Theresa may calls for tighter internet regulations after London attack

neocon · 7 Jun 2017 at 06:48

How can you stop people using encryption? Anyone can make an app and distribute it, so how can you build back doors in that case?

Tefal · 7 Jun 2017 at 06:54

Haggisman said:
If you genuinely believe that, then feel free to go ahead and post your Facebook, email, online banking etc. login details for us all to see, since they apparently aren't safe anyway.

err he said his information not his login details for people to use/abuse.

theres a big difference in having say read only access to someones emails and being able to impersonate them by having thier pw.

Rilot · 7 Jun 2017 at 07:47

neocon said:
How can you stop people using encryption? Anyone can make an app and distribute it, so how can you build back doors in that case?

Because all governments seem to have the view that if you criminalise something then criminals will stop doing it. In reality, all that happens is that law-abiding people stop doing it but the criminals continue to do so.

gemlover · 7 Jun 2017 at 08:02

Hiijinx said:
So.... Just in case the batty old loon actually goes and does it, what's the best VPN to get ?

try purevpn, its paid but cheap. If you wouldn't like to invest much on their monthly and yearly plans, you may have a trial VPN. Also, dont go with free VPNs as they keep logs of users activities.

Haggisman · 7 Jun 2017 at 09:19

Tefal said:
err he said his information not his login details for people to use/abuse.

theres a big difference in having say read only access to someones emails and being able to impersonate them by having thier pw.

If we're supposedly getting rid of encryption then there's not really a difference. How do you protect those login details when they're transmitted and stored in plain text for anyone with a simple packet sniffer to see?

Greebo · 7 Jun 2017 at 09:58

Rilot said:
Because all governments seem to have the view that if you criminalise something then criminals will stop doing it. In reality, all that happens is that law-abiding people stop doing it but the criminals continue to do so.

Equally Amber Rudd thinks putting hashtags on child pornography makes it easier to remove the pics from the internet.........................I will let that sink in for a minute.

Mynight · 7 Jun 2017 at 10:17

Greebo said:
Equally Amber Rudd thinks putting hashtags on child pornography makes it easier to remove the pics from the internet.........................I will let that sink in for a minute.

Didn't they backtrack and say she was misunderstood and meant hashing?

Although I still suspect she meant hashtag.

iamtheoneneo · 7 Jun 2017 at 10:24

So let me get this right, One terrorist was in a documentary about terrorism clearly displaying hatred towards the country he was in and the police, and another terrorist was on a database designed to flag these tards up and still let in the country

and May thinks the answer is controlling the internet more...

what a ****.

Adrianr · 7 Jun 2017 at 10:37

Mynight said:
Didn't they backtrack and say she was misunderstood and meant hashing?

Although I still suspect she meant hashtag.

I'd be shocked if she knew what either were tbh. In this context at least.

Greebo · 7 Jun 2017 at 10:45

Mynight said:
Didn't they backtrack and say she was misunderstood and meant hashing?

Although I still suspect she meant hashtag.

Yeah they backtracked once the uproar kicked off and somebody who actually knew what they were talking about got involved.

Our politicians at the moment aren't much better than Trump.

snowdog · 7 Jun 2017 at 12:32

Terrorism has been used to *** citizens of their rights and privacy since ages. Every bloody terrorist attack gives idiot politicians more excuses to get more power over its citizens. That effect is probably far more dangerous and worse than the attacks themselves.

Camera's everywhere, abolishing of privacy, and giving the government more rights to ''fight terrorism'', it keeps just getting worse and worse.

Mynight · 7 Jun 2017 at 12:36

snowdog said:
Terrorism has been used to *** citizens of their rights and privacy since ages. Every bloody terrorist attack gives idiot politicians more excuses to get more power over its citizens. That effect is probably far more dangerous and worse than the attacks themselves.

Camera's everywhere, abolishing of privacy, and giving the government more rights to ''fight terrorism'', it keeps just getting worse and worse.

To be fair cameras everywhere must have helped prosecute a lot of crimes (probably stopped a few as well) so I don't mind them at all. Considering the coverage they're pretty much impossible to avoid.

The internet proposals on the other hand are at best a joke.

Greebo · 7 Jun 2017 at 12:37

Except when you then after spending a fortune installing them, decide to switch them off

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-entire-network-of-cctv-cameras-a3265156.html

Mynight · 7 Jun 2017 at 12:40

That I did not know. What a waste!

£1million a year? :eek:

I'm being shortsighted again but surely staff/storage/maintenance can't be that high.

Steampunk · 7 Jun 2017 at 12:56

We don't need yet more laws that won't work because they are under-resourced and nonsensical. We need to adequately apply the laws we've already got, and that means spending money to resource them. This is just the usual Tory mantra of saying they'll do something in order to appease the masses and make it look like you are doing something, but actually being completely ineffectual because you've cut funding and are not addressing the actual problems. The ignorance shown in situations where governments just point the finger at "the internet" to absolve themselves of responsibility is shocking and shameful.

Tefal · 7 Jun 2017 at 13:04

Haggisman said:
If we're supposedly getting rid of encryption then there's not really a difference. How do you protect those login details when they're transmitted and stored in plain text for anyone with a simple packet sniffer to see?

Cause that's not really what's been proposed at all?

Haggisman · 7 Jun 2017 at 13:19

Tefal said:
Cause that's not really what's been proposed at all?

So what is being proposed then? Because that's exactly what it reads like to me... (Encryption with a "backdoor" isn't really much better than no encryption; all it takes is one person to figure out or leak the "backdoor" and suddenly all of the encrypted information is out in the open)

Kanifee · 7 Jun 2017 at 14:07

Lazy ineffective strategy's that only serve to further their own agenda, the most depressing thing is, and I dont say this as a Conservative fan boy, but this would be the direction both major parties would take and yet the naive general public seem to think this is a may/cons only thing and bye into cheap back and fourth one up manship that these political cowboys use to garner favor. Whatever happens to government is to serve the interests of the people and not vice versa.

mmj_uk · 7 Jun 2017 at 14:14

I've just been reading about the local police forces warning people not to use offensive language on social media in the wake of the Manchester and London massacres because they could wind up in prison for hate speech, it's good to see they have their priorities straight... I wonder how many of the 200,000+ police actually walk the streets these days when they can sit in the station with their feet up nailing idiots for triggering ********** on social media.

McGray · 7 Jun 2017 at 14:30

mmj_uk said:
I've just been reading about the local police forces warning people not to use offensive language on social media in the wake of the Manchester and London massacres because they could wind up in prison for hate speech, it's good to see they have their priorities straight... I wonder how many of the 200,000+ police actually walk the streets these days when they can sit in the station with their feet up nailing idiots for triggering ********** on social media.

You can go on national TV airing your extreme views without consequence but swear on the internet and it's lock down.