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
2,747
0
It will affect you as it'll cost a huge amount of money to store all the data.
I was reading an article about it last night, it will really increase the cost of UK broadband provision, which effectively will fly in the face of governments commitment to affordable broadband.
 

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
Child abuse is usually tackled by people in the community grassing them up to social services...



It's not like there's a terrorist attack every year. The last one in the UK was in 2005.

This is parallel to the argument NRA make against tighter gun laws.

<Inadvertently brings up guns>:mad:

Lee Rigby was killed by Islamic extremists in 2013. Many plots have been foiled since 2005. I also wasn't talking about isolated incidents of child abuse - I'm talking large scale internet rings that create and distribute indecent (massive understatement) images of children.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,252
0
UK
This is parallel to the argument NRA make against tighter gun laws.

<Inadvertently brings up guns>:mad:

Lee Rigby was killed by Islamic extremists in 2013. Many plots have been foiled since 2005. I also wasn't talking about isolated incidents of child abuse - I'm talking large scale internet rings that create and distribute indecent (massive understatement) images of children.
Which of these plots have been foiled by GCHQ and does that really justify a multi-billion pound budget?
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,252
0
UK
This is parallel to the argument NRA make against tighter gun laws.

<Inadvertently brings up guns>:mad:

Lee Rigby was killed by Islamic extremists in 2013. Many plots have been foiled since 2005. I also wasn't talking about isolated incidents of child abuse - I'm talking large scale internet rings that create and distribute indecent (massive understatement) images of children.
And on top of direct spending does the treat of terrorism justify the £73 billion lost to fraud which unless we improve software security (and in doing so make it harder for the security services to access the data of terrorists and child abusers) we will be unable to reduce.
 

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
Which of these plots have been foiled by GCHQ and does that really justify a multi-billion pound budget?
MI5, MI6 and GCHQ together have prevented 40 between 2005 and Nov 2014.

There are crazy people like the director of policy for Liberty who actually say that terrorist attacks are a price we should be willing to pay for "freedom".

I don't see how a big server somewhere just collecting the sites I've visited (rather than the actual content I viewed) is infringing on my liberties.

The big misunderstanding here is the difference between mass collection of data and mass surveillance.

Is it a lot different to the Partriot/Freedom act in the states?
 

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
And on top of direct spending does the treat of terrorism justify the £73 billion lost to fraud which unless we improve software security (and in doing so make it harder for the security services to access the data of terrorists and child abusers) we will be unable to reduce.
That £73bn, what type of fraud is that?
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,252
0
UK
MI5, MI6 and GCHQ together have prevented 40 between 2005 and Nov 2014.

There are crazy people like the director of policy for Liberty who actually say that terrorist attacks are a price we should be willing to pay for "freedom".

I don't see how a big server somewhere just collecting the sites I've visited (rather than the actual content I viewed) is infringing on my liberties.

The big misunderstanding here is the difference between mass collection of data and mass surveillance.

Is it a lot different to the Partriot/Freedom act in the states?
So 40 attacks, and how many people would those have killed? And how many were actually prevented by the security services and not by people calling the police? And how many would have failed anyway by people pulling out later?
 

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
So 40 attacks, and how many people would those have killed? And how many were actually prevented by the security services and not by people calling the police? And how many would have failed anyway by people pulling out later?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/theresa-may-british-security-services-foiled-40-terror-plots-since-77-attacks-9879712.html

Again, this is just like when people like you and me protest against the amount of gun massacres and the pro-gun group say that it's such a small number and the majority of gun crime is gang violence and between criminals and it's not worth infringing on their rights.

Only this affects us even less. It is not stopping us from doing anything. GCHQ have neither the time, money nor inclination for mass-surveillance. This is just mass collection of data that even in the "wrong hands" would be completely worthless.

When I lived in London I worked on Bloomsbury Square - literally just around the corner from where the bus exploded on 7/7. If my frankly dull (bar a bit of ******* browsing) internet history has to sit on a server and in doing so one of these attacks is prevented then I'm all for it.

Much rather the money spent on this than bombing/putting troops on ground in Middle East.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,316
11,802
0
Midlife, Midwest
The thing that concerns me about a lot of the security/encryption legislation being discussed Britain is this: Its apparently being justified on the grounds that it can be used in a whole range of legal and law-enforcement situations that have nothing to do with terrorism.

People are rationalizing a significant, and costly, invasion of the rights of the British public on the basis that it will help stop child abuse and narcotics rings. But the security powers, and laws, have been used against animal-welfare activists. They have been used to determine whether children are eligible to attend schools in a certain district or not. They have been used to convict people for road offenses. At some point you have to wonder where they will stop.

Child abuse and illegal drugs are serious problems. But law enforcement has a host of tools and strategies it can employ to combat them - now, as they have in the past - without compromising the fundamental privacy of the entire country.

One thing stays in my mind: British codebreakers in WWII weren't given a "back door" to the German military encryption system known as Enigma. They had to work it out for themselves. And that was against a foe that was highly trained; highly disciplined; and exceedingly well equipped. I cannot believe that it is impossible to defeat modern terrorist cells - which are for the most part decidedly ad-hoc affairs - comprised of young, inexperienced, and often mentally unstable people, operating on a shoe-string budget.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Eraserhead

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,252
0
UK
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/theresa-may-british-security-services-foiled-40-terror-plots-since-77-attacks-9879712.html

Again, this is just like when people like you and me protest against the amount of gun massacres and the pro-gun group say that it's such a small number and the majority of gun crime is gang violence and between criminals and it's not worth infringing on their rights.

