Cameron wants to ban encryption – he can say goodbye to digital Britain

originally posted by: Trueman
It's time for UK ATS fellas to develop a secret language.

As I typed an other thread, if two people have the same book, its a case of page number, line number and word number, just so long as no one else knows the book's tittle. (the key)

a reply to: stumason

What is pathetic is that your arrogance makes you believe that you deserve more than a cursory thought!

Keep calm and carry on supporting your disgusting government/royal family!

a reply to: elementalgrove

Again, a pathetic response. Instead of actually debating to topic, you attack the poster. A sign of a weak mind rather than me being deserving of "more than a cursory thought".

I don't suppose you care to actually add anything to the thread other than sanctimonious BS, no?

Thought not...

a reply to: crazyewok

Did you get so animated when Labour where trying to push their draconian laws though? In fact, under the 13 years of Labour we lost far more of our "freedoms" than since the War and had they got their way, we'd be even more monitored.

It's all very well being against whatever it is people seem to be so animated about - although nothing concrete has actually come out of it and everyone is getting their pants in a twist over a single sentence distorted beyond all reason in left-wing rag - but doing so based on petty party politics is a bit weak.

Under this Government, they scrapped the National Identity Register set up by the previous Government (under the Identity Cards Act 2006), they reformed the RIPA Act 2000 (the one that allowed local councils to spy on you) preventing this from happening without oversight from the Police or Home Secretary, it was the Labour Government that agreed to UK citizens being locked up for any length of time in Gitmo and allowed rendition and once that was declared illegal, they locked people up in their own homes using Control Orders, which Cameron & Co got rid of.

I could go on, but lets keep things in perspective, shall we?

a reply to: stumason

Exactly what part of this thread is up for debate?

It seems pretty straight forward to me, a prime minister trying to capitalize on fear, typically the result of which is further restrictions of freedom.

Honestly it could not be more predictable, but hey apparently you believe there is something to be discussed here, so dare I say carry on?

a reply to: elementalgrove

As I said, one sentence quoted out of context in a left-wing paper is hardly a definitive statement on policy, is it? There have already been a few posts pointing out the technical futility of this, not to mention the risk it would pose to the digital economy - here is another article from the same left-wing Guardian making some good points, it has to be said, as to why Cameron's idea's are half-baked.

You mention "fear" - it is ironic the only people seeming to be "fearful" are the likes of you getting all sweaty in the pants over a single sentence. As I said, in my first post - which you so eloquently put down with comments about my avatar - once he sits down with industry, technical experts and Parliament itself to thrash out any legislation, it'll all fall apart. In fact, MI5 and GCHQ have come out and said that there are simply parts of "the internet" they cannot (and will never) be able to reach.

As for the "debate", surely that is why this thread and we are here? Or is it because I hold a different view to you that you feel the need to go on the personal attacks to try and "put me down"...

Not very "freedom" loving of you, is it? How hypocritical....

Good luck checking every single piece of audio, every piece of text (stenography anyone?) every piece of white noise, every skype convo, every GIF, TIF, JPEG and picture that people send digitally

The ONLY reason third parties can even identify encrypted info is because we ( as users of encryption) allow them.

No additional techniques or new systems are required to sidestep any potential legislation; just normal encryption ( house to house search for usb's containing PGP 4 windows???) hidden within normal communications.

Because it's not needed at the moment there are no one click "hidden encryption" apps but I know two or three fairly serious privacy enthusiasts are working on them as we speak.

DP Please delete

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: crazyewok

Did you get so animated when Labour where trying to push their draconian laws though? In fact, under the 13 years of Labour we lost far more of our "freedoms" than since the War and had they got their way, we'd be even more monitored.

Yes I #ing well did. I just was not on ATS under there god awful rein.

originally posted by: stumason
I could go on, but lets keep things in perspective, shall we?

I see this as attack on my online freedoms.


Don't confuse me with the low IQ buffoons that will go back to voting labor next GE I will be dead before I vote for millipede and his party. But there is no way in hell I will support the torys either.

This aint the USA I don't have to be shoehorned into one # party or the other!

a reply to: stumason

I get that you do not like the guardian that much was evident in your first post, right along with your analysis of how it will get shut down by the experts.

Also good for MI5 and GCHQ to come out and admit that. Although to believe anything from an intelligence apparatus is not something I am particularly keen on.

Part of the OP was questioning the sanity of Cameron, which is what my initial post was in response to.

You consider me responding to your "typical hyperbolic nonsense comment" with a cursory response back going off of your chosen avatar as an attack on your freedom!? I did not realize proud enlgishmen were so sensitive!

My slant on him covering for paedo's could be considered hyperbolic nonsense in the context of this thread, however when questioning Camerons sanity, no stone should be uncovered no? Ah who am I kidding there are plenty of other threads covering the continued paedo scandal rocking your lovely country. Christ they knighted Savile!

a reply to: lifttheveil

Call-Me-Dave is a pillock with no idea about the real world.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
You consider me responding to your "typical hyperbolic nonsense comment" with a cursory response back going off of your chosen avatar as an attack on your freedom!? I did not realize proud enlgishmen were so sensitive!

When your comment is immediately followed up with another implying a form of "mind control" in order to to try and discredit me, yes, it bloody well is a personal attack and yes, as an Englishman (capitalised and spelled correctly) I will get sensitive about it, because it is bloody rude, hypocritical (considering this threads topic is about "freedoms") and unfair - three things us English do not like.

a reply to: stumason

I am still at a loss about how you your perception of rude is inhibiting your freedom.

My comment about servitude was generalized, in light of the fact that their is still a Monarchy, pointed out in your avatar with that lovely crown.

