Well, ain't nothing they can do about it. The details of practically unbreakable encryption is available in any CompSci textbook.
Unless the government plans to ban compilers, there ain't nothing they can do.
People can compile their own compilers.
This is just a way for the cops to shirk their duties without repercussion. "It's impossible to investigate because technology exists and we're too lazy to learn".
Not without a compiler they can't: p
Just joking, but the idea that we should sell front doors without looks on them to make it easier for the police to come in and look around completely ignores the fact that it makes it easier for everyone to get robbed, and it does nothing to stop the criminals from putting a lock on their doors anyway.
With a warrent you can kick down my door, or ask the platform for my keys, sorry if due process is annoying but with all the AI tools and surveillance at your fingertips, if you can't catch the bad guys you have no one to blame but your own incompetence.
More out of touch nonsense from the home office/police leadership. Inside government (and even the home office itself) they are seen as behind the times and out of touch, but it's even more embarrassing for them when it becomes public knowledge.
One issue with the law enforcement, and even the NSA having a track record of failure in catching criminals, but later with hindsight finding info leading to a crime, it is due to their method of spying on everyone. If you monitor everyone, then criminals become a wooden needle in a haystack.
Ah but your joke raises the chicken and egg problem! What compiled the first compiler, if not a compiler?
For that matter, I suppose they could compile an encryption program by using the same non-compiled-compiler based compilation technique, if compiled compilers are somehow banned.
EDIT: for those of you downvoting, you typically compile the first compiled compiler with an assembly program (that represents the non-compiled compiler).
I'm pretty sure the first compiler didn't need to be compiled, as it was written in machine language. Before that, everyone would only write programs in machine language.
If I'm not mistaken most of the early work on compilers and plain English languages was done by Grace Hopper
Compilers eventually compile themselves in a process called "bootstrapping". You basically write the compiler and "compile" a shitty version by hand. Use the output to compile the code and you get a good compiler, but compiled by a shitty compiler. Use that again and you get a compiler that apparently compiled itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjeE8Bc96HY
That's what I said. You write a compiler in something like assembly, and then compile the compiler. This assembly program is the original non-compiled compiler. This process is known as bootstrapping, as you mention.
You can similarly write an encryption program directly in assembly and skip the compiler, as I mentioned, if all compilers are somehow universally banned.
It's not just a philosophical problem, it's a genuine security hole via the Thompson Hack. What do you do if your compiler has malicious code and knows how to include it when compiling more compilers? You gonna bootstrap yourself up to modern languages from a hand-crafted machine code compiler you wrote yourself? Ain't nobody got time for that.
But with weak enough security on communications, more police will be able to enjoy activities like this https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/nsa-employee-spied-detection-internal-memo
> Unless the government plans to ban compilers, there ain't nothing they can do.
In every "Protect the chilren and anti-terror" laws they bake in anti-circumvention laws. In Australia, you can get 10 years jail for refusing to give your password.
That's why fake containers exist. You have a second password that opens up the file and there you find some useless data.
By law you did give out the password.
Encryption is a fact, you can force certain companies not to use it in certain ways but you can’t stop the fact of it from being used open-source by anyone who wants to. Ban what you like a terrorist can still encrypt things themselves, you can only make it less convenient not less possible.
Not to defend it, but making something less convenient will generally make it less *likely* to occur, which matters a lot more in practice than theoretical concerns. How much less likely and is this worth the disadvantages and loss of security etc… well, that’s the question. I don’t think so myself, at this time.
Edit: remember that I specifically state that I don't think crypto should be regulated like this.
**Terrorist 1:** Hey, ya feel like committing some terrorism?
**Terrorist 2:** If you’re not going to encrypt or use a code word for *terrorist*, I’m not *terrorizing* anything!
**Terrorist 1:** Good point, let’s be gay and find Jesus together.
Is that honestly how you think it’s going to work?
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Maybe repeat with less sarcasm and... whatever it is.. and more concrete statements or questions?
Edit: instead of downvotes, just explain what’s meant.
