361–370 of 394 posts
Isnt it weird that drasticly restrictive all encompassing rules are hastily pushed after attacks? Blanket Decryption of messages, and other privacy suppression rules will make intelligence agencies into super powers with too much control at a very reduced cost (less messy assassinations, or physical threats needed)
So a statement that he acted alone by the met police is bing utterly ignored. Ironically no mention of banning 4x4 cars and that frankly puts this whole situation into perspective - government ignorance of encryption, once again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's a bit odd to pretend those are the actions of a well-adjusted, sane person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A long way? Real democracies do not spy on their people because it isn't a democracy anymore when you do. Whether that was always just a... well it is another matter. Business had a reasonable expectation of safe-passage. Who will want their traffic coming through the UK now? What multi-national/trans-national wants all their IP belong to the UK government? They will just go elsewhere. It's the economy stupid. Rudd i…
On the other hand: China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People who will want to conceal contents of their messages could still send them encrypted via WhatsApp or other platform Even if posession of encrypted messages without the ability to decrypt carries a 10 year prison sentence? (Yes, this has serious enforceability problems, but that doesn't mean it can't become law)
How will you prove what I possess is encrypted data and not random bits?
https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/02/justice-naps-m...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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. Giving up such a valuable right to possibly stop attacks which, in the grand scheme of things actually harm very few people, is idiotic. Terrorism is obviously awful but the number of people in the UK actually affected by it is far, far too small to consider forgoing such an important…
> How about tackling the actual problem - terrorists seem to have resorted to using cars and trucks to kill people. Lets put up some metal/concrete bollards alone the edge of pavements that have no 'escape route', such as the one on Westminster Bridge. Nice post. I agree almost entirely with you, but you can't put a bollard everywhere, and even if you could, bad people would find a way around or between the bollards,…
I agree, this wasn't my suggestion. I was thinking more of areas like a bridge where if a car does start speeding along the pavement, even if you are further along and see it, there is nowhere for you to go. Your choices are stay put (and get hit), run into the road and probably get hit by traffic, or jump off the bridge (dangerous). Bollards along pavements like that would be useful. Even just one at each end and one in the middle would halve the damage by 50% at least. My greater point though is that something like bollards tackles the problem directly and is much more effective than SIGINT for these type of attacks yet nobody is talking about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not like relations with other European countries will immediately cease on leaving the EU.
That's not what I meant or wish. But it's a (for me sad) fact that at that point the expression "compared to the other EU countries" won't have any sense anymore. And if May will go with hard Brexit, as many predict, it will even become easier to trade with eg Canada than with the UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More likely they would say they want to do it because it would be "helping the police and security services to do their job" and be "protecting the people".
For sure, but wouldn't it be nice if the interviewer at least challenged the assumption that such measures do protect people overall? Leaving aside the question of whether there would be any benefit in the case of attacks like the one we saw last week, which is debatable in itself, there's also the question of whether the reduced security would do more harm than good. The interviewer could explore the impact of onlin…