UK Government Using Manchester Attacks As An Excuse To Kill Encryption
from the say-what-now? dept
It’s no secret that there are those in the current UK government who are just itching to kill encryption. Earlier this year, Home Secretary Amber Rudd made some profoundly ill-informed comments about how encryption on the internet was “completely unacceptable” and saying that they needed to stop companies from providing end-to-end encryption. And, in the recently leaked Tory Manifesto, it was made clear that the current government sees breaking encryption as a priority:
In addition, we do not believe that there should be a safe space for terrorists to be able to communicate online and will work to prevent them from having this capability.
As has been explained time and time again, the only way you prevent bad guys from having encryption is by preventing everyone from having effective encryption… and that makes everyone significantly less safe. Seriously, the only way to do this is to put dangerous vulnerabilities into encryption that will certainly be hacked fairly quickly. This doesn’t make people safer. It makes them less safe.
But, of course, like so many politicians these days (of all major parties) it appears that the Conservative Party in the UK can’t let a good tragedy go to waste. The Independent is reporting that, because of the attack in Manchester this week, the party is ramping up its plans to outlaw encrypted communications:
Government officials appear to have briefed newspapers that they will put many of the most invasive parts of the relatively new Investigatory Powers Act into effect after the bombing at Manchester Arena.
The specific powers being discussed ? named Technical Capability Orders ? require big technology and internet companies to break their own security so that messages can be read by intelligence agencies.
Again, in case you’re just joining us, requiring that internet companies “break their own security so that messages can be read by intelligence agencies” is the nice way of saying “kill real encryption.” It means that these companies will be deliberately forced to leave vulnerabilities in encryption that will be a goldmine for hackers of all kinds, from foreign surveillance to online criminals.
And, so far, there is zero evidence that the Manchester attack had anything to do with encryption. And, even if it did, so what? If the UK forced companies to break encryption, people planning terrorist attacks would just switch to other encryption products that don’t have corporate entities in the UK. Or they’d come up with other ways to communicate. It will do basically nothing to stop terrorist attacks, but will instead make it much, much easier for all sorts of people with nefarious intent to hack into the private communications of everyone.
Filed Under: amber rudd, encryption, manchester, privacy, security, theresa may, uk
Comments on “UK Government Using Manchester Attacks As An Excuse To Kill Encryption”
Then they’re going to tear up the streets the terrorists travel on, and the pipes through which the terrorists get their tap water.
Break Security, Open the Banks
When they get Internet companies to break their security, I hope the first bank accounts to be plundered and huge unsecured loans take out in their names, will be theirs.
Hmm, while we are at it, what else would these scumbags find devastating? Maybe uploading some porn to their inboxes? Logins would be irrelevant after security is broken. How about some messages they won’t like sent in their names?
Re: Break Security, Open the Banks
Better idea, let’s take it to the logical extreme: No encryption at all. Everything sent is in plain text.
Let’s see how long those banker’s / politicians / etc. feel their online transactions are safe after that one….
Or, you know, they could have just investigated the guy when HIS OWN FRIENDS CALLED AUTHORITIES AND SAID “YO, INVESTIGATE THIS GUY!”
But why let a tragedy go unused in advancing your political agenda?
Re: Actually Effective Response...
Seems to me that if his friends are concerned enough to call the authorities about him….and the authorities seem to want to let a tragedy happen, as here…..
Maybe it’s time we figured out how to help those friends, and future friends in the same situation take effective, more local action?
Re: Re:
His own family also contacted authorities about it. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly! It’s a disgrace that worldwide, instead of targetting the CAUSE of extremism – false religion – they are working other ways around it due to the power that these organisations hold. Some may challenge this claim of false religion, but let’s look.
If the churches taught the truth about revenge and God’s kingdom, we wouldn’t have had a first and second world war.
If the churches had taught the truth AND PRACTICED what the Bible teaches, there would be no sexual immorality.
If the churches had taught what the Bible taught there would be no Islam claiming that the Christian is told to go to war.
If the churches had taught what the Bible taught, there would have been no Troubles in Ireland and England.
If the churches had taught what the Bible taught, there would have been no innocent people killed in the so-called “crusades”, nor any clergy putting Christs crown on themselves without any authority from God.
As for Islamic extremism, the most common Qur’an in circulation in the English language at present is the Noble Qur’an, which is an extremist version. It clearly states that Muslims must make weapons against their enemy who they know, and those who they don’t know (therefore, every person who is a non-muslim, and also anyone who does not fit THEIR interpretation of what a muslim is), and this includes making tanks, planes, artillery and missiles (Surah8:60) I’m pretty sure that in Muhammad’s day, they had no planes and tanks, so based on that, I’m considering that missiles and artillery also mean modern warfare. Yet what does the western nations involve themselves in? Selling $120 Billion worth of weapons to an Islamic nation (the same one who approves this Qur’an version), in the hope that they will betray their “muslim” brothers in Iran, in a so-called farce of a war against “terrorism”, and then prevents privacy under the guise of protecting against it. Great reasoning. On top of this, the authorities are well aware of this Qur’an, but do nothing about it. Why not? Could it possibly be their hunger for oil? Why not ban this extreme version of the Qur’an, and consider those who wrote it as terrorists, as well as those who support it? It’s called an alliance. They are ridden by other “kings of the world”, which is mainly the prostitute that claims to be God’s representative, but in reality is an immoral entity which has only its own interests at heart. That’s why not. It will happen though shortly, thank God!
I hope a good samaritan immediately leaks the encryption master key to the world when the government does this, thus proving that their ideology is fundamentally wrong and has the opposite intended effect.
“People with nefarious intent” unfortunately includes a lot of folks in government, and in very high places at that.
Bottom line: they don’t care if everyone else gets screwed; and why? “Fuck you, that’s why!”
