And up next on the news at 12, DC wants to ban iMessage and WhatsApp in the UK

Camoron makes me sick with his nosey manipulative so called security desires, he's taking us further down the slippery slope to a police state of total awareness and control.
 
Of course not, it was an off the cuff ill though out remark. Nobody is going to ban WhatsApp.

I suspect he had absolutely no idea that platforms like WhatsApp use encryption.
 
Last edited:
Lets just ban the internet and mobile phones and be done with it. Except for the government of course, they should still have the internet and mobile phones.
 
bitslice said:
MI5 sussed that one, they just pull the access logs and look at what IP's were connected.

A drive by wifi storage box though, that would be neat, you would have to triangulate each connection to see who was accessing it.
Click to expand...

unless they all bounce from the same proxy/vpn. it would look like just one connection then surely?
 
scorza said:
Slippery slope fallacy.
Click to expand...

Except we've seen it with s44 of the Terrorism Act and the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act (council using covert surveillance for trivial matters). It's not a fallacy when the evidence shows a precedent in this context.
 
Though we must all be careful not to find out which prince or cabinet minister is a paedo and gossip about them on whatsapp as that would be unfair to the traitors who work so hard to control us at gchq.
 
You can still log connections to proxies, even if chained, and all VPNs do is encrypt the data, whereas a lot of security work is just logging who is connecting to who and flagging if anyone in that chain talks to a person of interest.

To see who is connecting over wifi you have to be physically in that 50meter area, and you have to know that wifi box is being used. It's just like a spy drop but updated.
You can get battery flash drives that operate using wifi instead of USB, just stick on under a table in mcdonalds, instant dropbox, no trace.

If I can think of it I'm sure ISIS have.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Except we've seen it with s44 of the Terrorism Act and the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act (council using covert surveillance for trivial matters). It's not a fallacy when the evidence shows a precedent in this context.
Click to expand...

What context? The Prime Minister has simply set out what he'd like to see happen, the detail has yet to be revealed. It's perfectly possible to set this up in a way that doesn't allow bungling police officers or council officials to mis-use it.

I don't understand why so many people are against making it harder for groups like Islamic State to operate in the UK.
 
scorza said:
I don't understand why so many people are against making it harder for groups like Islamic State to operate in the UK.
Click to expand...

Because taking away things that UK citizens take for granted (in this case the ability to not be snooped on) is literally letting the terrorists win.
 
scorza said:
I don't understand why so many people are against making it harder for groups like Islamic State to operate in the UK.
Click to expand...

For the same reason the police videotape everyone at every demonstration about anything. They expend just as much effort infiltrating pointless animal rights groups as they do tracking down muslim muppetry.
I wouldn't be surprised if all those women who were at the Greenham common protest still had their phones tapped.
 
FishFluff said:
Because taking away things that UK citizens take for granted (in this case the ability to not be snooped on) is literally letting the terrorists win.
Click to expand...

'Not being snooped on' has literally never been the case in the UK - securing the state is a pre-requisite for stable government. The terrorists want to establish a caliphate in the UK, intercepting their communications makes it less likely that they'll achieve their aims imo.
 
The electorate now has the choice of the party who wanted to introduce identity cards and one which apparently wants to ban communications that can't be read, both of whom would say that this is for the protection of our freedoms* From the Muslims.

And another party which blurts out some relatively straight, blunt talk which - who knows - might just appeal to those who see the main parties as two equally contemptible sides of one establishment...




*at some point, and we aren't there yet, although the US is taking a lead on this, there will be very little liberty left to protect.
 
Last edited:
scorza said:
The terrorists want to establish a caliphate in the UK, intercepting their communications makes it less likely that they'll achieve their aims imo.
Click to expand...

Just make a law that says all muslims will be snooped on then?
And all gingers too, can't be too careful, not with people who don't have souls.

Personally I think turning Birmingham and London into a caliphate would be an excellent idea, nothing like a bit of repression to make them feel welcome and really glad they came to the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom