So I've had BBC1 on in the background while doing the housework and i think i heard people using this Westminster attack to call for banning encryption or something like that, like i said it was on in the background but it certainly sounded like the 'ban encryption' drum beat is growing louder, have i misheard or was that the gist of it?
IDK why they don't just get it over with and replace the internet with a UK intranet like North Korea has, it's only a matter of time anyhow.
Adrian apparently sent a Snapchat (edit: sorry, it was Whatsapp) message to someone a few minutes before launching his attack. Waiting for GCHQ to crack the encryption is holding up the investigation, wasting valuable time and potentially helping his chums to hide their tracks, get away or whatever.
If a cop has to drive carefully because the road is covered in snow and a burglar gets away due to it no one asks for the weather to be banned....
Maybe a more apt comparison would be demanding car and knife manufactures do something about ne'er do wells using cars and knives to kill people, I'm all for stopping, investigating, or whatever's needed in situations like the Westminster attack but it's seems Ministers still think there's such a thing as good and bad encryption.
And once again an MP demanding something that they don't know about, just like that bunch of MPs and HoL debating Snoopers Charter that they don't about or haven't read it through because they don't know the jargon.
Amber Rudd needs to have words with Rymans, it's completely unacceptable, we need to make sure that organisations like Rymans, and there are plenty of others like that, don't provide stationary for terrorists to write one-time pad's.
I know I'm in a minority here, but I disagree. Call me old fashioned but I think terrorists give up their right to privacy as soon as they kill someone.
I agree, however i can't think of a way to do that without it also effecting the innocent. Hell I'd say as soon as there's reasonable suspicion someone forfeits their right to privacy, i wouldn't wait until they committed a crime, however how to target that at just those people who we believe may commit a crime while retaining everyone else's privacy is something i think maybe impossible.
By allowing the security services access to encrypted online comms via a warrant, in the same way as they do with telephone comms.
There in lies the problem, afaik it's impossible to allow the security services access without the potability of ne'er do wells also gaining access.
Why would it not be the case? Any exploit is a total exploit; a way in for the authorities can, and will given enough time, become a way in for anyone else who wants in. The mere knowledge of the existence of a backdoor or encryption workaround, gives the ne'er do well something to look for. If I know you've left a spare key to you house outside 'for emergencies', I then know to look for it. I might not know exactly where it is, but I know there is one there and eventually I will find it.
The only way to do it without enabling the government to abuse it would be if the company making the communications software would have to store personally identifiable information for every customer plus an encryption key specific to each customer and hand it over when a government agency requests it with a warrant issued by a Court. But even that would only work in a utopian world that will never exist, because in the real world there are plenty of countries with governments that can't be trusted to not influence the Courts to issue false warrants and that opens up the can of worms about who gets to be the authority on which government gets to be trusted, at what point do you withdraw that trust (take the situation in Turkey for example) and so on... Plus there is then of course also the problem that it would require the company providing the service in the first place to be capable of accessing the data, which in itself is a massive security risk, hell even ISPs in first world countries have proven that they aren't capable of keeping your data secure.
"conspiracy"? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33856785 If even first world countries with a stable political system and not currently at war can't be trusted to keep data safe I'd say we have to fear incompetence more than conspiracy.
