1984 Arrives

aardvark · 2 Apr 2012 at 11:17

bad news - i expect labour to try this but poor show from the coalition.

englishpremier · 2 Apr 2012 at 14:12

aardvark said:
bad news - i expect labour to try this but poor show from the coalition.

Well labour will probably oppose it, as it gives them another angle of attack. The coalition majority isn't that big, so we're just need a few dissenting lib dem mps and all will be well.

TwsT · 2 Apr 2012 at 14:21

Protecting our freedom by eroding our civil liberties sounds about right. Cheers Tony your legacy lives on.

realBabelfish · 2 Apr 2012 at 14:22

Begbie said:
IF for some reason the Goverment had a reason to ransack my home, which I would imagine would have to be a very good reason then I wouldn't mind no. Why would I?

They don't have unlimited resources, they are limited by money and man power. So they would have to have a VERY good reason to want to enter my home and search it. Who am I to stop them doing there job.

And of course I wouldn't want them to watch everything I do, and anyone who beleives they are going to watch everything you do in your home is very paraniod and needs to step away from the drugs.

in a perfect world you would be right. unfortunately we are far from it in the UK. i have known the police to raid people's houses and stash stuff for the next raid.

we cant trust the watchmen any more....

pingwing · 2 Apr 2012 at 14:33

Tefal · 2 Apr 2012 at 16:42

Von Luck said:
Which again is information they should not be privvy to, why should the government be able to monitor who I email or how often? How many times a month I phone my friends and family?

i never said they should :/

Surfer · 2 Apr 2012 at 18:28

hrmm perhaps we have a case here? Similar situation?

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org...-and-search-case-in-court-of-human-rights.php

I remember when that terrorism legislation was first being proposed....the sheer amount of people claiming that you have nothing to fear because it would only be used to protect the UK from terrorists right so dont worry

Surfer · 2 Apr 2012 at 18:56

2 Petitions against it.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32400

http://action.openrightsgroup.org/e...aign.do?ea.client.id=1422&ea.campaign.id=8227

alex24 · 2 Apr 2012 at 19:13

I have absolutely nothing to hide but I'm still really not happy about this. I don't see a convincing argument to justify why this is required. Are the intelligence services in this country really in need of this data or is it a political move?

I'm not sure if all people realise how much this potentially impacts our privacy in an increasingly digital age! I honestly thought it was an April fools joke yesterday..

You have to remember this would mean allowing people, just regular people (strangers in fact), access to your data.

oldbag · 2 Apr 2012 at 19:15

Even if you do use ssl or VPN traffic, how do we know that security services can't decrypt it?

RomanNose · 2 Apr 2012 at 19:32

oldbag said:
Even if you do use ssl or VPN traffic, how do we know that security services can't decrypt it?

Because there is no chance they will remotely have the computing power to do it.
Algorithms such as AES are completely unbreakable.

Ev0 · 2 Apr 2012 at 19:44

They are probably running the end points anyway

RomanNose said:
Algorithms such as AES are completely unbreakable.

Better off saying it's currently not known to be broken. I'm sure at some point in time it will be broken, who knows when though

Energize · 2 Apr 2012 at 20:02

oldbag said:
Even if you do use ssl or VPN traffic, how do we know that security services can't decrypt it?

Because it's been mathematically proven to be secure. The government themselves use the same algorithms.

Spenty · 2 Apr 2012 at 20:07

How slow will everything be though if everyone is using VPN's to hide?

RomanNose · 2 Apr 2012 at 20:22

50,955,671,114,250,072,156,962,268,275,658,377,807,020,642,877,435,085 years to break aes 256 at 2^56 permutations per second.
Umm, good luck guys.

Ev0 · 2 Apr 2012 at 20:32

Not saying it's definitely possible now, but as with other forms of encryption what was once deemed secure is now not

Who is to know in x years time if it will still be the case.

But you're probably safe with it for now

LordSplodge · 2 Apr 2012 at 20:47

englishpremier said:
They also pointed out, that the data is likely to be miss used.

Oh that's ok then. Somebody on Sky bloody News said the data won't be abused. Saves me signing any petitions or writing to my MP.

janp · 3 Apr 2012 at 11:37

Surfer said:
2 Petitions against it.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32400

http://action.openrightsgroup.org/e...aign.do?ea.client.id=1422&ea.campaign.id=8227

signed

BunnyKillBot · 3 Apr 2012 at 12:05

HahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahaAHAHahahhaha

Its changed from 'tackling serious crime and terrorists' to 'tackling serious crime, terrorists and paedophiles'...... WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THING OF THE CHILDREN, FOR GODS SAKE. ITS TO PROTECT THEM.

Well, that will have got the tabloid readers on board then. These people are a ******* joke, using dirty tactics and hyper-sensitive issues to gain support.

MookJong · 3 Apr 2012 at 12:28

Labour wanted these powers and now the Tories are after it too.

There is a lot of people outraged on the forum about this and so may other issues, but come the next election I bet most of you will still vote for one of the major parties.

Don't vote....it only encourages them.