[Closed] Terrorism

Welll, no, we don't need to, because brute force works.

In other news - Knife and hammer wielding terrorist attack in Paris this afternoon... and look what happens when all police are armed

He gets shot rather than arrested? Note that he attacked several coppers. If he had launched an attack on a lone copper then the chances are instead of carrying a hammer he would then be carrying a pistol.

Welll, no, we don't need to, because brute force works. Now, how well do brute force attacks work on encryption?

Whether we "need to" or not isn't my point - my point is that that's the solution being proposed. Assuming for the sake of analogy that the terrorist has got hold of some sort of impenetrable lock on his door that cannot be brute forced. Is the best solution really "ban locks"?

And once you've banned them, what's to stop criminals from carrying on using the locks anyway (because, y'know, they're criminals) whilst the rest of us all have our front doors wide open for any passing munchkin to pop in and nab our telly?

And of course, it's common knowledge that since we banned the carrying of knives there hasn't been a single knife crime in the UK... oh.

equivalent to the labour control orders she scrapped in 2010

The same control orders that the lib dems gave a manifesto commitment to get rid of, and that Liberty said were a blot on the human rights record of the UK?

Assuming for the sake of analogy that the terrorist has got hold of some sort of impenetrable lock on his door that cannot be brute forced. Is the best solution really "ban locks"?

Rather than ban that specific type of impenetrable lock?

And once you've banned them, what's to stop criminals from carrying on using the locks anyway (because, y'know, they're criminals) whilst the rest of us all have our front doors wide open for any passing munchkin to pop in and nab our telly?

And guess what happens when you walk round looking randomly at people's doors, and spot one with that (fairly obvious) banned lock? you've just found someone who you want to look [i]really[/i] carefully at, haven't you? You know, a bit like when the police do DNA tests after a murder, that are completely voluntary, but if you, completely innocently, refuse or avoid it, then you know what the police are going to do, don't you?

And of course, it's common knowledge that since we banned the carrying of knives there hasn't been a single knife crime in the UK... oh.

Well, you lot are pretty keen on jumping up and down saying that gun control is so vital aren't you? By your logic we shouldn't restrict guns from all those perfectly innocent happy shooters, we should just ban them from potential murderers and bank robbers

If he had launched an attack on a lone copper then the chances are instead of carrying a hammer he would then be carrying a pistol.

If he had launched an attack on a lone copper then the chances are that the copper would be dead long before he'd have chance to shout "arretez," let alone get a firearm ready to be used.

Yes those are the ones. I don't agree with them. But clearly if you are desperately clutching for voters, saying you'll opt out of human rights to enact them will boost your standing among some demographics

If he had launched an attack on a lone copper then the chances are that the copper would be dead long before he'd have chance to shout "arretez," let alone get a firearm ready to be used.

Unlike in Britain, where when you've got seconds to save someone's life, the armed police are only minutes away

Unlike in Britain, where when you've got seconds to save someone's life, the armed police are only minutes away

I don't want to live in a country where the police are routinely armed. (neither do the police for that matter) I'm therefore content to compromise in the rare event when all other responses have been exhausted, armed cops are the last resort, not the first. If it takes 8 minutes, it takes 8 minutes. I see the headlines are all about how we should not change our way of life; not OMG, the cops have to have guns all the time from now on.

Anyway, if the cops went round carrying guns, you'd have a semi all the time, and that would be embarrassing for everyone If, however you want to live in a country where the cops carry all the time, feel free to **** off...

Another point about encryption; most posters here believe they live in a country where the government has (to varying degrees) good intentions to its people. In dictatorships, banana republics, theocracies etc where people who campaign for democracy, free speech, gay rights, womens equality use encrypted messages to communicate with each other, exchange ideas, organise gatherings and protests or communicate with people in the "free world". It's not all nefarious.

If you remove one end of the end to end encryption you are potentially jeopardizing people's lives.

And guess what happens when you walk round looking randomly at people's doors, and spot one with that (fairly obvious) banned lock? you've just found someone who you want to look really carefully at, haven't you?

Missed my comments about steganography then?

If naughty people really want to keep something hidden then you won't spot it by randomly wandering around looking for it on the off chance, all you'll do is intrude on everyone else needlessly, while pissing them off in the process and also removing a load of legitimate and positive uses.

Also, for the last time, even if everyone agreed tomorrow to only allow [i]secure[/i] but state [i]backdoorable[/i] encryption, you can't, those two elements are mutually exclusive. You can't make maths obey your will, you can try, but you'll fail.

