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

    12
    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
    You're being especially pernicious here. There's a large cleft of difference between advocacy of freedom of data, and with suspicion of illegal activity, the ability to acquire it via enforced "surveillance" - no one is antagonistic towards the latter, but the ability for general surveillance of any data is wholly detracting from the actual woe of current intelligence agencies; manpower and resources. This is a tautology, last time security provisions were given to intelligence they claimed it'd work, it didn't as the symptomatic problem isn't the methodology of illegal permission but that intelligence can't track the inordinate amount of illegality with its current manpower and resources. Why should we then commit to a limitation of freedom because it's simply more "easy" for the government than solution to the endemic problem with any policing body.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    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
    You seem to be confused, whether she was using it for that purpose was the test you set, not me, though what she was convicted of was a terrorist act

    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/ukne...ad-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

    Are you denying terrorists/jihadis or their associates have exchanged information on whatsapp that has an intelligence value to the authorities?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
    You're being especially pernicious here.
    I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word pernicious.

    There's a large cleft of difference
    Or you could say, "There's a difference", or "There's a cleft between". "A large cleft of difference" is a bit of a word salad.

    no one is antagonistic towards the latter, but the ability for general surveillance of any data is wholly detracting from the actual woe of current intelligence agencies; manpower and resources.
    You should read that sentence back to yourself. You change subjects mid-sentence, and your diction is very odd. I'm not trying to be rude, but you're not expressing yourself clearly.

    For example, it wouldn't be "the ability for general surveillance of any data", but "the ability to surveil data generally", or "the general ability to surveil data".

    And if you are saying the issue is manpower and resources, why are you insistent on forcing the security services to use forms of surveillance that are much more expensive and manpower intensive? For example, instead of getting a warrant and requiring Whatsapp to disclose the data, they have to hack into the communication at its source and use a keystroke logger

    This is a tautology
    I think you misunderstand what tautology means.

    Why should we then commit to a limitation of freedom because it's simply more "easy"
    I think the word you're looking for is "easier".

    for the government than solution to the endemic problem with any policing body.
    Again, this is just a word salad
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by young_guns)
    You seem to be confused, whether she was using it for that purpose was the test you set, not me, though what she was convicted of was a terrorist act

    it's a matter of public record that jihadis have used Whatsapp to exchange information with a legitimate intelligence value to the authorities



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ad-online.html




    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...ng-camp-jailed

    Are you denying terrorists/jihadis or their associates have exchanged information on whatsapp that has an intelligence value to the authorities?
    So you are saying 'a person who sympathised with terrorists used whatsapp so we should ban it' why not ban air whist your at it?

    If that's the case why can't you prove it.

    First she only talked about going there as it SATS though out not vomiting any crimes.

    And again not doing anything and considering he wasn't being wached before hand this law would've done nothing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word pernicious.



    Or you could say, "There's a difference", or "There's a cleft between". "A large cleft of difference" is a bit of a word salad.



    You should read that sentence back to yourself. You change subjects mid-sentence, and your diction is very odd. I'm not trying to be rude, but you're not expressing yourself clearly.

    For example, it wouldn't be "the ability for general surveillance of any data", but "the ability to surveil data generally", or "the general ability to surveil data".

    And if you are saying the issue is manpower and resources, why are you insistent on forcing the security services to use forms of surveillance that are much more expensive and manpower intensive? For example, instead of getting a warrant and requiring Whatsapp to disclose the data, they have to hack into the communication at its source and use a keystroke logger



    I think you misunderstand what tautology means.



    I think the word you're looking for is "easier".



