Typical responses in here, your all MUCH happier to use social media that actively supports terrorist activities then support national security, what you all think security is to invade and blow up other countries?
If these companies don't give access I can see international laws being drawn up to force them and they won't be able to stop it, and that'll be worst then letting them provide access on their own terms.
People on here are as short sighted as politicians. Case in point are those going on about the West invading other countries, fine, stop working and paying taxes then because you are funding those wars and weapons developments with your taxes.
[doublepost=1490646223][/doublepost]
More people in London die from push-bike accidents each year (certainly if comparing over the last 10 years) than from any 'terrorist' attack.
Let's put this into perspective.
Would being able to have read any text message have stopped this murder? No.
We must fight for privacy.
The ignorance in this comment... that's because of the tireless work carried out by the countries security forces foiling endless terrorist plots...
So you are saying that is perfectly fine for someone to drive a 40 ton lorry into a mass crowd of innocent people like has happened, killing anyone from young children to old people, all because more people die on push bikes....
I think YOUR the one who needs perspective.
[doublepost=1490646764][/doublepost]
You can't just make a blanket statement along the lines of 'encryption on messenging apps is bad' without understanding its implications in the greater society as was seemingly the case here. All day it has been taken out of context in the media and it really erks me that the general public are 'happy' with this stance.
There is no doubt (nor what it mentioned as such) that the attacks in London were a travesty. They were and as anyone I would be distraught if something like this were to happen to my loved ones. Encryption isn't the cause, seemingly radicalism is. Just because the information is there doesn't mean that the Governement should have access to it by right.
Why not treat the cause, rather than affecting the public as a whole.
And the implications are supporting social media systems that actively support terrorism because terrorists use those systems, and you want the security and privacy protected at all costs!
I'm more then willing to bet most on here wouldn't sleep at night if they truly knew the dreadful acts that are planned that are stopped every year by security services. Yet when it comes to helping those security services save lives, it's endless protests if it means giving them access to social media services.
FYI these security services will just hack their way in, they actively loo for ways to remotely hack phones, their was even a job advert for engineers for MI5 to do just that! But why should they be forced to hack in? People would really rather have their data entrusted to corporations selling their data for money then allow security services to get court orders and access social media strings made by terrorists.
[doublepost=1490646949][/doublepost]
Also when it comes to terrorism, it's the media that is the problem, they sensationalise it, and turn idiots into celebrities . The only looser in this is the average joe that losses thier civil rights and lives in fear cause the media remind us daily
I won't argue against that! It's been never ending front page news on television and in the papers since last Thursday! I don't think they could do more coverage if they tried!
Look people, I agree it may seem a less likeable route to allow security services access to social media, but I also feel the arrogance against the idea needs to be dropped, the west has pretty much allowed and created these terrorists (and I mean that as in ALL Of us in the West), so we should also accept we need to allow access to help stop what we have helped to create.
But anyway I said usually for a reason.