It seems like their goal is to throw away the baby while keeping as much bathwater as possible.
Re: Re:
Well come on now, babies are such filthy things. How you expect to have clean bath water if you keep putting those dirty babies in it?
Re: Re:
They don’t care much about the babies after they are born
Typical Government rhetoric
In order for us to protect you, you should not even have the option for privacy.
Go ahead losers, keep asking government to save you, the only end outcome is your servitude.
Every Nation gets the government it deserves.
Re: Typical Government rhetoric
I certainly don’t want the government to protect me, they have proven time and time again how shitty they are at protecting things.
I much prefer the government to get out of the way and let me live my life how I choose. Along with that is dropping this stupid push to take away my ability to protect myself. My guns pose zero danger to anyone unless that person is a danger to me.
Re: Re: Typical Government rhetoric
Also a fine example of this point. The world is going crazy, a terrorist killed 22 people. Meanwhile I see this headline:
“U.S. Airstrike Killed Over 100 Civilians in Mosul”
Well hmmm, wonder why we keep having so many evil terrorist who want to come over here and kill us? Maybe if we focused more on helping people, building schools and hospitals, then fewer people would want to kill us. That is just total crazy talk though, helping people isn’t near as cool as bombing the shit out of them.
Re: Re: Re: Typical Government rhetoric
There are two problems with that area.
1. The religion is really not very peaceful, they fight among themselves, and thankfully they will keep at it lest they stop and realize that by joining forces they could wipe out others they “supposedly” hate more.
2. The involvement of the Multiple governments especially the USA just as you said killing people. America has been busy creating enemies under the guise of defending themselves.
People really underestimate the wisdom of “your greatest enemy is yourself”. Governments are not immune because they are composed to people.
I watch as politicians, religious people, and various walks of life sabotage their own messages and intentions in fits of anger, stupidity, and sycophancy to their “causes”.
“A person often meets his destiny on the road he took to avoid it.” – Jean de La Fontaine
Re: Re: Re:2 Typical Government rhetoric
Re: Re: Re:3 Typical Government rhetoric
Obviously you do NOT understand the difference between Fascism and Islam. Nor do you seem to have any idea of the basic tenets of Islam.
Moslems are not Fascists.
Re: Re: Re:4 Typical Government rhetoric
Looks like you completely failed to read my post.
No Islam and Fascism are not the same. They are not comparable things and I don’t say that they are.
However:
– Muslims (at least people believing or claiming to be muslim) can be fascists.
– And fascists can claim to be muslims (as long as they have a complete failure to understand Islam).
The people who do these things are terrorists. They don’t really need any other label. The reason they do the things they do isn’t because their religion tells them to, but because an ideology that is essentially fascist does.
They want Islam to be defined as they want it defined. They don’t want the modern religion that it is. And they blame the West for it not being what they want.
Re: Re: Re:5 Typical Government rhetoric
You do not seem to understand what a Fascist is?
You claimed that the Moslem was a Fascist – go read your own post.
You still claim it above.
Good Moslems abide by the Tenets of Islam as defined in the Quran and the Haddith. By the standards of Islam, the only terrorists are the non-believers and they need to be converted to Islam or if unwilling to do so be eliminated by any means appropriate.
It is the simplest thing to become a Moslem.
Re: Re: Re:6 Typical Government rhetoric
It’s a bit OT, but I have to speak up. I don’t know whether you’re someone on the outside looking in, or fail to see history’s lesson about religion.
As a moslem myself, I have to say Dingledore is right on the money. It’s not easy to be a Moslem, or follower of any religion. Just follow the scripture and teachings you say. Scripture/teachings according to whom?
Those have been modified overtime according to the political climate. Even the Quran is politically motivated, having compiled (if not written) not during the prophet’s time but after his death, when the person can’t confirm nor deny anything to be included / discarded. I’ve read analysis by christian scholars which conclude the Bible is also the same.
In the islamic tradition that I follow, the 1st teaching is: “Read, in the name of your God,” which have a profound meaning: if you are to be a moslem, you have to be an intellect 1st. Read source material (that is, Quran in the original arabic form, translate it yourself according , or at least know, the historical linguistic & context of each word), compare it to every other source you can find, then decide for yourself. This stems from the 1st command the prophet receive from God (or it is said).
That’s one tradition. I know several others, like one which bans moslem from reading the Quran, or even directly touching it, cos the Quran is supposedly “holy”, and humans are filthy.
Another example, regarding polygamy. One tradition says you can have up to 4 wives, another says 9. Why? Cos it’s said that “one could have 1, or 2, or 3, or 4 wives.” 4 wives version takes the largest, while the 9 version takes 2+3+4. The tradition I follow says if you going to have more than 1 wives, be sure to be ready for the hell it ensues. It stems from the rules to follow if one have more than 1 wives.
I also encounter another interpretation regarding to alms. It is said that “give alms, cos it is the right of the poor to receive it”. I’ve met someone which interpret it as “if you encounter one of the have, and he/she doesn’t give alms, then it is your right to separate him/her from their earthly belongings as they’re not thankful/worthy of it.”
So you see, there are many “tradition” of islam, each have their own interpretation of the scripture and teachings. Which are the “true” tradition? No one knows. Maybe none of it.
It is easy to be a Moslem in the sense that you choose what tradition match your preconceived ideas. This is what happen all the time, and according to my observation, more pronounced in the last 20yrs.
Re: Re: Re:7 Typical Government rhetoric
If you are so unsure, why are you therefore claiming to be a Moslem? Without some sort of surety, what’s the point? Unless, you fear for your own life if you give up being a Moslem?
Re: Re: Re:8 Typical Government rhetoric
“If you are so unsure, why are you therefore claiming to be a Moslem?”
