[Closed] HM official opposition?

Labour wanted ID cards.

Is Corbyn really a tory plant? He really is ****ing useless. How he can miss so many open goals I don't know.

Vote again, or stand up yourself. If there's no viable opposition then it stands that the party on power can push through their agenda. This is democracy in action, the same as brexit and trump. You can't have one without the other.

Is Corbyn really a tory plant?

If he was a plant he'd be making oxygen, not wasting it.

Given all that the Labour government tried to bring in under cover of anti terror laws, I think you are barking up the wrong tree, OP.

And in any case, they would only object if they felt it was the wrong policy. It's not the oppositions job to object to everything on principle.

Too early to mention Brexit?

[i]Too early to mention Brexit? [/i]

I've already given up Corbyn doing anything 'useful' over Brexit, he's too far stuck up his ideology tree for that, ignoring any inability to actual perform at PMQ and in Westminster.

Vote Ed Balls, the most popular politician in the country!

Surveilance law is the correct one. We should go much further and only licence communication apps and mobile devices which can be fully accessed with a warrant. Just like an old fashioned search warrant the police should be able to look at anything and everything.

Remember Labour under Brown / Blair had much stricter anti-terrorist detention laws than do the Tories.

Too early to mention Brexit

Not all, the Labour heartland of the North delivered the result I wanted and Corbyn like Benn before him is a lifelong Eurosceptic. Ernie_lynch of this parish who is one of the most active left leaning members here was for Leave.

We should go much further and only licence communication apps and mobile devices which can be fully accessed with a warrant.

The problem with that is they can then be accessed without a warrant as well. But you know that. No surprise you 're a member of the 'if you've done nothing wrong...' anti privacy brigade. We shouldn't all be sacrificing our personal privacy due to what ever the boogey man of the day is.

b r - Member
Too early to mention Brexit?

I've already given up Corbyn

Corbyn was clearly a brexit supporter.

I thought that it had been established that Gary Linekar was the official opposition?

Just remember [img] [/img]

This is where a good quality non DNS leaking, no log storing VPN comes into play. I like my privacy ta very muchly!! The thing is have you actually seen how much data one website generates? There are no way enough analysts to sift through all that 😆
And let's be honest even the ex tech guy of the NSA thought it was a mental idea [url= http://uk.businessinsider.com/nsa-chief-warns-uk-against-mass-surveillance-william-binney-2016-1 ]Cuckoo[/url]

Considering the last time I was in the UK I picked up a sim card with no id, topped it up with cash, browsed WiFi with no I'd confirmation step etc who are they targeting here?

Surveilance law is the correct one. We should go much further and only licence communication apps and mobile devices which can be fully accessed with a warrant.

Now I'm far more concerned about mis-use of powers than simply someone else knowing what I'm doing.

who are they targeting here

Whoever the **** they want. Which is part of the problem when you consider the number of illegal PNC checks every year.

We should go much further and only licence communication apps and mobile devices which can be fully accessed with a warrant.

Perhaps some warning signs on entering the UK would be appropriate.

How on earth do you expect to "licence" cryptography, jambalaya? It's publicly available technology not controlled by an entity that would have to apply for the licence.

Rachel

Surveilance law is the correct one. We should go much further and only licence communication apps and mobile devices which can be fully accessed with a warrant.

Very dangerous and ill-thought through.

Anything which can be accessed by the "authorities" with a warrant will quickly end up being accessed by all sorts of other people.

The local councils will demand access.

People in positions of authority will abuse it to see what their ex husbands and wives, or neighbours are up to (this has already happened).

Criminal gangs will figure out how to break in (don't for a second imagine that it will be "secure").

Foreign powers will work out how to break in.

There are well-documented cases of foreign powers dabbling in industrial espionage (looking at you, China, and perhaps even the USA) , this would just make it ten times easier for them.

do you really think the government would be interested in my online shopping and pron habits?

Jeremy Corbyn and John Macdonnel formulating policy earlier.....

[img] [/img]

do you really think the government would be interested in my online shopping and pron habits?

Yes. *People* in the government may well do so. Have you annoyed your neighbours recently? Your credit card details are worth actual cash to the right people, etc, etc.

