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 cnova)
    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
    They're not looking to block Whatsapp, they want access to it because it is currently being used by terrorists to communicate with one another. If they start using other methods of communication, we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

    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.
    Actually, that's not what is being proposed here.

    And to the extent the government does search by keywords, they don't search for words like "bomb" or "terrorist". They use keyword search in conjunction with other kinds of intelligence they have gathered.

    So they would keyword search for particular types of Arabic words that are associated with extremists.

    Or perhaps one of their HUMINT sources has told them a code word used for an explosive device is "Green Sun" and that a terrorist attack is imminent, so they keyword search "Green Sun" and narrow the list down to the 20 or so people who have used that term and then investigate them

    and as most have said, we shouldn't lose our rights just because of some idiotic jihadist *******s.
    What right are we losing simply by allowing the security services to access certain communications with a warrant from a judge or the Home Secretary?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Evidence please if your are going to make such a claim you better be able to prove it


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ad-online.html

    http://www.news24.com/Technology/New...orism-20131003

    http://www.india.com/news/world/pesh...atsapp-225614/
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    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?
    Yes, but I don't think they should needlessly ban entire communication mediums because of it.

    Unencypted email is entirely insecure, its like sending a postcard, anyone between the sender and the reciever can read it.

    Encrypted email is pretty handy for business, blanket banning it seems pretty OTT.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Cameron is many things but not a torry
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by young_guns)
    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?
    Ok so I simply create a complex cipher which they can't crack:erm:

    Or maybe I'd leave it as it is. As someone else said they will always find a way around this. Such as the dark web. And whatever the browser is. Or cival liberties should not be eroded for 'what ifs'

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cnova)
    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 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.
    Perhaps they would find a new way, but that doesn't mean we should just accept that and not bother attempting to fix the current way. And yes I understand that, but why does it matter if the government see that text? Reading the text they'll see the context and forget all about the message. The people that suffer are the ones really using these methods to plan crimes, and if it just stops one death then I'm for it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Ok so I simply create a complex cipher which they can't crack:erm:
    :lol: It doesn't matter how complex the cipher is if, when you are typing the unencrypted message, your computer is keystroke logging everything you type

    Or cival liberties should not be eroded for 'what ifs'
    What civil liberty is being eroded by the government being able to access certain types of communication with a warrant?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    So because one woman, who didn't actually commit a terrorist offence on encouragement of her children to do so, said on whatsapp that she wants to go to Iraq all jihadists plot terrorism on whatsapp. Great generalizing:top:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    So because one woman
    I added other links. Are you really claiming that is the only instance ever that Whatsapp has been used by terrorists? You're a clever one

    who didn't actually commit a terrorist offence
    Actually, advocating jihad and violent attacks is a terrorism offence
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by young_guns)
    :lol: It doesn't matter how complex the cipher is if, when you are typing the unencrypted message, your computer is keystroke logging everything you type
    not if im typing the encrypted message.:erm:



    What civil liberty is being eroded by the government being able to access certain types of communication with a warrant?
    there is still a massive 'what if'
    1) they do not know for certain the info is there
    2) they could make an error and access the wrong account.
    3) it is just as likely they will see nothing or something personal (e.g. nudes) private communication is essential



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    not if im typing the encrypted message.:erm:
    And how are you going to encrypt it in the first place? Unless you are going to do it by hand on paper first, in which case you won't be able to use any strong form of encryption

    there is still a massive 'what if'
    1) they do not know for certain the info is there
    2) they could make an error and access the wrong account.
    3) it is just as likely they will see nothing or something personal (e.g. nudes) private communication is essential
    So you're against telephone intercepts?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    :lol: It doesn't matter how complex the cipher is if, when you are typing the unencrypted message, your computer is keystroke logging everything you type
    Doesn't really matter if the device is encrypted, or the application you're using is within an encrpted container...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    So you're against telephone intercepts?
    Are you against secure VPN?
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by young_guns)
    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?
    I can find six terrorist attacks on British soil within the last ten years. Are they bad? Of course. I don't condone terrorism, at all.

    However, Cameron's comments and proposals need to be taken in a wider context. This isn't just about a popular app. This isn't just about being able to access people's communications when a warrant has been obtained - though that is problematic enough in itself, as, for example, financial institutions use encryption. If, then, we're going to ban encryption altogether, we face security risks. If we say that this business or institution can use encryption, but that business or institution or private citizen cannot, we're entering a questionable territory.

    In a wider context, though, this would be yet another erosion of privacy, another case of bowing down to criminals, another limitation on our freedom and our way of life. It's another bit of control in the hands of the Government. And that doesn't sit well with me.