Just because I’m not 100% sure my toilet will flush, doesn’t mean I don’t give the handle a go. Regardless of religion or evolution or where your beliefs stand; Doubting is healthy. If we were not meant to doubt, then we wouldn’t have free will. It’s the overcoming of that doubt that defines us, be it religion, or science.
I’ve never actually thought of it this way, but perhaps that is where science and religion meet. It’s not in the facts or lack there of, but on the journey to find these facts that they converge.
Re: Re: Re:8 Typical Government rhetoric
Re: Re: Re:8 Typical Government rhetoric
It’s that determination for surety that leads to radicalisation. If you’re sure you’re right then it’s almost certain that there are others who are wrong. To study a text without the presumption of the fallibility of your interpretation is the best way to not learn and grow from what are supposed to be teachings.
Re: Re: Re:7 Typical Government rhetoric
Interesting that “according to whom” comes up. This is the same reasoning that many allow false teachings within the guise of “christianity”, when in fact, they are betraying Christ by their actions. Read your Qur’an, and then do as it says, and read the Bible. Then you will know if the Qur’an confirms it, and you will also know whether killing a non-believer is a “muslim” thing to do or not. You will also know then whether killing a person is a “christian” thing to do or not. According to whom? According to God, and according to his Christ should be the answer. Even the Qur’an only calls one man Al-Masih. That is Jesus. Read the Injil for yourself, and see how much of it translates over to Islam, or even to those who claim to be Christian, but their actions seem strange to you.
Re: Re: Re:3 Typical Government rhetoric
To an extent you are right, about an extremely small group. Still, this is based on what is taught to give that statement.
For instance, both church leaders AND Islamic ones claim the Bible justifies a Christian being involved in war. Yet the Bible says nothing of the sort. The problem is people being too lazy to read it for themselves, but instead having many opinions based on so-called “experts”, and instead of questioning things that seem to contradict, they don’t. Still, the Bible doesn’t claim any of this, as much as it doesn’t allow for immorality, but it is rampant in the world, even among so-called “christian” nations (there is no such thing as a nation being “christian”, as most wear the name like a football team jersey only, with no knowledge of what it means).
Islam on the other hand plainly states that they are to spread fear and terror into the enemy. Who is the enemy? It is anyone who is a non-believer in “Allah” (means “the God”, but yet people continue to say it is a name, when it is a title, as well as being a god PRIOR to Islam, meaning it isn’t the God of the Bible, as that God made his name known thousands of times), as well as any who claim to be muslims but are of a different teaching to themselves, whoever themselves claim to be. Also, it claims to confirm the Bible.
So just like false “christian” religion which COULD be compared and evaluated on its own teachings, the Qur’an of Islam can be too. It won’t though, as people aren’t interested in truth, but more so in what is in it for them. For instance, Islam claims Muhammad was sinless, yet twice in the Qur’an, God had to forgive him. Why would God need to forgive someone who didn’t sin? Blind faith.
That being said, that is why it isn’t TRUE religion that is at fault, but FALSE religion. As for no religion, that is in itself FALSE religion, as there is still no proof that life came from no life, apart from circular reasoning that “It just did, because here I am”. Scientific method on the other hand proves that life comes only from l ife. Hence, God. It is necessary to know the religion to see if it meets its own standards or not. If they stopped lying, things would be clear, but they won’t, as they are false.
Re: Typical Government rhetoric
Every government deserves the nation it gets
And there is the problem of travllers to Britain having encryption on their computers back home.
When I go to Canada or Mexico on road trips, I always connect to my home computer, using the VPN server on my computer to protect my data from NSA and CIA spooks who usually monitor all international connections. All the CIA and NSA will see is that I am making an encrypted connection to my computer in my home.
If I ever travel to Britain I will do that to protect my data from the British government. All they will know is that I am connecting to my computer back home in America. It also let me evade Teresa May’s planned censorship.
Re: Re:
And then, using their new ban on encryption, they will arrest you for possession of the banned encryption.
Re: Re: Re:
The wont ban VPN. Otherwise, business travellers will not come to the UK.
Re: Re: Re:
I have a USB adapter with a built-in 10 watt linear amplifier which could hit hotspots quite a ways away, so they would never know it was me. Just make sure to stay in the topmost floors of the hotel to be high enough up to hit an unsecured hotspot several miles way. They will never be able to prove it is me.
So much for the UK being a tech player
No tech company in their right mind would want to have a company in the UK if they implement this… Have fun going back to MSN Messenger and MySpace guys… You won’t have any modern apps after those morons get done shooting themselves in the foot.
Re: So much for the UK being a tech player
“All consumer applications must now use WWII era enigma machines for all encryption needs. We foresee no problems with this plan.”
Re: So much for the UK being a tech player
If neither the company, nor the servers, are in the UK, it is not subject to British laws.
What could go wrong… It’s not like it could EVER be leaked onto the internet and out in the open for ANYONE to use.
Looks the other way….
“Government officials appear to have briefed newspapers that they will put many of the most invasive parts of the relatively new Investigatory Powers Act into effect after the bombing at Manchester Arena.”
Seems that furthering one’s agenda on the backs of victims is SOP, and when they get itchy fingers I suppose some of them would do what they can to ensure it happens sooner than later – almost as if they were behind it in the first place.
Make those who feel somewhat alienated by society feel as though they cannot talk online will make it easier for those who use such people find more ‘vixctoms to talk into blowiong themselves up.
Not everything gets leaked ...
Just as a matter of accuracy, which makes no difference to the gist of the story of yet another group of idiot politicians making policy on subjects they are too ignorant to understand, but it was Labour’s manifesto that leaked, the Tories published theirs normally (unless I missed something and I’ve been trying to miss most of it!)
Idea....