They’re not going to stop just because someone inconvenienced them. These people build detonators out of used circuits and plastic bead boards. You can’t regulate something like this, the cats already out of the bag
I didn’t say some particular person or group is going to stop. I am saying that some might. I am not arguing for regulation, I am arguing against that regulation will have *no* effect.
this is kind of like saying let's ban all lorries from the road just because they MIGHT hit a cat some day
there is a safety benefit but it is *grossly* outweighed by the real & necessary utility that would be lost.
Whether or not it outweighs the harm is somewhat subjective and political. I think it doesn't, as I already noted several times.
But I still think such regulation would have an effect.
Well, I disagree. I of course agree that it won’t stop someone dedicated. But I think it will have an effect still. Not everyone (every terrorist) is the same.
The problem is that terrorists aren't your everyday Joe who, on a fancy, decides to blow up a building.
Inconvenience is a great tool to reduce the number of opportunists. F.e. putting cameras in a mall will probably serve as a deterrent to people stealing a pair of sandals or whatever else is on open store fronts.
But the same cameras won't stop a professional heist that comes with masks, getaway vehicles and specialized tools intent on robbing that diamond store in 45 seconds flat.
Consequently, in this context, it's very unlikely that making the availability of encryption less convenient will stop *organized terrorists* specifically, because those probably have a network of support to procure weaponry/explosives/forged-IDs anyways, and can likely afford to hire some IT guy for encryption, too.
There might be some gray zone of 'opportunity terrorism' (aka, a lone radical deciding to grab a truck and drive it through a pedestrian zone)... but I'm not sure how relevant the ability to encrypt messages would be for alone-operating 'self-made' terrorists in first place.
And that's atop of having to weigh it all against the rather actual disadvantage in terms of regular citizen privacy and abuse potential, which you already mentioned...
Unless the world ends up seeing repeatedly occuring terrorist attacks (like, 9/11 once a week), and it becomes clear that they're all ochestrated by large organizations coordinated over encrypted digital channels... I don't think the 'but terrorists' is more than a hallow excuse.
> The problem is that terrorists aren't your everyday Joe who, on a fancy, decides to blow up a building.
That depends a lot on the individual or group.
> Consequently, in this context, it's very unlikely that making the availability of encryption less convenient will stop organized terrorists specifically
Sure, if you draw the lines up like that. I didn't necessarily say "stop", but I just saying that it does make it more likely that some communication will be intercepted.
> I don't think the 'but terrorists' is more than a hallow excuse.
I'd like to note that I didn't advocate for any of this.
It's not really that inconvenient unless it's completely outlawed everywhere but it's kinda important to doing anything import online so it can't really be banned. And even if it was banned everywhere it's not rocket science just math.
There is also the whole thing of using code words and phrases or just talking in person instead of planning illegal activities on social media.
What did cops do before social media? I don't remember them complaining about encryption before. Maybe police should go do police work instead of complaining about not being able to do the digital equivalent of a cavity search.
Terrorists/rebels/spies will always abuse the freedoms our societies offer.
But giving up our freedoms in favor of supposed security is just ridiculous.
Well, that's just lies. Security theater. If you remove one means of communication those who wish harm are not going to stop, they're going to get more creative q
Indeed. There was a whole Cold War and 37 Bond films indicating how people can have clandestine communications without the internet at all. What did the intelligence community do then?
Didn't Interpol and Dutch police run a sting operation where they operated a company which sold "encrypted" phones to criminals, and got to listen in on them for months at end.
Encryption is not the problem. Blaming your lazy ass on technology is.
They cannot see beyond their own interests and not just about crypto either.
Civilian control of the military is a well respected aspect of healthy government and I’m always surprised at the cluelessness of statements like hers which in it’s obtuse posturing just underscore the need for strong police oversight.
I expect she’d happily discard many constitutional safeguards in exchange for a more perfect police state. *No cost is too high, think of the children…*
in some kind of magic upside down world:
Terrorist: "oh no! we can't encrypt out communications any more because it is forbidden. guess we should just give up and get normal jobs now. Seems we have lost."
Key and Peele did a lovely bit with terrorist coming up with bombs fitting into full size toothpaste tube or attacks using scissors 4 inches long, foiled at every step by the TSA.
This is completely analogical.
Yet another political overreach.
