David Cameron Fights for oppression and destruction of western ideals

In the wake of the devastating Paris terrorist attacks, British Prime Minister David Cameron said encrypted messaging services pose a national security threat because they can’t be easily monitored by intelligence agencies.

“The attacks in Paris demonstrated the scale of the threat that we face and the need to have robust powers through our intelligence and security agencies in order to keep our people safe,” Cameron said Monday, speaking at an event in London on how to best protect the country from terrorist attacks.

If re-elected in May, Cameron promised to ban encrypted online communication services — unless tech companies give British intelligence special access. Those backdoor permissions would be folded into legislation requiring telecommunications companies and broadband providers to collect and store citizens’ online communications.

“Are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read?” he said. “My answer to that question is: ‘No, we must not.’”

Cameron’s comments come a week after Paris suffered three days of fatal terrorist attacks that killed 17 people — 12 of whom were massacred at satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo’s offices Jan. 7.

The British government hasn’t been particularly amenable to the privacy movement; it notoriously forced London-based newspaper the Guardian in 2013 to destroy hard drives containing NSA files leaked by Edward Snowden. But Cameron’s stance contradicts movements from other European countries which have balked at intense government surveillance and tried to crack down on U.S. internet companies for violating citizens’ privacy rights.

Russia and Germany vowed earlier this year to switch to paper communications, handwritten notes and typewriters to avoid detection, while other countries are working on enhancing their own intelligence programs. Germany also said it would end its contract with U.S. wireless carrier Verizon because of legal requirements “to provide certain things to the NSA,” according to the German Interior Ministry.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/13/3610890/david-cameron-encrypted-messaging-ban/

So Mr Cameron who protects us from You!!!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Seriously Politicians that suggest this shit have been clearly identified as Evil since Ancient Rome, let him Rot in Jail with that Choudrey fellow since they are both traitors to western ideals of what is "Good and Just".

Abbott in his quest to be as Evil as Cameron, (probably both in a quest o please Darklord Rupert) is trying to institute similar laws.
he already signed us up to all the NSA shit allowing US authorities to monitor Australians on Australian networks, subverting any laws Australians might make concerning privacy as the US doesn't comply with them.

Scary eh?

@irn
our only hope is gov't incompetence so we might be right then.


The other problem that is often not discussed is that the USA (and Australia too ) have been caught using this sort of legislation to illegally further corporate interest in other nations.
Plus how can you trust that they are not going to use it on whistle blowers and journalists or other legitimate critics of the gov't.

veya_victaous wrote:@irn
our only hope is gov't incompetence so we might be right then.  


The other problem that is often not discussed is that the USA (and Australia too ) have been caught using this sort of legislation to illegally further corporate interest in other nations.
Plus how can you trust that they are not going to use it on whistle blowers and journalists or other legitimate critics of the gov't.

Well there's no lack of government incompetence, we have that in abundance.

No wonder they are hounding Edward Snowden.

Also I believe that Darkness pointed out their is a difference between encrypted and enciphered.

Encryption is what a technological power might use but Islamic Fundamentalist are not a technological power. really its best used is hiding whatever from automated filtering systems or internal process functions of a program from the human user, but it relies on a key and the CIA and/or China has all the key (that's why Russia and others have said they will be moving back to a paper based system)

Enciphering is a process for the human brain, the low teach solution so the one most likely to be used by terrorists and pretty much impossible for the sort of monitoring system our gov't are introducing to pick up. These systems are a huge expense and sacrifice of rights for absolutely no additional protection.

    THE FACT that the UK government "forced" the Guardian newspaper to "destroy a few hard drives.." in connection with leaks from Edward Snowden back in 2013, simply goes to show just how generally incompetent and how far out of touch British politicians are, when it comes to effectively dealing with any 'matters technical'...

NEVER mind that there were probably already hundreds of downloads to laptops, portable hard drives, USB sticks, emails and 'hardcopies' "out there", WELL before MI6 or the relevant Ministries even knew that the Guardian had been sent those files..

NOT to worry ! At least the big meanie government still got to punish that naughty Guardian newspaper, by getting their big girly-man bully boy thugs to smash up a few hard drives..    

YOU don't like the British do you? is it that you are just a teeny bit jealous that you are still a backwood nation? [I know it should be backward, but in your case I'm correct]

nicko wrote:YOU don't like the British do you?   is it that you are just a teeny bit jealous that you are still a backwood nation?   [I know it should be backward, but in your case I'm correct]

Umm Nicko this is something I WISH the Brits were beating us at

Legislation even more intrusive than this is currently before our parliament, however it does look like it wont pass the senate... Thank god for Free thinking independent senators (even if they are generally stupid like Jackie Lambie )

I have no fear or concern over anything I write to people being monitored, as you have to weigh up here the balance.
My privacy or access to what people say and a better chance of security for the country.

The questions is what have people got to hide, that they are placing their own selfishness over that of their own countries safety?

Saying they are taking away your freedom to safeguard your freedom is 1984 idea.  Pure irony.  You either value freedom and take risks and fight for it or don't and passively give it away.  Then once given it can never be taken back and terrorists have achieved what they want, they have changed your values and subjected you.

risingsun wrote:Saying they are taking away your freedom to safeguard your freedom is 1984 idea.  Pure irony.  You either value freedom and take risks and fight for it or don't and passively give it away.  Then once given it can never be taken back and terrorists have achieved what they want, they have changed your values and subjected you.

