David Cameron is going to try and ban encryption in Britain
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
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.
Haha I was about to post the same.
[TW]Fox;28295708 said:
Removing liberties is draconian, wouldn't you say? And no one thinks that it's for 'no reason'. I believe in the broad objective, i.e. terrorism/security intelligence (the motives of which are of course a completely different can of worms), but imposing the condition that you never actually know if someone is monitoring you, but you could be monitored at will, that limits our freedom in behaviour, which therefore denies us the liberty that we should expect in a country like ours.
Are you sure they did? IIRC it was council workers who did the surveillance. The police should know how best their time is used in any case.
The police never did those things, the council did those things with their workers and civil enforcement officers
Agreed I don't trust any of the established parties, too many skeletons, too much cronyism and too many dark practices gotten used to during the cold war.
Fair enough that's slightly more worrying that non police are authorised to spy on people.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
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.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Banning encryption means the data won't be secure. Now if the government want 'back doors' into all encrypted transmissions then that is slightly different but equally as improbable. Apple haven't bowed to their own government, for example, on allowing iPhones to have a backdoor.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
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.
And a profound impact on their results, and an opportunity for another company to plug the gap (bit like how Baidu is number one Chinese search engine, because Google initially refused to comply with their rules).
Utter tripe! Proof that you don't understand the issues at hand.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
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.
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.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2014
- Posts
- 2,577
- Location
- The "North"
To be honest I'm not sure if he is that moronic or if the party members are just that out of touch with technology that they don't understand the can of worms they are opening.
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.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2014
- Posts
- 2,577
- Location
- The "North"
If it goes through I think you may be correct on the latter. Like you say, those who it is intended for will work around it making it in-effective. The big issue is it's not just the conservatives who wanted this as Labour have had their fair share of ideas as well around privacy.
I don't understand why so many people are so terrified that they're being monitored. I think it stems from a lack of understanding, which is sad - people seem to think that because bulk information is collected, this means someone is actively monitoring everything they're doing. Paranoia is such a horrible thing. 