal with that eventuality too.
True but at the moment we have a particularly poor record of helping people with mental illness. This guy didn't slip through the cracks, he was totally ignored along with many others who are struggling.
There's absolutely no evidence he had mental illness, and you do harm to people with mental illness when you incorrectly link violent behaviour to mental illness.
More important is his time in prison - where most UK terrorists were radicalised - and if you were saying that UK prisons don't rehabilitate I'd agree.
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
She's probably being led by the intelligence services on this, and of course they have ulterior motives, their ultimate project is to collect all signals, or as many as they can manage, which apps like whatsapp are thwarting at present. Why can't we collect all the signals all the time? This is incredibly dangerous for our society, no-one should have that much power. That power isn't about terrorism (or even very use…
Probably more blackmailed than led by the intelligence services. This is why the deep state is so intent on surveilling the politicians. And why when they discover the political class engaging in crimes they do not bring them to justice (like the Westminster paedophilia scandal). They like to keep all their dirt on file so they are easily controlled and can be forced to enact the draconian laws the deep state wants.
> Westminster paedophilia scandal
Links to any credible sources?
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#199Hmm, this definitely brings up an interesting discussion I don't think HN has had before, especially something in a similar vein since Apple+San Bernardino fiasco. Obviously privacy is something that HN holds very close to its heart. But I'm interested in what do people here have to say about the privacy features are used by terrible people to do terrible things. And I want to share something that I think is one of t…
Terrorism, and crime in general is a nuisance that we have to live with. You can have a society with no crime. All you need is a super repressive totalitarian state, total transparency with citizens reporting on each others, state surveillance everywhere. It will work. But first I don't want to live in such a state. And second these totalitarian states slide invariably toward corruption and state crimes. So we have t…
So we have to live with some level of crime. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be tough on criminals, but we have to accept that it is not possible in a free society to reach zero criminality.
As the saying goes, "insecurity is freedom." I've always found it somewhat disturbing that people have welcomed the walled-garden ecosystems popular today, which are essentially the cyber-equivalent.
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have to roll your own crypto to create an own end-to-end encryption app. You can use existing crypto. Writing a user interface around it is not so difficult. Beyound the reach of the terrorist organisations? We have already seen pretty sophisticated operations by relatively small crime organizations (like exploiting pseudorandom generators in casino slot machines). There's an established black market for ex…
> small crime organizations (like exploiting pseudorandom generators in casino slot machines) If all you do is pushing the buttons of the slot machine in the right order with the right timing, that's hardly a crime —and I don't care about court judgements to the contrary. If a slot machine has a crappy pseudo random number generator, they're just asking for it. I'd rather sue the slot machine's maker for providing a…
> that's hardly a crime —and I don't care about court judgements to the contrary
Either you meant something along the lines of "that shouldn't be a crime" or you're essentially saying "it's not crime even though it is a crime" - which doesn't make terribly much sense.