    Again, this is just a word salad
    Nope. Pernicious was apt. A large cleft of difference was apt too. I didn't change subject mid-sentence. I used ; when the point was still related but a different tangent. Perhaps you should become more accustomed to other forms of diction, not my fault If you find it difficult when it's perfectly intelligible. You may prefer a way of parsing and that's fine but my choice is not incorrect. Tautology means differing things in contextual usage; in rhetoric it's the constant reinforcing of the same point, ergo my usage Is apt. Again, it's not my fault you lack the perspaciousness to understand my idiosyncrasies. I wasn't looking for the word easier, because I was being purposefully derogatory. No word-salad, increase your contextual understanding of more elaborate idiosyncrasies; I can suggest some authors if you wish. As to your point, you've rebuked nothing. You're clearly framing that you'd rather forsake libertie for simplicity, that's the point of rights to privacy, there's no simple arbitration of the issue of privacy vs protection. I'd rather the intelligence bodies be given more funding than simply given more rights to invade our rights, all in the name of "simplicity"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    X
    Are you denying terrorists/jihadis or their associates have exchanged information on whatsapp that has an intelligence value to the authorities?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Are you denying terrorists/jihadis or their associates have exchanged information on whatsapp that has an intelligence value to the authorities?
    I'm saying that nothing has been proven and cannot be proved and thus this is reactionary and unnessacery
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
    Nope. Pernicious was apt.
    Actually, it's not. How can I "be" pernicious? You might assert my ideas are pernicious, but it's very odd to call a person pernicious. It's a strange characteristic to assign to a person, and particularly one you don't know.

    Perhaps you should become more accustomed to other forms of diction
    I'm fully accustomed to this form of diction. I see it a lot from two friends of mine who have autism spectrum disorders. It all makes sense in their own minds, but it comes out a little bit jumbled, and in reality is often objectively less profound than it seems in their own mind.

    Thus, you come out with slightly nonsensical things like this

    but the ability for general surveillance of any data is wholly detracting from the actual woe of current intelligence agencies; manpower and resources

    Leaving aside your complete abandonment of the actual subject (the apparent balancing act between advocacy of freedom of data and suspicion of illegal activity... I mean, those two are rather odd to balance against one another, but hey), how does that general ability "detract from the actual woe"? And what do you even mean by "detract from the actual woe? Do you mean detract in the perception of the citizenry? Or detract in terms of the security services' actual capabilities?

    not my fault If you find it difficult when it's perfectly intelligible
    I'm sure it is to you. But as I said, I've found dealing with my two ASD friends that what they're saying is often imbued in their own mind with a profundity that far exceeds its objective value.

    You may prefer a way of parsing and that's fine but my choice is not incorrect. Tautology means differing things in contextual usage; in rhetoric it's the constant reinforcing of the same point, ergo my usage Is apt.
    Actually, that's not what tautology means. An example of a tautology would be, "When it rains, it condensates". What precisely about the security/liberty debate is tautological?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Actually, it's not. How can I "be" pernicious? You might assert my ideas are pernicious, but it's very odd to call a person pernicious. It's a strange characteristic to assign to a person, and particularly one you don't know.



    I'm fully accustomed to this form of diction. I see it a lot from two friends of mine who have autism spectrum disorders. It all makes sense in their own minds, but it comes out a little bit jumbled, and in reality is often objectively less profound than it seems in their own mind.

    Thus, you come out with slightly nonsensical things like this

    but the ability for general surveillance of any data is wholly detracting from the actual woe of current intelligence agencies; manpower and resources

    Leaving aside your complete abandonment of the actual subject, how does that general ability "detract from the actual woe"? And what do you even mean by "detract from the actual woe? Do you mean detract in the perception of the citizenry? Or detract in terms of the security services' actual capabilities?



    I'm sure it is to you. But as I said, I've found dealing with my two ASD friends that what they're saying is often imbued in their own mind with a profundity that far exceeds its objective value.



