Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Pedophiles are voting Tory. Lets ban the Tory party. Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    Facebook and Whatsapp too.

    Won't someone think of the children?!

    https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/915174619769921536
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    And this is a surprise??
    Terrorists shop in supermarkets, thieves use coffee shops , rapists drive cars, murderers use public transport.
    Shutting Facebook, WhatsApp and twitter is not the answer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Sammylou40)
    And this is a surprise??
    Terrorists shop in supermarkets, thieves use coffee shops , rapists drive cars, murderers use public transport.
    Shutting Facebook, WhatsApp and twitter is not the answer
    Ban cars and other transport too. Not only pedos use them, but also terrorists.

    Lets make the UK a safe space once and for all.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Ban cars and other transport too. Not only pedos use them, but also terrorists.

    Lets make the UK a safe space once and for all.
    Yes. Because then we'll all be locked safely in our houses, starving to death, cold, lonely and miserable. Without utilities, electronics and any form of communication. How lovely.
    Get a grip
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Facebook and Whatsapp too.

    Won't someone think of the children?!

    https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/915174619769921536
    Pedophiles are people who are sexuality attracted to children. Pedophilia is having sexual activity with a child. Only a small number people who are unfortunately born sexuality attracted children go on to sexually abuse children.

    Let ban Labour too and all other parties than because sex offences vote for them too.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    "That really nasty bloke who leads the local street gang votes Labour. I reckon we should ban Labour to stop gangsters voting for them."

    ...yeah, right! :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ...I think people are somehow misinterpreting my OP as a serious suggestion, so I will explain my point:


    Our Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, said Pedophiles are using WhatsApp. I do not think that is right at the Tory conference; and later added I don't need to understand how encryption works to want to deny its use to criminals. She is clearly pushing the classic "think of the children" technique employed by our politicians in order to justify clamping down on freedoms - in this case, pushing for government backdoors to encrypted p2p communications services like WhatsApp.

    She has absolutely no clue wtf she is talking about (https://youtu.be/exm03jps9Jg?t=388). Just like the Australian politician who said maths is overruled by Australian law. She just wants more government controls in a way that will cause tremendous damage to our individual freedoms, and the internet as a whole.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    She is clearly pushing the classic "think of the children" technique employed by our politicians in order to justify clamping down on freedoms
    Why does an ordinary citizen in a Western democracy need hard encryption for their personal communications? Other than very specific things like banking data and health information, why do ordinary citizens need to be able to encrypt their text messages to their friends and family?

    I personally do not subscribe to the idea that there should be communications that the government cannot surveill and wiretap if they need to and have a judicial warrant.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Why does an ordinary citizen in a Western democracy need hard encryption for their personal communications? Other than very specific things like banking data and health information, why do ordinary citizens need to be able to encrypt their text messages to their friends and family?

    I personally do not subscribe to the idea that there should be communications that the government cannot surveill and wiretap if they need to and have a judicial warrant.
    Building in backdoors to encryption weakens security for everyone. Eventually, a malicious organisation or person will discover the backdoor, and use it itself to gain access to everyone's data. You cannot make a secure backdoor. Can you accept why that might be a bad thing? Do you leave your front door unlocked just in case the police feel like searching your home? Do you want to ban envelopes too?

    It isn't just ordinary citizens in Western democracies using these services, though. WhatsApp is used extensively by activists and others, in countries where the governments aren't as seemingly benign as our own, precisely because the encryption enables them to be safe expressing outrageous views such as being pro-democracy, being atheist, or being gay.

    Besides, even if the government is relatively trustworthy now, who is to say all future governments will be too? What if being a socialist becomes too politically incorrect, after a supposedly left-wing plot to blow up a bank is discovered?

