Say goodbye to privacy in the UK..

by GodZoo 12 Replies latest social current

• 

  GodZoo

  Internet firms to be banned from offering unbreakable encryption under new laws

  Companies such as Apple, Google and others will no longer be able to offer encryption so advanced that even they cannot decipher it when asked to under the Investigatory Powers Bill

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11970391/Internet-firms-to-be-banned-from-offering-out-of-reach-communications-under-new-laws.html
  
  

  So.. David Cameron and the conservatives have decided that because of a handful of potential terrorists and some people exchanging nude photos of kids that the remaining and innocent 64 million United Kingdom residents are no longer allowed to have any privacy.
• 

  cantleave

  I will just have to start using TOR as my main browser.
• 

  j dubb

  Well, sorry, too late. This shows the stupidity level of the people in charge. Its as stupid as saying 'we're going to ban math because child pornography' (which is ALWAYS the BULLSHIT excuse for EVERYTHING.)

  Too late; encryption methods are KNOWN and IN THE WILD whether or not The Google and (Hail) Apple offer it.
• 

  Simon

  In theory, this isn't an issue. Most people would probably say "sure, if it catches terrorists and prevents an office block being blown up then it's OK".

  The real measure of whether something like this is dangerous or not is how it will be used.

  We already had the previous labor government being utter cynical bastards and trying to dig up dirt on people who were "a nuisance" for daring to complain about being injured in train crashes.

  What controls over who can access the information and what it will be used for? If it's some machine learning system that scans email for potential threats then it's OK. If it's creating a massive database for them to sift through whenever they feel like because maybe someone objects to them politically? Oh dear ...

  The problem is, governments always find it hard to stop and say "no" to data use.
• 

  cantleave

  Reminds me of this.....

  
  
• 

  Mephis

  The current law in Britain allows for you to be sent to prison for refusing to give an encryption key to law enforcement. Surveillance in Britain has been present since means were available to do it. Not sure where the right balance is with this for us in Britain. Just to give perspective to the terrorism argument, it is real and we've got teenagers trying to get hold of bombmaking stuff. I know of four individual cases within a few miles of where I live over the past three or four years. And that's just one city, where a bomb not so long ago led to the whole city centre being rebuilt.

  Difficult one really because the protections and safeguards should be in the use of powers to intercept and open, not in the ability to do it once judicial permission has been given. Need to see more details of what's intended and the checks and balances which are going to be present. Conservatives have in the recent past been a bit stupid with their thinking on the internet generally, so they don't start from a particularly good place.
• 

  cantleave

  Mephis - do you remember when Poole council used anti-terrorism laws to spy on parents who they believed did not live in a school catchment area? This is why you can't trust the government to use they data they obtain for our benefit only..
• 

  Mephis

  It's an argument for proper scrutiny of legislation more than anything. Councils acted unlawfully using RIPA like that. Wasn't the solution for magistrates and judges to have oversight of its use, as should have been the case in the first place?
• 

  Village Idiot

  It's a Trojan horse situation. All the "good" things that they can do with "Big Brother" surveillance will be counterbalanced by the rise of a police state.

  Look at the photo below and read the blue plaque commemorating a famous author's former residence then look to the right of it.

  
• 

  Simon

  Look at the photo below and read the blue plaque commemorating a famous author's former residence then look to the right of it

  Mmnnn, I'm going to call "photoshop" on that. Why would a plaque be put up so high? (or a surveillance camera 4ft off the ground)

  Although I agree with the sentiment of the picture, surely it's fake?