Apple-Opposed 'Investigatory Powers' Surveillance Bill Moves Closer to Legality in UK

[LovingTeddy]

You're completely misunderstanding what has been put to you.

If a master key exists for every lock it effectively renders the lock useless. If I obtain that master key I can access every door in the world. A criminals dream.

Your thinking essentially equates to castrating all males because some are paedophiles and rapists. Or to take a more popular example, some Muslims are terrorists so let's ban Islam.

Let's take this further. Some people commit crimes in their own houses, so let's install CCTV in all citizens houses.

You're assuming the whole world is like you, which it clearly isn't otherwise encryption wouldn't exist

It has been taken way out of proportion and way blown out of water.

The whole Apple vs FBI crap is Apple's PR machine turns to maximum. There is articles debunk Apple's claim. And the master key crap is none sense. Apple can always update its software and encryption method.

You can think whatever you want, just because there is possibility that hacker can steal a master key, so you won't do. It is lazy ass thinking and good PR to fool people. It is like there is possibility that terrorist can get a gun, so let's ban all guns.

 

[vvswarup]

I am sorry, you are not the government.. There is no reason for me to tell you my address. I won't mind government know my address p, becuase they already know that. You tell your address to government when applying drivers license, you tell your address to government when you applying social securities. Do you really think you can stop government when it has full determination on doing so?

I am sorry, no matter what Apple or other techn company do, they won't able to stop the FBI nor they won't stop government implementing any policies.

I don't believe in people can stop anything, if you can, you guys could stop lots of stupid policy or things government did.

I don't care anymore, if government want to that, I could care less. If government want my data, then take them. If I cannot stop government do crap, then I why not use government to my benefit? If we cannot stop government implements policy that use bulk surveillance, then we should use it for our benefit: help us safer.
[doublepost=1465433549][/doublepost]

If you put any of your sensitive data in your phone, then you are fool. I never out my password, bank information on my phone. I never register online banking or download any online banking app.

I strongly support what Obama said. There should be a balance between encryption and ability of law enforcement across to information. If there is absolutely unbreakable encryption, how to you make sure these thing won't fall into terrorist hand? What do you do when government use this as way to against us? Have you ever though other side?

I am sorry. I fully support any law that requiring tech company allow government access to their software. But I also think there should be an oversight on that.

You ask how one would make sure things like unbreakable encryption won't fall into terrorists' hands. Do you think encryption technology is some closely guarded secret? Unbreakable encryption isn't some secret that anyone can prevent from "falling into the wrong hands." It's public information. It boils down to mathematics. A terrorist organization with a computer scientist or two on their payroll can implement encrypted communication systems.

It's just like the so-called War on Drugs. The federal and state governments outlawed drugs like marijuana and cocaine and also instituted harsh prison sentences but it has done nothing to stop the illegal drug trade. People have found ways of getting their hands on drugs. Why would encryption be any different? The kinds of people the government is trying to thwart, like the terrorists, will immediately stop using anything that has a backdoor in it while you and I who abide by the law will have to compromise on the safety of our data.

You like to point out how the government can get into our homes and computers with a court order but you're missing a small detail. The government can't get a court order to search your house or your computer willy nilly. In applying for a warrant, the government has to show evidence that demonstrates probable cause. It also has to describe what it expects to find in the search. A backdoor is a step above that. The government all of a sudden has the ability to sift through your smartphones or computers willy nilly. And don't try to tell me about oversight. The government will find a way around it.

The need for encryption goes beyond the government. You are completely missing that detail. The point of an encrypted system is to make sure that no one without the right key can get in. The bottom line is that a backdoor for the government, no matter how benevolent the intent is, is also a backdoor for the bad guys-the hackers and identity thieves. They're capable of wreaking havoc on our lives.

If you want the government to track you 24/7, be my guest but don't think other should be okay with it. The government has no business having that kind of information.

 

[iigsie]

It has been taken way out of proportion and way blown out of water.

Of course you think that, because you clearly do not understand the situation enough to make a balanced decision.

The whole Apple vs FBI crap is Apple's PR machine turns to maximum.

This isn't about the FBI VS Apple, this is about UK law. There are other countries than the USA and Canada...

There is articles debunk Apple's claim. And the master key crap is none sense. Apple can always update its software and encryption method.

Just as any programmer can change their encryption method. Do you really think criminals are stupid enough to continue using services that are monitored? They will just create their own secure messaging or go fully dark web. You're also assuming all users update to the latest version, which I can categorically assure you isn't the case.

Adding some kind of maser key renders encryption useless. Fact. Adding a key to one service is pointless, as knowledgable users will just use something else. It's completely impossible to have a situation where all encryption must be breakable.

You can think whatever you want, just because there is possibility that hacker can steal a master key, so you won't do. It is lazy ass thinking and good PR to fool people.

Nope, it's people like you who don't really understand technology who have been fooled.

It is like there is possibility that terrorist can get a gun, so let's ban all guns.

Civilians shouldn't have access to guns. End of story. You don't need the ability to kill someone in order to protect yourself.

 

[vvswarup]

It has been taken way out of proportion and way blown out of water.

It sure has been blown way out proportion-by the government and FBI.

The whole Apple vs FBI crap is Apple's PR machine turns to maximum. There is articles debunk Apple's claim. And the master key crap is none sense. Apple can always update its software and encryption method.

Hahaha!!!! Apple's PR machine? More like the government's PR machine. It's LEOs who've been throwing out the criminal buzzwords to scare us into submitting to surveillance. I'd love to see those articles that debunk Apple's claim.

The whole point of encryption is to ensure that only those with the right key can have access to the encrypted information. A special way in for the government is a special way in for hackers. I'd love to know how Apple can "always update its software and encryption method" to protect against this.

You can think whatever you want, just because there is possibility that hacker can steal a master key, so you won't do. It is lazy ass thinking and good PR to fool people. It is like there is possibility that terrorist can get a gun, so let's ban all guns.

You've got nerve, saying that. Let's take your point another way. You say that it's absurd to ban all guns just because there's a possibility that terrorists can get a gun. Why doesn't that apply to encryption. If the government had its way, encryption would be illegal for the public. Only government and military would be allowed to have encryption of any kind. No government official will get caught on record saying that, so they're trying to make the argument to weaken encryption just because there's a possibility that terrorists can get their hands on encryption. To borrow your words, it's lazy ass thinking and FUD to fool people.

 

[iigsie]

You've got nerve, saying that. Let's take your point another way. You say that it's absurd to ban all guns just because there's a possibility that terrorists can get a gun. Why doesn't that apply to encryption. If the government had its way, encryption would be illegal for the public. Only government and military would be allowed to have encryption of any kind. No government official will get caught on record saying that, so they're trying to make the argument to weaken encryption just because there's a possibility that terrorists can get their hands on encryption. To borrow your words, it's lazy ass thinking and FUD to fool people.

Precisely.

Encryption has to exist on the Internet. It's very nature means you cannot tell the difference between someone making a purchase with a credit card, and a terrorist plotting an attack.

The FBI case has already proved there is no need for a back door of any kind.