The freedom to hide your views, how is that freedom? When there is nothing to hide about ourselves, unless you want something to be hidden.How is that a freedom, where the concept is to hide things from others?
To place this in concept, would any person here believe it is acceptable to lie or hide things to your partner of wife/husband?I doubt anyone would because even if someone came up with a view say for example in the extreme case their wife was dying and they did not want them to know and face fear, they would be doing this out of yet again a selfish act based on their own conjecture.

The very view and concept here is on being open and if we are a society that wishes to keep things secret or hidden then there is something very fundamentally wrong in that concept, as even as parents none of us teach children to lie or keep things hidden being as they are morally and ethically wrong to do so, where the view is to be honest and open.


The point people is missing is they are using again their own selfish needs to claim they are losings or being denied a freedom, which they place as this freedom the ability to hide or lie from others . The fact of the matter is there is a real danger at present in the world which we all face, whether Non-religious, Christian, Muslims, Jew etc, from some very sadistic extremists, who as seen have no care of killing people. This is not bowing down to fear, this is called using common sense to protect the people from this danger, so these people can lead their lives with normality. The very fact is for centuries people have spied upon each other and still do to this day, because people are not honest open and up front about themselves, just see the many relationships that have ended due to this fact.

So the argument here to claim a freedom of around being able to hide what you do or say, is flawed and a complete sham, because none of us would ever back someone to hide they were cheating lying etc from the people we most love. As a nation we are meant to be united through love and protection for each other, where having a written or spoken views known is not having any freedom taken away from you .
Only those who have something to hide fear being known what they seek to keep hidden. The very fact we argue constantly that we should know what our governments do secretly proves even more how much we hate being kept in the dark and not knowing the truth about everything

then the gov't should start by making It self more transparent. Instead it has spent the last decade passing laws to allow More secret hidden activities and reducing accountability.

The Gov't is not our Master it is our Servant. Fuck wits Like Cameron Forget that. And as long as they regularly forget that, We need Protection from them. Yes We could forget the lessons learned by EVERY SOCIETY IN HISTORY about giving too much clandestine powers to rulers, what happens every time a society gives up individual rights to a 'leader' that will 'protect' them. Our we could NOT BE COWARDLY MORONS and learn from the Thousands of years of examples of giving 'leaders' too much power.

Also If an individual knows So little about the topic (as Cameron proves by his desire to block encrypted information that is not used by terrorists) why are they trying to pass laws about something they don't even understand. the Blind leading the Blind in the Total Wrong direction and having too little knowledge to even realise they are literally Going the wrong way. Saving you from the fire by walking you into the flames

There is literally Zero gains in the fight against terrorism, (as the system is not even attempting to capture the communication they are using) But Huge loses in the fight against gov't oppression, plus Huge damage to trust in the international community.

SO As a foreigner Should I cease all business with the UK since if I send one of them encrypted blueprints for my patented invention, the gov't now has access to it, Even though I am fully within my rights to keep it secret to protect my Intellectual property.
In fact All trade negotiation with the UK are now pointless, you cant negotiate when someone can see your internal discussion. this legislation hinders technological development and entrepreneurship as it removes the environment in which people can experiment or design because as soon as they have made any progress that will give them a strategic advantage it is potentially known to all. And as RW gov'ts have the position of 'keeping the means of production with those that hold it' for the sake of stability (a.k.a Radical heterodox economic theory) and we have so many real example of politicians working too closely with big business to be reliably independent and not pass on the information and we know that corporations that already spend millions on corporate espionage will try their best to corrupt any gov't official that could give them this information.

AS WISER MEN THAT US HAVE SAID
"those who give away long term Freedoms for temporary protection deserve neither", So while Bras deserves to be a slave, I have no intention of Giving up my freedom so easily.

the Price of Freedom is constant vigilance, don't be distracted by terrorist side show when the real Devils lurk amongst us.

is this not the Exact sort of oppression we Demonize the Chinese gov't for doing... YES IT IS

Brasidas wrote:

risingsun wrote:Saying they are taking away your freedom to safeguard your freedom is 1984 idea.  Pure irony.  You either value freedom and take risks and fight for it or don't and passively give it away.  Then once given it can never be taken back and terrorists have achieved what they want, they have changed your values and subjected you.

The freedom to hide your views, how is that freedom? When there is nothing to hide about ourselves, unless you want something to be hidden.How is that a freedom, where the concept is to hide things from others?
To place this in concept, would any person here believe it is acceptable to lie or hide things to your partner of wife/husband?I doubt anyone would because even if someone came up with a view say for example in the extreme case their wife was dying and they did not want them to know and face fear, they would be doing this out of yet again a selfish act based on their own conjecture.

The very view and concept here is on being open and if we are a society that wishes to keep things secret or hidden then there is something very fundamentally wrong in that concept, as even as parents none of us teach children to lie or keep things hidden being as they are morally and ethically wrong to do so, where the view is to be honest and open.


The point people is missing is they are using again their own selfish needs to claim they are losings or being denied a freedom, which they place as this freedom the ability to hide or lie from others . The fact of the matter is there is a real danger at present in the world which we all face, whether Non-religious, Christian, Muslims, Jew etc, from some very sadistic extremists, who as seen have no care of killing people. This is not bowing down to fear, this is called using common sense to protect the people from this danger, so these people can lead their lives with normality. The very fact is for centuries people have spied upon each other and still do to this day, because people are not honest open and up front about themselves, just see the many relationships that have ended due to this fact.

