UK PM to ban WhatsApp, iMessage and Snapchat in Snoopers Charter
74 replies, posted
It's an extremist bill proposed so they can trim parts of it off as "compromise" and get what they wanted initially, which will likely be more snooping powers without the services being banned
Nah, it wont pass. All the kiddy fiddlers in Parliament need encryption to keep their stash safe
Looks like they're going full out completely for middle aged voters and throwing the slightest chance that young people who know what they're doing still support them. I suppose it doesn't matter now, it's not in the general public's hands.
I mean, I'm sure that Labour would try something similar, but I sure am mad at how apathetic the country feels in day-to-day, the only time I see people voicing dissent is online, but a lot of good that does. They'll just ban message boards and then keyboards.
I'll just make my own Whattsapp clone.
I read an interesting "theory" the other day, its not the government of the day deciding this. The theory is that they are being told to implement these laws by unelected civil servants.
Man, and I thought that the restrictions 9/11 set in motion where retarded.
This is just flat out fucking braindead.
[QUOTE=Mr Mallet;48178948]I mean, I'm sure that Labour would try something similar, but I sure am mad at how apathetic the country feels in day-to-day, the only time I see people voicing dissent is online, but a lot of good that does. They'll just ban message boards and then keyboards.[/QUOTE]
UKIP is the new 3rd party and the only who that's not the same as the lib-lab-con convention. People didn't vote for change in the election because of the two-party system we currently have. We need true democracy in the uk, not ffirst past the post system.
[editline]11th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;48178954]I'll just make my own Whattsapp clone.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.biffed.co.uk/content/images/2015/05/Cameron-2.png[/IMG]
David Cameron: Just try it boy, i'll have you for breakfast and brunch.
I'd rather risk the possibility of a fringe group of terrorists using these services than give up my right to use them and encrypt my information and messages across whatever platform I choose.
[editline]11th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;48178954]I'll just make my own Whattsapp clone.[/QUOTE]
They're trying to ban encryption. Not Whatsapp
As a student, such moves by the Tories leave a sour taste in my mouth, on top of all the lies and BS from the Lib Dem coalition last term
I'd never vote for them after the budget stuff happening recently (scrapping maintenance grant is such a dick move) and now the resurrection of this fucking batshit insane charter.
What were people voting Tory thinking?
[QUOTE=Arrows;48179289]UKIP is the new 3rd party and the only who that's not the same as the lib-lab-con convention. People didn't vote for change in the election because of the two-party system we currently have. We need true democracy in the uk, not ffirst past the post system.
[editline]11th July 2015[/editline]
[IMG]http://www.biffed.co.uk/content/images/2015/05/Cameron-2.png[/IMG]
David Cameron: Just try it boy, i'll have you for breakfast and brunch.[/QUOTE]
Votes-wise, UKIP is the third party, but they only have one seat. Not to mention that we don't know, and will never know, how many of those votes were 'tactical' due to the inherent flaws within the FPTP system.
[QUOTE=UberMunchkin;48178319][I]Only just?[/I] Have you read the stuff he's been saying?
It's a shame how in Britain, [I]in 2015[/I], we have a government "majority" elected in with 36.9% of a vote that acts utterly insane at times, pushing out extreme surveillance methods under the guise of [I]protecting us from extremists[/I]. The fearmongering and bullshit is shameful.[/QUOTE]
the only extremists I see are the ones who claim to be protecting us from extremists
Like, don't get me wrong, the gov't should not be allowed to ban the use of cryptography by its citizens, and laws like this are bullshit, but this headline is insanely misleading
Like, the headline is "WhatsApp Ban Causes Social Media Outcry As Government Pushes Ahead With 'Snoopers Charter'", but the first line in the article, "During the Queen's Speech, the Government unveiled plans for a new version of the controversial 'Snoopers Charter' bill which [b]would potentially allow[/b] the Government to ban instant messaging services such as WhatsApp, iMessage and Facebook Messenger" (emphasis mine) shows that there isn't any ban like the headline flat-out states. Just that powers have expanded so that they could potentially ban these services.
