If the government can decrypt our data then so can others, there have been too many leaks by governments, what if the encryption key falls into the wrong hands!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'Real People' Don't Need Encrypted Messaging Services, Claims U.K. Home Secretary
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If the government can decrypt our data then so can others, there have been too many leaks by governments, what if the encryption key falls into the wrong hands!
I don't know which scenario is more terrifying, that they don't understand how encryption works, or that they do and they want to undermine it anyway. How can it be possible that our leaders are so incapable of taking on expert advise.
I'd love to see how many terrorists use encrypted services. Moreso, I'd love to see hard statistics of terrorists or those suspected who've been charged and imprisoned thanks to the many backdoors in current services that the public has found out about. In addition, all the monitoring of web data. Maybe then the government may have a point.
When you give a child too many toys to play with, they have no idea what to do with it and make a mess.
When you give a child too many toys to play with, they have no idea what to do with it and make a mess.
If Brits are anything like Americans, she's right. Nobody here cares. The media makes stories out of it, but in reality I've met very very few people who care about end-to-end encryption and even fewer who actually know what it is. If you ask, they'll just say "more security," and if they aren't in the field of computer science, they're not to blame for that. There are just plenty who are vocal on online forums.
Secondly, most services that supposedly offer end-to-end encryption don't actually protect their users for sure. Fundamentally, you can't do it without one party knowing the other's true public key, and Whatsapp for example doesn't necessarily guarantee that. So many auth systems still involve a leap of faith, and that could be easily exploited on the server side.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't care or that the gov't should spy, just the reality that the average person doesn't care... and probably doesn't know either.
Last edited:
The average person does care about fraud. That costs billions.
Is this woman honestly this collosally stupid? I have zero fear from terrorists, out of a population of over 65m we have had less than a hundred deaths in a decade.
Stop f***ing destroying my privacy you stupid cow. Tories have lost my vote. They f***ed up so hard recently that I'm done with them. I don't want this level of incompetence leading the country.
Just who the hell am I supposed to vote for?
Incompetent Tories hell bent on destroying privacy and freedom.
Incompetent labour hell bent on taxing us to the eyeballs and then some while flooding the country with immigration.
We need a competent Conservative party in the UK, sadly we don't have that.
Stop f***ing destroying my privacy you stupid cow. Tories have lost my vote. They f***ed up so hard recently that I'm done with them. I don't want this level of incompetence leading the country.
Just who the hell am I supposed to vote for?
Incompetent Tories hell bent on destroying privacy and freedom.
Incompetent labour hell bent on taxing us to the eyeballs and then some while flooding the country with immigration.
We need a competent Conservative party in the UK, sadly we don't have that.
The end of message encryption is the beginning of the end of e-commerce.
Terrorists and criminals can go back to burner phones, snail mail or physical dead drops.
Terrorists and criminals can go back to burner phones, snail mail or physical dead drops.
I don't know firsthand about your political parties, but I sympathize because it's pretty much the same problem of choosing between the lesser of two evils here these days in the US. I've voted for candidates in either of our two main parties and even looked at third party candidates. Over here though, both main parties have had candidates that have called for the erosion of privacy and personal liberty and both have shown about the same measure of ignorance regarding technology in general and internet commerce in particular. Both parties at their extremes are messy on immigration and healthcare. I think sometimes they know better, but choose to vocalize only the extreme positions that they think will appeal to their constituents.
So it can be shocking when actual competence does rear its head and quite amazing the country runs as well as it does.
People like this running the country! Disaster is waiting to happen. It's unbelievable how messed up uk politics is right now.
I don't think other countries are any better governed to be honest. Perhaps China is.
Some countries are in a better position including Switzerland, Sweden, India.
China is at different level completely. Citizens don't have anything called privacy. The government dictates it all including monitoring bank transactions.
I am one of those immigrants about whom you are complaining, but I feel your pain. I've been in the UK for more than 20 years now, and in that time the governments of both parties have curtailed various rights (e.g., freedom from double jeopardy, freedom from self-incrimination, freedom of assembly, freedom from lengthy detention without trial, the right to privacy etc.). As a US citizen I have to say that many of these measures would have been unconstitutional in the US. I know many people are concerned about immigration to the UK, but one of the issues that will arise from Brexit is that the European Court will no longer protect UK citizens' rights. Unless the UK creates a Bill of Rights, or some other explicit document stating which rights are inviolable, then there is the risk that the government's infringement on personal liberties will accelerate, and not just in relation to privacy but also everyday issues like consumer rights.
I wouldn't bet too much on Sweden:
"The Swedish government has admitted to a huge data leak made by one of its own departments during an IT outsourcing procedure in 2015."
Transport minister "Ms Agren had "decided to abstain" from the National Security Act, the Personal Data Act and the Publicity and Privacy Act when dealing with the outsourcing."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40705473
Who decides what is the "collective good"? How can you evaluate that collective good without individual good?
The worst atrocities in history were perpetrated by people claiming to be acting for the "collective good" of the citizenry.
This.
You have just articulated my greatest fear about this Brexit debacle.
Every elected government (Not just May, Rudd, Corbyn, et al) will play fast and loose with our Rights. Under the guise of "for the common good" our Rights, as they are protected right now by the European Court, will be eroded.
Without, as you suggested, a Bill of Rights, we the British citizens are naked.
Thanks Nige! Thanks Boris! Thanks Gove!
*****.
Those are not related to government taking control over privacy of the citizens though.
Fraud from what? Sending credit cards and such over instant messaging is a different matter.
I never said we "should" have anything, just that nobody cares about securing their friendly chats. Edit: I mean, you've been here since 2005, and MacRumors didn't use HTTPS until recently, but I'm sure you'd check for HTTPS on your online banking site.