So the argument here to claim a freedom of around being able to hide what you do or say, is flawed and a complete sham, because none of us would ever back someone to hide they were cheating lying etc from the people we most love. As a nation we are meant to be united through love and protection for each other, where having a written or spoken views known is not having any freedom taken away from you .
Only those who have something to hide fear being known what they seek to keep hidden. The very fact we argue constantly that we should know what our governments do secretly proves even more how much we hate being kept in the dark and not knowing the truth about everything

Bumped again for anyone who would like to take on this reality I have presented.
Again the question you have to ask is why people are trying to claim freedoms around the ability to hide things from other people from the people you share the land with.
There is no connection to freedom there, just people wishing to back being deceitful, as what has anyone got to hide?

I shall look in again tomorrow.


Night Ben and Veya.

So Bra you have no idea what Encryption is used for?  
So in your 'reality' how will this help catch even one terrorist?

And how does it feel to argue against the greatest literary/philosophical/political mind the UK has ever produced?

You do seem to hate the ideals of the great minds of liberty, literally you say Orwell is Wrong, Voltaire is Wrong, Franklin is wrong.
I mean you whole argument boils down to "we can have Complete Trust in Politicians" which is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.
             

good night... don't let the Bed bugs send Encrypted messages to each other

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/we-interviewed-the-lib-dems-over-snapchat-to-ask-if-theyd-ba

That strict definition of communication could include common encrypted messaging services such as WhatsApp, Apple’s iMessage, and everyone’s favourite picture messaging app Snapchat. There’s various reasons why such a ban may not actually happen but a lot of people are concerned for the future of their Snapchats.

This is what happened in what is probably the world’s first political interview conducted entirely over a service designed largely for its ability to send self-destructing images of your private parts.

I didn't even think of it but
You know those apps that encrypt you're nude photos, Cameron wants access to those... It's about the only useful thing he'll get out of the this Multi-million dollar lesson in "Computers are not Magic"

veya_victaous wrote:So Bra you have no idea what Encryption is used for?  
So in your 'reality' how will this help catch even one terrorist?

And how does it feel to argue against the greatest literary/philosophical/political mind the UK has ever produced?

You do seem to hate the ideals of the great minds of liberty, literally you say Orwell is Wrong, Voltaire is Wrong, Franklin is wrong.
I mean you whole argument boils down to "we can have Complete Trust in Politicians" which is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.
             

good night... don't let the Bed bugs send Encrypted messages to each other

That never answered a single one of my points Veya
Again what have you to hide that you need it kept secret from your own nation?
If you saw and you would be one of the first people is knowing what Politicians also are doing, though they at least have one valid reason the nations national security.
There is no reason ethically or morally of people to hide anything especially when you are placing your own needs against the greater needs of others, the security of a nation or in a time of war.
That is plain and simply selfish, where you offer no reason to say why people should be able to hide anything.
I mean I am especially all in favour of being able to find out and convict what some foul people in this country keep hidden on their PC's like those who keep pictures of child sex abuse, to place such vile offenders in jail who break the law, seems like you want to protect them.
Again the only people against such a security policy which helps the nation, are those who have something to hide.

You didn't make any point just accused everyone that learn the lesson from Orwell of having something to hide. You want to know why your argument is Morally wrong READ Orwell, read the Speeches and philosophies of Ben Franklin. there is your answer as to why your mind set is actually Morally wrong, selling out long term freedoms and ideals that Brave men and women fought for over centuries... For Temporary Safety From A Boogeyman.

And it Conclusively will not help, on no technical level will this help against terrorists. It might help if you went to war against China or the USA but that's about it. More likely it will be used for the wrong things, like helping Copyright holders find and sue 'Liberators of Ideas' or pirates ...whatever.

And Again Your whole argument relies on the idea that "Citizens can 100% trust their leaders" which pray tell how do you come to that conclusion

There is reasons in real reality that individuals may want to not have everything available to the authorities, this legislation is a bottomless pit... sure introduced to stop terrorists (even though this will actually not do that at all) but has endless scope to be utilized against normal citizens (normal as in 99% law abiding) let alone protestors, whistle blowers and journalists.

You Dive head first down a slippery slope.
one that again 'some of' Mankind realized the folly of doing 1900 years ago

Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis, known in English as Juvenal wrote:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

veya_victaous wrote:You didn't make any point just accused everyone that learn the lesson from Orwell of having something to hide. You want to know why your argument is Morally wrong READ Orwell, read the Speeches and philosophies of Ben Franklin. there is your answer as to why your mind set is actually Morally wrong, selling out long term freedoms and ideals that Brave men and women fought for over centuries... For Temporary Safety From A Boogeyman.  
Could not give a shit about Orwell, he lived in a different time from today. So to base his views in this context is basically absurd on every level. We are again talking in reagrds to people throwing out their dummies over having the ability to be decietful hiding things, which at present is a danger. Again you place a claim to freedom here to hide and conceal things, which has no ethical or moral argument, only where to could save the lives of people would it become so.
And it Conclusively will not help, on no technical level will this help against terrorists. It might help if you went to war against China or the USA but that's about it. More likely it will be used for the wrong things, like helping Copyright holders find and sue 'Liberators of Ideas' or pirates ...whatever.  
IrrelevantAnd Again Your whole argument relies on the idea that "Citizens can 100% trust their leaders" which pray tell how do you come to that conclusion

There is reasons in real reality that individuals may want to not have everything available to the authorities, this legislation is a bottomless pit... sure introduced to stop terrorists (even though this will actually not do that at all) but has endless scope to be utilized against normal citizens (normal as in 99% law abiding) let alone protestors, whistle blowers and journalists.