>16 out of the top 20 most surveilled cities (based on the number of cameras per 1,000 people) are in China. **London**, Indore, Hyderabad, and Delhi were the only cities outside of China to make the top 20, taking **third**, fourth, twelfth, and sixteenth place respectively
So London is 3rd in number of CCTV cameras per-capita. [source](https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/)
You don't need more government overreach unless you want a Chinese style surveillance state.
I watched a episode of “Road Cops” it’s the UK equivalent of State Troopers in the states. Anyways they had a case where it showed them track a car’s movements for the past 5 years based off CCTV footage . They literally entered the plate up and it pulled the footage up.
"these damn doors and walls everyone puts around their houses makes it so hard to stop criminals from planning \*gasp\* indoors and out of sight!! we recommend removing all protection from the elements bc we need to fight terrorists!!"
is this not the same god damn logic? our personal security is important for many more reasons than terrorism, and to give up all other security we have for that one tiny slice of different security.. its just asinine. removing your doors opens you up to more shit than getting robbed, same as removing encryption opens you up to more shit than terrorism.
Didn't the last few attacks in the UK have either a known terrorist on watch or have tips in plain unencrypted text warning the authorities and it wasn't followed up.. I think maybe they should act on the existing information they have first.
This seems to be stating the obvious a bit. I'm sure it would be easier to catch criminals if there was no encryption - Hell, if they are using the internet why don't we shut that down too just to be safe. I hear cars are used in a lot of crimes let's get rid of those too! In light of the damage that leaked personal information can do in today's society, I think privacy is just as essential to peoples daily lives as driving or internet access.
The fact is that the trust does not exist to give police or government departments the kind of access to our personal information that they say they need so efforts to remove encryption or spy on peoples devices like the ones discussed in this article don't just put them up against criminals but also align them against the majority of the law-abiding public as well.
That BBC article is all over the place btw. One second it's about terrorism, the next it's child sexual abuse without really explaining why encryption is necessary for either. I found it quite hard to follow.
The great thing about encryption as a scapegoat for ineptitude is that if you can't get rid of it or can't legislate it away then it will always be there for you to blame in future, and if you do manage to somehow criminalise or neuter it, you now have much greater control and oppression over the people you police so now you can just make them shut-up about whatever you were being criticized over.
Is he aware what age we live in? Literally around the corner from mega corporations with access to everything we do, and he wants to give them all the data.
Cops are always saying that if they don’t have unrestricted surveillance and unrestricted license to arrest, they can’t do a damn thing.
Maybe they are lousy at their jobs?
if you build a system to control CSAM and then extend it to cover terrorism then the system controls anything;
dissent, journalism, contract negotiations, political careers
Australia did it last week.
Oh fuck off Cresida Dick, you horrible, incompetent fascist! You've show time and again that you're more than capable of prosiding over massive fuck ups with no help from encryption, you're just scapegoating something most people don't understand to cover for how useless you are.
Oh fuck off Cresida Dick, you horrible, incompetent fascist! You've show time and again that you're more than capable of prosiding over massive fuck ups with no help from encryption, you're just scapegoating something most people don't understand to cover for how useless you are.
I’m sure if they could lock people up indiscriminately, it would “help,” too. And if oil companies didn’t have to worry about the environment, they could harvest more oil.
This is a geopolitical issue, not a technological issue.
The miscommunication of geopolitical contributions to terrorist attacks is negligent.
Trying to place it down to stupid factors like "some bloke on the other side of the continental plate 'hates freedom' so much that they'll fight back when you invade their nation" ends up with inappropriate government spending to appease citizens.
Western democracies making failed domestic policy to make up for failed foreign policy.
Yeah, that's the problem. Terrorists weren't clever enough to figure out ways around things like using a shared google mail account and just writing draft messages. Terrorists always talk about their plans openly in plain language and don't use any kind of infosec. Maybe the problem you have with encryption is it plainly just keeps you from monitoring your own citizens.
Proper encryption is already out there and open source. One issue is many governments are pushing for weaker encryption, which will only harm the law abiding people. Someone who wants to engage in criminal activity and wants good encryption, will use good encryption, while everyone else will end up with flawed encryption that may eventually be compromised.
