Re: Encryption is not made "illegal"
Fnar, fnar! He said 'pumped by hand'. Paris, obviously....
The UK government has secretly drawn up more details of its new bulk surveillance powers – awarding itself the ability to monitor Brits' live communications, and insert encryption backdoors by the backdoor. In its draft technical capability notices paper [PDF], all communications companies – including phone networks and ISPs …
Fnar, fnar! He said 'pumped by hand'. Paris, obviously....
"telecommunication service is defined at Clause 223(13) as ‘a system that exists for the purpose of facilitating the transmission of communications by any means involving the use of electrical or electromagnetic energy’."
so the post office is not a telecommunications provider but someone using smoke signals is?
Hence skype is "Cloud" not p2p anymore. MS has too much to lose if leaned upon.
So no large telcoms provider can provide e2e encryption. That means you have to do your own. I'm not sure that changes much, if you are at all interested in privacy.
In short, you probably shouldn't trust anyone with a significant amount of money to lose from non-compliance. It doesn't matter how much encryption your application does if the OS taps the microphone.
The Post Office uses electrical power. In lighting if nothing else. It all depends on how broadly it is interpreted.
Get the Clacks towers up and running, people.
This is how it works.
This is how it works.
Are you suggesting no-one should ever argue against a proposal after a vote has been taken, or against the implementation of the resulting policy? Are you arguing in favour of the tyranny of the majority?
That would be very UKIP of you. I really hope you don't deserve that label, and instead just haven't thought it through.
This is how it works.
No one voted for Chairman May to be Prime Minister.
High Chancellor May, you mean.
We don't directly vote for Prime Ministers in the UK. That's why half of the Prime Ministers in the last century didn't reach that position through a General Election.
Also, why this issue with May in particular? Either (like me) you didn't vote Conservative, in which case they're all pretty much as bad as each other. Or you did vote Conservative and ended up with a PM who seems pretty standard tory as far as I can see.
"Also, why this issue with May in particular? Either (like me) you didn't vote Conservative, in which case they're all pretty much as bad as each other. Or you did vote Conservative and ended up with a PM who seems pretty standard tory as far as I can see."
You may want to read up on all the big brother style laws she tried to push through as home secretary. She is definitely towards the authoritarian end of the spectrum, even when compared to much of the Tory party.
They're basically the same surveillance laws that various Home Sec's have been trying to pass since Jack Straw.
But yes, perhaps May is more evil than a standard Tory, I do tend to tar them all with the same brush.
You think that all Conservative voters like May?
Actually many do not and are either abstaining or LibDemming this election. However kippers will be boosting Mays vote. Younger ones who remember Brown and then the Coalition are very happy to go LibDem. Seems quite common among the late teens early 20s. They even understand the tuition fee issue.
See the bit about David Cameron and 45 minute walk and chat vs locked in a room away from Theresa May.
This was just top link, seen it in other places as well.
I know it is unfashionable but I liked all 3 main party leaders last election. I thought Cameron was the best for the job then, but Clegg and Milliband were OK. Actually Clegg did pretty well as Deputy PM despite being the minor party with only partial influence.
I am not sure if it would be wise to compare May to the secret Police ranks, but May is an authortarian nut job and Corbyn a CND loving old fool with no clue. Farron, well he seems to have no image.
ID Cards and surveilance were a good reason to kick out Browns lot in 2010.
Just a pity Cameron chose an authortarian nut job for Home Secretary.
Remember there are a lot of people who want economic competence with small government who let us live in peace, but we are neglected.
"a pity Cameron chose an authortarian nut job for Home Secretary."
And who, back then, was the senior civil servant advising May on terrorism and intelligence matters?
And who, in 2017, is still a senior civil servant advising May?
Who needs elections anyway, so long as we've got strong and stable kleptocrats, spooks, and lunatics running the shop.
"We don't directly vote for Prime Ministers in the UK."
True - and that's why traditionally the PM was always the primus inter pares/first among equals in the government, rather than being a president. However, recent PMs and especially the current one seem to have forgotten that aspect of British constitutional law, and act as if they were a president.