You Dive head first down a slippery slope.
one that again 'some of'     Mankind realized the folly of doing 1900 years ago

Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis, known in English as Juvenal wrote:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

##

What slippery slope?
There is no reason to conceal things in society that have no bearing or consequences to the lives of people, where in fact as already pointed out there are vile people in society that store appalling child abuse images, which is allowing for the abuse of children. There is no argument against this or for the protection of the nations civillians from harm with the fact we know full well there are people in our prisons who have attempted to commit terrorism. You may wish to play down the safety of any nation, but this is not fear but common sense to prempt or deter any such attack on nation by the use of encypted messages. I mean where does this leave terror organisations wishing to communicate will terror cells in the UK?
You are just avoiding every point I made, so I wll post them for you again as you cannot see to answer the. Sorry Veya I got bored of your excuses above.


Again what have you to hide that you need it kept secret from your own nation?
If you saw and you would be one of the first people is knowing what Politicians also are doing, though they at least have one valid reason the nations national security.
There is no reason ethically or morally of people to hide anything especially when you are placing your own needs against the greater needs of others, the security of a nation or in a time of war.
That is plain and simply selfish, where you offer no reason to say why people should be able to hide anything.
I mean I am especially all in favour of being able to find out and convict what some foul people in this country keep hidden on their PC's like those who keep pictures of child sex abuse, to place such vile offenders in jail who break the law, seems like you want to protect them.
Again the only people against such a security policy which helps the nation, are those who have something to hide.



Also this:


The freedom to hide your views, how is that freedom? When there is nothing to hide about ourselves, unless you want something to be hidden.How is that a freedom, where the concept is to hide things from others?
To place this in concept, would any person here believe it is acceptable to lie or hide things to your partner of wife/husband?I doubt anyone would because even if someone came up with a view say for example in the extreme case their wife was dying and they did not want them to know and face fear, they would be doing this out of yet again a selfish act based on their own conjecture.

The very view and concept here is on being open and if we are a society that wishes to keep things secret or hidden then there is something very fundamentally wrong in that concept, as even as parents none of us teach children to lie or keep things hidden being as they are morally and ethically wrong to do so, where the view is to be honest and open.


The point people is missing is they are using again their own selfish needs to claim they are losings or being denied a freedom, which they place as this freedom the ability to hide or lie from others . The fact of the matter is there is a real danger at present in the world which we all face, whether Non-religious, Christian, Muslims, Jew etc, from some very sadistic extremists, who as seen have no care of killing people. This is not bowing down to fear, this is called using common sense to protect the people from this danger, so these people can lead their lives with normality. The very fact is for centuries people have spied upon each other and still do to this day, because people are not honest open and up front about themselves, just see the many relationships that have ended due to this fact.

So the argument here to claim a freedom of around being able to hide what you do or say, is flawed and a complete sham, because none of us would ever back someone to hide they were cheating lying etc from the people we most love. As a nation we are meant to be united through love and protection for each other, where having a written or spoken views known is not having any freedom taken away from you .
Only those who have something to hide fear being known what they seek to keep hidden. The very fact we argue constantly that we should know what our governments do secretly proves even more how much we hate being kept in the dark and not knowing the truth about everything

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

― Benjamin Franklin

Your logins to websites are protected by encryption. Want to ban those protocols and have every login vulnerable? Hope you don't use internet banking.

risingsun wrote:
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

― Benjamin Franklin

Again trying to claim freedom to hiding things you want kep from society is nothing to do with freedom at all, but trying to defend the right to be decietful.
There is no comparrison, as if you have nothing to hide you are not losing any freedom what so ever.
So explain exactly what freedom you feel you have lost?

Again nobody can seen to answer what they have got to hide or want to hide from others?

Child sex porn?
Insurrection?
Terrorism?
Conspiracy to murder?

risingsun wrote:Your logins to websites are protected by encryption. Want to ban those protocols and have every login vulnerable?  Hope you don't use internet banking.

What has that got to do with the ban proposed based on encrypted chat apts

Nothing.

Why do people invent things which is not even being proposed?

A man who can be talked into giving up one freedom can be talked into giving up the next and the next. He is both a fool and a coward.

risingsun wrote:A man who can be talked into giving up one freedom can be talked into giving up the next and the next.  He is both a fool and a coward.

Except you have lost no freedom.
What do you need to say in private that you cannot say on here for example?
Medical issues, maybe?
That would be about one of the only things you may wish to keep private, but who else is going to then know, by monitoring?

The security Service, which is not going to make you lose any sleep over is it, as what relevance will it matter if they do know?

None

So again:

Again trying to claim freedom to hiding things you want kep from society is nothing to do with freedom at all, but trying to defend the right to be decietful.
There is no comparrison, as if you have nothing to hide you are not losing any freedom what so ever.
So explain exactly what freedom you feel you have lost?

