That's Liz Truss.
Amber Rudd fails to understand the internet
- Thread starter Mr Jack
- Start date
That's Liz Truss.
Don't bank on it, in a typically Orwellian move MPs have already exempted themselves from the Snoopers' Charter: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s.../news/investigatory-powers-bill-a7447781.html. I'm sure they'll find a way to keep encryption for themselves and ban it for everyone else. The reason will of course be national security, after all we don't want the terrorists to be able to read the MPs' communications /s.
"WhatApp - a messaging app that uses the internet rather than a mobile phone signal to send texts and pictures that have been used by terrorists to communicate with each other.
It uses so-called "end-to-end encryption", meaning that messages cannot be decoded by a third party, or even by WhatsApp itself..."
Soooo, if it can't be decoded, how can she claim that "Terrorists are using WhatsApp...".
Oh, that's right. Guess work & lies
If it really is about terrorism why would you publicise your intent on breaking the service?
Surely that just tells terrorists to use another service?
Unless I'm missing something. I mean it's not like they'd use unencrypted means of communication like SMS as the security services would be all over them in seconds.
Surely that just tells terrorists to use another service?
Unless I'm missing something. I mean it's not like they'd use unencrypted means of communication like SMS as the security services would be all over them in seconds.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
Soooo, if it can't be decoded, how can she claim that "Terrorists are using WhatsApp...".
Oh, that's right. Guess work & lies
tbf, its possible they caught a suspect based on other information, who later transpired to be using it.
for example a suspected terrorist has their phone tapped, and they can tell they're using whatsapp because they're sending normal, unencrypted, messages to their mother. but there's also a bunch of encrypted traffic from the same device.
the suspect is then later found to have very definitely been a terrorist, and the finger will then quite logically fall on encrypted traffic going to and from their device as to being the means for them to plan it.
they could be using another method to encrypt the messages (its at this point my it knowledge runs out as to wether you could identify an encrypted message as at least being a whatsapp encrypted message), but again the logical conclusion would be they'd use the easiest method which would have course be whatsapp.
whats wrong in this case is her blatant assumption that "real people" have no need of such security systems, in much the same way we don't need bank pin's, door locks etc etc.
Banning encryption isn't going to stop criminals using it. But these people are to dumb to grasp that. Banning is one thing, actually stopping it is another. The whole point in an encrypted connection is the people in the middle can't see what your doing.
All that would happen is it moves underground and towards a peer to peer alternative internet, which can't be controlled.
All that would happen is it moves underground and towards a peer to peer alternative internet, which can't be controlled.
No, she'd reply saying that matters of state business are far too important to be in the public domain and shut that argument down quicker than a Chinese VPN host.
Who said anything about matters of state business? Do you think she'd respond that she was happy for her personal communications to be available to all and sundry?
You, know perfectly innocent things like those dirty pictures you've sent your wife/husband, your internet banking login details, the dates you're going on holiday and where you've hidden your house keys so the person feeding your cat can find them... Can't see how any of that information could possibly have a malicious use if it were to fall into the wrong hands...
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
i think her reply would likely be along the lines of all of her communication channels may be needed for state business, and therefore will require encryption
But I was very specific with my phrasing - the argument isn't that her communications should be public, it's why should mine be? If the encryption is weakened or backdoors are introduced (same thing, really), then that means public domain. The government is not capable of weakening it only to their own attacks. I can support that if necessary. And I'm not referring specifically to state business. Would she want all her correspondence from before she was a minister to be public domain? After? I bet she wouldn't.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
huh, thought it wasnt, given how it only notifies me for certain conversations (with the kind of people who would use e2e on a matter of principle)
it tells you when the person's phone has chanhed.
put your aim card in a new phone and message somoen youve chatted to and it pops up telling you thier security code has changed
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
ahh, well that's not confusingly implemented then
Now if only I could remember why messaging companies only recently enacted encryption on their services?
Dang, why was it...?
Oh yes, that's it, because governments were found to be unlawfully mass collecting and monitoring their own citizens communications!
Perhaps if the governments weren't so intrusive to begin with we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. You broke the trust, now don't start crying when people don't trust you any more.
Dang, why was it...?
Oh yes, that's it, because governments were found to be unlawfully mass collecting and monitoring their own citizens communications!
Perhaps if the governments weren't so intrusive to begin with we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. You broke the trust, now don't start crying when people don't trust you any more.
Probably accurate. After all, everyone is a terrorist these days.
If terrorists are buying goods online then there is a good chance that they are using HTTPS to encrypt and hide their financial transactions. Tesco and Amazon must be supplying goods to terrorists so they must be stopped, ban all food shopping and starve them out!
If you don't print your name on a shirt and wear it all the time then it might be because you don't want people knowing who you are, which means you're probably a criminal. I propose a "large names on shirts all the time" law. If you have a long name then you need to carry a sign, like the Golf Sale guys.