Cyclone Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Show me where I used the words "oppressive restrictions" then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anfisa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Show me where I used the words "oppressive restrictions" then? Look up the definition of Liberty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Oxford English Dictionary being the definite source I assume http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/107898?rskey=xxKxWj&result=1#eid I. The state or condition of being free. IMO that includes the freedom to have private communication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anfisa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Oxford English Dictionary being the definite source I assume http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/107898?rskey=xxKxWj&result=1#eid IMO that includes the freedom to have private communication. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/liberty The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s behaviour or political views: The state of not being imprisoned or enslaved: In my opinion that is not what is meant by free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilldig Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 How will my liberty be lost by giving Britain’s intelligence agencies the legal power to break into the encrypted communications of suspected terrorists? You may not mind having your private mail read, but I would,and every week we hear about another terrorist plot foiled, so they don,t need to do it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anfisa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 You may not mind having your private mail read, but I would,and every week we hear about another terrorist plot foiled, so they don,t need to do it either. I do not mind my luggage being checked at an airport, some people do mind for obvious reasons, but that does not negate the necessity to check peoples luggage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I don't mind my luggage being checked either, that's a measure commensurate with the threat, and it's entirely avoidable by not flying. It's entirely different to denying citizens the right to private communication, which sounds more like a policy that China or North Korea would introduce. There is no necessity to monitor all private communications, it is not a measure commensurate with the threat, it's also massively open to abuse and there is no evidence that it would actually help to stop any crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I seriously doubt that this is true. It's also the case that the end result of your banking transaction is clearly known about by the bank, and could be supplied immediately under warrant. I didn't it word it well.... If someone were to tap the fibre to someones house from the street cabinet, which is trivially easy then they wouldn't be able to see the transactions, all they would get would be a secure stream of TLS encrypted data. Of course each endpoint is in the clear (well the banks end isn't entirely - all data at rest must be enrcypted as per PCI). But if Cameron wants all communications to be unencrypted, someone would just be able to read the datastream at the cabinet... thats the issue. It wont happen of course but Cameron should know that and shouldnt be going for the daft soundbites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 He never said that all communication should be in the clear. The proposal is to make it a legal requirement for service providers to have and keep a copy of the encryption key. Currently services such as whatsapp set up a key directly from client to client, the server and provider never have a copy of that key and so can't, even under warrant, decrypt the communication. It weakens the system though, if whatsapp have to keep a copy of the key, then hackers can get the key, and then hackers can get your communications. It's much more secure if only the clients ever have the key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I do not mind my luggage being checked at an airport, some people do mind for obvious reasons, but that does not negate the necessity to check peoples luggage. In what way is checking someone's physical baggage at the airport the same as having all your secure communications/shopping/banking/messaging intercepted? Please explain. If you want this then go and live somewhere like China or North Korea. Then when you disappear because you might have written something vaguely anti-government in an email to your mate as a joke you can come back and tell us it was all worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now