Theresa may calls for tighter internet regulations after London attack

Tefal · 11 Jun 2017 at 23:19

Rroff said:
That is a rather worrying advocacy for deep learning to be used to "understand" mass surveillance data which opens up some incredibly worrying doors if people have the foresight for it.

we're reaching the point where the tools for a truly totalitarian system are becoming available.

Question is will we outlaw them before they start or will we use them for "reasonable" measures and slowly see that definition creep.

"Those who play with the devil's toys will be brought by degrees to wield his sword"

Adrianr · 14 Jun 2017 at 10:45

Here's hoping she has much bigger things to worry about now.

Angilion · 14 Jun 2017 at 15:47

In related news, Egypt is making determined and apparently quite successful attempts to outlaw personal use of VPNs. Perhaps May didn't bother campaigning in the election because she was too busy asking the Egyptian government what hashtags to use to stop VPNs working and failing to understand the answers (in reality, unsurprisingly, Egypt did it with guns - armed officers at the offices and homes of people running ISPs demanding they comply).

I doubt if the current UK government would be content to allow any country to be ahead of them in any way in the race to a totalitarian state. They can't currently get away with the same method, though, so it will have to be more propaganda first.

opethdisciple · 14 Jun 2017 at 16:06

Hopefully with the results of the election all these nonsense ideas she got will be put to bed.

Adrianr · 15 Jun 2017 at 12:57

Angilion said:
In related news, Egypt is making determined and apparently quite successful attempts to outlaw personal use of VPNs. Perhaps May didn't bother campaigning in the election because she was too busy asking the Egyptian government what hashtags to use to stop VPNs working and failing to understand the answers (in reality, unsurprisingly, Egypt did it with guns - armed officers at the offices and homes of people running ISPs demanding they comply).

I doubt if the current UK government would be content to allow any country to be ahead of them in any way in the race to a totalitarian state. They can't currently get away with the same method, though, so it will have to be more propaganda first.

We wouldn't need to use soldiers and guns. Could probably do exactly the same with some sort of national security letter. The ones you're not even allowed to tell people you've been given. That's a nice thought.

Delvis · 15 Jun 2017 at 13:20

So I assume all the government departments, all g with Police, Army etc will also not be allowed to use Encryption services then? :rolleyes:

Haggisman · 15 Jun 2017 at 16:28

Adrianr said:
We wouldn't need to use soldiers and guns. Could probably do exactly the same with some sort of national security letter. The ones you're not even allowed to tell people you've been given. That's a nice thought.

Really? You think someone who sets up a VPN to circumvent government controls is going to turn round and say "ok sir, sorry sir" over a letter?

Adrianr · 16 Jun 2017 at 11:32

Haggisman said:
Really? You think someone who sets up a VPN to circumvent government controls is going to turn round and say "ok sir, sorry sir" over a letter?

Angilions post it sounded like they were targeting ISPs, not individuals. I'm guessing Egypt think they can just block encrypted traffic? Or hand over personal details of those suspected of using personal VPNs? Not sure. Either way IPS's wouldn't need to be held at gunpoint to comply; I'm sure the threat of prosecution or sanction would be enough.

platypus · 16 Jun 2017 at 14:39

413x said:
Torn on this. More torn than on anything else.
Personal freedom is important. Critical. But I do feel best way to find terrorists etc is through intelligence and scouring the Internet.

That said.. And here is my dilemma.. I would ideally like Internet to be monitored.. But absolutely only for such acts of terrorism. But I know full well this is opening the flood gates and it won't stop there.

Thus I'd vote against it.. I think.. But it does t sit well.

No doubt general public can be brainwashed into this as a.. Vote for monitoring you'll be safe, you lose nothing.
But once it happens. No going back.

Ugh. And another step towards no free thought

I think the problem here is that you're uninformed.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I feel its important to point out that:

- Backdooring encryption will fundamentally break the internet.
- Mass surveillance and the collation of datasets will do nothing to stop terrorism, and will just leave ordinary people open to data breaches, hackers, and worse governments who have proven themselves time and time again to not give a damn about privacy.

platypus · 16 Jun 2017 at 14:56

Ben3991 said:
I agree. But what is worse? Someone knowing your email password, or potentially taking some of your money, or being stabbed, driven into or blown up? If it genuinely would help stop these attacks, and action would actually be taken on people, then surely some leaked personal info is better than bloodshed?

Ignoring your fantasyland for a second: given that it won't help stop these attacks, what then for leaked personal data?

Angilion · 17 Jun 2017 at 01:37

Adrianr said:
Angilions post it sounded like they were targeting ISPs, not individuals. I'm guessing Egypt think they can just block encrypted traffic? Or hand over personal details of those suspected of using personal VPNs? Not sure. Either way IPS's wouldn't need to be held at gunpoint to comply; I'm sure the threat of prosecution or sanction would be enough.

