Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

WhatsApp, Snapchat and iMessage could be banned if Tories win the GE Watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adipoptosis)
    Wont happen.
    (Original post by Castro Saint)
    It won't happen.
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    Never going to happen.
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    Yeah............thats not happening
    I dunno mi5 seem pretty desperate.

    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    lets be honest, politician's say this and that and eventually they will cave and make a u-turn on issues which causes an outcry among citizens.
    Well they haven't so far, how many times has this been rejected already? Yet they still keep pushing it.

    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    Encryption also prevents other hostile forces from accessing your info, foreign governments, blackmailers, criminals, etc
    It's there to protect your privacy, banning it will cause more problems.
    And of course all our communications are just going to be sitting there waiting to be taken,
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Even if it won't happen this definitely will not get them younger voters nor will it make young people want to actually go out to vote in general. A lot of young people are disillusioned with politics as it is.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Won't happen.

    The talk of snapchat etc is complete speculation on the part of journalists.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I actually don't think it's a bad proposal. I know everyone says that it's breaching their privacy, but the government isn't going to care in slightest about a conversation about who your best friend fancies or whatever. The only way this will affect us is increasing the chance that people trying to commit mass murder will be caught, and I for one would rather the government be able to read my texts than be blown up.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    I'm as opposed to terrorism as any other person (apart from the terrorists, obviously), but I resent this increasing attack on our privacy. For one, it feels like we're giving in to the terrorists. Secondly, it feels like the government is making good use of the existence of terrorism to extend its powers, which I find questionable. Thirdly, all this snooping won't stop terrorist attacks. It's naive to think that it will. If people truly wish to do us harm, they'll find a way. And last but not least, there should always be the presumption of innocence.

    As a law-abiding person, I don't see why everything I do online, or over the phone, should be subject to monitoring. If security forces were to investigate my correspondence they'd be bored stiff, but that's not the point, really, is it? My interactions are logged, just in case. If politicians get their way, they're pretty much saying that I can't be trusted with encrypted apps, just in case... Now, I know it's not about me, but this applies to the vast, vast majority of people.

    If someone's been murdered in a city, the police don't investigate every single person living in that city. They investigate the crime, and if they find suspects, they investigate just those people. If there is a genuine reason to believe someone has committed a crime, or that they're plotting a crime, sure, apply for permission to then monitor their calls etc. Right now, it feels a bit like all of us are suspects.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reluire)
    Source

    Another interesting and seemingly controversial announcement from the Conservatives. I can't think this will do much to help them with the youth vote. However, are the Tories right to say that messaging services that encrypt their data should be banned for the good of safety in society, or is this just another sign that the UK is becoming a nanny state?
    Actually, that's not what the PM said at all.

    Are you saying that you believe that there should be communications that are completely unreadable, even when a warrant has been obtained?

    Say you have a situation where a paedophile has kidnapped a young child, and the the police are fairly sure the location of the child is contained on a chat log on Whatsapp. A judge or Home Secretary duly signs a warrant requiring Whatsapp to disclose the log, and then Whatsapp says, "Sorry, we can't give you access; we don't have the technical means"

    Why is that a desirable thing? Do you honestly believe some people should be able to act entirely outside the law, outside the reach of a lawful warrant?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    As a law-abiding person, I don't see why everything I do online, or over the phone, should be subject to monitoring.
    That's not the proposition. What you're saying is that what you do online should not be subject to monitoring even if the security services or police have a warrant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Naomi12)
    I actually don't think it's a bad proposal. I know everyone says that it's breaching their privacy, but the government isn't going to care in slightest about a conversation about who your best friend fancies or whatever. The only way this will affect us is increasing the chance that people trying to commit mass murder will be caught, and I for one would rather the government be able to read my texts than be blown up.
    I don't think that we should permit ourselves to be ruled by fear. How many terrorist attacks have there been on British soil in the last ten years? Not many. Whilst what attacks there have been were horrible, I don't think that they justify surrendering our privacy.

    Besides, I doubt a terrorist group would use the phone or the Internet and go, "Right, let's meet up at (location) at (time) and carry out (horrible crime). See you there! Xx" They could just meet up in person and make their plans. Should we then all be fitted with microphones, just in case? That would be absurd, right? Yet, I think that the snooping charter is also absurd...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Leave aside all the hysteria and histrionics, are the people on this thread saying they believe their communications should be immune from any form of surveillance, even if the police or security services have obtained a warrant?