You should assume that if the government have access to this data that it will be leaked.

@jekkyl maybe, and possibly, what about your banking or your communication with anybody. What if you were trying to oppose Heathrow expansion (terrorist obviously) or maybe HS2 (communist obviously) etc.

It's not only that, the metadata alone is worth a lot of money to anyone who is interested. Whether that's the people Facebook sell your data to or folk who are simply looking for the weak link in the amount of places you visit before getting a seemingly innocuous bit of info that allows them to get full access to everything. This could totally negate the need for social engineering.

Seemingly end to end encryption is safe for now. I'll sure as hell be taking advantage of it.

That article isn't clear but it doesn't seem ask that much has changed,accept legalising what was already happening. Nothing via the net was ever fully secure, GCHQ don't have taps on the transatlantic cable for nowt,

How on earth do you expect to "licence" cryptography, jambalaya?

Please don't let facts in the way ATG.

@allthegear you licence the apps, distribution controlled by app stores, ISPs and Mobile companies. Govt can control all of those via legislation. If its uncrackable with a warrant and (say) vendor assistance then you can offer it

Who cares if someone can hack my What App ? Arguing against that as a security issue is daft imo. We have to forgoe some perceived privacy to stay safe.

Anyway legislation is passed

EDIT: and we have discussed this at length already. My view is Trump will address it in the US too

@allthegear you licence the apps, distribution controlled by app stores, ISPs and Mobile companies. Govt can control all of those via legislation. If its uncrackable with a warrant and (say) vendor assistance then you can offer it

Who cares if someone can hack my What App ?

We have to forgoe some perceived privacy to stay safe.

@allthegear you licence the apps, distribution controlled by app stores, ISPs and Mobile companies. Govt can control all of those via legislation. If its uncrackable with a warrant and (say) vendor assistance then you can offer it

Distribution controlled by app stores? Really? My Linux PC doesn't appear to use an app store, yet it happily uses encryption....

Things like PGP have been around for twenty years now, the source code is ubiquitous, you're trying to unscramble eggs.

And governments that are succesful at this will find their compromised "encryption" a target for all sorts of unexpected people.

EDIT: someone had to post it. Jamba wants to make this T-shirt illegal:

[img] [/img]

@mike with a search warrant the police have the right to look at anything. Tech has developed rapidly and the law hasn't kept up. ISPs and mobile companies could easily knock most of what you say on the head if required by Government.

As I have posted so many times before Whats App etc use end to end encryption technology to ensure they cannot be liable for message content in the event the tools are used for criminal activity.

jambalaya - Member
@allthegear you licence the apps, distribution controlled by app stores, ISPs and Mobile companies. Govt can control all of those via legislation. If its uncrackable with a warrant and (say) vendor assistance then you can offer it

ISPs and mobile companies could easily knock most of what you say on the head if required by Government.

You could massively "inconvenience" law abiding citizens, and make no real difference to any half-competent terrorist.

Well done you.

jambalaya - Member
ISPs and mobile companies could easily knock most of what you say on the head if required by Government.

@seaso during the "Arab Spring" the UAE made it clear unless Blackberry provided access they would ban the handsets .. guess what compliance.

Let's wait and see. If we are unluckly enough to suffer a French style mass terrorist attack the clamour for this will be very strong. French and German governments have made similar statements about the need to be able to access messages, ditto Obama and I can see Trump being much more direct. Trump's core vote doesn't GAS about end to end encryption.

Blackberry have now pretty much exited the mobile phone business.

Let's wait and see. If we are unluckly enough to suffer a French style mass terrorist attack the clamour for this will be very strong.

jambalaya - Member
...Who cares if someone can hack my What App ? Arguing against that as a security issue is daft imo. We have to forgoe some perceived privacy to stay safe...

Safe from what?

The biggest killer of UK nationals is the tobacco industry, followed by the DWP...

jambalaya - Member
@seaso during the "Arab Spring" the UAE made it clear unless Blackberry provided access they would ban the handsets .. guess what compliance.

What do they do about the 100 million or so handsets currently in currently in use? not to mention the billion or so phones kicking about in peoples homes.

that and the fact it's an open world.... VPN to the outside world, set up your own point to point encrypted line, install any app or do what you want.

