David Cameron is going to try and ban encryption in Britain

Steampunk · 2 Jul 2015 at 09:11

This is just another "let's make some big statements so the public think we are doing something" followed by a quiet U-turn down the line when the politicians are told how stupid they are being and how what they want makes no sense and can't be implemented.

It was a constant thing with the last Cameron government, this will be no different.

MichaelAwkward · 2 Jul 2015 at 09:33

Terminal_Boy said:
Cameron is going to have fun with Apple on this issue.

Plus every large-ish company in the world. Encryption of some kind is basically a requirement for every day business.

DiscoDave · 2 Jul 2015 at 09:40

Didn't he already say this many months back?

arknor · 2 Jul 2015 at 09:44

What's next it's illegal to send a pen and paper letter in code?

******* idiot might as well declare if your using encryption you are a member of isis and we will come for you.

Richdog said:
Richdog said:

Terrorism is rapidly becoming the world biggest excuse top break down civil liberties. Considering how little it actually affects us in daily life, rare and actual attacks notwithstanding, many of the measures are just unnecessary imo.

Click to expand...

yup, how many people died in car crashes, crossing the street or whatever compared to uk deaths from isis? don't see billions being spent to make it any safer though do you....

ISIS are almost insignificant to the west but every government loves to play them as the big bad terrorist hiding under your bed waiting to rape your daughters and murder your husbands

ISIS likely know they do anything like the osama and they will be wiped out, they don't want america and everyone piling on them properly so they are sticking to their own sand pit.

all the attacks will be lone wolf idiots in isis name only

oh and let's not forget auesterity lets cut the services we provide to you.

but at the same time set up some stupid inidianna jones relic recovery team.
Can we get a full break down on the cost dave? the cost dave? in it together?

leaskovski · 2 Jul 2015 at 09:48

LateX'Dog said:
Well done conservative voters.

Not a problem, glad I could be of service.

doodah · 2 Jul 2015 at 09:55

If you've nothing to hide......blah blah blah (there's probably a few of these already).

thep02 · 2 Jul 2015 at 10:10

They want to stop us finding out about their perversions and greed then secretly passing the info about.

George Hincapie · 2 Jul 2015 at 10:15

thep02 said:
They want to stop us finding out about their perversions and greed then secretly passing the info about.

I suggest Politicians get their own house in order before casting aspersions at the public

arknor · 2 Jul 2015 at 10:17

George Hincapie said:
I suggest Politicians get their own house in order before casting aspersions at the public

they already told us they need XX billions to put their house in order

interestingly hundreds of ex mps still have access to the subsidised drink and meals their.....

They won't take any old publicly subsidised sausages either

Bring back our better bangers! MPs win battle to have 'terrible, tasteless' sausages removed from Parliament's canteens

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-sausages-removed-Parliament-s-canteens.html

I'd love to know how many of the "ex" mps with access complained

They treat the place as if it's some club for life and as if it's their birth right to only have the best food provided at under cost

arknor · 2 Jul 2015 at 10:29

Moses said:
It's not 'banning encryption'. It'll be saying to companies like Google and Whatsapp that they need to be able to provide message data if they're presented with a warrant. I can understand people being concerned if that's done where warrants are given out willy nilly, but crying from the outset seems ridiculous... cry if the proposed safeguards/checks and balances won't be good enough, don't cry about the general proposed idea which really isn't bad.

no terrorist attack since 2013, no thwarted terror attacks since 2013 according to wiki.

Terminal_Boy · 2 Jul 2015 at 10:32

MichaelAwkward said:
Plus every large-ish company in the world. Encryption of some kind is basically a requirement for every day business.

Tim Cook recently stated that data privacy and protection were paramount and Apple will never remove encryption.

ICEx21 · 2 Jul 2015 at 10:33

arknor said:
no terrorist attack since 2013, no thwarted terror attacks since 2013 according to wiki.

A reliable source of information there.

arknor · 2 Jul 2015 at 10:36

ICEx21 said:
A reliable source of information there.

more reliable than most sources

go fake edit a wiki page see how long until one of their bots notices

Haggisman · 2 Jul 2015 at 10:36

So... how is this going to work with financial transactions? Or shall we just start passing our credit card info around in cleartext? :rolleyes:

This is ignoring the fact that any properly organised terrorist cell (as LateX'Dog said, the ones we actually need to worry about) will simply create their own proprietary encryption software, rendering this proposal utterly useless except to make normal people's lives more difficult (sounds exactly like DRM to me!)

Whitewater · 2 Jul 2015 at 10:37

Sounds reasonable. I don't tend to get paranoid about these things.

arknor · 2 Jul 2015 at 10:38

Moses said:
Cool story bro. In other news, the head of the Met says,

what is the met definition of a terrorist since I'm guessing it's not what we imagine.

also how many of these arrests leads to a conviction

most of these "terrorist" arrests are likely people coming back or going to syria and nothing to do with encryption clearly prevented them from being arrested

Haggisman · 2 Jul 2015 at 10:39

Whitewater said:
Sounds reasonable. I don't tend to get paranoid about these things.

Lets have a look at those naked pictures your wife sent you then?

Since you don't have an issue with your private information becoming public

arknor · 2 Jul 2015 at 10:41

Moses said:
It's not saying there won't be encryption .

How will it make normal people's lives more difficult? You'd use Whatsapp in exactly the same way. You'd use iMessage in exactly the same way. You'd use Gmail in exactly the same way.

through a VPN? or do they get banned to, do we have to turn ssl of in our browsers so the almighty dave can see what we are sending to websites?

will all of this be a great aid to hackers

Haggisman · 2 Jul 2015 at 10:45

Moses said:
It's not saying there won't be encryption .

So what is it saying then?

Moses said:
How will it make normal people's lives more difficult? You'd use Whatsapp in exactly the same way. You'd use iMessage in exactly the same way. You'd use Gmail in exactly the same way.

So say I want to send a confidential password protected document to someone across the internet - how do I do this if I'm not allowed to encrypt it?

Lightnix · 2 Jul 2015 at 10:46

If they did enforce "back doors" into secure systems, anyone who figures out how to use them would have way too much power - potentially unrestricted access to online financial services seems like a "biggie", for instance. And you know, once you know there's a hole, it's much easier to find.