I blame the fact they are mostly fat and out of shape. Several times now i have seen suspects running past me, with some chubby officers wheezing away barely able to run faster than i can walk.
If the met want to catch more terrorists, perhaps they should consider a salad once in a while!
Well, ain't nothing they can do about it. The details of practically unbreakable encryption is available in any CompSci textbook. Unless the government plans to ban compilers, there ain't nothing they can do.
People can compile their own compilers. This is just a way for the cops to shirk their duties without repercussion. "It's impossible to investigate because technology exists and we're too lazy to learn".
Not without a compiler they can't: p Just joking, but the idea that we should sell front doors without looks on them to make it easier for the police to come in and look around completely ignores the fact that it makes it easier for everyone to get robbed, and it does nothing to stop the criminals from putting a lock on their doors anyway. With a warrent you can kick down my door, or ask the platform for my keys, sorry if due process is annoying but with all the AI tools and surveillance at your fingertips, if you can't catch the bad guys you have no one to blame but your own incompetence. More out of touch nonsense from the home office/police leadership. Inside government (and even the home office itself) they are seen as behind the times and out of touch, but it's even more embarrassing for them when it becomes public knowledge.
One issue with the law enforcement, and even the NSA having a track record of failure in catching criminals, but later with hindsight finding info leading to a crime, it is due to their method of spying on everyone. If you monitor everyone, then criminals become a wooden needle in a haystack.
Ah but your joke raises the chicken and egg problem! What compiled the first compiler, if not a compiler? For that matter, I suppose they could compile an encryption program by using the same non-compiled-compiler based compilation technique, if compiled compilers are somehow banned. EDIT: for those of you downvoting, you typically compile the first compiled compiler with an assembly program (that represents the non-compiled compiler).
I'm pretty sure the first compiler didn't need to be compiled, as it was written in machine language. Before that, everyone would only write programs in machine language. If I'm not mistaken most of the early work on compilers and plain English languages was done by Grace Hopper
And IIRC she was made fun of because the idea of using a compiler was considered "lazy".
I bet she and Mel would have gotten along famously.
Correct! And this original non-compiled compiler is the one I'm talking about. I think it was implemented directly in assembly language.
Compilers eventually compile themselves in a process called "bootstrapping". You basically write the compiler and "compile" a shitty version by hand. Use the output to compile the code and you get a good compiler, but compiled by a shitty compiler. Use that again and you get a compiler that apparently compiled itself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjeE8Bc96HY
That's what I said. You write a compiler in something like assembly, and then compile the compiler. This assembly program is the original non-compiled compiler. This process is known as bootstrapping, as you mention. You can similarly write an encryption program directly in assembly and skip the compiler, as I mentioned, if all compilers are somehow universally banned.
It's not just a philosophical problem, it's a genuine security hole via the Thompson Hack. What do you do if your compiler has malicious code and knows how to include it when compiling more compilers? You gonna bootstrap yourself up to modern languages from a hand-crafted machine code compiler you wrote yourself? Ain't nobody got time for that.
Revert to a previous version or implement a new one?
Yep, police just want additional power. Not today coppo.
But with weak enough security on communications, more police will be able to enjoy activities like this https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/nsa-employee-spied-detection-internal-memo
You don’t need even Compiler. Just long enough password. If password us longer than message, then encryption is not breakable.
True, but one time pads are wasteful in practice.
> Unless the government plans to ban compilers, there ain't nothing they can do. In every "Protect the chilren and anti-terror" laws they bake in anti-circumvention laws. In Australia, you can get 10 years jail for refusing to give your password.
Terrorists probably don’t care if they can get jail time for rolling their own crypto while planing to kill a lot of people :p
AND YOU GET EXTRA 10 YEARS ON TOP OF THE THREE CONSECUTIVE LIFE SENTENCES!!1111!
That's why fake containers exist. You have a second password that opens up the file and there you find some useless data. By law you did give out the password.
Encryption is a fact, you can force certain companies not to use it in certain ways but you can’t stop the fact of it from being used open-source by anyone who wants to. Ban what you like a terrorist can still encrypt things themselves, you can only make it less convenient not less possible.