For any man to bow to another family as "Royalty" to me could only exist after generations of servitude.

Also I did not simply mention it from nowhere, it was in response to another comment.

Lol, I do apologize for not capitalizing Englishman and spelling it wrong, I did that to see if it would further elicit your ire

We have taken this thread off topic enough as it is, a good day to you sir! PM to continue our little chat!

originally posted by: crazyewok
Yes I #ing well did. I just was not on ATS under there god awful rein.

No need to get so shirty, it was a rhetorical question - ironic as Cameron's was also a rhetorical statement. Perhaps this is why so many have got their panties in a bunch, they don't understand the difference.

originally posted by: crazyewok
I see this as attack on my online freedoms.

How so? Explain in detail how this is going to impact you. Do please list the specific things that Cameron is going to legislate for in order to bring this about......

You can't - because nothing has been decided, talked about, discussed in Parliament or otherwise. I know you're a passionate sort, Crazy, but you've gone off half cocked when there is nothing to go off about, yet.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Don't confuse me with the low IQ buffoons that will go back to voting labor next GE I will be dead before I vote for millipede and his party. But there is no way in hell I will support the torys either.

This aint the USA I don't have to be shoehorned into one # party or the other!

You do seem confused - I wasn't implying anything of the sort, I was merely pointing out that such draconian things have been suggested before and never got very far.

By flying off the handle, swearing at me and generally just being hot-headed, you've failed to grasp that he hasn't actually proposed anything.

a reply to: elementalgrove

I had a extensive reply all typed up for you and I bloody lost it as my browser crashed..

I shall summarise...

You clearly don't have a clue what my avatar represents - I suggest you do some reading on the Blitz spirit, the British mentality at large and what it means. You might then understand. It has nothing to do with "loyalty" or blind obedience even.

You also are totally clueless about the Monarchy - suffice to say, we don't have to bow and you are also unaware of the role they have played in our shared history in the UK, as well as giving us the most stable Government in the Western hemisphere for almost 300 years.

I would pick you up on "their, there and they're" too, but that would be a distraction....

a reply to: stumason

Im not swearing at you but rather at the goverment (s)

Im disgusted and sick that the UK goverment under labor and now Torys are using a tragic terrorist attack to further restrict our freedoms.

The scum sitting Parliament are just using this to try and enact more laws.

No we don't not know what form "yet" but at the very least that wretched bitch therssa may may get another chance to pass her last horrid act that got rejected.


Current UK anti terrorism measure are working WE don't need anymore.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Im not swearing at you but rather at the goverment (s)

Fair do's, they are a bunch of shysters...

originally posted by: crazyewok
No we don't not know what form "yet" but at the very least that wretched bitch therssa may may get another chance to pass her last horrid act that got rejected.

There is significant opposition within their own ranks over Civil Liberties, so any new legislation (if it is even proposed and not shelved as many "idea's" are) it will be scrutinised heavily

That said....

originally posted by: crazyewok
Current UK anti terrorism measure are working WE don't need anymore.

I had said as much after 9/11 and the new measures brought in then - we had a perfectly functioning anti-terror regime from 30+ years of IRA activity and they were actually an organised threat. These Islamic guys are a misshapen lot who, for the most part, couldn't organise an explosion in a bomb factory.

Here is a short, but informative article on the implications of what Cameron said and the difficulties they face in getting anywhere near to our data

Basically, in summary, this has been discussed (and tried) before since the 1970's since encryption first became a public issue. It even mentions the RIPA Act 2000 (which I mentioned above) and how the Government had discussed options such as "backdoors" and keys stored by a "trusted 3rd party"... Both were rejected by Parliament as simply too risky and exposing private data to criminals who would, eventually, find that back door into the software.

Ultimately, they opted for the only solution available - making it illegal to withhold passwords from Police if they request them as part of an investigation, but of course no-one can be forced to hand over passwords and, if your a terrorist, you would most likely take the relatively minor charge over allowing the Police access to evidence you were plotting mass murder.

So, as I alluded to earlier in the thread, what Cameron said (and bear in mind he is probably as technical literate as my grandma) and what he can actually do are two entirely different things - ultimately, nothing much will happen because to expose the cryptography underpinning web security would jeopardise not only our personal data, but the entire global economy.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: lifttheveil

Yes the man is insane, disconnected, and protects Paedos.

You know what they say, the only person that would protect a paedo is one themself.

He ooozes evil, straight out of his soulless eyes, to think that he does not wish for a complete totalitarian regime would be naive!

---

As a professional software developer I will ensure that all my video and text messaging systems will use ultra high bit length data compression systems that are multi-algorithmic in approach AND that are SHOR's Algorithm resistant thus preventing high Q-bit quantum computing systems from doing factorization of large integers that can break AES 256 and above. I represent that my encryption subroutines will be open source and multiplatform in nature...that is my pledge to ALL of you!
.
Hey Cameron --- Not gonna happen...I WILL MAKE SURE OF IT !!! I can make it so that even
IF Facebook itself doesnt encrypt, that my systems work OUTSIDE of the facebook API
by going directly to the web browser itself...facebook or whoever WILL NOT BE ABLE to decrypt because my stuff works on the HTML, _javascript and XML code itself....I WILL DESTROY YOUR IDEA RIGHT FROM THE GET-GO!!!

a reply to: StargateSG7

-

Freedom to Encrypt shall Rule...it is OUR RIGHT...IT IS NOT A PRIVILEGE ... IT IS A RIGHT... Get that u dum _#)/@@-# a ITS A RIGHT...Cameron can go suck an egg on this stupid idea...not happening...PERIOD!!!! I WILL MAKE SURE OF IT !!!

USA USA USA 4th Amendment Period! EVERYWHERE !!!