Govt now wants access to all encrypted messages

What's Hot
Emp_FabEmp_Fab Frets: 24209
What a surprise.  If you were really paranoid, you could even suspect the attack was orchestrated in order to undermine opposition to the proposed measures.  I don't think that, before anyone starts btw.

How do you feel about privacy issues ?  Where do you sit in the 'security v privacy' debate.  Are you a "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" type, or a "the govt has no right to read any of my private communications, I'd rather take the hit on letting bad guys talk in secrecy than surrender any of my civil liberty to a big-brother state" type ?

Personally, I'm 95% the latter, but I would like the govt to be able to eavesdrop on terrorists if it prevented attacks, but - and it's a 'but' the size of jupiter, I don't trust them one micron not to abuse that power and listen in on everyone they can.  (Incidentally, "Snowdon", the film, is a pretty good watch - and a bit of an eye-opener).

Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
Also chips are "Plant-based" no matter how you cook them.
2reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
«1345

Comments

  • stickyfiddlestickyfiddle Frets: 26749
    edited March 2017
    Well, quite simply, it can't have that access, regardless of legislation. That's what encryption *is*. If Ms Rudd thinks forcing Whatsapp to remove its encryption will change anything then she is, quite simply, an idiot. 

    I'm more and more of the opinion that we are going far too far into removing individual liberty in the name of saving it.
    The Assumptions - UAE party band for all your rock & soul desires
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 16reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71956
    Well, quite simply, it can't have that access, regardless of legislation. That's what encryption *is*. If Ms Rudd thinks forcing Whatsapp to remove its encryption will change anything then she is, quite simply, an idiot. 

    I'm more and more of the opinion that we are going far too far into removing individual liberty in the name of saving it.
    This.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • digitalscreamdigitalscream Frets: 26453
    Well, quite simply, it can't have that access, regardless of legislation. That's what encryption *is*. If Ms Rudd thinks forcing Whatsapp to remove its encryption will change anything then she is, quite simply, an idiot. 

    I'm more and more of the opinion that we are going far too far into removing individual liberty in the name of saving it.
    Here's the thing - if UK law enforcement ask for your encryption key, you must provide it or go to jail. That's enough of a loss of privacy for everyone to be up in arms, yet they're not.

    All you can do nowadays is try to keep your data private from their efforts to suck up data in bulk; if they do single you out, there's nothing you can do. For my part...all my traffic is encrypted with 2048-bit RSA, which would take many times longer than the age of the universe to crack with current computing capabilities. Good luck to 'em.
    <space for hire>
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • mike_lmike_l Frets: 5700
    But, if you haven't done anything wrong they'll not look at your data, it's a waste of their time.

    The only people who need to worry are those who are committing crimes.


    Ringleader of the Cambridge cartel, pedal champ and king of the dirt boxes (down to 21) 

    14reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • SambostarSambostar Frets: 8745
    Who is the government?  People usually know more about my business than I do.  What have you got to hide?  Who are they?  I don't know them so are they actually real? 

    It all went wrong when they took our guns away.  This is nothing but a small pebble far down a one way dead end street anyway.

    Or are you saying we ought to have our guns back?  You are either on the boat or you're not.  No point being hypocritical and whinging about stuff in half muddled measures,  You are invited them in and you wanted them to tie you down to the bed in some weird kind of BDSM ritual, but now you need a shit or a breath of fresh air you can't because you're handcuffed to the bed. 

    Sorry man, you are just going to have to shit yourself and taste the stale air and take it like any good citizen does.
    Backdoor Children Of The Sock
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • digitalscreamdigitalscream Frets: 26453
    mike_l said:
    But, if you haven't done anything wrong they'll not look at your data, it's a waste of their time.

    The only people who need to worry are those who are committing crimes.


    I can't tell if you're being satirical or you really believe that...
    <space for hire>
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 5reaction image Wisdom
  • mike_lmike_l Frets: 5700
    No, It really would waste their time.

    There is no point in looking for a needle in a haystack without having some reasonable idea the needle is there in the first place.


    If the security forces are looking at 10 (unrelated/unknown to each other) people, and one of those 10 has links to a known criminal, that's where the security forces will look. The other 9 who have no links or connections to known criminals won't get looked at. And IF they do, it'll be cursory. The security forces do not have the time and man power to search through every single thing.