They were targeting ISPs by targeting individuals at those ISPs. Turn up at the CEO's home and tell them to stop allowing access to VPN services or they will be personally punished for doing so. Not the company. Not a fine. Them personally. In prison. Or dead.

Tefal · 17 Jun 2017 at 02:14

Angilion said:
They were targeting ISPs by targeting individuals at those ISPs. Turn up at the CEO's home and tell them to stop allowing access to VPN services or they will be personally punished for doing so. Not the company. Not a fine. Them personally. In prison. Or dead.

Yeah that wouldn't work in the uk though would it.

Angilion · 18 Jun 2017 at 00:16

Tefal said:
Yeah that wouldn't work in the uk though would it.

Why not?

It might not be allowed yet, but as we progress further into authoritarianism there's no reason to assume it won't be allowed in the near future. Besides, it could be done now with a "security" order, which would prevent the people involved from even saying it had happened. Still "obey or be jailed", just less honest.

Tefal · 18 Jun 2017 at 00:25

Angilion said:
Why not?

It might not be allowed yet, but as we progress further into authoritarianism there's no reason to assume it won't be allowed in the near future. Besides, it could be done now with a "security" order, which would prevent the people involved from even saying it had happened. Still "obey or be jailed", just less honest.

pretty sure we're a vast vast vast distance from extrajudicial executions of the heads of ISPs.

not to mention said head would be on live tv showing what happened by the end of thew day and thus protected by the huge civil uprising/impeachment of the pm that ordered it by the end of thw eek.

StriderX · 18 Jun 2017 at 00:41

Tefal said:
pretty sure we're a vast vast vast distance from extrajudicial executions of the heads of ISPs.

not to mention said head would be on live tv showing what happened by the end of thew day and thus protected by the huge civil uprising/impeachment of the pm that ordered it by the end of thw eek.

As if one can't turn up at the station itself and stop the broadcast?

Just look at Turkey for a rather visual take on what happens, thankfully opinion is turning due to May's abject uselessness.

Tefal · 18 Jun 2017 at 01:03

StriderX said:
As if one can't turn up at the station itself and stop the broadcast?

Just look at Turkey for a rather visual take on what happens, thankfully opinion is turning due to May's abject uselessness.

you think the police/army could turn up at say the BBC without it all being live streamed on every site imaginable by everyone there?

by the time they made it back to the lobby there would be thousands of people outside.

you just cant keep these things secret anymore.

yeah lets not look at turkey a radically different situation shall we.

UberTiger · 18 Jun 2017 at 08:10

European Parliament Committee Recommends End-To-End Encryption For All Electronic Communications

The European Parliament's (EP’s) Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs released a draft proposal for a new Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications. The draft recommends a regulation that will enforce end-to-end encryption on all communications to protect European Union citizens’ fundamental privacy rights. The committee also recommended a ban on backdoors.

Article 7 of the E.U.’s Charter of Fundamental Rights says that E.U. citizens have a right to personal privacy, as well as privacy in their family life and at home. According to the EP committee, the privacy of communications between individuals is also an important dimension of this right.

Yet another fundamental right the UK goverment want to strip away. Great job brexit. At least the people working on these things for the EP have some sense.

More info in the article.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/european-parliament-end-to-end-encryption-communications,34809.html

Angilion · 19 Jun 2017 at 04:17

Tefal said:
pretty sure we're a vast vast vast distance from extrajudicial executions of the heads of ISPs.

And I'm sure we're no distance at all from orders requiring the head of an ISP (or anyone else) to comply with any demands and forbidding them from even saying that they have received such an order and jailing them if they do mention it. That could be done today. It might have already been done in some cases.

As I wrote in the post you replied to:

Angilion said:
Why not?

It might not be allowed yet, but as we progress further into authoritarianism there's no reason to assume it won't be allowed in the near future. Besides, it could be done now with a "security" order, which would prevent the people involved from even saying it had happened. Still "obey or be jailed", just less honest.

We're further from extrajudicial executions, but they're not needed to get the job done. I think we're not as far from them as you think we are, but it's a moot point because the desired effect is already achievable without them.

VincentHanna · 19 Jun 2017 at 12:25

UberTiger said:
European Parliament Committee Recommends End-To-End Encryption For All Electronic Communications

Yet another fundamental right the UK goverment want to strip away. Great job brexit. At least the people working on these things for the EP have some sense.

More info in the article.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/european-parliament-end-to-end-encryption-communications,34809.html

Facepalm

Good ol Brexit....Giving us the sovereignty to introduce draconian laws.

platypus · 19 Jun 2017 at 13:38

It's a mostly common sense approach from the EP, which explains why our government wants the exact opposite. And of more interest is

The committee also argued that it’s not just the content of information that needs to be protected, but also the metadata associated with it:

. It's worth reiterating that we have no such protections here, and with the bulk collection of data and aggregation of datasets that our government wants, they have made no such distinction.