UK government can demand backdoors and if you reveal their existence you can be sent to prison

sim667

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2010
1,365
2,746
0
So are the people voting for them.
Idiocracy.
Well yes of course the people voting for them are to blame, but lets not forget because of the terrible polling system we have in the UK, they won power with something like only 30% of the vote.
 

sim667

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2010
1,365
2,746
0
They probably didn't because Tim Cook told them he wouldn't bend and that would have been covered in the press. "Apple products banned in the UK"
The new legislation specifically tries to ban point to point encryption of messaging services, so they've understood a full ban on encryption is unattainable.

However its been snuck back in, after Theresa May said it wouldn't.....

Currently the introduction of DRIPA was stalled because it was found by the high court to be in contravention of the Human Rights Act, but iirc in the Tory election manifesto was the scrapping of the human rights act.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,251
0
UK
Well yes of course the people voting for them are to blame, but lets not forget because of the terrible polling system we have in the UK, they won power with something like only 30% of the vote.
Not sure this is the best example. Id expect Labour and UKIP to have done the same.
 

The-Real-Deal82

macrumors 604
Jan 17, 2013
7,529
11,446
0
Wales, United Kingdom
I'm not comparing the police to Stasi, KGB or Gestapo I'm comparing GCHQ and MI5 / MI6 to them. Although having said that the police also want access to the information as well so maybe they are just as bad as GCHQ et al as well.



So you'd be OK with the idea that your hypothetical neighbour who works for the security services could look up your browsing history and email history because they were interested or wanted to find out about you?

What about a rogue employee in GCHQ that sells information about you to a terrorist organisation or a foreign power like China or North Korea? Or even worse sells information about your private browsing habits to your employer which might get you sacked because they didn't like people who looked at (legal) porn or your insurance company that found out you had a medical condition you didn't disclose which might result in your premiums being put up or your insurance policy being cancelled.

What about if you were an opponent of the government and they wanted to discredit you with private information (say information gained about any medical conditions you have or you hanging out with that bloke who was a criminal in his youth but never told you)?

This is scary stuff and needs to be stopped.
What is to stop an employee of my ISP doing that now? All our browsing data is logged and anybody who works for BT, Talk Talk, O2 etc could snoop on what we are looking at right now. This just allows anti terrorism agencies to scan encrypted code and if things flag up, then our data is looked at more closely. I very much doubt 49 million people's email is being read on a day to day basis or what porn we are looking at is being shared around the offices of MI5. I have nothing to hide though so perhaps I am a different. :)
 

sim667

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2010
1,365
2,746
0
What is to stop an employee of my ISP doing that now? All our browsing data is logged and anybody who works for BT, Talk Talk, O2 etc could snoop on what we are looking at right now. This just allows anti terrorism agencies to scan encrypted code and if things flag up, then our data is looked at more closely. I very much doubt 49 million people's email is being read on a day to day basis or what porn we are looking at is being shared around the offices of MI5. I have nothing to hide though so perhaps I am a different. :)
You have a right to privacy.....

If thats not something you want to protect, then I very much doubt we're going to convince you otherwise. However when government starts trying to sell the information they gather off, to retailers, marketers etc, it will effect you. They've already tried to do it with NHS records.

The difference between what they do currently, and what they want to do, is essentially now they have to suspect you to get a warrant for info, in future they just want to fish for keywords and off the back of that throw the book at them.

Its basically what they anyway, except this is invasive into everyones lives, not just terrorists, paedophiles, but it will make it nigh on impossible for political dissidence (as an example).
 

The-Real-Deal82

macrumors 604
Jan 17, 2013
7,529
11,446
0
Wales, United Kingdom
You have a right to privacy.....

If thats not something you want to protect, then I very much doubt we're going to convince you otherwise. However when government starts trying to sell the information they gather off, to retailers, marketers etc, it will effect you. They've already tried to do it with NHS records.

The difference between what they do currently, and what they want to do, is essentially now they have to suspect you to get a warrant for info, in future they just want to fish for keywords and off the back of that throw the book at them.

Its basically what they anyway, except this is invasive into everyones lives, not just terrorists, paedophiles, but it will make it nigh on impossible for political dissidence (as an example).
I don't think the government need to sell our tastes off to marketers and retailers. Google does a pretty good job of filling my inbox full of offers on 'things I may like' already lol. I've always wondered why I get emails from Amazon about things I have searched for even when I'm logged out of my account!
 

Solomani

macrumors 68040
Sep 25, 2012
3,688
6,083
0
Alberto, Canado
IMHO, the significant difference between the US and Britain comes down to Britain's lack of a formal, written Constitution guaranteeing the basic rights of individuals and placing limits upon what their Government may, and may not, do.
Such irony that Britain is the birthplace of the Magna Carta.
 

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,725
3,711
0
Then again most average, normal households should not worry
So you're okay with not being able to conduct secure digital financial transactions? This bill is an absolute dream for hackers and other cybercriminals. If this passes, literally every company in Britain will be forced to conduct financial transactions through systems with "backdoors" aka known security flaws. Then it's only a matter of time until those security flaws ("backdoors") are exploited by criminals to start draining peoples bank accounts.

Meanwhile, the "terr'rists" will just download a free, open-source encryption library and continue to enjoy secure encrypted communications without any Dave Cameron-mandated security flaws.

This is the prime example of what happens when you let people write legislation about things that they have zero clue about.
 

sim667

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2010
1,365
2,746
0
I don't think the government need to sell our tastes off to marketers and retailers. Google does a pretty good job of filling my inbox full of offers on 'things I may like' already lol. I've always wondered why I get emails from Amazon about things I have searched for even when I'm logged out of my account!
because they don't need to, doesn't mean they don't want a piece of the pie.

personal information that you don't make publicly available is very valuable........ Only the government would legally have access to it under the snoopers charter
 

nebo1ss

macrumors 68030
Jun 2, 2010
2,727
1,234
0
I think this is a much bigger issue than understanding Technology this putting more and more power in the state. We installed a mass of camera's when the IRA was bombing London none of them has ever been taken down. We are sleep walking into more and more control and personally I am uncomfortable with it. For many years we had no idea what GCHQ was up to and now we know they were just shovelling up data on everything.

i have seen two or three cases recently where individuals have been jailed for things they said on the internet. I am not comfortable with that either. This is really strange because lots of people are getting a slap on the wrist for much more serious crime.

i am not about to leave England because of this as a previous poster suggested. In fact i only returned a couple years ago from 15 years in New York and sent my green card back to the embassy. I prefer to live in London and would make this choice every time.
 
Last edited:

Cromulent

macrumors 603
Oct 2, 2006
6,032
35
0
The Land of Hope and Glory
They're much more incompetent for a start

I have a feeling the OP doesn't really know what the Gestapo, the Stasi or the KGB actually did.
Actually I've studied world war 2 history extensively and know exactly what they did. That is why I'm so worried. If I didn't know what they did I probably wouldn't care but this is exactly how all of these organisations started. First they started collecting data and then slowly they started doing more and more terrible things.

In Germany right now if you are a German citizen who lived under the Stasi during the cold war you can request to see the records they kept about you and they'll actually show you the paper records they kept. Can you do that with the records GCHQ have about you? I think not.

Even one of our MPs is saying that the reason that the British populace is so supportive of these measures is because they have never had to live under a police state and don't know what these laws eventually lead too.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/08/david-davis-liberty-draft-investigatory-powers-bill-holes

Because for the past 200 years we haven’t had a Stasi or a Gestapo, we are intellectually lazy about it, so it’s an uphill battle. Even people who are broadly on my side of the political spectrum in believing in privacy and liberty tend to take the state at its word too often.
 

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
I'm not comparing the police to Stasi, KGB or Gestapo I'm comparing GCHQ and MI5 / MI6 to them. Although having said that the police also want access to the information as well so maybe they are just as bad as GCHQ et al as well.