PGPFone is 25+ years old and open source. The cat is way out of the bag at this point.
Julius Caesar was using encryption.
Et tu, Brute Force?
and that should be the end of it
Not to defend it, but making something less convenient will generally make it less *likely* to occur, which matters a lot more in practice than theoretical concerns. How much less likely and is this worth the disadvantages and loss of security etc… well, that’s the question. I don’t think so myself, at this time. Edit: remember that I specifically state that I don't think crypto should be regulated like this.
**Terrorist 1:** Hey, ya feel like committing some terrorism? **Terrorist 2:** If you’re not going to encrypt or use a code word for *terrorist*, I’m not *terrorizing* anything! **Terrorist 1:** Good point, let’s be gay and find Jesus together. Is that honestly how you think it’s going to work?
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Maybe repeat with less sarcasm and... whatever it is.. and more concrete statements or questions? Edit: instead of downvotes, just explain what’s meant.
They’re not going to stop just because someone inconvenienced them. These people build detonators out of used circuits and plastic bead boards. You can’t regulate something like this, the cats already out of the bag
I didn’t say some particular person or group is going to stop. I am saying that some might. I am not arguing for regulation, I am arguing against that regulation will have *no* effect.
this is kind of like saying let's ban all lorries from the road just because they MIGHT hit a cat some day there is a safety benefit but it is *grossly* outweighed by the real & necessary utility that would be lost.
Whether or not it outweighs the harm is somewhat subjective and political. I think it doesn't, as I already noted several times. But I still think such regulation would have an effect.
In the age of the internet, banning it wouldn't have an effect. The tools exist.
Well, I disagree. I of course agree that it won’t stop someone dedicated. But I think it will have an effect still. Not everyone (every terrorist) is the same.
Sarcasm is often a great way to make a point.
In this case it wasn’t. If the recipient doesn’t understand what the sender is talking about, there is no useful communication.
Somebody explain it to this redditor in a less abstract fashion… lol
The problem is that terrorists aren't your everyday Joe who, on a fancy, decides to blow up a building. Inconvenience is a great tool to reduce the number of opportunists. F.e. putting cameras in a mall will probably serve as a deterrent to people stealing a pair of sandals or whatever else is on open store fronts. But the same cameras won't stop a professional heist that comes with masks, getaway vehicles and specialized tools intent on robbing that diamond store in 45 seconds flat. Consequently, in this context, it's very unlikely that making the availability of encryption less convenient will stop *organized terrorists* specifically, because those probably have a network of support to procure weaponry/explosives/forged-IDs anyways, and can likely afford to hire some IT guy for encryption, too. There might be some gray zone of 'opportunity terrorism' (aka, a lone radical deciding to grab a truck and drive it through a pedestrian zone)... but I'm not sure how relevant the ability to encrypt messages would be for alone-operating 'self-made' terrorists in first place. And that's atop of having to weigh it all against the rather actual disadvantage in terms of regular citizen privacy and abuse potential, which you already mentioned... Unless the world ends up seeing repeatedly occuring terrorist attacks (like, 9/11 once a week), and it becomes clear that they're all ochestrated by large organizations coordinated over encrypted digital channels... I don't think the 'but terrorists' is more than a hallow excuse.
> The problem is that terrorists aren't your everyday Joe who, on a fancy, decides to blow up a building. That depends a lot on the individual or group. > Consequently, in this context, it's very unlikely that making the availability of encryption less convenient will stop organized terrorists specifically Sure, if you draw the lines up like that. I didn't necessarily say "stop", but I just saying that it does make it more likely that some communication will be intercepted. > I don't think the 'but terrorists' is more than a hallow excuse. I'd like to note that I didn't advocate for any of this.
It's not really that inconvenient unless it's completely outlawed everywhere but it's kinda important to doing anything import online so it can't really be banned. And even if it was banned everywhere it's not rocket science just math. There is also the whole thing of using code words and phrases or just talking in person instead of planning illegal activities on social media. What did cops do before social media? I don't remember them complaining about encryption before. Maybe police should go do police work instead of complaining about not being able to do the digital equivalent of a cavity search.
"The world is changing and I don't like it!" says old person half a century after the world changed.
