[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.