    Actually, that's not what tautology means. An example of a tautology would be, "When it rains, it condensates". What precisely about the security/liberty debate is tautological?
    Pernicious is an adjective... I can characterize you as being pernicious because it appears you're being pernicious. It's very simple really. I have nothing to say about your guised insult other than I'm not autistic and I know people far more eminent that also employ such idiosyncrasies. You're free to disagree with its splendor but it doesn't make you correct. The subject wasn't abandoned at all. Do you read at all what another says or merely propound your own take of it? It detracts from the "woe", being what I highlighted as the problem, manpower and resources. Actually that is what tautology means in rhetoric, a simple Google search will allay your misunderstanding.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
    Pernicious is an adjective... I can characterize you as being pernicious because it appears you're being pernicious.
    How am I being pernicious, though? It's a very odd choice of word. Who am I harming? And it bears explanation because pernicious carriers a particular implication of some kind of gradual or subtle harm

    It's very simple really. I have nothing to say about your guised insult other than I'm not autistic
    I shall have to take your word for it. It wasn't intended as an insult, more an assessment of the similarity between your particular linguistic idiosyncrasies and dictional oddities and those possessed by two ASD friends of mine.

    and I know people far more eminent that also employ such idiosyncrasies.
    Who are they? And how would you characterise this particular linguistic idiosyncrasy? I'm very keen to know, I have a particular interest in the English language

    You're free to disagree with its splendor but it doesn't make you correct.
    I'm not sure I'd agree that it's splendid, that's very high praise for yourself. In fact, I think it confers the opposite effect. As a law student, I love the English language and I value precision; one might almost call me a pedant. I've seen uses of the English language I would call magnificent, and I'm afraid I simply don't see how what you've written could be characterised thusly

    It detracts from the "woe", being what I highlighted as the problem, manpower and resources.
    But detracts in what sense? Does it detract in perception or in actuality? That is entirely unclear

    Actually that is what tautology means in rhetoric, a simple Google search will allay your misunderstanding.
    Actually, I am entirely correct in my understanding of what tautology means in its rhetorical sense. It's to repeat the same concept using different language, like the example I provided "When it rains, it condensates". I'm not trying to be mean, that's simply a fact.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    How am I being pernicious, though? It's a very odd choice of word. Who am I harming? And it bears explanation because pernicious carriers a particular implication of some kind of gradual or subtle harm



    I shall have to take your word for it. It wasn't intended as an insult, more an assessment of the similarity between your particular linguistic idiosyncrasies and dictional oddities and those possessed by two ASD friends of mine.



    Who are they? And how would you characterise this particular linguistic idiosyncrasy? I'm very keen to know, I have a particular interest in the English language



    I'm not sure I'd agree that it's splendid, that's very high praise for yourself. In fact, I think it confers the opposite effect. As a law student, I love the English language and I value precision; one might almost call me a pedant. I've seen uses of the English language I would call magnificent, and I'm afraid I simply don't see how what you've written could be characterised thusly



    But detracts in what sense? Does it detract in perception or in actuality? That is entirely unclear



    Actually, I am entirely correct in my understanding of what tautology means in its rhetorical sense. It's to repeat the same concept using different language, like the example I provided "When it rains, it condensates". I'm not trying to be mean, that's simply a fact.
    How? Of course you'll disagree as we're qualifying different things. I think you're (In a subtle way) harming the notion of libertie apropos to you know, the subject of this debate. Who are they? People that use a lot of colliqualism and eldritch form? Ezra Pound, Joyce etc. Not hard to find. That's why I said you can disagree. It's a matter of opinion, you dislike it, I'm aware of others that enjoy it. In actuality, no need to be openly wraith-like, we're talking of actual implications, never of perceptional. For a pedant you're not too pedantic; phrasing or terminology difference alliterates a different point to "language", your definition there forms it as syntactic when it doesn't have to be. And I'm glad you now agree, so my statement about it's tautology (the constant usage of the same argument for more security with different phrasing) is apt. Edit: saw you asked WHO I know that uses the same verbose idiosyncrasies. People from Universitie I know, colleagues both in my occupation and outside it etc

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    How am I being pernicious, though? It's a very odd choice of word. Who am I harming? And it bears explanation because pernicious carriers a particular implication of some kind of gradual or subtle harm



    I shall have to take your word for it. It wasn't intended as an insult, more an assessment of the similarity between your particular linguistic idiosyncrasies and dictional oddities and those possessed by two ASD friends of mine.