    I do not consider myself to be above the law, as you accused me of in one of your several responses. I am not talking about just myself here, but the vast, vast majority of innocent citizens. Criminals are in the minority. Terrorists are a minority of criminals. Why shouldn't non-criminals have a right to privacy? Why shouldn't they be able to use encryption? Even if we give up any and all privacy, criminals will still find a way. We're never going to be able to stop them completely. So, we have to make a choice. How much are we willing to allow those few people who commit atrocities to influence our lives?

    Oh, and by the way, Optic Nerve was run by GCHQ, which is British.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Doesn't really matter if the device is encrypted, or the application you're using is within an encrpted container...
    Actually, that makes no difference whatsoever. You still have to actually type the unencrypted message, and there are a number of ways to get the raw keystroke data if you've taken control of someone's computer.

    There are also ways to detect what is being displayed on computer screen, which is another way to get at the raw text
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    I can find six terrorist attacks on British soil within the last ten years. Are they bad? Of course. I don't condone terrorism, at all.

    However, Cameron's comments and proposals need to be taken in a wider context. This isn't just about a popular app. This isn't just about being able to access people's communications when a warrant has been obtained - though that is problematic enough in itself, as, for example, financial institutions use encryption. If, then, we're going to ban encryption altogether, we face security risks. If we say that this business or institution can use encryption, but that business or institution or private citizen cannot, we're entering a questionable territory.

    In a wider context, though, this would be yet another erosion of privacy, another case of bowing down to criminals, another limitation on our freedom and our way of life. It's another bit of control in the hands of the Government. And that doesn't sit well with me.

    I do not consider myself to be above the law, as you accused me of in one of your several responses. I am not talking about just myself here, but the vast, vast majority of innocent citizens. Criminals are in the minority. Terrorists are a minority of criminals. Why shouldn't non-criminals have a right to privacy? Why shouldn't they be able to use encryption? Even if we give up any and all privacy, criminals will still find a way. We're never going to be able to stop them completely. So, we have to make a choice. How much are we willing to allow those few people who commit atrocities to influence our lives?

    Oh, and by the way, Optic Nerve was run by GCHQ, which is British.
    Agree entirely. Though the crux of the argument to me is a simple matter of personal liberty being besmirched.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    This isn't just about being able to access people's communications when a warrant has been obtained - though that is problematic enough in itself
    How is it problematic? Are you saying the police and security services should not be able to perform any sort of interceptions?

    as, for example, financial institutions use encryption. If, then, we're going to ban encryption altogether, we face security risks
    You seem to be confused. No-one has proposed banning all encryption

    In a wider context, though, this would be yet another erosion of privacy
    You believe privacy is absolute?

    I am not talking about just myself here, but the vast, vast majority of innocent citizens. Criminals are in the minority. Terrorists are a minority of criminals.
    And if the proposal was to tap all communications, all the time, you might have a point. Given this proposal involves warrants, it seems fairly targeted to me

    Why shouldn't non-criminals have a right to privacy?
    There is a distinction between a right to privacy and an absolute right to privacy. You appear to be saying privacy should have no limits

    Oh, and by the way, Optic Nerve was run by GCHQ, which is British.
    Where did I say it wasn't? I asked you to try to stay on topic, which is to stick to the current proposals
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
    Agree entirely. Though the crux of the argument to me is a simple matter of personal liberty being besmirched.
    Do you believe the right to privacy should be absolute? And the corollary, that the government should not be permitted to do any forms of surveillance? That's a pretty extreme position
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Actually, that makes no difference whatsoever. You still have to actually type the unencrypted message, and there are a number of ways to get the raw keystroke data if you've taken control of someone's computer.

    There are also ways to detect what is being displayed on computer screen, which is another way to get at the raw text
    This is true, if you can get control of the device.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Are you against secure VPN?
    It depends on to whom it is to be secured against? I have no problem with any form of security as long as it permits the information contained therein to be accessed if and when a judicial authority or the Home Secretary issues a warrant.

    Do you remember the case where those two fathers were sexually abusing their five year old son?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...loitation.html

    Not only were they abusing him, but they'd actually bought him in Russia for the sole purpose of sexual abuse, and had been flying him all around the world to allow other men to sexually abuse him, and film it.

    They encrypted the hard drives containing the thousands of videos, and the Australian police couldn't get access to it. It was only because of some very skilled police work that they obtained the password from one of the men. Your position would be that if they weren't able to get that password, those two mens' "right to privacy" would have been absolute, and that you would by logical extension allow that boy to remain in their care?

    That's a reasonable sacrifice for the "right to privacy" in your eyes?
 
 
 
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.