Only this affects us even less. It is not stopping us from doing anything. GCHQ have neither the time, money nor inclination for mass-surveillance. This is just mass collection of data that even in the "wrong hands" would be completely worthless.

When I lived in London I worked on Bloomsbury Square - literally just around the corner from where the bus exploded on 7/7. If my frankly dull (bar a bit of ******* browsing) internet history has to sit on a server and in doing so one of these attacks is prevented then I'm all for it.

Much rather the money spent on this than bombing/putting troops on ground in Middle East.
It doesn't do no harm to collect the data. It costs money that could be spent on something else. Whether that's directly out of government budgets or in extra fraud.

If we value lives at £10 million each in order to justify a billion pounds a year you'd need to save 100 lives a year.

7/7 only killed 52 people so even if every one of the fourty was as big as that and couldn't be prevented in other ways that would only be worth spending £2 billion a year on.
 

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
All fraud. A lot of which is online.
I don't see how this bill necessarily precludes internet security.
It doesn't do no harm to collect the data. It costs money that could be spent on something else. Whether that's directly out of government budgets or in extra fraud.

If we value lives at £10 million each in order to justify a billion pounds a year you'd need to save 100 lives a year.

7/7 only killed 52 people so even if every one of the fourty was as big as that and couldn't be prevented in other ways that would only be worth spending £2 billion a year on.

Welfare spending is £170bn/year. Is that worth it?
The "snooper's charter" is estimated to cost £250m over 10 years.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,252
0
UK
I don't see how this bill necessarily precludes internet security.
Mandatory back doors do.

Welfare spending is £170bn/year. Is that worth it?
Well at a value of £10 million a person it would have to save 17000 lives a year. Given the poor and old wouldn't be housed otherwise I think it probably reaches that target.

The "snooper's charter" is estimated to cost £250m over 10 years.
Plus the ongoing running costs for ISPs and the security services.
 
Last edited:

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,725
3,711
0
When I lived in London I worked on Bloomsbury Square - literally just around the corner from where the bus exploded on 7/7. If my frankly dull (bar a bit of ******* browsing) internet history has to sit on a server and in doing so one of these attacks is prevented then I'm all for it.

Much rather the money spent on this than bombing/putting troops on ground in Middle East.
Here's the problem. Terrorists aren't going to use software with security flaws ("backdoors"). They'll just find (plenty of freely available open source ones on the internet) or design their own encryption system.

You are giving up your fundamental privacy for no reason. The terrorists thing is a pipe dream. For instance, if the UK government demanded Apple put a backdoor in all versions of iOS 10 distributed in the UK, terrorists would just avoid those devices.

You're just giving up rights and privacy for no reason. These types of laws are about controlling the population, not "stopping terrorists". They only tell you that to trick people into supporting these Orwellian laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eraserhead

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
Here's the problem. Terrorists aren't going to use software with security flaws ("backdoors"). They'll just find (plenty of freely available open source ones on the internet) or design their own encryption system.

You are giving up your fundamental privacy for no reason. The terrorists thing is a pipe dream. For instance, if the UK government demanded Apple put a backdoor in all versions of iOS 10 distributed in the UK, terrorists would just avoid those devices.

You're just giving up rights and privacy for no reason. These types of laws are about controlling the population, not "stopping terrorists". They only tell you that to trick stupid people into supporting these Orwellian laws.

So why? What are they going to achieve from archiving my data? How are they going to control me?
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,316
11,802
0
Midlife, Midwest
Giving the intelligence and security services carte blanche to rummage through our electronic communications and devices is a bad idea for many reasons beyond the financial costs involved.

To start with, it fosters the illusion that giving the NSA or GCHQ the ability to listen to and decrypt everything will act as a panacea - foiling every terrorist plot and kiddie porn ring before they get started. Experience tells us otherwise. That once a target is aware that technology ABC is insecure - they simply switch to another method of communication. As the CIA found out when pursuing Osama bin Laden: a trusted courier given hand-written notes is a remarkably robust communications system; all but immune to even the most powerful satellites and decryption algorithms.

The reality is that an effective intelligence; counter-terrorism; or law-enforcement strategy relies on a layered approach. Involving everything from street-level operations; human intelligence sources; crime-scene analysis; as well as monitoring of legally-accessible data sources such as airline and immigration records.

If buying into the "Snoopers Charter" for a mere £250 million really did guarantee Britain would be safe from terrorism maybe it would be worth it. But it doesn't. That money is a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of billions Britain is already spending on its military; on its police; on its customs and border services; on its intelligence and security services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eraserhead

bandrews

macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2008
693
1,422
0
If buying into the "Snoopers Charter" for a mere £250 million really did guarantee Britain would be safe from terrorism maybe it would be worth it. But it doesn't. That money is a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of billions Britain is already spending on its military; on its police; on its customs and border services; on its intelligence and security services.
Which was my point in comparing with the welfare bill. All that money is already being spent and while £250m seems like a lot, it's nothing in the grand scheme of total govt spending.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,252
0
UK
Which was my point in comparing with the welfare bill. All that money is already being spent and while £250m seems like a lot, it's nothing in the grand scheme of total govt spending.
Why don't we double Jobseeker's Allowance? It's nothing in the grand scheme of total government spending.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,252
0
UK
But how does that control me?
Ever done anything wrong? Maybe speeding? Maybe talking to a woman who isn't your wife? Maybe you like BDSM? Maybe you punched someone after a few beers once? Maybe you stuck your dick in a pigs mouth in an initiation ceremony at university?

You Probably don't want that stuff revealed.