Again nobody can seen to answer what they have got to hide or want to hide from others?

Child sex porn?
Insurrection?
Terrorism?
Conspiracy to murder?

Brasidas wrote:

risingsun wrote:A man who can be talked into giving up one freedom can be talked into giving up the next and the next.  He is both a fool and a coward.

Except you have lost no freedom.
What do you need to say in private that you cannot say on here for example?
Medical issues, maybe?
That would be about one of the only things you may wish to keep private, but who else is going to then know, by monitoring?

The security Service, which is not going to make you lose any sleep over is it, as what relevance will it matter if they do know?

None

So again:

Again trying to claim freedom to hiding things you want kep from society is nothing to do with freedom at all, but trying to defend the right to be decietful.
There is no comparrison, as if you have nothing to hide you are not losing any freedom what so ever.
So explain exactly what freedom you feel you have lost?

Again nobody can seen to answer what they have got to hide or want to hide from others?

Child sex porn?
Insurrection?
Terrorism?
Conspiracy to murder?

I may want to keep medical detaisl private and not have them sent to insurers for profit
I may want to keep as veya says details of a patented invention secret to those who I can trust and not have them sold to a rival for profit
I may want a whole host of things legitimately kept "secret"

I certainly would not want any of the above left on a "lost pen drive"
or left on a lap top on a train

you make the error of assuming out people are incorruptible
you make a bigger error in assuming they always will be "moderate"

you actually have no argument


since you fail to see that encryption and encipherment are two seperate techniques and, were I to be getting up to naughty things, I know which method is unbreakable and which I would choose....

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Except you have lost no freedom.
What do you need to say in private that you cannot say on here for example?
Medical issues, maybe?
That would be about one of the only things you may wish to keep private, but who else is going to then know, by monitoring?

The security Service, which is not going to make you lose any sleep over is it, as what relevance will it matter if they do know?

None

So again:

Again trying to claim freedom to hiding things you want kep from society is nothing to do with freedom at all, but trying to defend the right to be decietful.
There is no comparrison, as if you have nothing to hide you are not losing any freedom what so ever.
So explain exactly what freedom you feel you have lost?

Again nobody can seen to answer what they have got to hide or want to hide from others?

Child sex porn?
Insurrection?
Terrorism?
Conspiracy to murder?

I may want to keep medical detaisl private and not have them sent to insurers for profit
It still would be
I may want to keep as veya says details of a patented invention secret to those who I can trust and not have them sold to a rival for profit
If somebody plagerizes your idea like anyone else take them to court, where again how that has anything to do with chat apps is beyond meI may want a whole host of things legitimately kept "secret"

I certainly would not want any of the above left on a "lost pen drive"
or left on a lap top on a train
Then you would be stupid to leave it behind
you make the error of assuming out people are incorruptible
you make a bigger error in assuming they always will be "moderate"
You make the mistake that your own needs outweigh those of others, not in a million years
you actually have no argument
You never even countered my argument but get me a load of waffle

since you fail to see that encryption and encipherment are two seperate techniques and, were I to be getting up to naughty things, I know which method is unbreakable and which I would choose....

Since you fail to even see what is being asked here is about people chatting encypted in private, shows you have lost the plot where you think being secret has ethical or moral reasons, when there is no danger to life with your views being known. There is nothing you can place as a need to hide that places your needs of the need of a nation, they are all based on you have no requirement to hide and be decietful, where it fails to weigh up the balance

So again.

Except you have lost no freedom.
What do you need to say in private that you cannot say on here for example?
Medical issues, maybe?
That would be about one of the only things you may wish to keep private, but who else is going to then know, by monitoring?

The security Service, which is not going to make you lose any sleep over is it, as what relevance will it matter if they do know?

None

So again:

Again trying to claim freedom to hiding things you want kep from society is nothing to do with freedom at all, but trying to defend the right to be decietful.
There is no comparrison, as if you have nothing to hide you are not losing any freedom what so ever.
So explain exactly what freedom you feel you have lost?

Again nobody can seen to answer what they have got to hide or want to hide from others?

Child sex porn?
Insurrection?
Terrorism?
Conspiracy to murder?


What freedom have you lost?

Nothing.

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:


I may want to keep medical detaisl private and not have them sent to insurers for profit
It still would be

until some oik in govt decides otherwise
I may want to keep as veya says details of a patented invention secret to those who I can trust and not have them sold to a rival for profit
If somebody plagerizes your idea like anyone else take them to court, where again how that has anything to do with chat apps is beyond me

not if the rival patents it first having been "tipped off...do you seriously beleive these people are all utterly incorruptible

I may want a whole host of things legitimately kept "secret"

I certainly would not want any of the above left on a "lost pen drive"
or left on a lap top on a train
Then you would be stupid to leave it behind

It wasnt me who left a govt laptop on a train...or left discs in the skip etc etc etc....

you make the error of assuming out people are incorruptible
you make a bigger error in assuming they always will be "moderate"
You make the mistake that your own needs outweigh those of others, not in a million years
you actually have no argument
You never even countered my argument but get me a load of waffle

since you fail to see that encryption and encipherment are two seperate techniques and, were I to be getting up to naughty things, I know which method is unbreakable and which I would choose....

