Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    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?
    Secured against the world at large. Secuirty which is unlockedable by the Home Office at will isn't very secure.

    No but I'll take your word for it and I don't fancy reading the article thanks.

    No thats not my position. My position is that UK business (and HMG for that matter) requires the ability to communicate over encrypted channels and to store encrypted information. Yes that should be made avaliable if there is a court ruling, but I think to blanket ban encyption on the basis that some bad people might hide things is cutting your nose off to spite spite your face. I'd certainly like my bank to keep their encyption technologies in place...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it's inherently wrong for a government to read private correspondence, as it is more about how the piece of information is going to be used.

    The problem is that when the government is given too much power, it's very easy for them to abuse such power.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I doubt it will happen.

    These applications are so popular that there will have to be a comprimise
    Offline

    20
    They wouldn't dare to get rid of Whatsapp. :mob:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    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
    I never claimed of such. That's a rather begged question. Surveillance does occur, but the problem is we're fed a false dichotomy of "Don't do it and terrorists will be enabled" or do and "We'll catch them" - the same premise was given in syllogism for the current allotment of surveillance and it doesn't work as simplistically as such; the problem is as mentioned, manpower for such security problems and proper diligence. We're never going to catch everyone, a matter of simple synchronicity, we shouldn't everytime it occurs asses we need to curtail libertie in attempted ablution of the problem. This topic is a prime example of louche for the proponents, but it's only that, louche. It doesn't solve the issue.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Sorry I just got back.
    1) the woman didn't conspire to commit terrorism over whatsapp she did that live so point not valid.
    2) they are banning it saying it was being used but didn't prove it.
    3) that was not plotting terrorism, that was distributing pictures after the attack.
    Youre grasping at straws here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Yes that should be made avaliable if there is a court ruling, but I think to blanket ban encyption on the basis that some bad people might hide things is cutting your nose off to spite spite your face. I'd certainly like my bank to keep their encyption technologies in place...
    If there is encryption the government cannot crack, then there is information that can't be made available even with a court ruling.

    And again, who has proposed to ban all encryption? You're arguing against a strawman
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
    I never claimed of such. That's a rather begged question. Surveillance does occur
    And yet, by opposing this proposal you are advocating the creation of electronic spaces where the government cannot surveil, even with a court order
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Youre grasping at straws here.
    Actually you are, you appear desperate to assert the rather ludicrous notion that terrorists don't use whatsapp :lol:

    In fact, if, as you are proposing, whatsapp is made a surveillance-free zone, that's a guarantee they will use it for communications as opposed to other forms of technology like telephones

    Your position is that the government should not be able to obtain whatsapp communications even with a court order, that is an extremist position

    1) the woman didn't conspire to commit terrorism over whatsapp she did that live so point not valid.
    Nope. Either you're confused or you didn't read the article
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    If the government can see our information and messages then there's a fair chance that other governments and organisations can access it so. NO.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Actually you are, you appear desperate to assert the rather ludicrous notion that terrorists don't use whatsapp :lol:



    Nope. Either you're confused or you didn't read the article
    Considering you've ignored half my points:smug:

    she he encoraged her sons to fight jihad, she talked about wanting to go to Iraq on whatsapp (unless leaving the country counts as terrorism)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    she he encoraged her sons to fight jihad
    Which is a terrorism offence. That's why she's in prison now :dunce:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    And yet, by opposing this proposal you are advocating the creation of electronic spaces where the government cannot surveil, even with a court order
    No. By opposing this I'm in opposition to access of encrypted data and information. Absolute is wholly an inflection of what one deems to be the absolute margin of "surveillance" - I think surveillance in its current capacity is able enough. You didn't address the other points.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Which is a terrorism offence. That's why she's in prison now :dunce:
    But she didn't do that on whatsapp therefore you cannot prove that she did any terrorism on whatsapp.:facepalm:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NaTaLiiA513)
    If the government can see our information and messages then there's a fair chance that other governments and organisations can access it so. NO.
    So you believe privacy is absolute?

    This reminds me of the case where those two men were sexually abusing their son, and in fact had acquired him in Russia purely for the purpose of sexually abusing him. They'd flown him across the world to let other men abuse him, and film it.

    The images and videos were on an encrypted hard-drive, and unless the men gave up the password, the police wouldn't be able to access it.

    The logical corollary of your position is that you believe those mens' "right to privacy" overrides a legitimate government interest in opening up that hard drive
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    But she didn't do that on whatsapp therefore you cannot prove that she did any terrorism on whatsapp.:facepalm:
    What does "did terrorism on whatsapp" even mean? That's a nonsensical statement

    You realise you can't detonate a bomb on whatsapp?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    So you believe privacy is absolute?

    This reminds me of the case where those two men were sexually abusing their son, and in fact had acquired him in Russia purely for the purpose of sexually abusing him. They'd flown him across the world to let other men abuse him, and film it.

    The images and videos were on an encrypted hard-drive, and unless the men gave up the password, the police wouldn't be able to access it.

    The logical corollary of your position is that you believe those mens' "right to privacy" overrides a legitimate government interest in opening up that hard drive

    I never said privacy should be absolute but we're talking about whatsapp and snapchat not encrypted hard drives. I doubt many people can cleverly plan a terrorist attack on snapchat.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by young_guns)
    What does "did terrorism on whatsapp" even mean? That's a nonsensical statement

    You realise you can't detonate a bomb on whatsapp?
    Apparently insisting terrorism is a terrorist act, or are you reneging on that asurtation. You still do not have proof that she or anyone planned or did terrorism on whatsapp
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    What does "did terrorism on whatsapp" even mean? That's a nonsensical statement

    You realise you can't detonate a bomb on whatsapp?
    :rolleyes:

    So, anyway, has this convinced you to vote conservative?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NaTaLiiA513)
    I never said privacy should be absolute but we're talking about whatsapp and snapchat not encrypted hard drives. I doubt many people can cleverly plan a terrorist attack on snapchat.
    Are you really so naive as to believe terrorists couldn't or wouldn't use something like snapchat to transmit orders or exchange information? In fact, it's a matter of public record that jihadis have used Whatsapp to exchange information with a legitimate intelligence value to the authorities

    Paul Jarvis, prosecuting, said Khan's online activities revealed her "extreme Islamist views" and her desire to travel to Syria herself.Between April and October last year Khan exchanged a string of messages on WhatsApp with jihadist Mohammed Nahin Ahmed.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11288481/Isil-obsessed-mother-jailed-for-encouraging-jihad-online.html

    Kate Wilkinson, prosecuting, told the Old Bailey that detectives had discovered internet searches on the brothers’ computer such as “How to join the mujahideen” and “Islamic extremist groups”. Hamza had also discussed leaving to wage jihad with his friends on Whatsapp. In one message, he approved of martyrdom in Syria and said Muslims should “go to Syria and fight as it’s jihad”
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...ng-camp-jailed
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.