sted Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 I'm not sure we have much choice in this at the moment (till the election) and it looks more like a small group of people (politicians) are signing away our rights with little thought beyond "it will help stop all those terrorists". im not sure even then we have much say I expect this sort of thing to get broad support from all parties as im sure they want to control everything we know. Its the same old "think of the children" argument again. The same as I believe if you encrypt your pc and refuse to give the authorities the access key you can be jailed for that regardless of whether there is anything incriminating on there or not
Grey-gear Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 If this does become law, would the people that this is try to catch just use other methods maybe putting them on to a way of communicating that is impossible to trace?
jinnantonnixx Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) If this does become law, would the people that this is try to catch just use other methods maybe putting them on to a way of communicating that is impossible to trace? No, it's total nonsense. The whole half-assed announcement is a casserole of idiocy. The asymmetric cryptographic methods are public knowledge, and cannot be un-learnt. They are open-source and not subject to any software publisher's control. In any case, people who intend to kill are hardly likely to obey such a trifling matter as not using encryption. If they wanted to stay under the radar, they could use old fashioned codes. Like a birthday announcement in Le Monde. Centuries ago, it was possible to have an absolutely secure, private conversation. Simply walk with somebody in an open field, if there was nobody about you were guaranteed privacy. There were no directional microphones, no laser interferometers. Society survived this reckless period of inscrutability. Edited January 13, 2015 by jinnantonnixx
jamesb Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 If this does become law, would the people that this is try to catch just use other methods maybe putting them on to a way of communicating that is impossible to trace? Probably not. Mainly because it wouldn't just be the people it's supposedly aimed at that would switch to other means of communication. I tend to use encryption for most communications anyway, and I know of others who do the same.
peterp Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 And banning encrypted communications will stop terrorists in the same way banning them having explosives stopped them making bombs. 1
LiamH Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 This is another case about them knowing absolutely nothing about the technology but passing laws on it. I predict a similar situation to the opt-out adult material block that happened where all their campaign sites got blocked for mentioning it.
Grey-gear Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Though the UK government is not the only one wanting to pass new laws about the Internet. BBC News - Obama makes push for stronger cyber security laws
Trapper Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 This is a problem. This is a solution. This is a big stick. 99% of the general population don't understand encryption so don't care. 80% of the population believe the Daily Fail. Horrendous really. Technology has advanced, but society hasn't reached a point where they can exist well.
jinnantonnixx Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Good piece in Forbes... No Country For Any Business: Imagining Britain Without Encryption - Forbes 1
edutech4schools Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Sorry if this was mentioned, I did have a scan of the posts. So far the Lib Dems are the only main party that would not do this, saying it is a completely bonkers idea on radio 4 yesterday.
Garacesh Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 So far the Lib Dems are the only main party that would not do this, saying it is a completely bonkers idea on radio 4 yesterday. They're not wrong, but it's extremely doubtful they'll get elected anyhow.
jamesb Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 So it seems Europe might push back on something like this - I knew we kept them around for some reason: Euro security agency says MORE crypto needed in gov policy • The Register
CAM Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Remember, this is the government that demands freedom of speech and the right to publish anything you want within the confines of the law even if it is offensive, but have party members demanding anything posted on social media that slightly offends them or the general public should end in jail sentences being thrown about for "publishing" offensive content.
Grey-gear Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Remember, this is the government that demands freedom of speech and the right to publish anything you want within the confines of the law even if it is offensive, but have party members demanding anything posted on social media that slightly offends them or the general public should end in jail sentences being thrown about for "publishing" offensive content. I bit like how Sony say they're standing you for freedom of speech by realising the Interview move and in the same week have a popular youtuber removed as he\she had made a parody of one of there songs?
CAM Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Sony is the company that sued itself for copyright infringement...
Grey-gear Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Sony is the company that sued itself for copyright infringement... Did they? How does that even work?
X-13 Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Did they? How does that even work? DMCA notices outsourced to another company IIRC. Similar to Microsoft issuing a takedown request to google for a download hosted on technet. [i think it was a technet link on google...]
CAM Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Something about the video/music rights department unhappy that the hardware department had created a recording device that could copy their music. So they effectively launched a lawsuit against themselves.
jamesb Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Something about the video/music rights department unhappy that the hardware department had created a recording device that could copy their music. So they effectively launched a lawsuit against themselves. Important to note that it wasn't actually against themselves as such. This type of thing happens more than you might think in large group companies. Naming no names but I've seen two companies under the same group kick off some serious litigation over copyright and intellectual property. As they are almost completely independent there is a kind of sense to it - since there's no way to bring pressure to bear within the group structure against a different subsidiary so legal is the only way to go.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now