Since you fail to even see what is being asked here is about people chatting encypted in private, shows you have lost the plot where you think being secret has ethical or moral reasons, when there is no danger to life with your views being known. There is nothing you can place as a need to hide that places your needs of the need of a nation, they are all based on you have no requirement to hide and be decietful, where it fails to weigh up the balance

So again.

Except you have lost no freedom.
What do you need to say in private that you cannot say on here for example?
Medical issues, maybe?
That would be about one of the only things you may wish to keep private, but who else is going to then know, by monitoring?

The security Service, which is not going to make you lose any sleep over is it, as what relevance will it matter if they do know?

None

So again:

Again trying to claim freedom to hiding things you want kep from society is nothing to do with freedom at all, but trying to defend the right to be decietful.
There is no comparrison, as if you have nothing to hide you are not losing any freedom what so ever.
So explain exactly what freedom you feel you have lost?

Again nobody can seen to answer what they have got to hide or want to hide from others?

Child sex porn?
Insurrection?
Terrorism?
Conspiracy to murder?


What freedom have you lost?

Nothing.

and anyway according to YOU there is no danger from terrorism....YOU are the one pointing out that I'm more likely to be killed by lightening ...so there cannot be any justification for FURTHER errosion of privacy....

darknessss wrote:
until some oik in govt decides otherwise
Ridiculous assumption based on paranoia
not if the rival patents it first having been "tipped off...do you seriously beleive these people are all utterly incorruptible
They could hack your account anyway, again assuming you believe the secret service is going to sell your secrets, so funny and again absurd

It wasnt me who left a govt laptop on a train...or left discs in the skip etc etc etc....
Which again why would the Government have your ideas, which have no national security risk to the nation, showing why again your view is absurd





and anyway according to YOU there is no danger from terrorism....YOU are the one pointing out that I'm more likely to be killed by lightening ...so there cannot be any justification for FURTHER errosion of privacy....

Never claimed ever there was no danger, again absurd claim.

Since you fail to even see what is being asked here is about people chatting encrypted in private, shows you have lost the plot where you think being secret has ethical or moral reasons, when there is no danger to life with your views being known. There is nothing you can place as a need to hide that places your needs of the need of a nation, they are all based on you have no requirement to hide and be deceitful, where it fails to weigh up the balance

So again.

Except you have lost no freedom.
What do you need to say in private that you cannot say on here for example?
Medical issues, maybe?
That would be about one of the only things you may wish to keep private, but who else is going to then know, by monitoring?

The security Service, which is not going to make you lose any sleep over is it, as what relevance will it matter if they do know?

None

So again:

Again trying to claim freedom to hiding things you want kep from society is nothing to do with freedom at all, but trying to defend the right to be decietful.
There is no comparrison, as if you have nothing to hide you are not losing any freedom what so ever.
So explain exactly what freedom you feel you have lost?

Again nobody can seen to answer what they have got to hide or want to hide from others?

Child sex porn?
Insurrection?
Terrorism?
Conspiracy to murder?


What freedom have you lost?

Nothing.

oh fuck off didge with this constant repeating of posts...

I answered the point of the post....

granted i didnt answer your attempt to divert

darknessss wrote:oh fuck off didge with this constant repeating of posts...

I answered the point of the post....

granted i didnt answer your attempt to divert

You gave lame reasons which I answered them and gave them what they deserved, pity at such silly views, where what is even worse you fail to understand yet again this is on encryption chat apps.
I know you have no answer because you get rude and offensive.

Hey ho, the fact is you are not worth more than a nation, the internet is not some playground you decide and control over, you only have access to be there, I suggest you start to realise that and again there is something emphatically wrong with people who argue in the view to be able to hide things from others, as i already pointed out.

and yoiu failed to see that there is a simple and effective way around it...so much so that it makes camergoons argument a waste of space....

dont encrypt....encypher.... unbreakable and utterly secure....


what does "I'm going to aldi tomorow to buy some apples, a pound of mince and a saucepan" mean to you or anyone else???

yet...what could it mean to someone who knows what those items actually refer to....

and thats a very crude and actually suspicious message in the context of a known terrorist...but one who isnt known?????

whats worse is ...... what does

(96) 13,4,8. 14,15,2. 13,23,3.

mean....?

I will give you a clue that the security services would NOT have available IF i was being naughty

96 refers to a particular book in my collection
and also in my co-conspirators collection

Its ISBN is
0 04 823126 6

so untill you find  I DEFY you to decypher that....

and I dont even need to use the web

lo tech.....

and yes it is a concern that others have access...as I say do you REALLY beleive that all these "security people are "incorruptible"

or that a "sell the familiy silver " tory govt wouldnt cash in on medical details

or that they "never" lose things

and do you REALLY believe that they will benefit from it??

clearly its you now scared of the threat....

but then again if a "govt person" asked you to jump you would only enquire as to how high

talk about grey amorphous mass......


Baaaaaaa

OMG that was just comical being people are using apps that are encrypted, holy crap on a cracker. The fact is being as we decrypted enigma, you think the security services do not pick up on words used to mean something else?
Jesus give them some credit being they have thwarted many attacks, that was just silly and beyond belief
None of which again points to there being a reason for people to hide things, because again what have people got to hide?
People who defend that normally do have something to hide and fear being found out

You really have a low opinion of people who have stopped attacks just as we have seen in Belgium to night, people far more intelligent than yourself Victor.
None of which means we should not do what is required all to satisfy some people upset they cannot hide things as they should not anyway. Blimey.