All these bastards that want to kill encryption should have their credit card #/Exp/CVV, SSN, passwords and everything else they might want to keep “secret” tattooed on their foreheads, arms and anywhere else visible on their body. All information should be plastered onto their vehicles. All their business cards. Required on all emails (HA, if they use email). If a staffer does it for them, all info should be included anyway. All websites they are listed on should have this information as well.
Maybe, just MAYBE then they’ll understand why encryption is important.
Then again, I may be asking too much. P2PE is important to commerce today. If they want to get rid of it, they need to agree to the above terms and live like that for a year to see how it affects them.
We can only hope. These ignorant bastards in government today are going to be the death of the world. They scare me more than any “terrorist”.
You know, noxious as this sort of thing is, you shouldn’t be trusting a third party to encrypt your data for you in the first place. Forcing those third parties to break their security won’t "kill real encryption", because "real encryption" is done end to end without trusting them in the first place.
Re: Re:
Right, your web browser, when using TLS, performs end-to-end encryption.
So all online retailers/banks in the UK will have to do something like this:
1. Disable Perfect Forward Secrecy ciphers ( ECDHE / DHE )
2. Give UK government the web server’s private key
This should be fun!
You could protect yourself from this by disabling all ciphers except the ones using ECHDE/DHE in your browser/OS. You just won’t be able to connect to sites that can have their communications more easily decrypted.
Re: Re:
The easiest way to implement that would be just to log the session keys, rather than handing over the private key. That works even with PFS.
But an even easier way is just to hand over the plaintext, which is what a bank would do.
I predict that it will be extremely rare, if it ever happens at all, for there to be any demand for anybody to decrypt something ephemeral like TLS. What these guys are really interested in is logged text messages, email, files in cloud storage, contents of phones, and the like. They don’t want to grovel through your HTTP traffic. They want your personal papers served up on a silver platter.
I foresee a whole line up of big tech companies shutting down their UK presence and setting up in some banana republic so that they don’t have to comply with this legislated nonsense…I hope
Will the encryption ban apply to online banking?
Re: online banking
Yes, of course, it will allow them to end those worrisome budget deficits. /sarcasm
Re: Re:
I can’t see it happening. Amber Rudd is flip-flopping between stopping ISIS attacks (this weeks crisis) and preventing NHS cyber-attacks (last weeks crisis). The last thing she’ll want is to be fingered for next weeks crisis.
So to summarize: UK Government is preparing to steal everyone’s money
why else would they want to do away with encryption.
Problem is, when bank accounts get hacked, the UK govt wont take responsibility. When people and companies are ruined, it wont take responsibilty. This is the problem when so many in a govt act like Hitler but even worse when the aim is to know everything about everyone else and any terrorists caught are just a bonus! This is all thanks to the spying started by the NSA!
How is the attack related to encryption and the Internet?
Re: Re:
It’s not in any way, shape or form.
However, there does appear to be plenty of evidence that the government’s own policies (such as reduced police manpower) helped make an attack that should have been easily preventable possible.
This government both cannot admit that it was wrong, nor can it pass up an opportunity use a tragedy to push through a half-assed unworkable agenda and attack obvious scapegoats. SOP for the Tories.
“As has been explained time and time again, the only way you prevent bad guys from having encryption is by preventing everyone from having effective encryption…”
Actually, there is no way to prevent everybody from having encryption, because people can develop encryption without permission from the government. The most the government can do is prevent lawful citizens from using encryption. That means that lawful citizens will be vulnerable to criminals (and to governments), but criminals will not be vulnerable to anyone.
Technically it also means the government will be vulnerable, except I’ll bet you a nickle they’ll either carve out exceptions for themselves or will only enforce the laws selectively.* People never make laws to stop themselves from doing things, they only make laws to stop other people from doing things.
*Or perhaps they won’t care. The government has a pretty piss poor track record on security.
And another problem to add to the pile:
Wouldn’t this paint a moon sized target for everyone with enough money, to aim for? I mean there will have to be some sort of program or shared key in order for them to keep track of it all. This would mean that suddenly every key is gathered in one place and probably with way to many people who have access.
That is extremely dangerous because what country/agency/rich person wouldn’t offer a billion dollars for something so priceless? Or spend a lot of money on blackmail and coercion of the people with access.
We all know what happens after a while: The data is suddenly extremely important for more and more agencies, and in the end, of course local law enforcement need it too, because you wouldn’t want your child to be raped by all those pedophiles, would you?
The entire event and its aftermath leave a bad taste in one's
mouth. When I first heard of the event happening, I waited for those who would claim responsibility. Strange – there was nothing. Some time later we hear that ISIS is claiming responsibility and that terrorists have done the act.
Still, there is something wrong. Nothing was making sense and now this intervention into security related matters by the British Government. Something really fishy going on here.
One could well imagine that the GCHQ and MI6, etc being the instigators of this under the auspices of the Prime Minister of Britain. It would not surprise me at all if this whole affair was initiated at Number 10 Downing Street for the sole purpose of fully implementing their legislation.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that England is a land of no freedoms and little or no privacy, except what you take for yourselves. Once Her Majesty dies, we can expect everything to get worse. Her grandson (who will be the next King) doesn’t yet have the necessary backbone to handle HM government.
It beginning to sound like another 'Riechstag Fire'.
They may not have been planned for it to happen, but it sounds like they planned not to stop if did, and use the publicity to get their way.
What needs to happen is the “tech companies” break the Governments encryption, and then let the hackers tear em a new one by down loading all their secret data and sharing it with the world. Then the Companies can say “You wanted no encryption, you wanted broken encryption, you got it, now deal with it”.
Encryption is a cancer on socitey
This is the Central Scrutinizer. It is my responsibility to collect all your passwords and data.