By your logic we shouldn't restrict guns from all those perfectly innocent happy shooters, we should just ban them from potential murderers and bank robbers

That's not the same, you know it's not, and I know you know it's not no matter how pro-gun you are, so stop pretending you're stupid to try and make a bad point.

I don't want to live in a country where the police are routinely armed.

If you arm the police, you arm the criminals. Most criminals don't carry guns because a) it's more difficult and b) they don't need to. Remove the latter and they'll concentrate harder on the former.

Another point about encryption; most posters here believe they live in a country where the government has (to varying degrees) good intentions to its people. In dictatorships, banana republics, theocracies etc where people who campaign for democracy, free speech, gay rights, womens equality use encrypted messages to communicate with each other, exchange ideas, organise gatherings and protests or communicate with people in the "free world". It's not all nefarious.

Moreover, we're slowly creeping ever closer to being the latter rather than the former. Anyone who isn't both concerned and terrified by this is either in a position of power or a blithering idiot.

The criminals are already armed, hadn't you noticed? How did Dixon of Dock Green die?

That's not the same, you know it's not,

only because it hurts your brain when you realise you are now arguing that it's OK to ban one thing that you don't like, because bad people abuse them, and at the same time argue that it's unfair to ban something you do like because bad people abuse them

If it takes 8 minutes, it takes 8 minutes.

I'll bet you wouldn't be saying that if it was one of your loved ones stabbed to death [i]after[/i] the first policeman got on scene, but couldn't do anything because all he had was a metal stick

Cougar

Moreover, we're slowly creeping ever closer to being the latter rather than the former. Anyone who isn't both concerned and terrified by this is either in a position of power or a blithering idiot.

Agree 100% and the thing is, most people won't even see it coming. Or if it's here, we didn't see it coming.

I reckon Ninfan's walls are plastered with Dirty Harry posters and Death Wish is on a permanent loop on his TV

Ah, as usual - lefties see they are losing the argument so resort to personal abuse and character attacks 🙄

3 of the last 4 recent terrorist attacks have now been stopped not by the first policeman to arrive on scene, but the first policeman to arrive on scene with with a gun,

We learned from the best.

I'll bet you wouldn't be saying that if it was one of your loved ones stabbed to death after...blah blah blah ...

Today's logical fallacy is...appeal to emotion.

only because it hurts your brain when you realise you are now arguing that it's OK to ban one thing that you don't like, because bad people abuse them, and at the same time argue that it's unfair to ban something you do like because bad people abuse them

My brain is fine thanks, and that's not what's going on at all, the two things under discussion are so very very different that you can't make that comparison.

It's not even like comparing apples and oranges, I was going to say it's like comparing cheese and poetry, but actually the reality is even more ridiculous, it's comparing guns and maths!

so ninfan did you support May cutting armed police at a greater rate than other police?

is pointing out that you are obsessed with guns an insult? - possibly, but its worth noting

Edit, waaay too slow

only because it hurts your brain when you realise you are now arguing that it's OK to ban one thing that you don't like, because bad people abuse them, and at the same time argue that it's unfair to ban something you do like because bad people abuse them

It's not a case of what anyone "likes."

Guns have a primary purpose. To kill people.
Encryption has a primary purpose. To protect people.

And yes, you could argue that guns are for "protection," but as someone else said you're in the wrong country for that. Look how well the Second Amendment is preventing people from being killed in the US.

so ninfan did you support May cutting armed police at a greater rate than other police?

How does arming all police result In cutting the number of armed police?

Second amendment

Straw man, I am calling for armed police (the same as we already have in NI, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy etc.), not a right to bear arms.

The last one was stopped by eight officers firing 46 shots, should the police go round in groups of eight from now on then? What other quotidian policing requires carrying firearms?

@ninfan I don't why you are bothering, we warned what would happen. It's happening and now things will change as we said they would need to.

FWIW, having spent 20+ years in Northern Ireland I really feel like a lot of the arguments against armed police are complete distortions or fallacies.

Jamba and gunboy, Do you do lottery numbers as well? Jim jam I find the arguments for arming the police in London similar

I am calling for armed police (the same as we already have in NI, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy etc.)

aye, because that has prevented terrorism in all those countries.

kilo

Jim jam I find the arguments for arming the police in London similar

Errrrr. Right.

Which one of us has spent the last 25 year on covert law enforcement ops against tier one OCGs in London? 😉

I don't know what your acronyms mean but they sound fancy, and I still think NI disproves any argument against armed police you want to put forward.

Which one of us has spent the last 25 year on covert law enforcement ops against tier one OCGs in London?

Pff, we've had enough with experts remember.

