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 Quady)
    It can with the key.

    I thought an all out ban on whatsapp and other encrypted services is proposed?
    It was proposed that the government have a backdoor to these services, and some journalists hyperventilated and said this would mean a ban if they refused.

    On the other hand, I have just learned that this is not an urgent proposal that's to be laid before parliament as I had thought, but in fact it's an election proposal that would be introduced in 2016. In that case, I reject the politicisation of this issue by the PM and yield to the criticisms

    As someone who is inclined, for personal reasons, to give the security services a strong benefit of the doubt, I feel ill-used by the Prime Minister for politicising this issue and drawing those of us who support the services out when it's not, as far as I can see, an urgent issue requiring emergency legislation
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    give the security services a strong benefit of the doubt
    Given their history why on earth would you do that?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    You were the one who raised the "They want to see what me and my missus do". Are you claiming they actually do care about you having sex with your girlfriend/wife? Do you seriously believe that's what they're after?
    Of course not, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if someone with loose morals would abuse their position in power to obtain such data.

    But you just said that privacy absolute. The government has no actual evidence of criminal wrongdoing on their part, merely some intelligence and the intuition of long-serving police investigators.

    How are you distinguishing their situation from yours?
    There's a difference between going after the criminals and assuming everyone to be a criminal, we're going in circles.

    How does it? If the government was saying it was going to gather and store everything, then you would have a point. But they're not, so you don't.
    Lulz if course they're not going to admit to that. Don't be naive, when has a politician ever been straight-forward about their plans?

    You've been misinformed. The proposal would still require the government to obtain a warrant.

    So how is that different from any other situation we've discussed?
    Again, there's a difference between assuming someone to be a criminal and assuming that everyone is a criminal. The government should not have the authority to be able to tunnel into peoples' digital lives simply because they feel like it, there's no moral ground for doing so.
    If they want to go after the criminals then by all means do so, but who the **** organises crime sprees over Snapchat? There's a complete lack of logic to Daves' plan, and the poor bugger doesn't even realise it.

    http://boingboing.net/2015/01/13/wha...ampaign=buffer

    If this article is correct then the outlined bullet points are of high concern for any citizen who values their right to privacy.


    What they basically want is the equivalent of a camera in your house that they can turn on and use to watch you with if they think you're doing something illegal. Doesn't that sound a bit wackjob paranoid to you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Of course not, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if someone with loose morals would abuse their position in power to obtain such data.
    That's why I support far greater oversight of the intelligence agencies; I favour a system much closer to the Australian system of oversight.

    This country should have an Inspector-General of Intelligence in the same way the US and Australia do. The IG's job is as an independent overseer of intelligence, who ensures they are complying with the law and with ministerial direction

    There's a difference between going after the criminals and assuming everyone to be a criminal, we're going in circles.
    You're going in circles, I've explained very clearly that they have not assumed everyone is a criminal. In fact, the very nature of a warrant is inherently exclusive of the idea of targeting everyone. That's pretty straightforward, no?

    Again, there's a difference between assuming someone to be a criminal and assuming that everyone is a criminal. The government should not have the authority to be able to tunnel into peoples' digital lives simply because they feel like it
    Do you understand what a warrant is?

    What they basically want is the equivalent of a camera in your house that they can turn on and use to watch you with if they think you're doing something illegal.
    You keep saying you have no problem with the government using surveillance where they have a warrant. This current proposal would require a warrant. So....?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    You're going in circles, I've explained very clearly that they have not assumed everyone is a criminal. In fact, the very nature of a warrant is inherently exclusive of the idea of targeting everyone. That's pretty straightforward, no?

    What possible motive could David Cameron have for implementing some secret surveillance agenda? Are there any serious hypotheses that could explain why he might? Seems pretty implausible to me
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30778424

    "The coalition introduced emergency legislation last year to maintain internet and phone companies' obligation to store their customers' personal communications data and to give access to the police."

    Mmmkay.

    Are you confused? Do you understand what a warrant is?
    Yeah, it's a bit of paper that someone signs when they want to get someone out of their office.
    How long is it going to be before the "need" for a warrant becomes redundant? I'd wager not long. A decade at most.