To that end, from June 9 2017 we are outlawing mathematics, err encryption. Encryption is a cancer on society that allows people to have private conversations and messages via the Interwebz that the government cannot listen to. It also allows people to do their online banking in total privacy! This is clearly unacceptable.
From June 9, we are rolling out a worldwide system to counter mathematics, err encryption. We are starting small, with a rollout on a little island off the west coast of Europe. Theresa, the Supreme Leader of this island, is terrific, she really is. She has already shown the right fascist tendencies and we are very excited to be helping her implement our new system of surveillance, err safety.
Our staff from Central Services will be visiting every home and business in order to register all your computing devices in our Central Database. They will also be installing black boxes on all your devices in order to ensure that you can’t use encryption. They only weigh a couple of kilograms each and are therefore barely noticeable. These tamper proof boxes are terrific too, they really are. Theresa came up with the idea and so, in her honour, we’ve christened them Theresa’s Boxes. Now all your communications will be routed through Theresa’s Boxes. Rental only costs a few dollars per month per device.
From June 9, anyone caught using mathematics, err encryption, will be sent to our correctional facility north of the Arctic Circle, where they will be re-educated, using the Central Re-adjustment of Attitude Program, or CRAP. It is not known at this point how long this CRAP might take to work, but we suspect it won’t be a brief stay at the facility. Dress warmly.
We will keep you informed of any updates to this new system via Central Television.
A world without encryption.
You’ll love it……it’s a way of life.
Re: Encryption is a cancer on socitey
It really is a strange world we live in. I assume the “tamper proof boxes” will all include an IED, because if you try to open the box you have self-identified as a terrorist, and it saves the government a lot of time and money to just execute you immediately. On the other hand, every functional explosive device (even nuclear bombs) have some random likelihood of spontaneously exploding, but the government assures that rate will be no higher than 0.001% per century. Or maybe 1% year, something like that anyway.
I liked the story (from the Central Scrutinizer) as a nice piece of sarcastic and critical fiction, meant to be enjoyed. The other posts, which speak to a very real event, miss a very important point (IMHO). People are dying, little girls are dying, in this case. Personally, I think we should all suspend our critique of everyone except the terrorists that are perpetrating these acts.
I think it disgusting that anyone would post, as they did above, that there is ANY justification for these terror attacks. There is not. Making the terrorists look like victims means you are on the wrong side of this battle, IMHO. There is no “guilty past” that is a legitimate justification in this attack on innocent civilians. Take the side of the terrorists is a mistake. Excusing their murderous barbarism is a mistake. Plain and simple.
Re: Re: Encryption is a cancer on socitey
“Personally, I think we should all suspend our critique of everyone except the terrorists that are perpetrating these acts. “
Bullshit. There’s more than enough blame to go around. The failure of the police to investigate the people responsible before the attack happened and the government policies that led to that happening are top of the list. If someone manages to rob your office because the security guard was asleep on the job, you don’t give the guard a free pass just because the burglar was the one committing the robbery. You blame both and hold each responsible for their actions.
“Making the terrorists look like victims”
Who the hell is doing this? Quote, please, or I assume it’s your own sick little piece of fiction.
“There is no “guilty past” that is a legitimate justification in this attack on innocent civilians.”
Legitimate justification? No. Inevitable reaction to decades of meddling that’s led to unintended consequences, facts that we should know well in order to understand and defeat our enemy using tactics that actually work? Yes. I’m sorry if addressing the reality of how those people think is not as comfortable to you as the fictions being perpetrated by the tabloids, but reality is where we live.
Re: Re: Re: Encryption is a cancer on socitey
It’s a harsh truth for anyone of Anglo-American extract but virtually all the turmoil in the Middle East is the result of UK/USA presumption of authority over the region that started over a century ago, featuring such luminaries as Brzezinski, Landsdowne, both Bushes, Dulles… Their involvement in the Middle East isn’t just policy, it’s doctrine. I’m astonished the Arabs (or indeed the world for that matter) has been so patient and tolerant.
Oh, can’t help but point out that burglars burgle, robbers rob. Sorry.
“Well hmmm, wonder why we keep having so many evil terrorist who want to come over here and kill us? Maybe if we focused more on helping people, building schools and hospitals, then fewer people would want to kill us” (from above)
This is the kind of worthless comment that you and your kind are defending.
The blame lies with the terrorists, and those who legitimize their actions, just as you do and as the commenter above did.
You are on the wrong side of history, and your use of profanity just reinforces your ignorance. Real men want to protect their women and children from brutal slaughter, even at their personal expense. That would be the normal reaction to public slaughter of innocent citizens. Your reaction, to ask me to repeat the obvious, puts you in a different category altogether. What are you, anyway?
Re: Re:
Re: Re:
Were you replying to me? I’ll assume you were, though your inability to use the reply button matches your inability to address reality.
Anyway, nobody’s saying to address the root causes of extremism instead of punishing those responsible. We can do both quite easily. We can punish those responsible while we address the things that made it happen. Why do you think that it’s impossible to do both?
Either way, it’s telling that you think a call to curb terrorism through education, building communities and improving relations across the world is some kind of immoral action, while killing more people in blind revenge is correct. I prefer the actions proven to work, thanks. The IRA was stopped by peaceful activity, not by escalating attacks against them. We tried the latter first, it gather further support for them.
“That would be the normal reaction to public slaughter of innocent citizens.”
Whereas the kind of military action you people support does what? Innocent children also die in raids against terrorists. Do you think the people affected by those throw their hands up and say “well, that showed us let’s stop”. Or, do you think those actions get picked up as propaganda to use to recruit more terrorists, while the families of those murdered swear revenge?
“What are you, anyway?”