I've spent 25 years working in and around IT and a further 10 years prior to that dealing with computers either academically or as a hobbyist and that didn't stop someone calling me naive about the subject a couple of pages back.

High level Organise crime groups if that helps. Policing in London and the rest of GB is completely different to policing in NI back in the troubles and to a fair degree today, it does not require regular access to firearms and the police are not targeted the same way they are / were targeted by PIRA et al. Criminals in the U.K. do not have the same access to firearms, the supply of firearms is quite poor for criminals nor are GB police in constant pervasive threat from terrorists.

Soz Cougar, I forgot the new reality. 🙂

Oh, and whilst we're credentials-dropping; I'm not a "security expert," but I was asked yesterday if I was interested in moving into an InfoSec role at work.

How will 'tooling up the coppers' prevent terrorists who are [i]actively seeking death?[/i]

Is this meant to deter them in some way?

Oh, and Coogs, do yourself a favour and get your CISSP and make loads of money- you'd be a shoo-in.

There are loads of graphical ways to communicate, over the internet, in games like minecraft & gtav.

So May is just on a power trip and knows it

Kilo > question for you. Say hypothetically the decision was made right now to arm all of the police. How long do you think it would take to train all the officers to the standard required to ensure the were safe and competent, and how many officers do you think we'd lose because they either lacked the skills or lacked the desire to carry firearms? (Ok, two questions.)

kilo

High level Organise crime groups if that helps. Policing in London and the rest of GB is completely different to policing in NI back in the troubles and to a fair degree today, it does not require regular access to firearms and the police are not targeted the same way they are / were targeted by PIRA et al. Criminals in the U.K. do not have the same access to firearms, the supply of firearms is quite poor for criminals nor are GB police in constant pervasive threat from terrorists.

We've essentially had 20 years of peace, to varying degrees and the police are still armed. Paramilitaries didn't target psni/ruc officers in the way that Islamists are doing in the UK and France, they used car bombs and ambushes. A glock 17 is little use against a bomb or heavy machine gun 50 yards away. But the police have glock 17s.

NI is ten times the size of London, with a fifth of the population spread out mainly over small villages and rural areas. There is no terrorist threat here day to day, but constables still carry guns.

Whenever the police actively go looking for bad guys they bring in heavy weaponry. I don't have a dog in this fight by the way, but I think most people who've never lived in Northern Ireland have a completely distorted view of it.

Oh, and Coogs, do yourself a favour and get your CISSP and make loads of money- you'd be a shoo-in.

I'm flattered, but (my understanding is that) CISSP is bastard hard. I could probably get my CEH, that's the one they give away free with Tiger Tokens. I quite fancy that actually, reckon it'd be a giggle.

I've no idea how long it takes to train a firearms officer I've never been drawn to that side, but iirc for us it's quite a long course and you have to have other skills before they'll train you (advanced driving, surveillance trained). The course goes through a variety of weapons and scenarios which may not be considered necessary for a low level self defence arming but then what's the point if the officers can't use a weapon in all scenarios. I' couldn't say how many officers would bin or be binned. Also the idea of allowing off duty officers to carry is fairly mad. I remember an officer in the MPS firearms team, about twenty years ago telling me it was a lot better after they got rid of all the gun nuts 🙂

it was a lot better after they got rid of all the gun nuts

Did all the guns fall apart then or something?

Jimjam I don't have any argument with regular arming in NI but to some degree your stating the weapons the police had were no use against the threat they faced. I would say the assassination threat to police in NI was vastly different in scale and methodology to that being faced inGB now and in NI the issue of firearms would / is still a valid deterrent to up close attacks. I still believe that NI policing does not extrapolate to GB

A boom tish for cougar:)

Poor choice of words there perhaps... (-:

kilo

Jimjam I don't have any argument with regular arming in NI but to some degree your stating the weapons the police had were no use against the threat they faced.

Historically it might have been but as I've pointed out we've had 20ish years of relative peace wherein PSNI officers haven't demonstrated any unusual tendencies to kill people either accidentally or in dubious circumstances, nor have they turned violent struggles into deadly struggles because of their ever present guns.

Obviously Northern Irish news is much more inclined to report on NI news and incidents and there have been times when police have been outnumbered or caught up in riots - even then, still no Dirty Harry behavior. And when they've lost their guns, guess what, they get turned in. Even in Republican areas.

I would say the assassination threat to police in NI [i][b]was[/b][/i] vastly different in scale and methodology to that being faced inGB now and in NI the issue of firearms [b]would / is[/b] still a valid deterrent to up close attacks.

It's pretty obvious that police in major English cities are in much more imminent threat of up close attacks than those in NI.

How are you defining "up close" here?