    They may very well use various technologies to see where the needles are in the first place, but the majority of people will have nothing to fear.

    Ringleader of the Cambridge cartel, pedal champ and king of the dirt boxes (down to 21) 

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • stickyfiddlestickyfiddle Frets: 26749
    mike_l said:
    No, It really would waste their time.

    There is no point in looking for a needle in a haystack without having some reasonable idea the needle is there in the first place.


    If the security forces are looking at 10 (unrelated/unknown to each other) people, and one of those 10 has links to a known criminal, that's where the security forces will look. The other 9 who have no links or connections to known criminals won't get looked at. And IF they do, it'll be cursory. The security forces do not have the time and man power to search through every single thing.


    They may very well use various technologies to see where the needles are in the first place, but the majority of people will have nothing to fear.
    In theory I agree, expect that with machine learning they'll be looking at *everyone* because that will actually be quicker than choosing who to look at first. 
    The Assumptions - UAE party band for all your rock & soul desires
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

    - Cardinal Richlieu (attr.)
    I'm just a Maserati in a world of Kias.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 11reaction image Wisdom
  • digitalscreamdigitalscream Frets: 26453
    edited March 2017
    mike_l said:
    No, It really would waste their time.

    There is no point in looking for a needle in a haystack without having some reasonable idea the needle is there in the first place.


    If the security forces are looking at 10 (unrelated/unknown to each other) people, and one of those 10 has links to a known criminal, that's where the security forces will look. The other 9 who have no links or connections to known criminals won't get looked at. And IF they do, it'll be cursory. The security forces do not have the time and man power to search through every single thing.


    They may very well use various technologies to see where the needles are in the first place, but the majority of people will have nothing to fear.
    I don't think you understand how this is intended to work. It's data mining (regardless of whether they say it isn't) - the data is used to determine whether you're committing a crime or not, based on profiles and metadata; they look at the people you've contacted and sites you've visited. That's how de Menezes was determined to be a terrorist and shot; no actual evidence, just a rough, incomplete profile and poor communication.

    They can't tell whether you've explicitly visited a site (eg a site with illegal porn on it) or it's the result of a rogue ad, either, and that could easily ruin your life even if you're eventually found innocent by a jury.

    Once they've made the determination, they can focus on you and comb through everything you've ever said or looked at to find evidence of a crime. Do you really believe you're whiter-than-white, and would remain so through the process of innuendo and desperation to get a conviction by an incompetent authority?

    Having been party to the in-court part of two cases, I can honestly say that the incompetence displayed by the police and the CPS is terrifying, not to mention the callousness with which they toyed with the defendants' lives and livelihoods for over a year in an attempt to get a conviction with their not-really-evidence. The overall impression I got was of an organisation who will do anything to get a conviction, regardless of the actual laws involved or whether the evidence points to that person in the first place.

    Do I want to be opened up to that through profiling? Not a chance. Taking reasonable precautions to prevent it seems like the most prudent approach.

    You're also implying that this is purely for the security forces; that's nonsense. Just look at the local authority who used anti-terror legislation to sic surveillance on a family because they suspected that they might be applying for their child to go to a school while living slightly outside the school's catchment area.
    <space for hire>
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 8reaction image Wisdom
  • mike_lmike_l Frets: 5700
    mike_l said:
    No, It really would waste their time.

    There is no point in looking for a needle in a haystack without having some reasonable idea the needle is there in the first place.


    If the security forces are looking at 10 (unrelated/unknown to each other) people, and one of those 10 has links to a known criminal, that's where the security forces will look. The other 9 who have no links or connections to known criminals won't get looked at. And IF they do, it'll be cursory. The security forces do not have the time and man power to search through every single thing.


    They may very well use various technologies to see where the needles are in the first place, but the majority of people will have nothing to fear.
    In theory I agree, expect that with machine learning they'll be looking at *everyone* because that will actually be quicker than choosing who to look at first. 

    They will, and then they'll discard looking at a huge percentage because they haven't done anything wrong.

    Ringleader of the Cambridge cartel, pedal champ and king of the dirt boxes (down to 21) 

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • I wonder if terrorists, extremists and criminal gangs will simply turn to non-internet based communications. 

