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.
UK Parliamentary Bill Would Require Backdoors in Electronic Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The most depressing thing is you believe left and right polarisation has anything to do with the desire to stamp on people's faces (orwell) totalitarianism will happily take any guise it can wriggle into.
[doublepost=1458003047][/doublepost]
your usage is all wrong for the term 'mates' - but I would let you go with 'mateys' for plural. also - do you know what condescending means?
If you've got nothing to hide then you've got nothing to fear.
Linux for the OS obviously. Not sure what I'd do about the hardware. Something open source I suppose... But I don't know how I can trust the manufacturer...
Browsing history of 12 months!?
Are they trying to turn UK toward to this?
Are they trying to turn UK toward to this?
Except that knowing you are being watched changes your behaviour.
[doublepost=1458013938][/doublepost]The other weird thing... is it me, or does no one feel safer if they have a "back door"?
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/03/14/clarke
If you've got nothing to hide then grant me unrestricted access to your webcam.
Saying you don't care about privacy because you've got nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about free speech because you've got nothing to say. It's not about something to hide. It's about something to lose.
There's no question that people in many countries are imprisoned, punished, or worse, for saying, doing or believing things that you would undoubtedly consider legal and even appropriate.
Last edited:
The more a government has to hide, the more they want to monitor those they rule and oppress.
When this comes in (and it will), if you get arrested for something, however minor, the police will bring up your browsing history and use it in their line of questioning.
The implications and assumptions they could draw from any sites that you have visited (however fleetingly) or that you inadvertently got redirected to could be used to their own ends.
Imagine the scenario - Your internet connection record tells the cops that you visit the website of the school that your child goes to, say to check term dates. Some days or even weeks after that, you visit a picture sharing website, lets say Flickr for example. These actions, whilst innocent in themselves, could be linked and presented such that you appear as some sort of closet paedo.
The article is incorrect to suggest that by Labour abstaining it will derail the bill.
It will, in fact, allow the bill to pass (barring a larger rebellion in the Conservative party).
Labour need to decide where they stand on this bill. If it is not up to scratch and has flaws, vote against it.
[doublepost=1458034085][/doublepost]
The majority of CCTV is run by private firms, just looking onto public streets.
Even if we banned public authorities in their entirety from having CCTV, 70% of CCTV or so would still exist.
It will, in fact, allow the bill to pass (barring a larger rebellion in the Conservative party).
Labour need to decide where they stand on this bill. If it is not up to scratch and has flaws, vote against it.
[doublepost=1458034085][/doublepost]
The majority of CCTV is run by private firms, just looking onto public streets.
Even if we banned public authorities in their entirety from having CCTV, 70% of CCTV or so would still exist.
The bill is backed by a draft code of practice that would also ban companies from revealing if they had been asked to install the backdoor technology.
So, first you want complete power to snoop, and then you don't even have the balls to admit to the public or let it be known that you were snooping. So, in effect, you could always play around the bush with saying, "We have the power but we have not used it yet, and we will only use it if a need arises" all the while asking companies to regularly submit data to the government and banning them from telling their customers that they have been asked to do it. Wow. Just wow.
This is not about threats at all... this is only a game to these people at the helm. It should be a two-way street, the public should also know what photo the prime minister sent to her daughter or how many times he said 'i miss you' to his wife while being on foreign trips..because the people of the country are the people of the country, rulers are also people of the country, not some aliens coming to rule them!
And just as the government is scared, the public is also scared - what if the wife is found in a dalliance with someone and that obviously will affect the mental state of the prime minister, so rendering him tipsy to govern us and he could possible make rash decisions that harm national security, no? The public must have the right to the prime minister's and family's phones all the time because of such and other threats, too.
[doublepost=1458042822][/doublepost]
Linux is not magic. It is also built by people, and spread by companies. The companies and people - both - can be - and are in process of being (if the bills are passed) - forced to create backdoors that we wouldn't even know of.
Think of the level this can go down to.. it is not about if you can get a piece of software that does not have backdoors. The internet - that is, the medium you will use for everything - that is what the government will monitor in the end. This is another of the ways government is using to monitor the internet.