An intelligent human being who prefers pragmatic, workable solutions to complex problems rather than sating bloodlust with an act of vengeance that makes the overall problems worse. I’m sorry if that’s somehow offensive to you, but I prefer my way and history shows it to be correct.
Re: Re: Re:
Come on, PaulT, despite your masculine name, you’re a lady, right? You sound like a lady, you reason like a lady, and you seem to not be able to understand bloodlust at all. Men usually feel bloodlust when confronted with images of slaughtered little girls, just watch the news. It is hard for many people to contain their strong emotions (male news people and politicians), which could well be called bloodlust. But that’s a man’s feeling. In this case, I (for one) believe it absolutely worth acting upon. Bloodlust for those who have slaughtered our children and certainly plan to slaughter more. I’m there. How about you?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For example, put me or any other actual man on a jury, show us the pictures of the little girls, convince us that the accused helped produce that outcome (directly), and we will vote to put the accused to death. Certainly. Bloodlust, right? Normal feeling in this situation for the male species.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, I say we should back actions that work, don’t end up making things worse and destroying the lives of further innocents, and you respond with an attack on my sexuality/gender (does your country not have women in its armed forces, or do you just consider them inferior to the men you salivate over?). Sorry, I’m not an insecure caveman and I control my urges long enough to do the right thing.
So, which target would you like to pick to attack in revenge for an action taken by the British-born son of Libyan refugees? Will any random Muslim do, just carpet bomb a few random countries or are you going to target specific individuals? If anything other than targeted strikes against known individuals is chosen, it’s strange that your response to the death of innocents would be to do things that will likely end up with innocent casualties, but such is the animal brain of the neanderthal.
Then, once you’ve finished masturbating over the corpses, are you just going to wait for the next attack? You know, since you’ve just actively refused to do anything positive to fix the issues that caused the last one – and thus guarantee an escalation in violence, not a reduction?
To give a recent example – in response to 9/11, people like me said don’t invade Iraq, people like you couldn’t stop your excitement at seeing more blood. The result was more American deaths in Iraq than occurred on 9/11, thousands more innocent deaths among the local population and destabilisation that led to, among other things, the rise of ISIS – who did not exist before the invasion.
I would have preferred to live in the world not created by unthinking animals such as yourself, but alas I’m stuck in the same reality with you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
PaulT, it’s OK to be a lady. The world needs ladies. Most ladies appreciate men that protect them and their children. Your disgusting rant about nothing is pretty consistent across your thousands and thousands of posts. That’s fine. My original point was about men’s reaction to terrorism. That is, to focus on the actual problem (terrorists who want to kill us) and to try to support each other in either discouraging or killing them (one may reinforce the other). Focus on the problem. That’s a man thing. That’s my point. The rest of your crap is just noise and nonsense.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
PaulT, are you really Wendy Cockcroft? You sure sound like her, and you are absolutely not a man. Your particular foul-mouthed vocabulary seems to reinforce exactly what other people said about Wendy Cockcroft. For example:
“Ms Cockcroft suddenly became very angry and threatened to ruin my business before it started. She said that she was in with a very influential group of people on a technical blog who would write about me and many other people would comment. She said this would mean that my reputation would be ruined and it would remain at the tip of Google. Wendy Cockcroft refused to refund my money, refused to re-do the work and threatened to destroy my business and personal reputation before it even started.”
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/wendy-cockcroft-web-design-wendy-cockcroft-interservecom/internet/wendy-cockcroft-web-design-wendy-cockcroft-interservecom-wendy-cockcroft-manchester-u-1280160
It sure would make sense if it were you, Wendy, disguised as PaulT. You would be following up on exactly the threat that Mr. Diaz accused you of.
Is that you, Wendy?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
No, the information in my profile is correct, including my location and job role, and I’m using a version of my real name. Your weird obsession and ability to create wild fantasies to avoid dealing with reality have been noted.
It also doesn’t make any logical sense to be trying to call someone out for using a fake name online when you yourself refuse to provide one at all. Even if you were correct, it would be totally irrelevant to the conversation at hand, but the hypocrisy is rather curious.
I’ll again refer you to a mental health professional before you go off the deep end in real life. The symptoms look very troubling from where I’m sitting. You’re clearly not a well person, even if the attempts at dick waving and misogyny are just for show.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Looks like the Hamiltonian has decided to jump on the Manchester attacks for no reason other than to use it as a despicable soapbox to trumpet his love for Shiva Ayyadurai.
Too bad for him, he couldn’t resist replying to himself and hurling accusations at random users. He’d give My_Name_Here a run for his money.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Well, to your point, each writer’s voice is rather unmistakable, isn’t it? Just as Wendy’s voice is unmistakable above. Just read her reply on ripoffreport, and then read the posts above. It’s the same voice.
As to your silly post, you are the only one bringing up the name of the man who has Michael Masnick in court. I never brought up his name. But I am planning to contribute to his political campaign, and would generally support him in his efforts to stop the growth of the Fake News TechDirt Defamation DataBase (TDD for short). So many foul-mouthed low character disgusting attacks on good people, like the future Senator. I would vote for TDD being erased, and I think other will, as well.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
You don’t need to bring him up; you simply ooze and drip with simpering admiration for the guy. That much was obvious when you first trundled upon the site to spam your nonsense on irrelevant topics ranging from John Steele to Blackbird. Funny how it took him to appear for you to start airing your grievances (which, to date, you still have no citation for – almost like you’re scared of proving this grievance actually exists).