    These people (from criminal gangs to terrorists and everyone in between) will find a way around it anyway. Our government is too big and slow, it's not a small, agile unit that can respond to changing technology fast.

    Waste of money. And infringes on my privacy. I wonder how long until a politician is found out to have sold data to a third party? 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • digitalscreamdigitalscream Frets: 26453
    edited March 2017

    I wonder how long until a politician is found out to have sold data to a third party? 
    Part of the legislation already allows the government to sell the data they collect, as part of an effort to offset the cost of doing it in the first place.

    Aside from all the above, there's also the fact that hundreds of civil servants and folk working for the police are disciplined (and not even sacked most of the time) every year for using surveillance and data-collection systems for their own private uses. How many of us have disgruntled customers, ex-wives or girlfriends etc who might have a friend or a friend-of-a-friend who works for the government and is willing to do them a favour by putting these systems to dodgy use?

    On top of that, our government has the worst track record of any in the world for losing control of sensitive data on citizens.
    <space for hire>
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • Emp_FabEmp_Fab Frets: 24209
    edited March 2017
    mike_l said:

    They will, and then they'll discard looking at a huge percentage because they haven't done anything wrong.
    But - the definition of "done anything wrong" is entirely open to those who are doing the looking.
    Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
    Also chips are "Plant-based" no matter how you cook them.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 5reaction image Wisdom
  • stickyfiddlestickyfiddle Frets: 26749
    mike_l said:
    mike_l said:
    No, It really would waste their time.

    There is no point in looking for a needle in a haystack without having some reasonable idea the needle is there in the first place.


    If the security forces are looking at 10 (unrelated/unknown to each other) people, and one of those 10 has links to a known criminal, that's where the security forces will look. The other 9 who have no links or connections to known criminals won't get looked at. And IF they do, it'll be cursory. The security forces do not have the time and man power to search through every single thing.


    They may very well use various technologies to see where the needles are in the first place, but the majority of people will have nothing to fear.
    In theory I agree, expect that with machine learning they'll be looking at *everyone* because that will actually be quicker than choosing who to look at first. 

    They will, and then they'll discard looking at a huge percentage because they haven't done anything wrong.
    That's no different to coming into my house uninvited just to see if I have anything stolen in there. They'll leave politely if they don't find anything, but not before selling Tesco a list of all of my favourite breakfast cereals and what size pants I wear and how much money I have under the mattress. 

    It's not ok. 

    And where does it stop? Whatsapp messages? Internet histories? Access to my online banking? Why should I trust the government with any of that? It's none of their business.
    The Assumptions - UAE party band for all your rock & soul desires
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 11reaction image Wisdom
  • EvilmagsEvilmags Frets: 5158
    If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear has been the refrain of idiots and tyrants down the years. I'm pretty sure you can use a VPN and a darknet site on a mobile phone so it won't be an effective antI terror move any way,  but handy for easy busts of victimless crimes I'm sure. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 6reaction image Wisdom
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 24601
    Rudderless is an embarrassment - she'll want to ban cars next as they can be used as weapons.

    Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • digitalscreamdigitalscream Frets: 26453
    Fretwired said:
    Rudderless is an embarrassment - she'll want to ban cars next as they can be used as weapons.
    She's just doing what May tells her to. Don't forget that the hallmark of May's time as Home Sec was an exclusive focus on exactly this.
    <space for hire>
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 6reaction image Wisdom
  • TheBlueWolfTheBlueWolf Frets: 1536
    All the more reason for running a VPN on my phone.

    I assume Rudd will make my watching free pornography at 3am a crime but she's ugly tho ;)

    Twisted Imaginings - A Horror And Gore Themed Blog http://bit.ly/2DF1NYi


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • GrunfeldGrunfeld Frets: 4027
    mike_l said:
    No, It really would waste their time....

    They may very well use various technologies... but the majority of people will have nothing to fear.  [emphasis added.]
    The root of my concern with lack of privacy is that "they" can change. 
    We do not currently have the "they" of cold war East Germany -- but we could in the future.  There is absolutely nothing so say that we can't go down that slope.
    And personally I would expect it to go both ways too:  i.e. we expect a certain style of government to create more "need" for surveillance but I'd expect the presence of more surveillance to create the sort regime which justifies its use.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.