"Actually many do not and are either abstaining or LibDemming this election."
A little while ago a lot of folk commenting on some article in the Financial Times mentioned that they'd joined the LibDems. They also seemed to be much more impressed with Sadiq Khan than Theresa May - strange times where FT readers end up on the liberal/left end of the political spectrum.
"No one voted for Chairman May to be Prime Minister"
Surely elected members of the conservative party did....
The MPs voted for there not to be a general election.
Seems that didn't work.
"Remember there are a lot of people who want economic competence with small government who let us live in peace, but we are neglected."
I'm with you on that, and also add that if the majority of people don't vote for a change, don't make it - but i keep being told that the 52% won so my views are of no consequence ....
>"No one voted for Chairman May to be Prime Minister"
>Surely elected members of the conservative party did....
Technically, some voted for her in the early rounds. Then Andrea Leadsom dropped out, so she won the final vote by default.
May vs Leadsom ughhhhhhhh
Pity no one ever gave Ken Clarke a go.
This is how it works.
How democracy works is:
* Person A gets more votes than Person B
* Person B wins the election
Why are the British government such a bunch of complete arseholes? Technically illiterate, impervious to logic, bent on destroying all and any freedoms that the population might have.
I'm glad I didn't waste my vote today. In the sense that I took a deliberate choice not to use it to support the fuckwits of the establishment.
However the cabal of high level data fetishist civil servants (who seem to infect mostly the Home Office) but any of the assorted spy agencies see no reason why it can't (or rather shouldn't) be done.
Inside their heads more is always better. All (recorded all the time forever) is best of all.
Stuff the "safety" BS. This is all about "Give me 6 lines from an honest man and I'll find something with which to hang them."
"I'm glad I didn't waste my vote today. In the sense that I took a deliberate choice not to use it to support the fuckwits of the establishment.
You do realise that the election today was for local councils, not the nutters by the Thames?
So you mean the next generation of nutters by the Thames?
"Why are the British government such a bunch of complete arseholes?"
Stop whinging and do something. You have until 4pm on 11th May to form a party and nominate candidates. There is nothing to stop you from forming the next UK government. OK, well there are the great unwashed masses of the British electorate, but if they can be brainwashed into voting for bloody
difficult stupid May, then maybe they can be soft soaped into voting for you!
I voted Strong and Stable today, they're a bit like the chuckle brothers but they go to the gym and ride horses.
As has been demonstrated time and again over the last couple of decades, one individual, or a small collective of like-minded individuals, have proven an existential threat to those that have socio-politico-economic power. Osama bin Laden, a civil engineer, used jet aircraft as kamikazi missiles. More recently, someone tried to transfer a billion dollars out of the Bangladeshi banking system and was only caught on the larger transaction by a typo.
I happen to be an engineer, thankfully one without homicidal intent. I can certainly come up with all kinds of interesting things to do to "the system" if I was ticked off enough to do so. Hell, my own government did about half the training and paid for all of it. That doesn't even count the talented amateurs out there who have undergone, and survived so far, a serious Darwinian evolutionary process scaling what can be done technically. Lastly, state-actor's techniques are quite commonly found in-the- wild now whether we are talking about IT systems or arms (an increasingly meaningless distinction).
Wiring up a "surveillance state" (FVEY's) covering the planet, and bringing force of arms to bear on those parts that don't play well with others, is the solution du jour. Apparently they don't understand Information Theory (why such "states" will fail absolutely), but it's unlikely they will ever "get it" anyway. It'll be interesting to see which ends first: The "New International Order" or The Human Race. I won't be around to see it.
By not voting, you support the status quo.
If you want to protest against the establishment, then either spoil your ballot paper or vote for a candidate that's not a moron.
If no such candidate exists, stand yourself.
Decisions are made by the people who turned up. You decided not to turn up.
The next time you complain that the government did something completely stupid, keep in mind that this was partially enabled by your lack of participation.
Write to your MP. donate to a civil liberties group or, God forbid, actually vote.
There is nothing new here, you only need to look at the history of government in Britain to see the trend (not that most other countries are much different).
Britain has hundreds of years of government and civil service acting in a patronising and autocratic way towards the people of the nation. The governing system is, after all, a reflection of and a means of sustaining the 'class system', or more accurately, a means of the privileged maintaining their privilege, regardless of where they fit into the 'class' structure.
Power and money - how to get them, how to hang on to them, and how to prevent, limit, reduce the power/money available to others, especially those who you depend on for your own excessive acquisition of the same. It's an old game, and a dirty one.
That is not to say there aren't very 'good' people working in the system who through their working lives do a lot to mitigate the worst excesses of the wankers, idiots, and scum who work the system as hard as they can for their own advantage.
Next time use the vote instead for the Liberal Democrats -- who have a sensible policy in this area if memory serves...
many reasons, but the main reasons seem to be the gubernment has absolute power,
YOU are the proliteriat, and are one of Kisingers 'useless eaters' a poor, stupid powerless pawn in the big machine, who only exists to serve the state and be USED. You do not matter, your views do not matter.
The system is Everything and it pretty much hates you.
The system is dark and nasty.
The proliteriat are dumb and lazy.
Quite right too Swiss ..
voting will change everything won't it.
That's why things keep getting better every 4 years innit ..
oooh.. hang on a sec..
"By not voting, you support the status quo"
what utter tripe. another bunch of re-peddled myths,
by actually voting, you pretty much acknowledge their system, and
have to choose between being screwed by either the blue or green.
no point screwing up ballot papers. no one cares.
run yourself, yes, if only we had the money. time and connections eh.
ohh.. feel the democracy..
right ..so voting for 'bastard A' instead of 'bastard B'
makes you feel like you made a difference.. good for you, !
ahh yes, the ones that sold you down the river last time.
Maybe thats how Labour (or another party) can win power. Change their name to "Strong and Stable Party"
"The proliteriat are dumb and lazy."
And also incapable of spelling "Proletariat" it would seem.
Local <> national
So you could vote Bean locally and Alice nationally (if he wasn't a Yank).
Local elections, I voted for the only candidate who lived in the ward.
"Local <> national"
Indeed not, and yet what are the lead stories today across the UK meejah? "If these results were repeated on a national bas...." (etc). Not that there is any evidence that "national" politics exists as such in the UK any more, we just seem to have a set of separate regions, and the only region with any real influence is the geographically quite small one currently centred on Westminster and the City.
"Decisions are made by the people who turned up."
Wrong. Decisions are made by people who learned how to keep themselves in power indefinitely by manipulating the general political climate to their favour by any means available, on a statistical level, until polls tell them they have sufficient electorate support to get re-elected - whether by pandering to the masses, scaremongering, attacking their rivals: it doesn't matter. They have no interest in anyone's individual vote, they are playing the game of large numbers that any successful politician knows how to play and win. Anything that makes you specifically vacillate is not their concern, only the stuff that sways large masses is - and they know what that stuff is and how to control it.
You, as an individual, decide nothing beyond when you want to ###k off. Sorry.
(((Only one answer)))
Voting with one's feet works wonders.
Exactly what I did in 2004, and it is amazing how relaxed one can be about British policy when you no longer live there. (Just as my family is more relaxed about Zimbabwean policy, for exactly the same reason.)
Incidentally, one of my key reasons for leaving was RIPA: That was your first big clue that this anti-encryption rhetoric was simply going to be ratcheted up and up, until you are left with no privacy whatsoever.
Elections are overrated, anyway: Referendums are where the action is. If you wanted to have control over just ten items of policy with a party-based form of democracy, you would need 1,024 different political organisations - for just ten policies! No, I'm sorry, but that's just daft.
It appears that the proposal will only apply to "communications" companies, ISP, telco's etc - who in their right mind trusts these people anyway?
I say give them the law - well, they are going to do it anyway whether it's official on not. Meanwhile, if you care, route everything through a VPN that you control (not a commercial vendor) can carry on as normal.
We have a Second Amendment you can borrow. Nobody seems to be doing much with it over here.
That's the one about not having soldiers camp out in your living room right?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017