Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Uh, what?

The fact that Messages (iOS and macOS) is encrypted end to end is what gives me confidence to text otherwise sensitive data to my family members when necessary. I will never use an unencrypted chat client for anything non-trivial. I know I'm not alone in this, not even close.

So, no Ms. Rudd, you've got your head firmly in your rump on this one.
 
I am at a loss for words here. How can someone be in this position and be so technologically inept as a brick? And that's an insult to the brick.

Honestly, she should go to places like DefCon for once to see how important digital security and encryption really is. Not that she'd understand, but at least she'd see it.

I'm not particularly worried what the government can see. I am ****ing terrified of what kind of picture of me an entity like google or Facebook could build up and disseminate around the world.
 
It's more than just govmnts we are trying to keep our messages secure. In fact most govmnts when secretly viewing our info don't use our credit cards to buy TV's, gift cards and bitcoins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nicho
Well... When torrerist attack happen, you guys would question government ability to gather information and blame on government.

I support government have ability to monitor internet and communication activities so they can prevent next torrerist. The last thing I would worry is state reading all my emails. How likely is that. No government has reseouce reading billions text message everyday. But when government do need read potential torrerist email or text message, then government should have the ability to do so.

Lefties alawys want put things to the extreme. If you want hide something, you are doing something that need to be hide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: apolloa
She is right. You are a fool if you think tech companies like Apple are concerned about leaking your intimate photos more than they are concerned about leaking their own emails with discussions about tax evasion strategies and espionage.
 
It would be the same in the US if the president understood - well anything

Which U.S. President? You do understand Bill Clinton lobbied heavily for the clipper chip to be installed in PCs which would then give the government a backdoor to every computer. Other former presidents on both sides of center have tried to get more gov't leeway into privacy too.

It's silly to make this political when it's more of a government/bureaucratic control stance. Members of both major U.S. parties have said plenty of stupid things in an attempt to minimize civil liberties. Bottom line is you can either be a party hack, you pick the party to hack for, or you can be for civil liberties. However, you cannot be both. You're either party first or civil liberties/U.S. Constitution first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luap and Wackery
Can we all just say False Dichotomy nice and loudly please?

There is basically nothing to prevent good usability and features at the same time as enjoying the privacy and security that end-to-end encryption provides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keane16
Well... When torrerist attack happen, you guys would question government ability to gather information and blame on government.

I support government have ability to monitor internet and communication activities so they can prevent next torrerist. The last thing I would worry is state reading all my emails. How likely is that. No government has reseouce reading billions text message everyday. But when government do need read potential torrerist email or text message, then government should have the ability to do so.

Lefties alawys want put things to the extreme. If you want hide something, you are doing something that need to be hide.
You're wrong.

As a UK citizen, I understand that the actions of a few idiotic religious nutjobs doesn't mean everyone else should give up their right to privacy. Target the terrorists in other ways, and don't tarnish everyone with the same misguided brush.

Secondly, I want to hide my bank account number from prying eyes, and send it to my Mum so she can transfer me some cash for my birthday. Why should that information be open to anyone (government, hackers, etc.)?

Finally, if we insert backdoors into encrypted messaging services, the terrorists will simply move to services that do not have backdoors (or create their own), and are not covered by any legislation Amber Rudd can dream up. So, the majority lose their right to privacy and nothing is actually gained. How does that help?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But: This is a Conservative government, and so any "yes, but, no but, look! Labour! Ooh! Scary!" is not relevant.

Well it is relevant in that the outcome is going to be the same no matter which of those two parties is in power. For reference see: Tony Blair.

So yes, Labor can be just a scary and willing when it comes to eroding civil liberties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Breaking Good
Well... When torrerist attack happen, you guys would question government ability to gather information and blame on government.

I support government have ability to monitor internet and communication activities so they can prevent next torrerist. The last thing I would worry is state reading all my emails. How likely is that. No government has reseouce reading billions text message everyday. But when government do need read potential torrerist email or text message, then government should have the ability to do so.

Lefties alawys want put things to the extreme. If you want hide something, you are doing something that need to be hide.

There are a few issues here though. First of all, the government you know and love today might not be the same in the future. If power goes into the wrong hands, they could possibly abuse powers in their advantage. Having full access to all your citizen's communication could potentially open up for some really nasty manipulation.

But that's stretching it. The biggest problem is that non-encrypted traffic is not only not encrypted for the government, it's also non-encrypted for everyone else. With today's advances in technology "the bad guys" are always around and could easily sniff your information. So when your girlfriend suddenly decides to send your ID, credit card number, password or whatnot using a service without encryption its easily sniffed by someone who don't want.

I don't care if my government has access to this information. The problem arises when various third-parties that are up to no good get access to said information. And without encryption all the information is basically up for grabs for anyone interested in spending a few calories on gaining access to said information. With basically EVERYTHING going digital, you can't keep relying on non-encrypted services unless you want to get into some serious trouble down the line.


And the argument about terrorism has to be the stupidest of them all. By going all non-encrypted you are making it way easier for the terrorist to gain access to all kinds of everyday, private information that will give them a much easier time to do whatever they want.


EDIT:

Even with encryption we have big companies and server being infiltrated and hacked left and right. Usernames, passwords, e-mails, ID's, credit card information and what not are bleeding left and right do to poor security and encryption as is. Bad people go miles and beyond to hack various servers to gain access to various kinds of information, what happens when you start eliminating end-to-end encryption making sure that all kinds of information is that much easier to access even before it reaches said servers? You are basically handling over all information to whomever have the motivation to gain access to it. That's not a good thing.
 
If you want to twist it that way… sure… go ahead.

How it is twisting? What Tony Blair's Labor government did in regards to watering down civil liberties is not a hypothetical, it wasn't an empty policy statement. It was real.
 
After the dodgy way in which she was elected as an MP (recount after recount until she got the result she wanted) then it's a travesty that she's a member of the cabinet.

May, Rudd, Johnson, Gove, et al are all morons and I hate the lot of them. (As a British voter :D )
 
After the dodgy way in which she was elected as an MP (recount after recount until she got the result she wanted) then it's a travesty that she's a member of the cabinet.

May, Rudd, Johnson, Gove, et al are all morons and I hate the lot of them. (As a British voter :D )

Are you suggesting recounts somehow falsify votes to give the desired result? Surely electing the person who didn't get the most votes, by way of a "counting error" is more dodgy and a travesty?
 
I don't know what you Brits are worried about. Looking at the track record of the British government shows a looong history of altruistic, humanitarian, incorruptible, completely rational governance, and totally not domineering, exploitative, abusive, & paranoid, at all.

Thanks for our own spinoff gov, btw.
 
25 years ago we didn't have muslims running over people every week and blowing up children at concerts. Blame liberals for removing your freedom after voting 'elite', and filling the country with 'poor little brown people just trying to live their lives in peace'.

Yet another attempt to try and break our privacy. rewind 25 years before txt and email, and it would be the same when the postal service would open every letter written, check the contents, before forwarding it on to it's destination. An absolute disgrace. We live in a world where we value our privacy, it's a right we have, I don't want it to be taken away.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.