Again, the gov't shouldn't have this power, but come on. The article doesn't get one sentence in before contradicting itself
So is Cameron basically the george bush of the UK
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48180022]Like, don't get me wrong, the gov't should not be allowed to ban the use of cryptography by its citizens, and laws like this are bullshit, but this headline is insanely misleading
Like, the headline is "WhatsApp Ban Causes Social Media Outcry As Government Pushes Ahead With 'Snoopers Charter'", but the first line in the article, "During the Queen's Speech, the Government unveiled plans for a new version of the controversial 'Snoopers Charter' bill which [b]would potentially allow[/b] the Government to ban instant messaging services such as WhatsApp, iMessage and Facebook Messenger" (emphasis mine) shows that there isn't any ban like the headline flat-out states. Just that powers have expanded so that they could potentially ban these services.
Again, the gov't shouldn't have this power, but come on. The article doesn't get one sentence in before contradicting itself[/QUOTE]
It says potentially as it could be blocked by either parliament or the house of lords, not that the bill has the "potential allowance" in itself.
because terrorists definitely abide by the law and will stop using encryption AT ONCE, leaving them unable to communicate thus stopping them dead in their tracks
FOOLPROOF PLAN, LADS
If they were to somehow manage to ban encryption (Ignoring how infeasible any sort of ban would be to implement), couldn't that cause a witch-hunt over things that appear to be encrypted but aren't?
I recall (but don't quote me) that someone got into trouble over refusing / being unable to hand over the non-existent encryption keys to some junk data that the police thought was encrypted.
[QUOTE=Teddypimm;48180448]If they were to somehow manage to ban encryption (Ignoring how infeasible any sort of ban would be to implement), couldn't that cause a witch-hunt over things that appear to be encrypted but aren't?
I recall (but don't quote me) that someone got into trouble over refusing / being unable to hand over the non-existent encryption keys to some junk data that the police thought was encrypted.[/QUOTE]
This is a great idea. Make an app which people can send junk data to each other using. Then watch as the government tries to ruin your life because they think its encrypted.
I really hate this current government. We're only a few months in and they've already taken off the gloves.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48180690]This is a great idea. Make an app which people can send junk data to each other using. Then watch as the government tries to ruin your life because they think its encrypted.
I really hate this current government. We're only a few months in and they've already taken off the gloves.[/QUOTE]
Its almost like the Lib Dems were actually doing something whilst in government.. The Conservatives have always wanted to do things like this, its the very nature of their party and beliefs.
God damn Theresa May, nobody likes her.
They can still encrypt the messages on their own though? And even worse they could learn from prisoners who have their messages read and make their encryption discreet enough to look like chit-chat.
Like even if it was really obvious you were sending coded messages, and even literally every single bit of text sent over nonencrypted platforms was read by a person looking for something like this, it's still a needle in the haystack.
The key word here is potentially, it's not certain.
[QUOTE=Jame's;48184450]The key word here is potentially, it's not certain.[/QUOTE]
You are a fool not to assume and prepare for the worst.
Best case: You are prepared and nothing happens.
Worst case: Shit goes down but you are prepared and take less of a hit when it does happen as you aren't panicking 'oh shit whattama gonna do?!?!?'
Ban encrypted services for your safety?
What planet is that retard Cameron on.
[QUOTE=nuttyboffin;48184639]You are a fool not to assume and prepare for the worst.
Best case: You are prepared and nothing happens.
Worst case: Shit goes down but you are prepared and take less of a hit when it does happen as you aren't panicking 'oh shit whattama gonna do?!?!?'[/QUOTE]
That is terrible logic because it can applied to literally any potential threat however fictional it may be.
[QUOTE=Arrows;48179289]
[IMG]http://www.biffed.co.uk/content/images/2015/05/Cameron-2.png[/IMG]
[/QUOTE]
this is his face he pulls when he thinks of people living in poverty
I'm starting to wish Cameron had been killed off during his visit to Afghanistan a few years back. Go fuck yourself Cameron, you've no right to infringe on
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;48184865]I'm starting to wish Cameron had been killed off during his visit to Afghanistan a few years back. Go fuck yourself Cameron, you've no right to infringe on us.[/QUOTE]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/1Y1zWGr.jpg[/t]
Thought Police here, we heard you're plotting against the establishment.
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;48184875][t]http://i.imgur.com/1Y1zWGr.jpg[/t]
Thought Police here, we heard you're plotting against the establishment.[/QUOTE]
Eh whilst I'm at it I might as well trigger a terror alert with the following keywords: napalmsemtexDIYbombsflightstoamericahomemadethermitepublicaddressesPM2015.
On a serious note, how do the government plan on enforcing this? I doubt many are going to be compliant and I doubt companies are going to place their services at risk just to so Theresa May and her goons can spy on socialist protest meetings.
So this is how the UK government in V for Vendetta started.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.