Have a good evening

Brasidas wrote:OMG that was just comical being people are using apps that are encrypted, holy crap on a cracker. The fact is being as we decrypted enigma, you think the security services do not pick up on words used to mean something else?

I would imagine they totally fail to pick up on a lot of words...the meanings are assigned by the users....
i suppose next you will tell me that terrorists all conveniently call grenades apples....
and NEVER refer to bootlaces as apples.... for instance or even apples

strewth if the security services went down THAT route they would have hysterics over "girly chat" on those apps

moreover WTF would they make of my chat with shooting friends??  "I'm going to buy 4 slabs (2000 rounds) of ammo this weekend, I expect to have used it all by next week"


do you not understand the difference between encrypted and encyphered ?????

Jesus give them some credit being they have thwarted many attacks, that was just silly and beyond belief

yes and very little done on the CONTENT of messages.....MOSTLY done on the fact of who is messsaging who and how often...and THEN covert surveillance/decrypting
takes a super computer about 24 hrs to crack 13 bit encryption CONTEXT is the single most important thing....not content...

None of which again points to there being a reason for people to hide things, because again what have people got to hide?
People who defend that normally do have something to hide and fear being found out

yeah yeah...the old and historically proven false "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument....

It really beggars belief again your poor view you have of a service that again as thwarted many attacks all of which you have no conception how good they are and are basing them off your less than experienced position based only on watching Hollywood movies.
Blimey get a grip, your views are guesses at best and very poor ones at that.
Well being as thy would clearly learn what your trade is I doubt you would come under any worries. Seriously you think they would seek you out based on nothing more than just listening in?
Again you fail to understand intelligence gathering, where words stand out based on far more than what is even said in this country, the very point you miss.

Anyway as I say have a good evening have things to do where again nobody is having any  freedom taken from them, that claim is just absurd.

whats worse is ...... what does

(96) 13,4,8. 14,15,2. 13,23,3.

mean....?

I will give you a clue that the security services would NOT have available IF i was being naughty

96 refers to a particular book in my collection
and also in my co-conspirators collection

Its ISBN is
0 04 823126 6

so untill you find I DEFY you to decypher that....

and I dont even need to use the web

lo tech.....

you see didge you are making things up again

I have already credited the security services with the ability to garner the required info from the CONTEXT...
that is to say who is talking to who and how often and from where....

the content is often not that relevant....

they know something is brewing and by whom....

darknessss wrote:whats worse is ...... what does

(96) 13,4,8. 14,15,2. 13,23,3.

mean....?

I will give you a clue that the security services would NOT have available IF i was being naughty

96 refers to a particular book in my collection
and also in my co-conspirators collection

Its ISBN is
0 04 823126 6

so untill you find  I DEFY you to decypher that....

and I dont even need to use the web

lo tech.....

Yeah I am sure you will stump some maths geniuses with something as simple as that to them.
Seriously master cryptic's have devised far better methods than yourself and you think what you present would be difficult?

For fuck sake

darknessss wrote:you see didge you are making things up again

I have already credited the security services with the ability to garner the required info from the CONTEXT...
that is to say who is talking to who and how often and from where....

the content is often not that relevant....

they know something is brewing and by whom....

Then why make their job harder by allow cryptic apps, just wasting valuable time?


You have nothing that is going to be lost by these actions, which is why you miss the point


All the best Victor

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:whats worse is ...... what does

(96) 13,4,8. 14,15,2. 13,23,3.

mean....?

I will give you a clue that the security services would NOT have available IF i was being naughty

96 refers to a particular book in my collection
and also in my co-conspirators collection

Its ISBN is
0 04 823126 6

so untill you find  I DEFY you to decypher that....

and I dont even need to use the web

lo tech.....

Yeah I am sure you will stump some maths geniuses with something as simple as that to them.
Seriously master cryptic's have devised far better methods than yourself and you think what you present would be difficult?

For fuck sake

that last one is regarded as being unbreakable....why do you think in such a situation "code books" are such a valuable prize

NO amount of maths will break that encypherment

you STILL dont see the difference between encryption (which CAN be broken mathematically) and encypherment (which cant).(because the ONLY key (the book number) is of itself encyphered and ONLY known to the parties involved. thse three number combinations could mean anything and indeed if you viewed 10,000 books you would probably get 10 plausible meanings (and of course 9,990 apparant gibberish, but then that gibberish might also mean something)...see where I'm going with this....

for the sake of completeness

IF you had a copy of TOLKIEN the hobbit 1975 by unwin paperbacks....you would see that it says "it is time"

from another book it might say "feed the dog"

from another it might say

fish water coffee

which is a "real message"??????
after all

fish water and coffe could be given other meanings....

encypherment as veya says is within the brain and within the linguistic complexities we as humans have...

un breakable........

And as seen your claim is complete bollocks:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_cipher


You do realise that thy only needed two words to crack the enigma machines through intercepted messages?

Your claim to nothing being able to be unbroken can in time as everything can be, yes keys are needed and keys can be found, if not everyone would be using as you clam and nothing would be broken.
Sorry sheer absurdity victor on your part

Brasidas wrote:And as seen your claim is complete bollocks:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_cipher


You do realise that thy only needed two words to crack the enigma machines through intercepted messages?

