Maybe but at least they'd be able to investigate potential leads after the fact.
Amber Rudd fails to understand the internet
- Thread starter Mr Jack
- Start date
No, everyone does not seem happy enough to give this information freely and willingly.
Which is one reason the technologically ignorant people who don't care about privacy and spout the goddawful "I have nothing to hide" are so infuriating. I don't give a damn about you or your personal data, or the fact that you don't care enough about privacy to share whatever it is online. I do care about privacy, and I share as little as I can get away with online. Don't be happy for the government to erode my personal freedoms just because you're happy burying your head in the sand.
I care about stopping people being slaughtered by terrorist thickos. If you want privacy, don't live somewhere (like the UK or France) would be my advice.
That is a whopping strawman, even for you. And disgusting at the same time. To suggest that people who care about privacy don't care about terrorism? An incredibly low blow even for someone who's standards are in the gutter.
If you care about stopping terrorism, why do you insist on banging your encryption drum? It's been well established that you understand nothing about the technology involved, yet you speak from a position of moral highground that is utterly unfounded. Don't.
Except it won't stop terrorism, and it will erode privacy and security. Brilliant.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,352
go back and read my first post in this thread, maybe might shed some light on the truth behind your standpoint
Investigating terrorist's communications won't stop terrorism. I'd sure like to hear the logic behind that reasoning...
Not a strawman I'm afraid - nice try, just an expression of my priority being saving lives over privacy. Why do I keep insisting that technology companies help the authorities with terror related investigations? Maybe because terrorists are using the technology to plan and co-ordinate attacks and to disseminate materiel likely to incite others to carry out attacks.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,352
So after the mainstream companies have been forced into this how would you go about combatting the inevitable shift to software that doesn't have a company behind it or ones that aren't in countries that will play nice with UK legislation or even "jihadapp" the home grown secure messaging system?
I'm still unconvinced about snoopers I'm not sure if it's actually lead to an arrest or it's one of those "We can't talk about our methods but rest assured they're working" where they actually mean "No it's not working".
Cross those bridges when we get to them, at the moment the terrorists are using WhatsApp, and that should be a concern for WhatsApp.
We can already investigate terrorists' communications with existing powers. Any attempts to override encryption will cost far more than they are worth.
The amount of business we'd lose if we passed some stupid anti encryption law would be astronomical.
The amount of business we'd lose if we passed some stupid anti encryption law would be astronomical.
It's a strawman, and as said, it's low even for your gutter standards.
The breadth of your technological ignorance on this subject is astounding, yet your inability to take any sort of advice from those in the know and yet sit on some bizarre platform of mal-constructed superiority is bad, even for you.
Lets not bother anymore, shall we?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,352
Guessing by cross those bridges you mean to force mobile phone/tablet/computing companies to preinstall camera, microphone and keylogging access for the government on every device.
Then when the terrorists clear their homes of electronics and just revert to hushed conversations there'll be mandatory cctv in every home in the country?
At what point do you think do we lose this war because suddenly we're all moving to syria because it's less restrictive of our rights than our own country?
Good side step. Do you dance?
At the moment a terrorist (singular) was using Whatsapp.
A quick google which has most likely cemented my place on a watchlist shows certain jihad sites highly recommend using Signal which is open source no mention of Whatsapp.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,352
Taking one for the team there man
O I'm sure I've been on a watchlist ever since the DM ran a story about dirty bombs, chemical attacks and how we should all fear for our lives. I was intrigued to know the validity of their claims
.Suffice to say not quite as easy as they make out. DM in in exaggerating news shocker, more at 10!
Edit: Having said that I was queried on it during a security clearance interview so maybe I am actually on a watchlist
or it was just coincidence. I'm there for equality .
Last edited:
Then why is everyone doing it? & By everybody I mean the people who have signed up to services such as WhatsApp. I have absolutely no issues with the government having the WhatsApp metadata because I have not signed up. I chose to protect my privacy as much as possible by doing so, but i also realise there is nothing i can do to stop friends/colleagues sharing my information.
All i'm saying is if you're happy for a company like WhatsApp (and basically a load of potentially non security cleared administrators) to have it, why aren't you happy for the government to also have it?
Encryption is only half the battle, the most important part (the metadata) is already lost. Encryption IS worth fighting for.
I'm not unhappy for the government to have access to all of the data that people who sign up to these services share.
The problem though is that the government overstep their boundaries, and infringe, encroach and downright disregard everyone's privacy and rights, and they do it partly because of the attitude of people who don't care about privacy.
And more to the point - when the next terrorist attack comes out and the perpetrators where sending un-encrypted text messages, and the authorities simply fail to act in time, it highlights the futility of the government attacking certain services that they have no idea about how they work, and in doing so endangering every single service that relies on those technologies.
Whatsapp doesn't have it though. If they did they'd be legally obliged to share it. Currently since they don't have anything they can't share anything hence the "uproar".
I imagine Facebook would love to be "forced" into stopping E2E as they could then mine the data happily for more targetted advertising.
Edit: I may be wrong it looks like they could potentially still be storing metadata. As such I would expect the government to have access to this. So why don't they force the person on the receiving end to reveal the message.
Because (as you've proven time and time again) you don't actually have a clue what you're talking about.
I'm all for tech companies helping where they can and it is practical to do so.
I'm entirely against removing/nullifying the technology which allows our digital world to function and not collapse around us.
Anyone with the most basic understanding of encryption (and tech in general) is capable of realising that the two aren't mutually exclusive!
If you're so against privacy and protection of personal information then why don't you go ahead and post your card number, ccv code, internet banking username/password/security info, email password, OCUK forum password, etc.?
Because if there were a hypothetical* backdoor to all encryption, then that infomation will be available to everyone with minimal effort.
* I say hypothetical, because by its very nature, properly designed encryption shouldn't have any backdoor, even if the developers wanted one.
Last edited: