The right to privacy is a somewhat enshrined right within society and I have always had the right to keep secrets from the state if i so wish They can still get the court order its just a lot less use to them because i decided to use a code they cannot decipher – again a tactic used for millennia unless you think secret codes only started in the electronic era- who knows maybe you do

tbh I dont want the state seeing what I do on whatts app not because its any threat to them but because its none of their **** business who I send pictures of my cock to 😉

How does the Niqab work for passports and driving licenses?

Edit: Rather, what is the law regarding the wearing of it in driving license photos etc?

You must:

face forward and look straight into the camera with your eyes open and nothing covering your face

you have to show/use your face for ID purposes

The reasons are obvious

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/photographic-criteria-your-driving-licence#toc-2

It’s easy to ban it, licence apps and if they don’t comply they are not permitted.

…so someone makes a new service, makes it use a central host in a country that you can’t touch (or just makes it p2p, so it doesn’t even have that), and makes the traffic look just like web traffic. What do you do then?

Encryption exists, you can’t uninvent it, and it can always be made indistinguishable from something you can’t ban like normal web traffic or email. You can make all the laws you like, it’s not going away.

The only thing you can achieve is to make normal people highly susceptible to identity theft and fraud while malicious actors are left totally unaffected.

You have always had the ability to have a private conversation by electronic means; just encrypt and decrypt messages separately from the means of transmission. There is nothing you can do that can stop anyone sending a pre-encrypted message in an email.

Just follow the news then. You have never had the ability before to have a private electronic conversation before by phone or mobile without it being aubject to interception via a court order. You are asking for a new right.

Interesting if true.

Before when? I presume you mean before you had the ability to have an electronic conversation by phone or mobile. I don’t think there’s ever been a time since such forms of communication were invented that it wasn’t possible to make them totally private if you had the will to do so. It’s a fundamental basic of using a communication pipe where you choose what to put in one end. Simply use a code book or a one time pad – which were around long, long before electronic communications.

It’s just possible that there are people on here who know more about encryption and information security than you do, Jamba…

tbh I dont want the state seeing what I do on whatts app not because its any threat to them but because its none of their **** business who I send pictures of my cock to

😆

You are on the list now 😉

Does this include Apple?

Yup. The lot.

@aracer no doubt some people here know more about encryption than do I, what I do know is that the French and Germans are leading the way to ensure the EU brings in legislation that bans end-to-end uncrackable encryption. It’s quite a differemt thing to have sophisticated users able to hide their activities via vpn/dark web etc and quite something else to hamd it out to the whole world via a free app.

The right to a private conversation is way way down the list versus fhe right to life amd security.

It’s quite a differemt thing to have sophisticated users able to hide their activities via vpn/dark web etc and quite something else to hamd it out to the whole world via a free app

We’ve done this before, with downloading copyrighted music. Imagine where we are now with encrypted messaging is like Napster from back in the day; it was shut down, and gnutella came along, then edonkey, then kazaa, limewire, the pirate bay, whack whack whack, the moles just keep popping up, getting easier to use and harder to stop with each new iteration.

If the big players in private messaging went away tomorrow, there would be one or more easy to use replacements by the end of the week, and they wouldn’t be run by some company you can stop by just sending scary letters to.

The right to a private conversation is way way down the list versus fhe right to life amd security.

Are you being funny intentionally or is it purely accidental?

Yeah, because of course the bad guys who’s communications you want to intercept will only think of using free apps and won’t be anywhere near sophisticated enough to use other readily available means of encryption.

In reality the only people such laws will affect will be the ordinary people wanting to send private messages, not the bad guys, and if the EU are bringing in such laws then that just shows that those in power there understand information security just as poorly as you do.

BTW (I’m sure JY will rip me one for appealing to my own authority, but I can’t resist), if you missed the implication of my earlier comment, I’ve been paid to develop and test information security software and worked alongside people who are global experts in that field (I’m not entirely sure of phiiiiiil’s work experience, but suspect the same might apply to him).

Besides which, you can no more “ban encryption” that you can ban French, or fire. Say you’re right and we outlaw secure web browsers and other such tools. Say we’re actually successful in eradicating encryption tools (which is a pipe dream but let’s roll with it). I can do a Diffe-Hellman key exchange with pen and paper, what are you going to do now, ban the Royal Mail and calculators? People have been using encryption for several thousand years at least, as phiiiiiiiil says you can’t just uninvent it. You can ban the technology, at least in theory, but you can’t ban the knowledge.

Aracer is bang on the money. In your hypothetical encryptionless utopia, the only people affected will be regular people like you and me. Well, me less so cos I know what I’m talking about, but anyway. No more secure web; no more online banking; no more Internet shopping; no more International websites (because would you trade with a third party with such a lax approach to security? I wouldn’t); no more VoIP phone systems in financial institutions (encryption is a mandatory step for PCI compliance); no means of proving machine identity so man-in-the-middle attacks will be commonplace; no more single sign-on systems, so you’ll have passwords coming out of your ears; shall I go on? And the kicker is that the criminals will be unaffected, they’ll still be using illegal encryption because, clue’s in the name, they’re ****ing criminals.

Think what would happen if we banned locks on doors. Great idea yeah, criminals use locks to hide their secrets, let’s get rid of them all. What would happen? Do you think we’d bust all those terrorist and paedophile rings wide open? Or do you think that actually what might happen is that they’ll barricade their doors or use illegally obtained locks, and meanwhile burglary and opportunist crimes go through the roof?

“I have nothing to hide” does not equate to “I have no need / right to privacy,” not now not ever. If you disagree, let me know next time you and your missus are enjoying some horizontal jogging and I’ll pop round with my video camera.

Well, me less so cos I know what I’m talking about,

😆 😆 😆

If you disagree, let me know next time you and your missus are enjoying some horizontal jogging and I’ll pop round with my video camera.

I’ve just been sick….thanks Cougar!!

Cougar is spot on though…you cant ban encryption unless you’re prepared to take society back 2 cebturies

Millennia more like.

Maybe the instruction to wear a burka comes from scrambled encryption. What could they have meant?

The threat (or perceived threat) of terrorism has been used as an excuse to abuse civil liberties throughout history and the UK and US governments are a guilty as any/many/most

We should always guard against this type of abuse

teamhurtmore

The threat (or perceived threat) of terrorism has been used as an excuse to abuse civil liberties throughout history and the UK and US governments are a guilty as any/many/most

We should always guard against this type of abuse

Yeah, we should definitely guard against this type of abuse so that people can abuse and segregate women and girls because their medieval taboos say so.

people in glass houses….