Your claim to nothing being able to be unbroken can in time as everything can be, yes keys are needed and keys can be found, if not everyone would be using as you clam and nothing would be broken.
Sorry sheer absurdity victor on your part

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography

There exist information-theoretically secure schemes that provably cannot be broken even with unlimited computing power—an example is the one-time pad—but these schemes are more difficult to implement than the best theoretically breakable but computationally secure mechanisms.

which proves that YOU are only after an argument of semantics

Another Angle
If Our gov't wants to save money (they keep cutting health etc)
Why waste a fortune on something that has no significant value to the security?
So forget the freedom Argument it is economics. huge costs for no gains.

OR anther angle
IF we are trying to stop terrorist attacks Shouldn't we be trying to restrict something that Has Actually been used by Terrorists, because so far there is no evidence that terrorist use any encryption algorithms that cannot be cracked by the USA (they are the producers of the vast majority this hold the 'master key')
If we take 9/11 the terrorists used planes so we surrender some freedom around air travel, makes sense there is a definite connection there.
If we look at the Sydney Siege and Paris Massacre well they used guns, as of yet no one has died due to an encrypted file being used by terrorists.


BUT ULTIMATELY
you just showed how little you understand about encoding information. encryption is process preformed on electronic data it is literally shifting 0 and 1 to that the standard application can no make head or tales of it. if you have the Algorithm for the encryption and the 0 and 1 go back to the correct location and the application can open and read it. A completely technological solution for technological problem.

Enciphering can be used across any communications medium it is a process of the human mind. No maths genius could crack what Darknesss put up because it had nothing to do with maths they were just reference numbers. without knowing what books he is referencing were would you even start
Another example. say terrorists meet back 2012 they make arrangements to preform a terrorist attack, the plan involves sleeper cells. the sleeper cells are given the instruction (or possibly a few different sets) and told Read this particular(or even multiple) Blog everyday and if they ever see the term 'eating magnolias' in any context initiate the instructions(or magazine that the terrorists have secretly publishing access to, could just be when you receive a text or email) there could be multiple random phrases to look out for each ascribed to a different set of instructions.
SO How is blocking people sending nude pics to each other over SnapChat going to help prevent a future attack?


the notion that we by default should give away all our freedoms Flies in the Face of Western Ideals that men Far Smarter than You have Championed for Centuries. So YOUR the one saying Forget EVERYTHING OUR SOCIETIES have stood for, So You Present a good reason why...your the one that proposes we change.. WHY? not that much to ask that you give us a reason Why? you prose we abandon great minds like Orwell{more relevant today that ever as now it isn't science fiction} and Franklin, So How have you shown their logic and reasoning to be SO Faulty we should do the opposite? Cause so far you haven't nor has Cameron Or any other Pollie.

Why should we make a Major fundamental Change to our Ideals, Laws and Morality? Please Tell my Why we should throw away protections from oppression? IS Oppression not possible any more? Has mankind evolved to the point were we no longer act in our individual interests? or is it because your scared of the Statically minuscule affect of terrorists... THAT is a reason to tell you to STFU, stop surrendering to terrorists and grow a pair

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:And as seen your claim is complete bollocks:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_cipher


You do realise that thy only needed two words to crack the enigma machines through intercepted messages?

Your claim to nothing being able to be unbroken can in time as everything can be, yes keys are needed and keys can be found, if not everyone would be using as you clam and nothing would be broken.
Sorry sheer absurdity victor on your part

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography

There exist information-theoretically secure schemes that provably cannot be broken even with unlimited computing power—an example is the one-time pad—but these schemes are more difficult to implement than the best theoretically breakable but computationally secure mechanisms.

which proves that YOU are only after an argument of semantics

theoretically, thank you, so not unbreakable as it has not been achieved.
Which again does not mean someone can not also devise past this also.

Brasidas wrote:And as seen your claim is complete bollocks:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_cipher


You do realise that thy only needed two words to crack the enigma machines through intercepted messages?

Your claim to nothing being able to be unbroken can in time as everything can be, yes keys are needed and keys can be found, if not everyone would be using as you clam and nothing would be broken.
Sorry sheer absurdity victor on your part

Cipher is not the SAME in any way to Encipher they are very different almost opposite ways of encoding information ( I have a degree in Information Systems, since you seem to think a history degree means so much )

and the Enigma machine was a process of mechanic encryption not Enciphering

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:And as seen your claim is complete bollocks:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_cipher


You do realise that thy only needed two words to crack the enigma machines through intercepted messages?

Your claim to nothing being able to be unbroken can in time as everything can be, yes keys are needed and keys can be found, if not everyone would be using as you clam and nothing would be broken.
Sorry sheer absurdity victor on your part

Cipher is not the SAME in any way to Encipher  they are very different almost opposite ways of encoding information ( I have a degree in Information Systems, since you seem to think a history degree means so much )

and the Enigma machine was a process of mechanic encryption not Enciphering

They were based of key words and letters, and it took in the end just two words to diciper a machine that had countless denominations.
So again theory is great, but you have to show something is unbreakable and where there is a key, they can be.

Still what is worse here is the argument you are both using is moot, because nobody has so far achieved what you claim, to then use this as a means to deny the ability to track terrorism.

That has to be the most backhanded argument to date, again trying a loop hole to get around people hiding something which never once answered why people should need a reason to hide anything, because again what have people to hide.

Nice attempt at deflecting round this I must say and was for a minute nearly bought by it.