Quite simply what we have is a law to allow snooping and reading of your private information built up to look like a strong anti terror measure that will in reality fo nothing for anti terror.

And authoritarian wet dreamers can't get enough of it. It's a sorry state of affairs that cannot end well.

Let's wait and see. If we are unluckly enough to suffer a French style mass terrorist attack

You mean the ones coordinated over old Nokias and plain, unencrypted SMS?

You mean the ones coordinated over old Nokias and plain, unencrypted SMS?

Well, the obvious choice would be to insist on the mandatory registration, with valid proof of ID and address, of every mobile telephone sold.

With the right machine learning you could even monitor all the metadata from all the phone calls being made. Obviously, if you have nothing to hide, you would not object to such a measure, after all, it would keep you safe from terrorists.

willard - Member
Well, the obvious choice would be to insist on the mandatory registration, with valid proof of ID and address, of every mobile telephone sold.

With the right machine learning you could even monitor all the metadata from all the phone calls being made. Obviously, if you have nothing to hide, you would not object to such a measure, after all, it would keep you safe from terrorists.

I propose we start a campaign. render the meta searching useless.

Youre solution still doesn't solve the problem of existing phones. Even if you could pass it through.

This is before we even mention all the computers, tablets out there too. I suspect, you wannabe fascists haven't quite got a handle on the scale of the problem you seek to control.

I think the only real solution is to get the listening devices installed along with the brain monitors, you can't be too careful

I propose we extend the SNPs named person scheme to adults! 😆

willard - Member
Obviously, if you have nothing to hide, you would not object to such a measure, after all, it would keep you safe from terrorists.

Incidentally, as a principle I personally I think we should have reserved rights to clandestine activity against the government if it gets too big for it's boots!

So yes, I do object.

seosamh77 - Member

Youre solution still doesn't solve the problem of existing phones. Even if you could pass it through.

Oh, that's simple. Just insist on a recall of all non-approved and registered phones. All phones in use will then be approved, registered and able to be securely monitored by the responsible authorities.

Obviously, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Aye, that'll work. Why don't you just switch off the internet? Probably the easiest solution, cut the wires. take down the satellites.

See above. I may well have nothing to hide, but something to fear.

Some of you really really should read a history book or 2, you don't even need to go back as far as WW2.

Oh, that's simple. Just insist on a recall of all non-approved and registered phones. All phones in use will then be approved, registered and able to be securely monitored by the responsible authorities.

Obviously, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

I can't work out if this is sarcasm or not.

Which is obviously one of the issues.

#bomb #goingoffsoon #sendtheswatteam #wontsomebodythinkofthechildren

Never ceases to amuse me that the lets say right wing types here, complain about big government interfering in their lives, yet get a complete hard on when the government want to implement surveillance laws such as this.

Authoritarians eh? 🙂

[i]This is before we even mention all the computers, tablets out there too. I suspect, you wannabe fascists haven't quite got a handle on the scale of the problem you seek to control. [/I]

Yep. And what also seems beyond their thought processes is that folk can just programme their past this stuff, not everything is an 'App' nor needs to be bought/downloaded. How do they think we did this stuff before? We wrote code!

[I]Never ceases to amuse me that the lets say right wing types here, complain about big government interfering in their lives, yet get a complete hard on when the government want to implement surveillance laws such as this.[/I]

Yep, agree.

Must admit, going back to the OP, this going through without a whimper and Corbyns clear support for Brexit, have killed any good will I have for him and his Labour project.

jimdubleyou - Member
I can't work out if this is sarcasm or not.

It is absolutely sarcasm. The whole phrase "if nothing to hide..." fills me with fear. Things I (or anyone else) do now may not e illegal or worthy of note, but may be in the future or when the people looking at the data changes.

I know many people that fought to give my parents and me the freedoms we enjoy now and I detest that we seem to be heading that way in all corners of the world.

As I understand the justification & evidence for using those powers has to be extremely strong & robust - as someone who knows more about it than I said "If you've got nothing to hide, then you've nothing to worry about..."

Some very misleading term sin the Graun as I understand it are "...access masses of stored data..." & "...even if the person under scrutiny is not suspected of any wrongdoing...." whereas the act is aiming for targeted individuals & a court order must be obtained prior to the use of those powers.

