Couple of things: I am sure that the likes of GCHQ get the messages of specific individuals who threaten the UK without any court orders right now. This cartoon sums up the limits to encryption’s effectiveness in this sort of context: https://xkcd.com/538/
And it has been red Tory v. blue Tory, one party, since 1994. I assume you disagree on this my second point - I am always happy to agree to disagree.
Regarding encryption, surveillance, and snooper’s intrusion: I was brought up being told the stasi were the bad guys. The stasi would blush at the surveillance foreign corporations and the British government now engage in as a matter of course: it is beyond their wildest dreams.
But spying on all of the public all of the time comes at a cost to society I would rather not pay. It quells dissent in the short and maybe mid term, but that extreme intrusion, ultimately drives otherwise moderate people into the hands of extremists (on every side). The terrorists win when we sacrifice liberty for temporary security (or whatever that quote was).
But spying on all of the public all of the time comes at a cost to society I would rather not pay. It quells dissent in the short and maybe mid term, but that extreme intrusion, ultimately drives otherwise moderate people into the hands of extremists
I don’t think the public should be spied on all the time. But if there is some way that illegal communications (like planning murder) could be intercepted, without spying on others, that would be good.
The terrorists win when we sacrifice liberty for temporary security (or whatever that quote was)
Before I go any further I will say that this is my last post on this subject.
I’m not aware of the UK government using torture to crush dissent.
This is a so-called straw man argument, I never said the UK government used torture to crush dissent. If you expect me to go to the trouble of a response, frankly, do better.
The social contract is not “I give up the freedom to murder without legal consequence in order to not be murdered” in a civilised society. Is in 1025 or 2025? (This is a rhetorical question.)
I don’t think the public should be spied on all the time. But if there is some way that illegal communications (like planning murder) could be intercepted, without spying on others, that would be good.
We do not particularly disagree. Except that due to information security being an interest of mine, I know that it isn’t technically possible to weaken encryption for one without weakening encryption for everybody.
Being something like a specialist interest of mine, I also know that weakening encryption is one part of the creation of a total-surveillance state that is taking place - much like the explicit oligarchy we see forming now in the US has taken decades to build. This environment is certainly one in which fascism will thrive - something I don’t want to see, seeing as how I still remember people talking about the second world war and all that.
I also know that this snooping capability will be placed in the hands of future, and some current, political and business leaders who don’t have the interests of the public at large at heart, and who even might actually might be prepared to murder people: the US is now aligned with a Russia that has committed war crimes in Ukraine. If I mention Gaza and war crimes there is some (presumably small) chance I might be arrested under the Communications Act 2003, which defines illegal communication as ‘using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety’.
Here is a letter written by experts regarding removing end to end encryption:
Take note of the 2003 communications act. Here are a few articles from a very quick search that explicitly show the kind of society that is being built, brick by brick:
Couple of things: I am sure that the likes of GCHQ get the messages of specific individuals who threaten the UK without any court orders right now. This cartoon sums up the limits to encryption’s effectiveness in this sort of context: https://xkcd.com/538/ And it has been red Tory v. blue Tory, one party, since 1994. I assume you disagree on this my second point - I am always happy to agree to disagree.
Regarding encryption, surveillance, and snooper’s intrusion: I was brought up being told the stasi were the bad guys. The stasi would blush at the surveillance foreign corporations and the British government now engage in as a matter of course: it is beyond their wildest dreams.
But spying on all of the public all of the time comes at a cost to society I would rather not pay. It quells dissent in the short and maybe mid term, but that extreme intrusion, ultimately drives otherwise moderate people into the hands of extremists (on every side). The terrorists win when we sacrifice liberty for temporary security (or whatever that quote was).
My understanding is that the Stasi were very repressive - “using torture, intimidation and a vast network of informants to crush dissent”. I’m not aware of the UK government using torture to crush dissent.
I don’t think the public should be spied on all the time. But if there is some way that illegal communications (like planning murder) could be intercepted, without spying on others, that would be good.
There’s a quote by Benjamin Franklin which apparently is: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”. I always thought that quote was a bit weird though, because humans do give up some form of liberty in return for safety. E.g. we give up the freedom to murder other people without legal consequences, because in return we get some safety: protection from being murdered by others.
Before I go any further I will say that this is my last post on this subject.
This is a so-called straw man argument, I never said the UK government used torture to crush dissent. If you expect me to go to the trouble of a response, frankly, do better.
The social contract is not “I give up the freedom to murder without legal consequence in order to not be murdered” in a civilised society. Is in 1025 or 2025? (This is a rhetorical question.)
We do not particularly disagree. Except that due to information security being an interest of mine, I know that it isn’t technically possible to weaken encryption for one without weakening encryption for everybody.
Being something like a specialist interest of mine, I also know that weakening encryption is one part of the creation of a total-surveillance state that is taking place - much like the explicit oligarchy we see forming now in the US has taken decades to build. This environment is certainly one in which fascism will thrive - something I don’t want to see, seeing as how I still remember people talking about the second world war and all that.
I also know that this snooping capability will be placed in the hands of future, and some current, political and business leaders who don’t have the interests of the public at large at heart, and who even might actually might be prepared to murder people: the US is now aligned with a Russia that has committed war crimes in Ukraine. If I mention Gaza and war crimes there is some (presumably small) chance I might be arrested under the Communications Act 2003, which defines illegal communication as ‘using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety’.
Here is a letter written by experts regarding removing end to end encryption:
https://haddadi.github.io/UKOSBOpenletter.pdf
Take note of the 2003 communications act. Here are a few articles from a very quick search that explicitly show the kind of society that is being built, brick by brick:
https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/press-releases/big-brother-watch-condemns-uks-first-use-of-city-wide-facial-recognition-in-cardiff/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/business/london-police-facial-recognition.html
https://www.verdict.co.uk/most-surveilled-city/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68274090
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/11/britain-leads-the-world-in-cracking-down-on-climate-activism-study-finds
As I said, I am done with this thread now. Thanks