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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    How many terrorist attacks have there been on British soil in the last ten years?
    You mean leaving aside the one in which 52 Londoners were killed when three suicide bombers blew themselves up on the tube, and one blew himself up on a bus?

    Or the one where IRA terrorists sprayed an army base with automatic gunfire, killing two soldiers?

    Or the one where a soldier was beheaded in broad daylight in a street in London?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    woooo get you.

    Its been tagged ontop of the snoopers charter, seems reasonable to talk about the whole thing.
    Prism and Optic Nerve are not part of the "Snoopers Charter" (stupid, childish name... what is a "snooper" anyway?), in fact Prism isn't even a UK government programme

    Why don't you tell us, do you believe that the police and security services should not be able to access certain communications even if they have a warrant?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    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.
    Unless that paedophile is an MP or such.

    (Original post by young_guns)
    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.
    oh here we go, you're either for it or you're paedo terrorist scum.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    Unless that paedophile is an MP or such.
    If you believe MPs are above the law, you have the memory of a goldish

    http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/11/after-...ailed-3536565/

    oh here we go, you're either for it or you're paedo terrorist scum.
    Ludicrous strawman is ludicrous. You're poisoning the well and making sensible debate impossible.

    If you believe that there are places a judicial warrant should not be able to reach, then you clearly don't understand or believe in English common law.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Why don't you tell us, do you believe that the police and security services should not be able to access certain communications even if they have a warrant?
    I believe that encryption has useful and legitimate purposes and that we should be free to use it,
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    oh here we go, you're either for it or you're paedo terrorist scum.
    By the way, you presumably believe Sir Andrew Parker sits around all day thinking to himself, "I wonder how I can intercept more communications from innocent citizens? I really want to know their political views so I can oppress them"?

    If you think that, you should consider the degree to which you have become a conspiracy theorist
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    By the way, you presumably believe Sir Andrew Parker sits around all day thinking to himself, "I wonder how I can intercept more communications from innocent citizens? I really want to know their political views so I can oppress them"?

    If you think that, you should consider the degree to which you have become a conspiracy theorist
    Ludicrous strawman is ludicrous. You're poisoning the well and making sensible debate impossible.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    I believe that encryption has useful and legitimate purposes and that we should be free to use it
    So you believe police should not be able to open letters with a warrant from a judge / Home Secretary?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    So you believe police should not be able to open letters with a warrant from a judge / Home Secretary?
    Oh give over. Ludicrous strawman is ludicrous.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    Ludicrous strawman is ludicrous. You're poisoning the well and making sensible debate impossible.
    It's not a ludicrous strawman, it's the logical conclusion to take from your fear of government being able to access certain types of electronic communications in the same way they can access letters and telephone calls
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    Oh give over. Ludicrous strawman is ludicrous.
    Wow, you're really struggling if you can't see the obvious connection.

    Why is a letter different from encrypted communications? Why should the government be able to access one but not the other?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Why is a letter different from encrypted communications?
    It isn't. it can also be encrypted.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    It isn't. it can also be encrypted.
    In which case, why should police be allowed to access any communications whatsoever?

    Why should "privacy" be limited to those who have the know-how to encrypt their communications?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    If they block this means of communication, terrorists will just find another way. They may make their own versions which would have encryption and they wouldn't care because they're going to blow themselves up anyway.

    The way the government filters through current communication is by looking for keywords, so many peoples are likely to be read, including the conversation by you and your friend.
    Say you and your friends are going out drinking and you say to your friend
    We're going to murder tonight, nobody will be able to keep up with us
    it'll then be listed as a potential crime and will be read into.
    Also all of our communications will be susceptible to foreign nations. and as most have said, we shouldn't lose our rights just because of some idiotic jihadist *******s.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Why should "privacy" be limited to those who have the know-how to encrypt their communications?
    It isn't. RIPA already requires persons to supply decrypted information.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Why should "privacy" be limited to those who have the know-how to encrypt their communications?
    Excuse me but thats what you are advocating. You're saying no one should have any privacy but at the same time saying if they encrypt their own messages then we cant do a thing:erm:


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    It's not a ludicrous strawman, it's the logical conclusion to take from your fear of government being able to access certain types of electronic communications in the same way they can access letters and telephone calls
    Getting an injuction is different to a blanket ban / blanket survalience though.

    The government can't access encrypted, couriered letters routinely and their use is not banned.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Getting an injuction is different to a blanket ban / blanket survalience though.
    An intercept warrant is not an injunction. An injunction is a civil law order from a judge requiring someone to do, or not do, a particular thing.A

    And this isn't a blanket ban or blanket surveillance, the police or security services would still need a warrant to access the data from Whatsapp. The idea of having a warrant is inherently one that is mutually exclusive with blanket surveillance

    The government can't access encrypted, couriered letters routinely and their use is not banned.
    The difference being that the use of couriered letters creates a trail that Whatsapp messages don't. In the case of Whatsapp, the police and security services have no equivalent of being able to look up the metadata that is the equivalent of the credit card that paid for the courier, the sending and receiving address, and so on.

    And if terrorists were using couriered letters as a means of communications, then it would be reasonable to take a look at that. The reason the police and security services are focusing on Whatsapp is that it is regularly used by jihadis to communicate with one another

    Out of interest, do you believe that the police and security services should be able to access anything they are technically capable of doing if it has been duly ordered by a judge or the Home Secretary?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Excuse me but thats what you are advocating. You're saying no one should have any privacy but at the same time saying if they encrypt their own messages then we cant do a thing:erm:
    There are plenty of things we can do if someone encrypts their communications. Instead of trying to crack the code, the security services insert a keystroke logger onto their computer instead, or use various methods of physical surveillance.

    It's just a lot more expensive to do so, and the reason the security services are focusing on Whatsapp is that it is being used by terrorists to communicate with one another

    Maybe instead of granting MI5 this legislation, you'd be willing to increase their budget by 1000% to make up for the restrictions you are imposing on them?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by young_guns)
    The reason the police and security services are focusing on Whatsapp is that it is regularly used by jihadis to communicate with one another
    Evidence please if your are going to make such a claim you better be able to prove it


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    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.