so where the surveillance laws but then they ended up being used to have the police stake out peoples houses all day to check if they lived in the right catchment area for the school they sent their children to.
or to follow dog walkers to catch them not picking up poop.
both huge wastes of police time which is what happens when you give idiots in local government or government control over police time.
What's next it's illegal to send a pen and paper letter in code?
Is that a thinly veiled insult to those that work in local government?
School catchement area related fraud is a fairly major problem - as is the problem of dog mess. I have no sympathy for people who behave anti-socially in either case.
[TW]Fox;28295708 said:Be against it because it's draconian not because you want to pretend it's some sort of nasty plot to steal freedoms for no reason other than stealing freedoms.
only the elected ones.
but its not worth wasting police time on.
so where the surveillance laws but then they ended up being used to have the police stake out peoples houses all day to check if they lived in the right catchment area for the school they sent their children to.
or to follow dog walkers to catch them not picking up poop.
both huge wastes of police time which is what happens when you give idiots in local government or government control over police time.
Always moaning at Tory voters. How short your memories are, remember the labour government? They wanted the same.
The police never did those things, the council did those things with their workers and civil enforcement officers
The companies involved aren't based in the UK to begin with.
Is that the case, or will it be secure between the phones and Snapchat/Whatsapp... just that Snapchat/Whatsapp'll have to hand over info if there's a warrant, or whatever detail they end up proposing?
If you look past the hysterical thread title, this is just about wanting US companies like Facebook, Google etc to help the UK security services. The UK banks already co-operate when a court warrant is presented so there's no beef with them.
Got it, thank you.
Don't have to be. Imagine the like of Apple or Google reducing or removing their services available here in the UK? That would have a profound impact on our economy.
Except it isn't. Cameron wants no form of communication that can't be intercepted. So that's every single form of encrypted communication, from online banking, iMessage/WhatsApp right down to those files I've got zipped up with PGP on my own computer.
I don't think he means all encryption. He cannot be that moronic.
He probably mean forms of public and private discourse, which is as bad, and shows how low their trust in the public had become (which is ironic, as . For that I don't think Cameron and his ilk really know what they are talmeasures like these will make the public less trusting of their governments).
It's a relatively new phenomenon. Hell before the internet, nothing was encrypted. Phone calls, letters... But to outlaw ALL encryption would be economic suicide.
You do wonder where they would draw the line. Cloud storage has to be secured, for example, as well as private consumer informationking about.
I don't think he means all encryption. He cannot be that moronic.
He probably mean forms of public and private discourse, which is as bad, and shows how low their trust in the public had become (which is ironic, as measures like these will make the public less trusting of their governments).
It's a relatively new phenomenon. Hell before the internet, nothing was encrypted. Phone calls, letters... But to outlaw ALL encryption would be economic suicide.
You do wonder where they would draw the line. Cloud storage has to be secured, for example, as well as private consumer information. For that I don't think Cameron and his ilk really know what they are talking about.
There are no half measures with banning encryption - either only signed and authorised applications (probably requiring hardware DRM, etc.) can access the internet (which would mean that any government would be able to abuse that and/or exert a large level of control over the populace plus things like innovation would be stifled) or the internet continues as today and there are always workarounds making bans ineffective at doing anything other than being disruptive for law abiding people.