David Cameron is going to try and ban encryption in Britain

lolno, the things i encrypt are the things i don't want anyone looking at [hackers, the government, theives etc etc], possibly because they contain private data that i dont want in random strangers hands.

nice try government, but try doing that to my country and i'll just leave it. terrorism is no excuse, for the same reason it isn't an excuse to listen to my phone calls or read my letters or video me in the shower ( :eek: ).

plus there's all the big businesses, like banks, who might [i dunno] use it to keep important business data safe? unencrypt that lot and the terrorists will have easy money to spend on their holy wars.

or of course said businesses will just up sticks and leave, goodbye economy....
 
The simple fact is that without 24/7 media bombardment over the past 14 yrs 99.99% of people in the country wouldn't have been affected at all by muslim extremism AKA terrorism, and yet.. with it western governments have been able to achieve so much when it comes to eroding civil liberties and implementing police state policies, something that they claimed wouldn't happen post 9/11 because giving up our freedoms would mean that terrorism had won. You can achieve everything if it happens gradually, bit by bit... it's only when people wake up one morning and everything has suddenly changed that they get up in arms about it.

15 yrs ago we would all have been laughing and taking the mickey at China or North Korea for their governments having the ability to spy on every single citizen, it's normality for us now.
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
yea what about them? you think they are using whatsapp?
you realise how easy it is to encrypt text?

this says "hello" and took me 2 seconds using a program that's impossible to ban in the uk.

Message

What next limit the internet to only uk servers? because it's impossible to stop people encrypting stuff unless they control the whole internet the government know nothing
Click to expand...

I think you are a terrorist, otherwise why would you hide that :mad:
 
mmj_uk said:
The simple fact is that without 24/7 media bombardment over the past 14 yrs 99.99% of people in the country wouldn't have been affected at all by muslim extremism AKA terrorism, and yet.. with it western governments have been able to achieve so much when it comes to eroding civil liberties and implementing police state policies, something that they claimed wouldn't happen post 9/11 because giving up our freedoms would mean that terrorism had won. You can achieve everything if it happens gradually, bit by bit... it's only when people wake up one morning and everything has suddenly changed that they get up in arms about it.
Click to expand...

Oh hi mmj - I heard Islamic State were introducing their own gold backed currency just like Saddam and Gaddaffi. So now we know why the US wants to bomb them eh?
 
I wonder if Cameron is really hoping to pre-empt the arrival of quantum encryption?

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
I prefer sources like Vice and The Guardian as they tend to provide far less biased reporting
Click to expand...

I'd disagree regarding the Guardian, they may be mostly correct in the details, but they do tend to print an avalanche of articles following the exact same agenda.
They ignore and ridicule opposing points of view almost as much as the DM does.

I think people have to stand outside of a particular mindset to get a reasonable view, if someone is purely a Guardian or a DM reader I'd suggest they'd have a noticeably narrow viewpoint to others.
I'm not saying I'm any different, just that left/right viewpoints are essentially self reinforcing and the Guardian is not above this in inculcating its readership.
 
If a anybody looks at the total number of people killed each year around the world by acts of terrorism, the figures are fairly static.

It only seems to be a problem when non chocolate faced people get killed or maimed, at which point it's part of the "ever escalating terrorist threat".

You are five times more likely to die from falling out of bed, than dying in a terrorist attack.

And two and a half times more likely to die by a snake bite.

I hope people take this post in the manner intended.
 
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
I prefer sources like Vice and The Guardian as they tend to provide far less bias reporting and are among-st some the best investigative journalism out there imho!
Click to expand...

Oh the Guardian have their agendas alright. Investigative reporting only when is suits their purpose. When they are given information in the public interest that would cast their political (labour) friends in a very bad light they ignore it. They then cover the consequences, report them as tory derived and remove all comments from CIF related to the original reasoning.

Bunch of shysters tbh.
 
Energize said:
Some types of encryption like one time pad are unprovable, a law against encryption wouldn't work.
Click to expand...

That depends on your definition of "work".

Does the law on drugs stop people smoking cannabis? of course not, that's never the aim of laws against drugs. But does it "work"? of course it does, it makes 99% of the Police force look like they're doing something great to the brainwashed masses who get smashed and die on alcohol every weekend.


Law against encryption, as well as the general aim of western governments to infiltrate and seize large portions of the internet as we know it has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with implementing a police state.



It's basically just another tool to say "Hey! You have encrypted something, you have broken the law, therefore you are a criminal"

Sooner or later that will turn to "Hey! You haven't plugged your brain into our Facebook supercomputer, therefore you are hiding your thoughts and you are a criminal".

It's exactly the same as "Hey! You're smoking something, you haven't harmed anyone and smoking that will render you harmless even to a fly, but I'm a police officer and I've been brainwashed into believing you're a really bad person who does bad things".
 
Last edited:
was having a pee in my house the other day, looked outta the velux and saw a drone hovvering over our area. my penis is no longer private.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom