The "access must be granted by a judge" argument is flawed on two counts. Here in the United States, secret judges rubber stamp secret requests based on secret evidence. There is no accountability in this system. How many requests were made last year? That is secret. What percent of requests were approved? That is secret. Even limiting such requests to "matters affecting national security" is a joke because the government can and will argue nearly everything in life could be a "matter of national security."
If you doubt me just look at the U.S. government argument before SCOTUS in the Lopez case in 1995. When asked by a SCOTUS Justice what section of the United States Constitution gave Congress the right to ban firearms in local schools, the argument was made that it fell under the Interstate Commerce clause. The government argued if a student carries a gun to school that it could impact the quality of education in that school which in turn could impact the quality of the workforce in that area which in turn could impact Interstate Commerce which Congress has the authority to regulate. Justice Thomas asked the government lawyer who made this argument if he could think of ANYTHING that could not be regulated under the Interstate Commerce. The lawyer thought it over and answered "no". If the government makes such a ludicrous argument in a public setting in front SCOTUS, can you imagine the arguments they are willing to make in front of secret judges in secret courts?
However, the bigger problem is that once a backdoor is established in an encryption service, it is only a matter of time until someone completely outside of the court system learns how to access the backdoor. At that point, it will not take a judge to grant access to anything, just a simple payment to the guy with the hacked access to the backdoor.
My accountant was hacked last year and this year a fraudulent tax return was filed in my name (I am still trying to get that mess straightened out). The point is there are lots of reasons why innocent people "with nothing to hide" want, need and deserve stronger encryption not weaker. Legislatively forcing back doors into encryption programs will weaken them.
Soooo the UK must be exactly like the US then.... how can you even compare the two? People in the UK trust their government and don't mind the cameras a bit more then in the US where you believe they are out to get you..
[doublepost=1494264500][/doublepost]
And you would make a wrong and naive assumption. The NSA case proved that they were over the law and lying for a long time to the legal audit authority they were supposed to inform about their practices.
Now, do you really claim that you don't know what is means if an agency circumvents the country's constitution they are supposed to protect ? There's a word for it and history is full of such examples.
So somebody didn't copy the information onto a USB stick and walk out of the NSA building with it then? I'm sure that's what happened, we have security services that protect people, not sure what they do in the US, spy on every single person apparently?
[doublepost=1494264728][/doublepost]
Yes, lets all live under tin foil and pretend that our lives are suddenly worse off.
Or you could just carry on as normal. If you're not guilty of anything, why be so annoyed? The opposite logic should mean that Community Support Officers, speed cameras, CCTV and forensics should also be abandoned.
Haha, but that doesn't live up to the conspiracy theory's then, people would much rather believe in those, then actually recognose the hard work the Poloce and security services do to protect them! And how dare any laws be passed to help in that.
Of you are not guilty of anything, NO government or secret service is going to give two flying ***** about you! Hey want to target specific people, but the people don't want to allow it if it means a law is passed protected by Judges and courts etc.
[doublepost=1494265046][/doublepost]
The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. In fact, the only non-signatories to the convention you mentioned are Belarus because it has capital punishment, Kazakhstan and the Vatican, both on religious grounds. Brexit is irrelevant to this.
By the way, the ECHR does not have the power to create laws. Only to pass judgement on the Convention on HR to which all members of the Council of Europe signed up.
You need to check your facts
http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts&c=#n1359128122487_pointer
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
[doublepost=1494265265][/doublepost]
Uhm, I definitely don't trust the government, and unlike serial killers, the government apparently acts with carte-blanche to commit all kinds of heinous acts upon its citizens and they, also unlike serial killers, never get caught or are brought to justice for their misdeeds.
Do a little digging about our government's secret goings-on, and you may change your mind about trusting our elected officials. As an appetizer, you could start with 9/11.
Sorry, I seriously do not believe for one second the US government flew planes into the twin towers... it's your foreign policy that you support by voting your senators in who caused it, because a radical group opposed those policy's.
Why do people keep going on about America and its mass hysteria conspiracy theories? It's got nothing to do with the UK and it's security. its two different cultures and mentalities.
[doublepost=1494265521][/doublepost]
Nothing to do with government disclosing how they operate in catching terrorists. What I am saying in many cases, the individuals involved in past events have already been on the government radar, the government already had files on them, having the ability to access more data would change nothing, as these individuals were not seen as a risk. It's the analysis that is the problem, as I stated before, no terrorist in an encrypted message is going to send critical information.
Let's me as you this, say Apple , or whatsapps state 100% that thier messaging in encrypted and safe....would you send your bank details and pin code in a message? No...cause you would still be worried .... so why would terrorists send anything so tangible in messaging?
The line, that unless you are a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about it's one of the most misconceived .....ideas. Since when is guilt required? Any individuals you wish to look into, you classify them as a "suspect" this Is how these laws are abused, they are just a backdoor into personal data. Most people investigated be Tax or terror....are not guilty...think that through.
I used to work for the tax office if you must know, you give the government far too much credit. You have an expectation that they know what to do with the data and thier level of competence . Many laws requested by the tax office were due to thier incompetence, and this BS that you only need to worry if you are a tax dodger, BS......
My concern is simple, the government are not the problem , these backdoors will be abused by far smarter groups, government are the idiots opening them. You realise how much governments spy on each other, and how much info they get....
Have you really not dealt with government incompetence at any stage ? Wrong bill, wrong assessment ?
Like I said , I've worked 7 years in government, this scares me.
I stopped reading at the first paragraph because you've made the assumption the security services do not need more data, how do you know that? Do you or have you worked for them? And considering terrorist and peodophile rings are still rampant I'd argue they do need this data.