    Who are they? And how would you characterise this particular linguistic idiosyncrasy? I'm very keen to know, I have a particular interest in the English language



    I'm not sure I'd agree that it's splendid, that's very high praise for yourself. In fact, I think it confers the opposite effect. As a law student, I love the English language and I value precision; one might almost call me a pedant. I've seen uses of the English language I would call magnificent, and I'm afraid I simply don't see how what you've written could be characterised thusly



    But detracts in what sense? Does it detract in perception or in actuality? That is entirely unclear



    Actually, I am entirely correct in my understanding of what tautology means in its rhetorical sense. It's to repeat the same concept using different language, like the example I provided "When it rains, it condensates". I'm not trying to be mean, that's simply a fact.
    Although I propose we change this discussion on syntax to PM as it's deviated off-topic and just keep to the premise without picking personal fights.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The way I understand it, he wants a back-door to which the intelligence services can access software.

    What he fails to realise is that he basically wants software companies to create a flaw in their own system that can let someone access it, and if the government can exploit that flaw then so can everybody else. The outcome of this move will be the exact opposite of what he expects seeing as cyber-criminals and terrorists will also be able to exploit this flaw.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    The way I understand it, he wants a back-door to which the intelligence services can access software.

    What he fails to realise is that he basically wants software companies to create a flaw in their own system that can let someone access it, and if the government can exploit that flaw then so can everybody else. The outcome of this move will be the exact opposite of what he expects seeing as cyber-criminals and terrorists will also be able to exploit this flaw.
    Do you think the actual notion is wanton though? In your perspective? Or do you dislike it on basis of right to security.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
    Do you think the actual notion is wanton though? In your perspective? Or do you dislike it on basis of right to security.
    To descend into an in-depth discussion based on social factors or the morality of the move is redundant considering the sheer idiocy of the practicality of it, but if you insist:

    I see this as another typical ageist Tory move. All they're doing here is alienating the youth, and as such won't get any votes from them. They're playing up to the stereotype that old people hate technology and will therefore vote for it. Actually no, I can't say that for fact because even then it's an ill-considered move.

    Who are they actually getting on side by doing this other than the nuts that don't leave their houses for fear of a Taliban attack? It literally doesn't benefit anyone.

    It's not even the right to security that concerns me. What concerns me is that we have a Prime Minister who thinks that another of his grand plans will result in one thing but in actuality will result in something completely different. Dave is clearly out of touch with technology and on a bit of a head rush after trying to block everyone from getting themselves off via porn.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
    How? Of course you'll disagree as we're qualifying different things. I think you're (In a subtle way) harming the notion of libertie apropos to you know
    Oddly enough, by asserting that only one side of that debate is legitimate, you're almost negating your own claim to be on the side of freedom. If only one position is acceptable in your eyes, whither liberty?

    Ezra Pound, Joyce etc. Not hard to find. That's why I said you can disagree. It's a matter of opinion, you dislike it, I'm aware of others that enjoy it.
    It's a stretch to compare yourself to Joyce. Joyce had a superb command of the English language (even if he did tend to the experimental), whereas yours is simply eccentric

    For a pedant you're not too pedantic; phrasing or terminology difference alliterates a different point to "language"
    I think you've misunderstood the meaning of alliteration (or pedant, for that matter).

    your definition there forms it as syntactic when it doesn't have to be.
    I'm sorry but that's just completely meaningless word salad. Like your incorrect use of the word alliterates, you don't appear to understand the actual definition of the words you type.

    And I'm glad you now agree, so my statement about it's tautology (the constant usage of the same argument for more security with different phrasing) is apt.
    You continue to be confused about the meaning of tautology. It's not mere repetition with different words on different occasions, it requires a connection so that the repetition poses the argument in a way that is logically irrefutable but also irrelevant/nonsensical/superfluous

    For example, "When it rains, it condensates". Can you provide a single example of the authorities saying something like that?