Obviously, as some wise guy once said, some people are more equal than others, and those more equals will be the government officials. The only way to go around this is to wage a collective war against such tyranny. Neither is this North Korea, nor is this China.
So, first you want complete power to snoop, and then you don't even have the balls to admit to the public or let it be known that you were snooping. So, in effect, you could always play around the bush with saying, "We have the power but we have not used it yet, and we will only use it if a need arises" all the while asking companies to regularly submit data to the government and banning them from telling their customers that they have been asked to do it. Wow. Just wow.
This is not about threats at all... this is only a game to these people at the helm. It should be a two-way street, the public should also know what photo the prime minister sent to her daughter or how many times he said 'i miss you' to his wife while being on foreign trips..because the people of the country are the people of the country, rulers are also people of the country, not some aliens coming to rule them!
And just as the government is scared, the public is also scared - what if the wife is found in a dalliance with someone and that obviously will affect the mental state of the prime minister, so rendering him tipsy to govern us and he could possible make rash decisions that harm national security, no? The public must have the right to the prime minister's and family's phones all the time because of such and other threats, too.
[doublepost=1458042822][/doublepost]
Linux is not magic. It is also built by people, and spread by companies. The companies and people - both - can be - and are in process of being (if the bills are passed) - forced to create backdoors that we wouldn't even know of.
Think of the level this can go down to.. it is not about if you can get a piece of software that does not have backdoors. The internet - that is, the medium you will use for everything - that is what the government will monitor in the end. This is another of the ways government is using to monitor the internet.
Obviously, as some wise guy once said, some people are more equal than others, and those more equals will be the government officials. The only way to go around this is to wage a collective war against such tyranny. Neither is this North Korea, nor is this China.
Last edited:
You should always assume that. This privacy thing is a charade as all your details and movements are already tracked by the higher ups who want to suppress and control you. Those crazy UK gun laws mean you've already given up your freedoms as you can't even protect yourselves. Your privacy is gone more than anybody's, so suck it up, as the watchers say.
[doublepost=1458046977][/doublepost]
I'd expect my webcam to be used as a spying device with or without my consent. To assume otherwise is a fallacy. Simplest technique is to not have a webcam but then you must clearly be hiding something through lack thereof, and require extra scrutiny.
They're going to spend millions of pounds on storing cat pictures.
HAHAHHAHAHA, you yanks crack me up!
Why do you need a gun, imagine a world without them! I know you guys love friendly fire and all that, but jeez you're so far from it, it's un-real.
You're one of them in the street I look at and say he'd kill for no reason.
Attachments
20 years on from Dunblane and 18 years on from when the strict gun laws came into effect. Universally almost everyone in the UK agrees it was the right thing to do.
All except one, yep you got it..... Nigel Farage.
But anyway, there is no comparison to be made between privacy and gun ownership.
All except one, yep you got it..... Nigel Farage.
But anyway, there is no comparison to be made between privacy and gun ownership.
More likely, what we will see is a new generation of jail breaks that run encrypted processes that is inaccessible to the "snoop thread" (those of DefCon know the meaning) where it looks harmless and internal works cannot be detected. I would be surprised if breaks like this are in private trails now.
Who is gonna protect you from the bad guys? The unarmed cops? Gimmee a break. They'll be hiding behind you when the time were to come. The only person who will look out for you, is YOU. It's that simple. Unfortunately for you brits, the people have been conditioned that guns = badness at all times by your media. Sure, bad things happen but the reality is whether it's guns, bombs, knives, machetes, cars, etc., it don't matter the weapon as the bad guy out to cause havoc always will. Bu you've no means to put him or her down now.
Well, that probably also explains why Apple put security cameras in its buildings, gave China source code when required (for "security" reasons or others), etc...
You must lead a sad, depressed life to be so pessimistic, and to believe that the only way to protect oneself is with a gun and the intent to kill. It's a shame, really, as the world is full of wonderful things and people.