So your information can't be accessed by the Gov willy nilly - as I understand it.

Like anything it could be open to abuse......

edit: a court order isn't required but there must be extreme justification for the use of the new powers.

Must admit, going back to the OP, this going through without a whimper and Corbyns clear support for Brexit, have killed any good will I have for him and his Labour project.

Like on most issues, to me he just seems like a slightly bemused, barely interested bystander, just watching all this going on in front of him, without realising its actually his job to be doing something about it

It's come as a complete surprise to me. I mean, TM was, pretty much the most hyper zealous spook champ Home Secretary we've had in years.

And we get more of her brilliant policies (see what i did there, they got NUTHIN' on me...) when she is, er, [i]given [/i]the Prime Ministers job.

As Russia found out, the apple don't fall far from the tree.

There is a reason that Home Secretaries rarely get the top job...

EDIT:

Oh, and the "end to end VPN", tor, steganography stuff - they dont have to know what you say, just that your hiding it. Sore thumb. Standout.

[quote=willard ] Obviously, if you have nothing to hide, you would not object to such a measure, after all, it would keep you safe from terrorists.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/18/people-falsely-accused-internet-data-disclosure

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9398419/Hundreds-of-innocent-people-wrongly-spied-on-by-police.html

Spot on binners - he's the tired headmaster rolling his eyes at the antics he's seen many times before instead of getting stuck in and handing out some detentions!

Not sure who the hell I'll vote for when I next get the chance. Probably an independent at this rate.

Some of you really really should read a history book or 2, you don't even need to go back as far as WW2.

Remind me which departments 'invented' the computer and why?

As for Binners point, Corbyn and McDonnell are loving Brexit they are part of the old left that hate the EU and think without it the UK will suddenly become some commie workers paradise.

[img] [/img]

The Ancient Chinese tax office? 😆

You and your fancy abacus. That's new tech.

[img] [/img]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishango_bone

😆

Jamba (and others), I'm not going to try and change your opinions but you have to at least understand that you are arguing from a point of ignorance. The knowledge is out there in the public domain, cryptography is a very well known and understood art, it's simply writing things down in a manner someone else can't read. You can no more ban encryption than you can ban Welsh.

Encryption isn't some sort of voodoo technlology where you take data and turn it into something special, it's just number crunching. You can store it as plain text even; here's an extract from a website certificate, for example:

A0NNQTEMMAoGA1UECxMDSUNUMR4wHAYDVQQDExVjb25mZXJlbmNlLmNtYS5nb3Yu
dWswggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQCyJelWTh7NrUbAqy5T
QODJ8xW1IugFw+4lgr9raLzvY4BJB4P3mIRHUoVWyGGQcvEpEez6TMEc28fFnMMv
Cy65QXkjG0gqCFpuscjRxXDRqFCmLj4y9armc/gOI5gbHO4tgm5q0nsJYPpSbHnQ
0wKVNG7ECYxye2z828ikc0JhCgbMDyFXoX7xeDA0C7lt2dCPLz5rlthxgHiMoHQ+
E6I9ANgIqeGMx9lLipQ00BaRE7VT0pAmNrS/RgMxCHRo81+nd2MTQY0Yyta6YqwI
9nZOXGHUu2lqMpFaoFaNM1nFsvGmffMMsrvofmCANFcXFtJHRtiOwMo5Kgyh8EDj

How are you going to ban the transmission of text?

what also seems beyond their thought processes is that folk can just programme their past this stuff, not everything is an 'App' nor needs to be bought/downloaded. How do they think we did this stuff before? We wrote code!

And it's not even that complicated, you could knock something up from scratch in minutes. This is what I think some folk are misunderstanding, secure encryption isn't difficult, it's trivial. Or rather, it is now, all the heavy lifting has been done by a succession of clever people. Essentially you're trying to legislate against the use of maths.

Oh, and the "end to end VPN", tor, steganography stuff - they dont have to know what you say, just that your hiding it. Sore thumb. Standout.

Well,

1) So what? Guilty until proven innocent now are we?

2) That assumes that secure transmission of data is unusual. It isn't.