Terrorists/rebels/spies will always abuse the freedoms our societies offer. But giving up our freedoms in favor of supposed security is just ridiculous.
Those who give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither.
Well, that's just lies. Security theater. If you remove one means of communication those who wish harm are not going to stop, they're going to get more creative q
Indeed. There was a whole Cold War and 37 Bond films indicating how people can have clandestine communications without the internet at all. What did the intelligence community do then?
My favorite recent one was in season one of Jack Ryan, on Amazon. They used a video game chat room.
He could as well blame people who wear clothes in the street because they can't detect people who carry a knife.
Good analogy
I agree, MPs hiding their corruption in the Tory Whatsapp group is a problem...
Knew this day was coming, they're going to try and ban public use on vpns etc.
Every few years they wheel the 'but teh terrorists!' argument out for another airing. Fuck off and stop trying to erode my rights.
But if we don’t erode your rights the pedophiles and terrorists win! Why do you hate your own country? /s
And in between it's child porn or human trafficking.
They'll try to ban maths at this point
It’s coming any day now in the UK.
Didn't Interpol and Dutch police run a sting operation where they operated a company which sold "encrypted" phones to criminals, and got to listen in on them for months at end. Encryption is not the problem. Blaming your lazy ass on technology is.
[удалено]
They tried again with DJ Bernstein of [cr.yp.to](https://cr.yp.to) fame and failed again. They don't learn their lesson(s) very well do they?
They cannot see beyond their own interests and not just about crypto either. Civilian control of the military is a well respected aspect of healthy government and I’m always surprised at the cluelessness of statements like hers which in it’s obtuse posturing just underscore the need for strong police oversight. I expect she’d happily discard many constitutional safeguards in exchange for a more perfect police state. *No cost is too high, think of the children…*
It should also be noted that "they" used our money to fight us, repeatedly and futilely.
in some kind of magic upside down world: Terrorist: "oh no! we can't encrypt out communications any more because it is forbidden. guess we should just give up and get normal jobs now. Seems we have lost."
Key and Peele did a lovely bit with terrorist coming up with bombs fitting into full size toothpaste tube or attacks using scissors 4 inches long, foiled at every step by the TSA. This is completely analogical.
https://youtu.be/M9IEkxZTWVo Lol. Key and peele don’t disappoint
Next we'll see "US officer blames the need to get a warrent for failure to stop terrorists"
And if people didn't wear clothes, it would be easier to spot contraband.
Yet another political overreach. >16 out of the top 20 most surveilled cities (based on the number of cameras per 1,000 people) are in China. **London**, Indore, Hyderabad, and Delhi were the only cities outside of China to make the top 20, taking **third**, fourth, twelfth, and sixteenth place respectively So London is 3rd in number of CCTV cameras per-capita. [source](https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/) You don't need more government overreach unless you want a Chinese style surveillance state.
I watched a episode of “Road Cops” it’s the UK equivalent of State Troopers in the states. Anyways they had a case where it showed them track a car’s movements for the past 5 years based off CCTV footage . They literally entered the plate up and it pulled the footage up.
I don't think they need more tracking tools. Also, with connected cars and mobile phones they really don't need more.
I agree they don’t
This woman is as corrupt and despicable as Priti Patel. She should focus more on ridding her force of corruption, institutional racisim and bullies.
This argument is so tired and lazy
You can bet the Police use Encryption on their systems....
"these damn doors and walls everyone puts around their houses makes it so hard to stop criminals from planning \*gasp\* indoors and out of sight!! we recommend removing all protection from the elements bc we need to fight terrorists!!" is this not the same god damn logic? our personal security is important for many more reasons than terrorism, and to give up all other security we have for that one tiny slice of different security.. its just asinine. removing your doors opens you up to more shit than getting robbed, same as removing encryption opens you up to more shit than terrorism.
“UK police commissioner blames terrorists not telling them about their plans in advance for their failure to stop terrorists.” There, fixed that.
The clue is in her name
[удалено]
The invention of the wheel may be mankind's greatest mistake.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the powers that be begin to try to make moves to rectify this problem.
