London Bridge Incident

[Angilion]

Why does WhatsApp need to be encrypted? Why do people need to be going on to the dark web? Why do people need to be communicating using secret channels? Why are they allowed to do this?

Why are you allowed to have opaque walls in your house? That means you're hiding something, right? Must be something bad. Very bad.

You do understand the concept of privacy and freedom, despite claiming not to. You might draw the line in a different place, but you do understand that there is a line.

Even without that line, outlawing private communication has practical problems with it. Make no mistake, that is what's being proposed. Broken encyption is not encryption at all. Even if you believe that everyone who is ever authorised to spy on people will always be completely trustworthy for all of the future (a bloody silly belief, obviously, especially since it will include numerous civil servants, local council officials, etc, etc) it still won't matter because broken encryption is not encryption and anyone can read unencrypted stuff. You'd make it dangerous for some victims to ask for help because there would be no private way for them to do so. You'd make it dangerous for anyone to use any form of modern communication if someone (an abusive ex, for example) might be after them. You'd make it dangerous for anyone to provide anyone with evidence of any wrongdoing, since you'd make it impossible for them to do so privately without a face to face meeting. Assuming you'd allow people to talk to other people in person and in private. You shouldn't, since you argument applies equally well to that.

 

[delta0]

Like banking apps or website shopping carts? Nope no normal people use those.

They will struggle to communicate through those. I don't think they are talking about banning encryption everywhere. It is communication apps.

 

[a1ex2001]

You don't need to monitor everyone. Just those that get flagged. Then they are easier to monitor

Someone needs to go and read the snoopers charter already enacted and the proposed future legislation May and the torries proposals require the monitoring of everyone and we all know how sensible the police and local councils were when they last got the powers to snoop on suspected serious criminals and instead went crazy on spying on everyone and anyone.

 

[hornetstinger]

Sorry I have zero clue what this means.

What I'm saying is due to the difficulty in getting firearms terrorists are using knives, this doesnt sound like an argument for widely distributing firearms to me, does it to you?

Nope. If I'm walking around with a gun, trying to shoot the terrorists, then I'm most likely going to be shot by a policeman, or another civilian with a gun, or I'll shoot civilians holding guns thinking that they're terrorists.

 

[Caged]

Can everybody who is an expert in cryptography and internet communications make themselves known please.

 

[Rroff]

Can everybody who is an expert in cryptography and internet communications make themselves known please.

I once wrote an XOR function and programmed winsock does that count?

 

[sigma]

I think we should ban knives.

 

[stewski]

He also opposed the 'shoot to kill' policy the police used last night to end the attack in 8 minutes - until today.

The police did not use a POLICY how many times, Corbyn and others (myself included) think a blanket policy on how highly trained officers respond is foolish!

 

[Caracus2k]

As I said I was just curious having a semi-professional interest in tactical gear, etc. nothing more nothing less you are blowing my post into something a lot more than was there.

Just saying that the Libyan embassy siege now results in anyone in vaguely 'tactical' gear being labelled as 'SAS' by some people

 

[Matteh]

I think we should ban knives.

Banning knives doesn't go far enough. I vote for a full cutlery ban.

 

[delta0]

Why are you allowed to have opaque walls in your house? That means you're hiding something, right? Must be something bad. Very bad.

You do understand the concept of privacy and freedom, despite claiming not to. You might draw the line in a different place, but you do understand that there is a line.

Even without that line, outlawing private communication has practical problems with it. Make no mistake, that is what's being proposed. Broken encyption is not encryption at all. Even if you believe that everyone who is ever authorised to spy on people will always be completely trustworthy for all of the future (a bloody silly belief, obviously, especially since it will include numerous civil servants, local council officials, etc, etc) it still won't matter because broken encryption is not encryption and anyone can read unencrypted stuff. You'd make it dangerous for some victims to ask for help because there would be no private way for them to do so. You'd make it dangerous for anyone to use any form of modern communication if someone (an abusive ex, for example) might be after them. You'd make it dangerous for anyone to provide anyone with evidence of any wrongdoing, since you'd make it impossible for them to do so privately without a face to face meeting. Assuming you'd allow people to talk to other people in person and in private. You shouldn't, since you argument applies equally well to that.

The police can knock on the door and come in. It isn't an armoured fortress. This is the same in the virtual world where intelligence services can easily "knock one the door and come in." If someone's house was a fortress with reinforced door and blocked out windows you would get suspicious.

 

[Caged]

I once wrote an XOR function and programmed winsock does that count?

I imagine that elevates you into the top 1% of people qualified to discuss such a topic.

 

[Aedus]

I'm sure it'll be very difficult for someone to create a messaging app and distribute the APK.

Meanwhile everyone else has to have their privacy invaded.

 

[sigma]

Banning knives doesn't go far enough. I vote for a full cutlery ban.

What about napkins?

 

[Caged]

Banning knives doesn't go far enough. I vote for a full cutlery ban.

What is your position on sporks?

 

[Rroff]

Just saying that the Libyan embassy siege now results in anyone in vaguely 'tactical' gear being labelled as 'SAS' by some people

The whole topic (including spanning over to the Manchester thread) as to why I posted originally and responded here was demonstrating that it was likely not SAS - though you can never be sure.

 

[Aedus]

What about napkins?

You could potentially put a harmful substance on them, best to ban them too.

 

[Matteh]

What about napkins?

Napkins can be used to pass coded messages. Ban.

What is your position on sporks?

Sporks!? That's like an assault spoon. 100% ban.

 

[adolf hamster]

oh god we've got onto the encryption argument again, it's getting pretty tedious explaining the very simple premise that terrorism, which existed and indeed thrived before the internet, is not going to magically stop because everybody's credit card details and porn habits are on a government database.

internet based blackmail- now that's going to go through the roof when said credit card details and porn viewing habits get hacked/leaked/"lost" by the government, who's history of data security is absolutely definitely 100% impeccable yes sir!

 

[Angilion]

you can put your tin foil hat back on...... central London quite literally has the highest national density of police AFO's even if you were to do it compared to the local population at the time.

That's not to say that some non police units aren't available if we get a full on Mumbai style attack

Yadda yadda, TIN FOIL HAT, blah blah.

Once a person uses that phrase seriously, the rest of the post becomes meaningless.

But go on, I'm off work today and I have time to waste. What silly conspiracy have you made up and pretended is in my head rather than yours? Alien lizard overlords in disguise? Chemtrails? Vaccination causes heroin addiction? Fake moon landings? Or have you devised something new?