So you'd be OK with the idea that your hypothetical neighbour who works for the security services could look up your browsing history and email history because they were interested or wanted to find out about you?

What about a rogue employee in GCHQ that sells information about you to a terrorist organisation or a foreign power like China or North Korea? Or even worse sells information about your private browsing habits to your employer which might get you sacked because they didn't like people who looked at (legal) porn or your insurance company that found out you had a medical condition you didn't disclose which might result in your premiums being put up or your insurance policy being cancelled.

What about if you were an opponent of the government and they wanted to discredit you with private information (say information gained about any medical conditions you have or you hanging out with that bloke who was a criminal in his youth but never told you)?

This is scary stuff and needs to be stopped.
How is it any different from living next door to your doctor who knows your entire medical history? Anyway - people post enough crap on Facebook and tell the world way more than anyone really wants to know.

An employer wouldn't/COULDN'T sack you for looking at legal porn in your own home in your own time.

If you were withholding a medical condition from your insurance, that would be fraud. Any claim would go back to your doctor and you'd be found out anyway.

I'm not in MI5/6 so I'm guessing China and Korea don't really give a **** about me. If they did they'd just hack straight in to my computer without having to go through a corrupt member of the security services.

The government couldn't use it just if you disagree with them.

I really have nothing to hide. Nothing I say or do on the internet is of the slightest interest to GCHQ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flunkyturtle

Cromulent

macrumors 603
Oct 2, 2006
6,032
35
0
The Land of Hope and Glory
I really have nothing to hide. Nothing I say or do on the internet is of the slightest interest to GCHQ.
People use that argument all the time and it never holds any water. This is about human rights and British liberties. Would you be happy if tomorrow the government enacted a law that said you couldn't hang around with certain people?

If the only reason you oppose laws is because it has a detrimental effect on you then that comes across as highly selfish.

You fight things because it is the right thing to do regardless of whether it effects you or not. This is called having principles and principles are what the British legal system is built on. Principles and the idea of a free and open society. A society that doesn't have to worry if they post something controversial on social media. A society that can say whatever it likes.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,251
0
UK
How is it any different from living next door to your doctor who knows your entire medical history? Anyway - people post enough crap on Facebook and tell the world way more than anyone really wants to know.

An employer wouldn't/COULDN'T sack you for looking at legal porn in your own home in your own time.

If you were withholding a medical condition from your insurance, that would be fraud. Any claim would go back to your doctor and you'd be found out anyway.

I'm not in MI5/6 so I'm guessing China and Korea don't really give a **** about me. If they did they'd just hack straight in to my computer without having to go through a corrupt member of the security services.

The government couldn't use it just if you disagree with them.

I really have nothing to hide. Nothing I say or do on the internet is of the slightest interest to GCHQ.
It will affect you as it'll cost a huge amount of money to store all the data.
 

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
People use that argument all the time and it never holds any water. This is about human rights and British liberties. Would you be happy if tomorrow the government enacted a law that said you couldn't hang around with certain people?

If the only reason you oppose laws is because it has a detrimental effect on you then that comes across as highly selfish.

You fight things because it is the right thing to do regardless of whether it effects you or not. This is called having principles and principles are what the British legal system is built on. Principles and the idea of a free and open society. A society that doesn't have to worry if they post something controversial on social media. A society that can say whatever it likes.
They are not enacting laws that limit who I hang around with - unless I want to hang out with terrorists/paedophiles. If they did want to stop me colluding with, say Morris dancers, then there would be a massive public revolt.

What about the human rights of the victims of paedophiles or terrorists?
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,251
0
UK
They are not enacting laws that limit who I hang around with - unless I want to hang out with terrorists/paedophiles. If they did want to stop me colluding with, say Morris dancers, then there would be a massive public revolt.
Child abuse is usually tackled by people in the community grassing them up to social services...

What about the human rights of the victims of paedophiles or terrorists?
It's not like there's a terrorist attack every year. The last one in the UK was in 2005.