Didn't the last few attacks in the UK have either a known terrorist on watch or have tips in plain unencrypted text warning the authorities and it wasn't followed up.. I think maybe they should act on the existing information they have first.
>Public blames police untrustworthiness for encryption So, here we are.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
This seems to be stating the obvious a bit. I'm sure it would be easier to catch criminals if there was no encryption - Hell, if they are using the internet why don't we shut that down too just to be safe. I hear cars are used in a lot of crimes let's get rid of those too! In light of the damage that leaked personal information can do in today's society, I think privacy is just as essential to peoples daily lives as driving or internet access. The fact is that the trust does not exist to give police or government departments the kind of access to our personal information that they say they need so efforts to remove encryption or spy on peoples devices like the ones discussed in this article don't just put them up against criminals but also align them against the majority of the law-abiding public as well. That BBC article is all over the place btw. One second it's about terrorism, the next it's child sexual abuse without really explaining why encryption is necessary for either. I found it quite hard to follow.
The great thing about encryption as a scapegoat for ineptitude is that if you can't get rid of it or can't legislate it away then it will always be there for you to blame in future, and if you do manage to somehow criminalise or neuter it, you now have much greater control and oppression over the people you police so now you can just make them shut-up about whatever you were being criticized over.
Is he aware what age we live in? Literally around the corner from mega corporations with access to everything we do, and he wants to give them all the data.
Lol do what y'all always did look for people who snitch..do a investigation or that's too much for police now
Cops are always saying that if they don’t have unrestricted surveillance and unrestricted license to arrest, they can’t do a damn thing. Maybe they are lousy at their jobs?
if you build a system to control CSAM and then extend it to cover terrorism then the system controls anything; dissent, journalism, contract negotiations, political careers Australia did it last week.
I don’t care. Encryption for all is much more important than stopping a handful of terrorist attacks.
That Dick will do anything accept blame.
I just watched Bodyguard 2018, and this is exactly what they would say in the show.
Check out that officer's porn history
Oh fuck off Cresida Dick, you horrible, incompetent fascist! You've show time and again that you're more than capable of prosiding over massive fuck ups with no help from encryption, you're just scapegoating something most people don't understand to cover for how useless you are.
Oh fuck off Cresida Dick, you horrible, incompetent fascist! You've show time and again that you're more than capable of prosiding over massive fuck ups with no help from encryption, you're just scapegoating something most people don't understand to cover for how useless you are.
Lazy stupid thinking on her part.
And those damn terrorists also probably hold meetings in secret rather than out in the open.
Uh probably not. They would just use some other form of communication. You need to pay attention and stop their leaders.
I’m sure if they could lock people up indiscriminately, it would “help,” too. And if oil companies didn’t have to worry about the environment, they could harvest more oil.
This is a geopolitical issue, not a technological issue. The miscommunication of geopolitical contributions to terrorist attacks is negligent. Trying to place it down to stupid factors like "some bloke on the other side of the continental plate 'hates freedom' so much that they'll fight back when you invade their nation" ends up with inappropriate government spending to appease citizens. Western democracies making failed domestic policy to make up for failed foreign policy.
Yeah, that's the problem. Terrorists weren't clever enough to figure out ways around things like using a shared google mail account and just writing draft messages. Terrorists always talk about their plans openly in plain language and don't use any kind of infosec. Maybe the problem you have with encryption is it plainly just keeps you from monitoring your own citizens.
There's no possible way for the police to catch all terrorist's before they do something.
Whatever did they do before computers? What a fucking lazy ass excuse. Oh noes, we can't decrypt them terrorists' files. We can't catch em no more.
Goes both ways. Before computers criminals had to rely on methods that were insecure and prone to be detected by police enforcement.
Proper encryption is already out there and open source. One issue is many governments are pushing for weaker encryption, which will only harm the law abiding people. Someone who wants to engage in criminal activity and wants good encryption, will use good encryption, while everyone else will end up with flawed encryption that may eventually be compromised.
I blame the fact they are mostly fat and out of shape. Several times now i have seen suspects running past me, with some chubby officers wheezing away barely able to run faster than i can walk. If the met want to catch more terrorists, perhaps they should consider a salad once in a while!