Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
221–230 of 394 posts
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't all that surprising to me either. But for different reasons. They have no idea what they are talking about. Do we think they know our online banking software uses the same kind of encryption? Probably not. Andrew Marr not knowing this is annoying. But an entire government being ignorant of it is deeply worrying.
Why do you think the government doesn't know? Why do you think they believe what they say? This is just populist bullshit. It follows on from other populist bullshit.
I think they don't know because I've never seen any of them describe encryption in a way that would suggest they know what they are talking about.
I don't doubt that someone in government knows. Probably an entry level staffer. But whenever technology comes up (such as blocking types of content from the internet) the policy is always utterly ham fisted.
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#223I wonder how she felt about private communication during her directorships in off shore tax havens?
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#224If I may ask a very naive question: Do politicians like her really think encryption is dangerous or is it a devious way to expand mass surveillance? Attacks of the past have shown that terrorists don't have a need to resort to encryption. The people involved in the Berlin attack last year, for instance, were monitored. Authorities knew they would strike but they didn't have sufficient incriminating evidence that woul…
> really think encryption is dangerous or is it a devious way to expand mass surveillance
The latter her and the precious home secretary (now PM) have been banging on about how under threat we are from the terrorist hoards for years now - all so they can erode freedoms and increase mass surveillance under the guise of 'keeping Britain safe'.
The idea that banning encryption of private conversations will prevent these few crazy people from causing damage is of course ridiculous.
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#225We're a very long way from being a totalitarian state and likely to remain so for quite some time but, make no mistake, this is the thin end of a very long and ultimately very fat wedge. It therefore behooves us well to hold the government to account when they try to get us to swallow more of that wedge. Sure, encryption helps terrorists as well as ordinary citizens but it's my belief that freedom and privacy are mor…
At some point, some politician is going to have to man up and speak the truth. The public will have to either accept that the government can try and protect it from low probability events by invading every aspect of our lives or people will have to accept the idea that there is a sub 1% chance of being killed by a crazy person.
Corbyn has already spoken up:
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said authorities already had "huge powers". There had to be a balance between the "right to know" and "the right to privacy", he said. [1]
Unfortunately when it came to actually doing something he provided practically no opposition to the Investigatory Powers Act.
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
UK's best shot at surviving Brexit is become stronger on value added industries. They have a very good head start over any other EU country in IT and in some research areas. Amber Rudd seems hell bent on destroying their only chance.
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.
It's completely optional, turn it off. It also tends to only be mobile networks that do that kind of filtering by default, ISP's ask you when you sign up if you want 'parental controls' or not.
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#227It's an incredibly foolish thing for a minister to suggest. She demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on the subject and has commited political seppuku. Has she never read Orwell, Huxley, seen articles about tyrannical governments or even heard about the reasons the US constitution was drawn up?
has commited political seppuku Since the current prime minister supports her, I doubt it. It's an absurd position, but not without support in the current administration, just like her outspoken views on immigration.
> Since the current prime minister supports her
And, I'm sorry to say, a large chunk of the public, who have for years been force fed rubbish from politicians and the media alike about the huge terrorist threat that threatens to destroy our country (when in reality just about anything else you can think of is more of a threat than the odd crazy with a knife and car...)
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
As far as I'm aware all new accounts in the U.K. do this unless you call to have it disabled (and give personal information). I mean, how else would you protect the children...
>> As far as I'm aware all new accounts in the U.K. do this unless you call to have it disabled (and give personal information).
Usually you can have it disabled while you sign up (and they usually ask if you want it). As for giving personal info - they're you're ISP. They have your name, address, billing details, have done a credit check...what else are they going to ask for that you haven't already supplied?
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think the government doesn't know? Why do you think they believe what they say? This is just populist bullshit. It follows on from other populist bullshit.
I think they don't know because I've never seen any of them describe encryption in a way that would suggest they know what they are talking about. I don't doubt that someone in government knows. Probably an entry level staffer. But whenever technology comes up (such as blocking types of content from the internet) the policy is always utterly ham fisted.
[deleted]
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#230In a similar vein, to prevent corruption and bribery we should require Ms. Rudd et al to post all email exchanges (official or otherwise) they engage in publicly, along with their bank statements.
After all, we can't allow corrupt politicians ANYWHERE TO HIDE. ;)