[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30870442[/url]
[quote]Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has defended his opposition to the so-called snoopers' charter, insisting "blanket" data retention is "not very British".
He said he would support new measures to boost the security services' online capabilities "as much as any chisel-faced securocrat".
But he said a balance needed to be struck between security and liberty.
His comments come as the ex-head of MI5 warned anti-terrorism laws are "no longer fit for purpose".[/quote]
I genuinely would rather risk the terrorist attacks and just not have them snoop on all our data.
Abuse of that power of information would be much worse.
[QUOTE=MelonGuy;46960640]I genuinely would rather risk the terrorist attacks and just not have them snoop on all our data.
Abuse of that power of information would be much worse.[/QUOTE]
A better point is that you can't simply outlaw encryption. You can make popular public service apps lose their security, but that won't actually prevent anyone from communicating privately by their own means. It's a classic case of outlawing privacy for "terrorism".
I'll enjoy when every bank is shafted in days because they're not allowed to encrypt data.
I realise the coalition government really disarmed the Lib Dems, but I'd be speculative if he'd be able to maintain this commitment to personal privacy given the nature of party politics. Just because Nick Clegg is against government gaining greater abilities to view information doesn't mean the rest of his party thinks the same. This will especially play an effect in a coalition government, where the leading party will likely be supportive of more invasive legislation. I like that he's challenging the safety vs. liberty argument, as you're effectively letting the terrorists win by changing part of society's fundamentals in the UK. I'm supportive of his views, I just don't know how effective he'll be able to be given how parliamentary politics works over here.
[QUOTE=bitches;46960691]A better point is that you can't simply outlaw encryption. You can make popular public service apps lose their security, but that won't actually prevent anyone from communicating privately by their own means. It's a classic case of outlawing privacy for "terrorism".[/QUOTE]
That too.
No secure encryption = no online commerce, no online banking, no email, no vpns
If there is a backdoor no matter how many locks the government puts on it, it will be exploited by others and then the system fails
I admit, I kind of respect the Brits for referring to this proposal as the "snooper's charter" instead of the Orwellian-sounding PATRIOT Act bullshit euphemisms we use over here.
Fuckin call it what it is. A license to snoop.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46961945]I admit, I kind of respect the Brits for referring to this proposal as the "snooper's charter" instead of the Orwellian-sounding PATRIOT Act bullshit euphemisms we use over here.
Fuckin call it what it is. A license to snoop.[/QUOTE]It's not referred to as that by the politicians supporting it, as far as I know. Much like how the architect of 20 Fenchurch Street doesn't refer to it as the Walkie Scorchie; it's other people taking the piss.
if governments have a master key of any sort encryption becomes completely useless platform wide
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;46962127]It's not referred to as that by the politicians supporting it, as far as I know. Much like how the architect of 20 Fenchurch Street doesn't refer to it as the Walkie Scorchie; it's other people taking the piss.[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah, but at least it's out there in the media.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