Go ahead, run to your nearest police station and inform them that you want to act upon your bloodlust.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
I’m Wendy Cockcroft; Mr. Troll lacks reasoning skills. I’m not sure it’s Shiva, he blocked me for asking who else adopted EMAIL. It seems more likely that Mr. Troll is just trying to wind me up, is failing miserably, and is trying to start a flame war between myself and Shiva because he failed to get me fighting with a certain Australian lady. Repeating lies doesn’t make them true and my reputation is fine, thank you very much.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
http://vashiva.com/shiva-ayyadurais-speech-at-cape-cod-republican-club-annual-breakfast-meeting/#utm_source=SM&utm_medium=Event&utm_campaign=01On26May2017
Shiva looks like he is well on his way to a Senate seat. His standing ovation at the end of this talk is real. Take an honest listen to what he has to say, and then tell me what you think. I think he’s great (don’t prejudge, just listen)! Come on, Wendy, or PaulT, or whoever you are – open yourself up to a voice of reason and polished intellectual expression. You might learn something!
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
The rest of us have already tried your “voice of reason” and “polished intellectual expression”. It’s a joke, exemplified by the fact that you’re narcissistic enough to reply to yourself about theorizing the sexual identity of other users. Thanks for derailing the thread, would mock you again 10/10.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Actually, I was pointing out that man of the posters around here are actually posters, not posters. Same literary voice coming from women and men, I think that is deceptive. About Shiva, did you listen to him speak? He’s a great speaker. For all the disgusting things said about him on this very web site, which landed you in court, you should just take a look to understand your adversary. He is polite, well spoken, and support by “old money” in Massachusetts. I made sure of it. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Sorry, an extra “t” slipped out – many posters are actually posers.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
See that crowd that Shiva was speaking to, who spontaneously got up and applauded? That’s your future jury, applauding the $10M judgment again TechDirt and Michael Masnick. The truth is that people love him here.
You, no so much.
http://vashiva.com/shiva-ayyadurais-speech-at-cape-cod-republican-club-annual-breakfast-meeting/#utm _source=SM&utm_medium=Event&utm_campaign=01On26May2017
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
And just consider this, TechDirt Insiders. The link below shows Shiva’s insiders, even their humor. Compare that to TechDirt “Insiders”, who appear to be a group of foul-mouthed low character disgusting posers (at least some of the prominent ones). Take a look at Shiva’s Insiders. Listen to their shared message. Take a look at this website’s group of Insiders. Listen to their message. Who do we need more of who do we need less of?
http://vashiva.com/shiva-ayyadurais-speech-at-cape-cod-republican-club-annual-breakfast-meeting/#utm _source=SM&utm_medium=Event&utm_campaign=01On26May2017
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
You realize that members of a jury are picked to have no prior bias towards either the plaintiff or the defendant, right? Legal requirement and all that? So all this gleeful rubbing of your hands for the fact that Shiva Ayyadurai has fanboys doesn’t actually matter, because they’d never be on the jury.
But please continue to demonstrate your lack of legal understanding. Perhaps the judge should know that Shiva is supported by knuckle-dragging narcissists who demand for the repealing of legal terms such as “fair use” and “patent trolls”, on the grounds that they feel offended.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
I am not speaking to bias, I am speaking about what is obvious even to the casual observer. “Shiva is supported by knuckle-dragging narcissists” – are you kidding? Shiva is supported by a large cross section of successful and influential people, including myself. Watch the video, take a look. It won’t require bias for any jury to see the obvious. Idiot.
http://vashiva.com/shiva-ayyadurais-speech-at-cape-cod-republican-club-annual-breakfast-meeting/# utm
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
And yet as someone supposedly so well-funded and successful the idea of identifying yourself makes you have a panic attack.
The far likelier scenario is that you’re merely an insecure hack that needs to bully a website that had no significance until you decided to aim your ego at it.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
“Same literary voice coming from women and men, I think that is deceptive.”
The only deceptive part is the voice in your head telling you that there can’t be more than one person here telling you you’re an idiot. But, hey, you’ve successfully moved the conversation away from your psychotic bloodlust and refusal to take real steps to prevent future tragedy toward your own hallucinations and fan worship of a proven con man. So, well done, I guess?
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
If Shiva gets a Senate seat, that just means that Americans have appointed yet another moron to represent them. Someone who openly lies, cannot take criticism and attempts to ride his future on work he did decades ago rather than new positive ideas. Another litigious child who can’t take the fact that people can tell people when he’s lying.
No skin off my nose, you have a long history of doing such things, though I wish you’d elect people who both have your country’s best interests in mind over personal gain, and would at least insert some real ideas into politics over tired rhetoric.
.”open yourself up to a voice of reason “
Whenever you choose to present one, we may be open to his ideas. The guy who’s been trying to rob other people of their historical accomplishments just because he’s proud of a program he wrote as a child is not that.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“Just as Wendy’s voice is unmistakable above. Just read her reply on ripoffreport, and then read the posts above. It’s the same voice.”
In your head. Those medical practitioners I recommended will be able to prescribe something to clear up the hallucinations, though. I’m sure Wendy will find the whole thing amusing if she reads this, although possibly slightly disturbed that she’s picked up an online stalker along the way.
But, thanks for confirming that you are the same obsessive person who’s been trying to derail every intelligent discussion with his lies recently. It confirms that we’re at least only dealing with one mentally deranged individual rather than multiple people who’ve bought into the same fictions.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
I’m not bovvered, PaulT, though I am amused.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Focus on the problem”
I am, the problem being a host of sociological, political and religious issues that have led to the rise of extremist activity. This does indeed require focus, part of which is to look at the evidence and identify the actual issues rather than the nearest target to strike out at in anger.
You, on the other hand, seem to prefer ineffective kneejerk violence and a very, very strange obsession with my gender, as if that made any difference whatsoever. I’m sure the ladies of your armed forces would appreciate you denigrating them in a pathetic attempt to get a rise over someone on the internet, however.