    And of course, it isn't just our government we are talking about here - in reality, we are talking about intelligence agencies, in particular the American ones, since ours share all data with the Americans. Do you trust the current American government, let alone all future US governments? Do you trust the FBI and CIA? The latter two are really dodgy.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Building in backdoors to encryption weakens security for everyone. Eventually, a malicious organisation or person will discover the backdoor, and use it itself to gain access to everyone's data. You cannot make a secure backdoor. Can you accept why that might be a bad thing?
    Of course. I'm not proposing building in back doors; I'm proposing that appropriate organisations (banks, hospitals, etc) shall have access to hard encryption and ordinary citizens will have access to appropriate software that will permit them to transmit data to these organisations securely. If the government needs to tap this data, they will go to the organisation to get it.

    Other than that, I don't think that citizens need hard encryption for their personal text messages and internet browsing. There really is no need for an ordinary person to have it.

    WhatsApp is used extensively by activists and others, in countries where the governments aren't as seemingly benign as our own
    And those people could be provided with appropriate technology. But their situation is different from someone living in Surrey demanding that his text messages to his friend in Scotland must be hard encrypted and that no government should ever be permitted to access it even if they have a warrant.

    Besides, even if the government is relatively trustworthy now, who is to say all future governments will be too?
    The likelihood of that happening is very low; the spectre of some future, dystopian tyrannical government is often used by people who want to keep their guns / encryption. But the reality is that encryption or no has no real bearing on whether the government becomes tyrannical.

    The Anglosphere has remained without a dictator since the 1680s because of our political culture and norms, because we value the rule of law, we value precedent, because we have a moderate and sensible political culture, which we share with Australia, Canada and New Zealand. There would have to be enormous social and political changes, over many decades, for us to come even close to having some kind of tyrannical government in the Commonwealth Anglosphere (UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand).

    The real question is, do you believe that a person's communications should be inviolable even if a judge orders a wiretap? Let's say MI5 has received intelligence from one of their informers that, I don't know, Mr Abuja is communicating with an ISIS attack planner in Iraq and they are co-ordinating a terrorist strike. MI5 applies to the Home Secretary for a warrant, which is duly signed and approved by the judicial oversight committee (as the new process goes).

    Your opinion is that even with that warrant and those very good reasons, they shouldn't be allowed to wiretap Mr Abuja's communications?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    The Anglosphere has remained without a dictator since the 1680s because of our political culture and norms, because we value the rule of law, we value precedent, because we have a moderate and sensible political culture, which we share with Australia, Canada and New Zealand. There would have to be enormous social and political changes, over many decades, for us to come even close to having some kind of tyrannical government in the Commonwealth Anglosphere (UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand).
    I like how you had to specifically exclude the most important member of the Anglosphere, the US, from that last sentence. :rofl:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    And of course, it isn't just our government we are talking about here - in reality, we are talking about intelligence agencies, in particular the American ones, since ours share all data with the Americans. Do you trust the current American government, let alone all future US governments? Do you trust the FBI and CIA? The latter two are really dodgy.
    Yes, I trust the CIA and FBI. I trust the National Security Agency too. I know that the people in our intelligence community, and those in the national security apparatus of our Anglosphere allies, are dedicated, intelligent, hard-working public servants who are genuinely committed to the safety and security of their nation, who feel personally devastated when there's a terrorist attack and they missed stopping it, who are under a great burden and responsibility to keep us safe from not just terrorism but also espionage, cyberattacks and subversion by hostile states.

    So yes; I trust those people and I haven't been given any reason (at least any in the last 30 years) to distrust them. I have friends in that world and I know what they are like.

    The conspiracy view that they are plotting to bring in Illuminati control of the planet or whatever, that they engage in false flag terrorist attacks, is all puerile nonsense.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    ...I think people are somehow misinterpreting my OP as a serious suggestion, so I will explain my point
    People on TSR not getting a joke?

    I've never heard of that before!...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    I like how you had to specifically exclude the most important member of the Anglosphere, the US, from that last sentence. :rofl:
    I like how you completely fail to respond to any of the substantive points I made.

    And when I say like, I mean I think it's a bit pathetic and probably indicative of the level of serious debate I can expect.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I like how you completely fail to respond to any of the substantive points I made.