    They have not asked for the power to be able to just go and check on people, except and insofar as they have a warrant. Try reading that last bit over and over again, and then consider how contradictory your position is.
    What you don't seem to be understanding is that this ill-thought through plan has the potential to be abused on a massive scale, warrant or no warrant. I especially liked how the NSA were keeping tabs on people without a warrant, for example. So the police need a warrant but intelligence agencies don't? That's my problem with this; your bog-standard PC will need a bit of paper before he starts snooping around but apparently intelligence services are exempt from that (of course, it might be different for the UK intelligence services so correct me if I'm wrong).

    You keep saying you have no problem with the government using surveillance where they have a warrant. This current proposal would require a warrant. So....?
    So do you not realise just how difficult this would be to implement practically, not to mention a huge waste of taxpayers money?
    The government does not need extra measures introduced to keep tabs on us, and Cameron is piggy-backing off the recent events in Paris in a bid to introduce a new plan that has little or nothing to do with the events in Paris, unless they planned their attack via selfies of course.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30778424

    "The coalition introduced emergency legislation last year to maintain internet and phone companies' obligation to store their customers' personal communications data and to give access to the police."

    Mmmkay.
    There is a difference between storing it and actually using it. They store it as there is no other way to access it when they need it and have a warrant

    Yeah, it's a bit of paper that someone signs when they want to get someone out of their office.
    How long is it going to be before the "need" for a warrant becomes redundant? I'd wager not long. A decade at most.
    So are you in favour of warrants or not? Are you saying now that you don't think the government should be able to use surveillance, ever?

    And if they should be able to use it, can you think of a better system than warrants?

    In fact, why don't you tell me what your proposed system is?

    So the police need a warrant but intelligence agencies don't? That's my problem with this; your bog-standard PC will need a bit of paper before he starts snooping around but apparently intelligence services are exempt from that (of course, it might be different for the UK intelligence services so correct me if I'm wrong).
    Actually, UK intelligence services do. If you're actually interested in finding out how the system works, you should read the RIPA Act

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents

    Don't you think it would be worthwhile to actually understand how the system works before criticising it? Otherwise you're just firing blind based on vague impressions, rather than actual facts

    The government does not need extra measures introduced to keep tabs on us
    The recent changes to surveillance powers are, in many cases, not so much extra powers as merely a case of the law being updated to reflect modern technology.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    Given their history why on earth would you do that?
    For a few reasons. The first is personal familiarity with a number of people who do that kind of work; they are committed, hard-working civil servants and are amongst the best this country and my country of origin (another Anglosphere nation) produce.

    The second is that I'm aware just how difficult a job it is, that their successes are kept secret and their failures are plastered across the front page of newspapers. Some of our most dedicated and talented intelligence people go through their entire career without any form of public recognition, despite doing some incredible things for the benefit of this country's national security and national interest at considerable personal risk

    Finally, also having some familiarity with people at the senior levels of the civil service, I know that the conspiratorial worldview (as far as government goes) is simply false. They do not sit around plotting how to oppress the people, they work hard to try to find the best solution to very complex problems.

    For those reasons, I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    For a few reasons. The first is personal familiarity with a number of people who do that kind of work; they are committed, hard-working civil servants and are amongst the best this country and my country of origin (another Anglosphere nation) produce.

    The second is that I'm aware just how difficult a job it is, that their successes are kept secret and their failures are plastered across the front page of newspapers. Some of our most dedicated and talented intelligence people go through their entire career without any form of public recognition, despite doing some incredible things for the benefit of this country's national security and national interest at considerable personal risk

    Finally, also having some familiarity with people at the senior levels of the civil service, I know that the conspiratorial worldview (as far as government goes) is simply false. They do not sit around plotting how to oppress the people, they work hard to try to find the best solution to very complex problems.

    For those reasons, I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt
    Australia right? Nothing to do with the indoctrination?

    It only takes a pinch of dog **** to ruin a whole batch of ice cream.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    They shouldn't block it but the government should have access to it if they believe you are committing a crime, if you want to communicate don't do it online with digital evidence!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emski)
    They shouldn't block it but the government should have access to it if they believe you are committing a crime
    They do.
    Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 part III (RIPA 3) gives the UK power to authorities to compel the disclosure of encryption keys or decryption of encrypted data by way of a Section 49 Notice. A suspect instructed to disclose keys can be prevented from telling anyone else about it, outside of their legal representative. Refusal to comply can result in a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, or five years in cases involving national security or child indecency.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    They do.
    People are naive in thinking that being online or on a computer makes them anonymous, it doesn't and even on here, people have confessed to a crime..
 
 
 
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.