2) That assumes that secure transmission of data is unusual. It isn't.

In fairness, they may have a point here, lets decrypt all those bank details. See where the money really is! 😆

re corbyn and co.
I used to think (for some reason I can't now recall, most likely stupidity) that "left wing" and "liberal" meant much the same thing.

But I was painfully and obviously wrong.

People prepared to sacrifice the privacy and freedom of others "for security" "for the children" or whatever, should first make their own internet and phone history public (and possibly get rid of their curtains).

VPNs, tor etc do make you stand out like a sore thumb, but at least if "they" suspect you of nefarious dealings they'll have to put a bit of effort in, and try to find some evidence (Edit: As cougar just said 🙂

Of course, the more they continue with this stuff, the more people will go down that road, until everything is encrypted and nothing is accessible (except for the logs jamba will record of his own activities and send unsolicited to Theresa every month).

Meanwhile, the actual terrorists will be passing each other messages in clear text using stolen phones, or by mail using sd cards, or maybe postcards, or maybe [insert simple secure idea here]..

Meanwhile, the actual terrorists will be passing each other messages in clear text using stolen phones, or by mail using sd cards, or maybe postcards, or maybe [insert simple secure idea here]..

Don't worry, Jeremy has strategically placed Shami Chakrabarti in the Lords to scupper this authoritarian invasion of privacy. He can just stick his feet up and get on with the real business of opposition, whatever that is.

Still, May will have to go some distance to beat the Blair/Brown RIPA shambles, the main use of which appears to be helping councils find out who is putting their bin out on the wrong day. If any terrorists are trying to get their kid into a better school by lying about where they live, they're screwed, basically.

Everyone knows that criminals, paedos and terrorists operate behind locked doors - so it follows that the world will definitely be a safer place if we ban locked doors.

Should be easy to do - simply ban shops from selling locks unless they can be opened by a government issued key.

Some people may try to barricade their door using other means but they'll stand out like sore thumbs.

🙄

Why would you mind the government looking around your house if you have nothing to hide?

martinhutch - Member
Why would you mind the government looking around your house if you have nothing to hide?

Why would you mind the government looking around your house if you have nothing to hide?

Everyone has something to hide, that's the point. It's just that most people's secrets involve breaking their diet with a cream cake at lunch rather than plotting the fall of Western civilisation.

If you genuinely believe you have nothing to hide, let me know when I can pop round and install CCTV in your bedroom.

You've already put it there, in the form of your phone, web cam, xbox connect, Amazon echo or other device. I'd be less worried about the government (in the UK at least) and more worried what Apple, Facebook, Google, Samsung etc. are doing and that's before we get into some random cheapo Chinese companies web cam.

Why would you mind the government looking around your house if you have nothing to hide?

Privacy is not the same as secrecy. I sometimes poo. It's no secret, I'm sure you do too. But that doesn't mean I want someone watching me do it and then noting down its vital dimensions, colour, consitency and weight.

Well,

1) So what? Guilty until proven innocent now are we?

2) That assumes that secure transmission of data is unusual. It isn't.

1)So if you're not guilty, what [i]exactly [/i]are you actually innocent of?.. hmmmm?

2) Are you being serious? Endpoints, cipher types, use of proxies, etc. Honestly, you think atypical encryption doesn't stand out? When the soviets went dark, all the data in transit was opaque, but the traffic analysis proved revealing (and continues to do so).

Security because of being in the herd and security by obscurity really isn't an sort of security.

TBH, time and again, it's been shown that surveillance capability != security.

First rule of security? There is no security!

It's all about mitigation.

1)So if you're not guilty, what exactly are you actually innocent of?.. hmmmm?

WTF? I'm going about my legal day to day business.

No doubt those with money (I'm looking record companies, film makers etc) will be looking at this to assist their war on [s]terror[/s] watching the Walking Dead a day early.

Trump's core vote doesn't GAS about end to end encryption

Isn't a bit worrying to find yourself on the same side as Trump voters?

Perhaps Mr Corbyn isn't a silver surfer. Maybe he's a bit "old-fashioned" and has stuck to a paper-based, one-time-pad solution.

So he's not bothered AND his communication is almost totally secure. 🙂