    Edit: saw you asked WHO I know that uses the same verbose idiosyncrasies. People from Universitie I know, colleagues both in my occupation and outside it etc
    Verbosity is not the issue, so much as you appear to misunderstand the meaning of words, and use them inappropriately
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    The way I understand it, he wants a back-door to which the intelligence services can access software.

    What he fails to realise is that he basically wants software companies to create a flaw in their own system that can let someone access it, and if the government can exploit that flaw then so can everybody else. The outcome of this move will be the exact opposite of what he expects seeing as cyber-criminals and terrorists will also be able to exploit this flaw.
    Although I agree with the PM's assertion that, in principle, there should not be any space which is immune from any form of surveillance.

    But I accept that, in practice, this may be quite difficult. You make a good point about the issue with adding back doors.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Oddly enough, by asserting that only one side of that debate is legitimate, you're almost negating your own claim to be on the side of freedom. If only one position is acceptable in your eyes, whither liberty?



    It's a stretch to compare yourself to Joyce. Joyce had a superb command of the English language (even if he did tend to the experimental), whereas yours is simply eccentric



    I think you've misunderstood the meaning of alliteration (or pedant, for that matter).



    I'm sorry but that's just completely meaningless word salad. Like your incorrect use of the word alliterates, you don't appear to understand the actual definition of the words you type.



    You continue to be confused about the meaning of tautology. It's not mere repetition with different words on different occasions, it requires a connection so that the repetition poses the argument in a way that is logically irrefutable but also irrelevant/nonsensical/superfluous

    For example, "When it rains, it condensates". Can you provide a single example of the authorities saying something like that?



    Verbosity is not the issue, so much as you appear to misunderstand the meaning of words, and use them inappropriately
    Alliterate was used colloquially. Do I need to inform you everytime? Most reasonable people (mostly those with a good grasp of converse) can assess when it's used. Pedant was used correctly. My usage of tautology is fine. I never said it's mere use of the same words (though I would use it in that sense colliqually) and the rhetoric surrounding need for more security is always related in the sense that it supposes the same thing but in a way you can't refute I don't know how you can deny that; always exhorted as a means of protection and if you're against that, you're against protecting people/endangering things. I don't misunderstand or use inappropriately. You've demonstrated that though. No doubt neither of us will concede to each other though. So relating to my last post let's move this to PM and keep our replies apposite to the subject matter.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Although I agree with the PM's assertion that, in principle, there should not be any space which is immune from any form of surveillance.
    Ain't that some Grade A bull****. I don't want some ****er watching me and the missus going at it because MI5 has hacked the webcam on my laptop. Public space? Sure, why not. But private space is private for a reason.

    You wouldn't buy a house made entirely of glass so all and sundry can see into your living room, so why should the government be able to assume that they should be able to watch you 24/7?

    But I accept that, in practice, this may be quite difficult. You make a good point about the issue with adding back doors.
    We don't need a Great Firewall of Britain. That China has one is bad enough as it is, although it's cliché to keep bringing up 1984 it's also incredibly relevant if people are actually going to push for this move.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    To descend into an in-depth discussion based on social factors or the morality of the move is redundant considering the sheer idiocy of the practicality of it, but if you insist:

    I see this as another typical ageist Tory move. All they're doing here is alienating the youth, and as such won't get any votes from them. They're playing up to the stereotype that old people hate technology and will therefore vote for it. Actually no, I can't say that for fact because even then it's an ill-considered move.

    Who are they actually getting on side by doing this other than the nuts that don't leave their houses for fear of a Taliban attack? It literally doesn't benefit anyone.

    It's not even the right to security that concerns me. What concerns me is that we have a Prime Minister who thinks that another of his grand plans will result in one thing but in actuality will result in something completely different. Dave is clearly out of touch with technology and on a bit of a head rush after trying to block everyone from getting themselves off via porn.
    I concur mostly. See it personally as a concerted effort of the Tory party to ensure greater limitation of rights just because idealogy.

    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
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.