    And if not, then what makes a phone call different from Whatsapp? Why should a phone call be interceptable, but your Whatsapp messages not?

    The government doesn't care about your dreary little lives, and you are massively overrating your own importance if you think they are proposing this just to be able to read your fatuous little texts to your mates.

    Opposing this would be the equivalent of opposing any forms of telephone intercepts when that technology was first invented
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambio wechsel)
    dear god. Did he really say that?
    Surely not...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    I don't think that we should permit ourselves to be ruled by fear. How many terrorist attacks have there been on British soil in the last ten years?
    And do you know how many terrorist attacks have been foiled? Have many arrests there have been because of the work of the Metropolitan Police and Security Services?

    Why don't you have a look at that, before you conclude there is no terrorist threat
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The government knows you're gay before google does.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    Besides, I doubt a terrorist group would use the phone or the Internet and go
    What do you mean "I doubt"? You're basically just telling us you don't have a clue about terrorism.

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...da-switchboard

    The N.S.A.’s tracking of calls to and from the Hada household allowed the F.B.I. to map the global network of Al Qaeda. But not all the information was shared. In 1999, Mihdhar’s name surfaced in one of the recorded calls, linking him to Al Qaeda. “Something nefarious might be afoot,” an N.S.A. analyst wrote, but Mihdhar’s name was not passed on to the F.B.I.
    Saudi intelligence also alerted the C.I.A. that Mihdhar and his friend Nawaf al-Hazmi, another future hijacker, were members of Al Qaeda. In December, 1999, the C.I.A. learned through the Al Qaeda switchboard that the two would be travelling to Malaysia for a meeting in early January.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by young_guns)
    That's not the proposition. What you're saying is that what you do online should not be subject to monitoring even if the security services or police have a warrant
    It's more extensive than that, though. ISPs having to store our Internet data. The revelations by Snowden about Prism and about Optic Nerve, which captured private webcam images - indiscriminately, so these people weren't suspects.

    Leaving those aside of focusing on this proposal, yes, I believe that people should have means of communication that are private. That may be controversial in this day and age, but it's about how much power I believe the government should have over its citizens. And, in my opinion, there are limits to that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    It's more extensive than that, though. ISPs having to store our Internet data. The revelations by Snowden about Prism and about Optic Nerve
    We are talking about a very specific proposal. Try to stay on topic.

    That may be controversial in this day and age, but it's about how much power I believe the government should have over its citizens. And, in my opinion, there are limits to that.
    Then you would be far outside the mainstream.

    Most people would say that in a situation where you have a paedophile who has kidnapped a child, and the police strongly suspect the whatsapp logs will show where he has stashed the child, then they should have the option to get a warrant to open those logs.

    When you said "law-abiding" citizen, you didn't mean that, did you? You meant that you want to be above the law, outside the reach of a lawfully issued judicial or executive warrant.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by si82)
    Hardly surprising considering it let Vodafone off £11bn in tax and such corporations would fain from WhatsApp ban in the UK.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'd love to know what the link in your head is there
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    If someone's been murdered in a city, the police don't investigate every single person living in that city. They investigate the crime, and if they find suspects, they investigate just those people. If there is a genuine reason to believe someone has committed a crime, or that they're plotting a crime, sure, apply for permission to then monitor their calls etc. Right now, it feels a bit like all of us are suspects.
    You seem to be confused about what this proposal encompasses.

    This is a proposal that police and security services should have the technical means to access data in circumstances where they have obtained a warrant

    This is not a proposal for the government to monitor and store all the data produced by Whatsap

    So, that means you agree with the proposal?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    How many terrorist attacks have there been on British soil in the last ten years? Not many.
    Yes, there have been many...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Terrorists also use trains. Let's ban trains

    Terrorists also use email. Let's ban email

    Terrorists also send letters. Let's ban people posting things

    They can very well just communicate using encrypted emails.... Lotus notes has this feature built in....

    There's also nothing stopping them from using VPN services

    A govt that doesn't understand technology yet again...

    Though these things tend to fail. Pretty hilariously

    They tried to take down TPB. A million more websites popped up and TPB took measures to become more resilient to attack

    Sure TPB and WhatsApp are effectively two different categories but someone would just simply make another app, push it to market. People would then use it. It would get banned. Another would be made etc.. Etc...

    There's also IRC chat...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    We are talking about a very specific proposal. Try to stay on topic.
    woooo get you.

    Its been tagged ontop of the snoopers charter, seems reasonable to talk about the whole thing.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 15, 2015
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.