I will note that people who have an unhealthy obsession with the “manhood” of another person are usually harbouring extremely unhealthy insecurities about themselves. So I will ask you to seek help, because you do have some deep-seated issues.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
What PaulT says. Heck, I caught National Review’s David French spouting Biblical sentiments while calling for vengeance. I live in Manchester; that’s not how we roll. Justice? Yes. Vengeance? Okay, how many innocents will balance the cosmic books? We in the West have slaughtered or enabled the slaughter of millions since the ill-advised adventures in Iraq and Afhghanistan began. Is that not enough vengeance to be getting on with?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Justifying the action of terrorists that mutilate and kill small girls and their parents is a mistake, if that is what you are trying to do. Justifying the evil and carnage that is being inflicted on innocent girls based on your warped interpretation of world and economic history is criminal, or should be. The right thing to do is to help stop the terrorists from killing more. That simple. Stop justifying their evil and despicable actions. You are wrong.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
NO ONE here is attempting to justify the actions of terrorists.
And I don’t know how you can possibly be getting the impression that anyone is.
Their simply pointing out blind vengeance is not the best method of preventing future terrorists attacks.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Precisely.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“Justifying the action of terrorists that mutilate and kill small girls and their parents is a mistake,”
Good thing nobody’s doing that, then. Correctly identifying the real motivations behind these people – whether they make sense to sane people or not – does not equal justification or approval.
Again, punish those responsible. But, you have to also take steps to prevent future tragedy, and you won’t do that by pretend they’re cartoon villains who will go away if we just drop enough bombs in the right places. As proven by history, that just creates more of them.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Yep.
well that’s a win for small technology and internet companies
hi from non uk nation
and every vulnerability found will be leaked as quick as possible and it wont take long ….trust me
And there is the problem of travllers to Britain having encryption on their computers back home.
“When I go to Canada or Mexico on road trips, I always connect to my home computer, using the VPN server on my computer to protect my data from NSA and CIA spooks who usually monitor all international connections. All the CIA and NSA will see is that I am making an encrypted connection to my computer in my home.
If I ever travel to Britain I will do that to protect my data from the British government. All they will know is that I am connecting to my computer back home in America. It also let me evade Teresa May’s planned censorship.”
and htey will arrest you for breaching there encryption law….and jail you until you unencrypt and pay a fine prolly.
ID use a friendly govt like canada to stand up and fight for my privacy rights but…..look at the spying trudeaus govt is doing
look twice
look twice at your history of how uprisings begin. look at the last 20 years of coups. It is impressive. The governments know this and want to stem any such event.
how many of us believe that the governments want to end encryption in order to protect the tiniest percentage of the citizenry? if they cared that deeply about saving lives, they would do something a variety of things that are killing it’s citizens daily.. they do not choose to. They are in this state of exposing everybody’s activity for one reason only: to circumvent any possible uprising and to stay in power. The governments are using terrorism as an excuse to track your every movement so that when the day comes (if it has not already), you will be powerless.
Re: look twice
I think the right response to any sort of restriction is to fall back to the concept that free speech is valuable to a free society. And that citizens of a free society have a right to privacy. That seems pretty basic, and expressed at length in the US Constitution. I doubt it possible that the US government could enforce a ban on encryption. I mean, think about it. If two people really want to communicate covertly, there are a bazillion ways to do it. They can’t outlaw them all (or even define them all), it is just not possible. It is an important and interesting issue, though, and has some important and non-obvious components. Encryption always has a LOT of non-obvious things surrounding it, which makes it interesting to learn about.
Re: Re: look twice
Too bad you don’t have the cognitive ability to learn shit…
Encryption doesn't aid terrorism
*And, so far, there is zero evidence that the Manchester attack had anything to do with encryption.*
Confirmed correct; many people had attempted to alert the authorities but they didn’t act on the information. They must think we’re stupid!
Big surprise
Big surprise, a government using an event like this to justify killing encryption. Anything justifies that in their view.
Birds chirping in the trees in early morning? Kill encryption. Clouds shading the land? Dew forming on the grass? Red sky at dawn? Kill encryption.
Some say “What is the world coming to???”. Start answering the doors and listening to the answer before it isn’t allowed to tell you any more. The answer is there, and has been for a while…a LONG while. As a person from Manchester originally, I was shocked when this happened. I was also disappointed in that I am aware of this extremist version of the Qur’an being around in the English language, with specific wording to tell people to use weapons (specifically it says planes, tanks, artillery and weapons) against the enemies (the enemies are those who don’t believe, and those who “Allah” knows as enemies, but you do not – so basically everyone who doesn’t believe what you do) so as to cause them terror. Surah8:60, The Noble Qur’an, Al-Hilali/Khan. While this hateful book is being spread under the guise of not offending poor muslims, it is even viewed as extremist by many muslims, and on top of that, it is approved of by Saudi Arabia, which not only has Mecca and Medina, but also the so-called “official” Qur’an, as well as a new business contract with the USA to acquire $120BillionUSD in armaments. It is also the place where Prince Charles visited and stated that this place can teach us a lot. Sure, but a lot of what is the question. He had the capacity to know of this translation before this happened, but the world remains silent. All it does is show the motives deep down, which are selfish, and power-hungry.
Another thing that annoys me…it is “they”. YOU, people, are the ones who continue to put up with this by voting and being involved in the satanic system that is now. It is YOU by extension. These leaders are supposedly YOU. You are the people, and they are your representatives. They are supposedly YOU. So rather than “what are THEY going to do next”, ask yourself “What am I going to do next?”
I for my part have removed myself from it, but of course, I will continue to pay my dues, etc, but as for being involved in this slosh of “we the people” who can’t even agree on what is truth and what is false…pfft. It’s not a university thesis that needs writing. It’s obvious and simple. The reason for THEY is YOU. Yes, you personally. Get out of it, and wash your hands of it.