Amber Rudd fails to understand the internet

Mr Jack

Mr Jack

Mr Jack

Caporegime
Joined
19 May 2004
Posts
33,962
Location
Nordfriesland, Germany
Would it really hurt a politician to talk to someone who has some vague idea what they're talking about?

Amber Rudd wants intelligence service access to WhatsApp and internet companies to "do more" to stop terrorism being shared. Okay, you might think, fair enough but then she says this:

“What I’m saying is the best people who understand the technology, who understand the necessary hashtags to stop this stuff even being put up, not just taking it down, are going to be them. That’s why I would like to have an industry-wide board set up where they do it themselves.”

Necessary hashtags

Dear god.
 
Last edited:
I watched her on Andrew Marr today and I was just thinking to myself: "this is madness". So because terrorists can use encrypted services, we should ban all secure encrypted services? While I understand the need to take measures to reduce the risk of terrorists, eroding all of our personal freedoms is not the sensible way to do it. Terrorists will get around ANY punitive measures you can implement, and where do we draw the line?
 
i'm just going to quote myself from the other thread:
adolf hamster said:
just to point out, a lack of end to end encryption didn't exactly stop the 'ra, or any other terrorist organisation prior to this modern connected world, so how exactly do they think it's going to stop them now?

i'm all for the bugging/tapping/spying on terrorists, when there's a COURT WARRANT involved, spying on the general populace without due process is sacrificing the liberties of those who use end to end encryption for legitimate means, like doing their online banking or businesses sending intellectual property data.
Click to expand...
adolf hamster said:
or they'd revert to hushed conversations in people's apartments etc.

it's worrying that this whole sacrificing of liberty thing isn't being seen as the major issue it is, i know a lot of the older generations tend to be all for it, but to us young bucks who have to spend the rest of our lives with the internet it's ever so slightly important. wether you have anything to hide or not is irrelevant, you may not have anything to hide now, but who's to say there won't be something introduced in the future that's actually going to have a major impact on you?

water dripping on a stone- erodes a mountain eventually.
Click to expand...
adolf hamster said:
doesn't need to be retroactive, just passed through on the sly so people don't know. as we do know ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the law.
Click to expand...
 
The thing that winds me up, is the existing powers are perfectly adequate (lawful intercept) where, subject to government approval - the ISP can flow tap a customer and send data to GCHQ, if intelligence exists that they're up to no good - which seems to me to be a reasonable proportional use of resources.......

The problem is, due to the way everything has been ratcheted up under the words "terrorist threat" over the last decade, each time anything happens, all sense of proportionality is thrown through the window and the authorities attempt to take everything over, in a half blind, half baked, totally incompetent and frantic way - totally forgetting what reality looks like.

The end result is to always ask for more, when Ian Huntley murdered the soham girls - the government response wasn't "we need to make sure we religiously apply existing powers which work perfectly well <crb checks>" instead it was "We need more and more powers" And this has become a trend, each time the government **** up, they use it as an excuse to get more and more without any coherent strategy.

They almost always overplay their hand and push it too far, I guarantee if they try to block encryption - the government will find itself in court countless times, for countless reasons - because of the way they're eroding everything, and there's a high chance they'll lose and it'll all cost £Billions, and get thrown out anyway... And terrorists gonna terror, so yeah,..
 
Richdog said:
I watched her on Andrew Marr today and I was just thinking to myself: "this is madness". So because terrorists can use encrypted services, we should ban all secure encrypted services? While I understand the need to take measures to reduce the risk of terrorists, eroding all of our personal freedoms is not the sensible way to do it. Terrorists will get around ANY punitive measures you can implement, and where do we draw the line?
Click to expand...

May I ask why you think terrorism should be of higher importance than the vast majority of things that kill. Since terrorism is very very low on the list I'd wager domestic abuse kills more. So why isn't that a higher priority.
Do you not think it errods your personality liberties based on Alternative Facts!
 
ChroniC said:
May I ask why you think terrorism should be of higher importance than the vast majority of things that kill. Since terrorism is very very low on the list I'd wager domestic abuse kills more. So why isn't that a higher priority.
Do you not think it errods your personality liberties based on Alternative Facts!
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I struggled to understand your post. What has domestic abuse got to do with terrorism and securely encrypted communication methods? And where did I state anything to do with priority? We are simply talking about terrorism, which is obviously a huge topic at the moment.
 
Screeeech said:
They almost always overplay their hand and push it too far, I guarantee if they try to block encryption - the government will find itself in court countless times, for countless reasons - because of the way they're eroding everything, and there's a high chance they'll lose and it'll all cost £Billions, and get thrown out anyway... And terrorists gonna terror, so yeah,..
Click to expand...

In the UK, the Parliament giveth and taketh away, as far as rights go. You do realise that in two years' time, May will be completely free to introduce a British Bill of Rights - her Home Office dream - and redefine privacy to suit? This was always doable of course, but for now Brexit talks and potential IndyRef 2 take priority.

I honestly think not even people wanting such a bill and British courts for British people know what they are in for. Rudd is following the line on this. After the next general election, both will have the mandate of a large majority. Job done. As we see in the case of China and W10's telemetry, eventually the profit motive will ensure the corporates cave in, and leave domestic law in the mitts of the government. That is to say: trusting private enterprises to perform the role of an international human rights court, is hoping for a bit too much.
 
Mr Jack said:
“What I’m saying is the best people who understand the technology, who understand the necessary hashtags to stop this stuff even being put up, not just taking it down, are going to be them. That’s why I would like to have an industry-wide board set up where they do it themselves.”
Click to expand...
I know less about technology than I thought, having "[not understood] the necessary hashtags to stop [that] stuff even being put up."
 
Richdog said:
Sorry, but I struggled to understand your post. What has domestic abuse got to do with terrorism and securely encrypted communication methods? And where did I state anything to do with priority? We are simply talking about terrorism, which is obviously a huge topic at the moment.
Click to expand...

It was a very simply put statement. Why put so much of a strain on our civil liberties based on thing that doesnt cause that much of a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom