Reply to post: Re: Oh not again

What do UK and Iran have in common? Both want to outlaw encrypted apps

dan1980

Re: Oh not again

@Marcus Fil

"Not everyone who uses encryption is a terrorist or a paedophile - in fact, most are absolutely not."

True but the wording is not strong enough - most are not? The huge, vast, overwhelming majority are not.

This is like banning car boots because some people have used them to transport kidnap victims or bodies. Or banning duct tape because it can be used in the same crime.

Oh, but encryption makes the police's job harder. BOO FUCKING HOO. Guess what? My job is fucking difficult at times as well and you aren't making laws to make that any easier. Maybe if they could prove to us that they are making the most of the tools they already have then it might just have the barest bit of justification. It still wouldn't be good enough but at least they (i.e. the politicians) wouldn't sound like complete fucking idiots.

But this is all par for the course for our pollies (and police at times) - some crime or tragedy occurs and no one wants to say that it could have been prevented if only people had done their jobs properly or taken more responsibility for their own actions. No, the problem is clearly that we need more or stricter laws.

Pedestrians getting hit and killed in Sydney CBD? Drop the speed limit to 40kph - that will do it. We'll conveniently ignore the fact that drivers are running red lights (especial when turning) left right and centre, or that pedestrians are just crossing the road wherever they please without much concern. That can't be the reason because that would mean that police weren't adequately enforcing the existing laws against both those things. That can't be the case . . .

Some tiny, TINY subset of people in Sydney are sometimes getting violent in a small subset of locations on Friday and Saturday night after a night on the sauce. The solution? Not ensuring bars are actually abiding by the RSA or issuing fines when they aren't. Not working to provide better transport so people aren't all standing around for an hour waiting for a late bus that will only fit half the people on, or competing for a handful of taxis that drive around with their lights off, asking people where they are going before accepting and refusing anyone that lives somewhere they don't feel like driving to. No. Nor do they look at RELAXING licensing laws to promote MORE bars in more places so that everyone isn't crowded into a few small areas, forced to weave their way through a jostling crowd just to get to the bar and then having to wait for 15 minutes to be served, thereafter having to weave back through the crowd to the tiny square metre or two of space they have managed to occupy because there are no tables or seats free.

No, the solution is clearly to raise prices and restrict licensing ever further. Oh, and force bottleshops to close at 10pm. Solved!

That was a bit of a tangent but I'm just fed up with the way our governments approach these issues. It's always a disproportionately large response to a relatively small problem and blanket restrictions/penalties/impositions on everyone to address an issue which is due to a tiny percentage of people.

And always there are existing laws which are not being adequately enforced or resources that are not being effectively utilised. Whether it is terrorism or just general crime - speeding, personal injury, drug abuse, or disruptive behaviour at a sporting match - the laws and tools exist but they want more.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019