    And when I say like, I mean I think it's a bit pathetic and probably indicative of the level of serious debate I can expect.
    I'm about to hop out to get tea. Internet arguments (especially over well trodden ground) can wait. I'll edit in a proper response later.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Police cuts by the Tory government could help some paedophiles evade justice.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Building in backdoors to encryption weakens security for everyone. Eventually, a malicious organisation or person will discover the backdoor, and use it itself to gain access to everyone's data. You cannot make a secure backdoor. Can you accept why that might be a bad thing? Do you leave your front door unlocked just in case the police feel like searching your home? Do you want to ban envelopes too?

    It isn't just ordinary citizens in Western democracies using these services, though. WhatsApp is used extensively by activists and others, in countries where the governments aren't as seemingly benign as our own, precisely because the encryption enables them to be safe expressing outrageous views such as being pro-democracy, being atheist, or being gay.

    Besides, even if the government is relatively trustworthy now, who is to say all future governments will be too? What if being a socialist becomes too politically incorrect, after a supposedly left-wing plot to blow up a bank is discovered?

    And of course, it isn't just our government we are talking about here - in reality, we are talking about intelligence agencies, in particular the American ones, since ours share all data with the Americans. Do you trust the current American government, let alone all future US governments? Do you trust the FBI and CIA? The latter two are really dodgy.
    People like that would be happy to have the government monitor our mouth to mouth conversations if they could.


    (Original post by Mathemagicien)



    And of course, it isn't just our government we are talking about here - in reality, we are talking about intelligence agencies, in particular the American ones, since ours share all data with the Americans. Do you trust the current American government, let alone all future US governments? Do you trust the FBI and CIA? The latter two are really dodgy.
    Reminds me of when all those idiot Liberals were fretting over Trump having access to all the illiberal **** Obama did.


    Also news just in, middle aged Tory doesn't have a ****ing clue about technology.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Yes, I trust the CIA and FBI. I trust the National Security Agency too. I know that the people in our intelligence community, and those in the national security apparatus of our Anglosphere allies, are dedicated, intelligent, hard-working public servants who are genuinely committed to the safety and security of their nation, who feel personally devastated when there's a terrorist attack and they missed stopping it, who are under a great burden and responsibility to keep us safe from not just terrorism but also espionage, cyberattacks and subversion by hostile states.

    So yes; I trust those people and I haven't been given any reason (at least any in the last 30 years) to distrust them. I have friends in that world and I know what they are like.

    The conspiracy view that they are plotting to bring in Illuminati control of the planet or whatever, that they engage in false flag terrorist attacks, is all puerile nonsense.
    The view that they are totally benevolent is nonsense too. Oops, I mean utterly puerile nonsense. There we go.

    MK ULTRA, COINTELPRO, all their little coups to bring down left-wing governments and replace them with military dictatorships, their harassment and discreditment of civil rights activists, etc. Even just this - some of the declassified information - is enough to show the FBI and CIA to have a very dark side.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Of course. I'm not proposing building in back doors; I'm proposing that appropriate organisations (banks, hospitals, etc) shall have access to hard encryption and ordinary citizens will have access to appropriate software that will permit them to transmit data to these organisations securely. If the government needs to tap this data, they will go to the organisation to get it.
    Let me get this straight - you want to ban encryption for mere citizens entirely?

    Banks, shops, all sorts of websites rely on peer to peer encryption. You want us all to send passwords as cleartext over the internet?

    This is a far worse proposal than a backdoor (and probably indicative of the level of serious debate I can expect).

    Other than that, I don't think that citizens need hard encryption for their personal text messages and internet browsing. There really is no need for an ordinary person to have it.
    Okay.

    Why aren't you using your real name to post here, citizen? Why do you use passwords?

    Encryption protects your privacy, protects your information from everyone on the internet. Encryption isn't just for tinfoil-cladded neckbeards, but everyone, because the internet - as you and your buddies like to point out - is full of bad people. Encryption's purpose isn't just to protect your information from governments - it is to protect it from the millions of other shady organisations and people out there.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Why is the resident Tankie the one defending privacy rights? :rofl:
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.