Not normally a fan of Meta, but happy to cheer them on here.
I don't know. Ask Stalin, Pot Pot, Putin and other wonderful politicians we've had throughout history.If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this? Are we so paranoid as to believe that a worker at the Home Office is going to randomly access a person's messages for a laugh? We have the least amount of privacy ever; a person can literally walk down the road and record videos of you without you even knowing, then share it online where it will be forever available - but I'm not going to Hogwarts to rob the invisible cloak.
Even they are correct once in a blue moon….Not normally a fan of Meta, but happy to cheer them on here.
a) We are worked up because the definition of "crime" changes, and especially in the UK, judges have far reaching powers to make almost any behaviour a crime (including chatting about maybe considering blocking a motorway).If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this? Are we so paranoid as to believe that a worker at the Home Office is going to randomly access a person's messages for a laugh? We have the least amount of privacy ever; a person can literally walk down the road and record videos of you without you even knowing, then share it online where it will be forever available - but I'm not going to Hogwarts to rob the invisible cloak.
It is fine because the privacy of EVERYONE is more important than supporting the single case.So if a terrorist who caused untold personal trauma was apprehended yet no-one was able to access said person's phone due to the above encryption, you would say that's fine because their privacy is more important than supporting the case?
Find another way to get info from the terrorist? How do you know the info is on the terrorist phone?So if a terrorist who caused untold personal trauma was apprehended yet no-one was able to access said person's phone due to the above encryption, you would say that's fine because their privacy is more important than supporting the case?
And encryption can’t tell the difference between privacy matters and criminal matters.Find another way to get info from the terrorist? How do you know the info is on the terrorist phone?
This is the UK we're talking about. In the future, who's to say what naughty words our government adds to its definition of a crime.If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this?
Your whole “Straw Man” argument is unsustainable and a weak excuse for your stand. IF you’re going to argue for your point, YOU need a better and more sustainable reason for revoking your rights to privacy!So if a terrorist who caused untold personal trauma was apprehended yet no-one was able to access said person's phone due to the above encryption, you would say that's fine because their privacy is more important than supporting the case?
Blanket surveillance without due cause or a warrant is a milestone on the road to authoritarianism. The fact we have passed other milestones makes this worse. There have been cases of abuse of intercepted communications both in the US and UK. The obvious solution is that a judge issues a search warrant after a fair hearing and that warrant is served on the iPhone owner after the phone has been confiscated. Otherwise, people will simply encrypt a message before inputting it into the iPhone. If I use 'Zqarsits' in a message because I use don't trust communication apps, nobody will know whether I am referring to nuclear land torpedoes or foolish authoritarian politicians.If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this? Are we so paranoid as to believe that a worker at the Home Office is going to randomly access a person's messages for a laugh? We have the least amount of privacy ever; a person can literally walk down the road and record videos of you without you even knowing, then share it online where it will be forever available - but I'm not going to Hogwarts to rob the invisible cloak.
a) We are worked up because the definition of "crime" changes, and especially in the UK, judges have far reaching powers to make almost any behaviour a crime (including chatting about maybe considering blocking a motorway).
b) Yes, we are so paranoid, because, see a).
c) taking a video of a private individual without them knowing is illegal in normal countries, and should be here. See a) and see right to privacy. Just because someone is walking in a public space should not mean they lose their right to privacy.
d) starting a video of a private person online without their consent is illegal in normal countries, and should be here. At least there are some safeguards even in the UK.
UK is already way down the surveillance state path, any opposition can only be applauded.
No you have that completely wrong. Lets fix it.So if a terrorist who caused untold personal trauma was apprehended yet no-one was able to access said person's phone due to the above encryption, you would say that's fine because their privacy is more important than supporting the case?
That doesn't really answer the question. If a government official turns up in a pretend Handy-Man van, what they actually going to find? Me sitting on the couch with a beer?
It is fine because the privacy of EVERYONE is more important than supporting the single case.
Alternatively, let's say you're someone using a period tracking app, and happen to be in some place like Alabama when you have a miscarriage. Then the local sheriff arrests you for having an abortion and subpoenas your data.Well say you're gay. Then they record all your conversations, because they can. Then they make being gay illegal. Then you're ****ed. That's why.
The view that as soon as someone in a public space s/he loses its privacy rights is not shared in other countries, e.g. Germany. Yes, it can be taken too far (pic of a crowded football stadium must be legal), but recording a specific person, lingering on a person; in general if the inclusion of the person is other than incidental; it may well not be legal without the person's consent. It's definitely not legal to then post the pic or vid, and even less legal to do so with identification.Blanket surveillance without due cause or a warrant is a milestone on the road to authoritarianism. The fact we have passed other milestones makes this worse. There have been cases of abuse of intercepted communications both in the US and UK. The obvious solution is that a judge issues a search warrant after a fair hearing and that warrant is served on the iPhone owner after the phone has been confiscated. Otherwise, people will simply encrypt a message before inputting it into the iPhone. If I use 'Zqarsits' in a message because I use don't trust communication apps, nobody will know whether I am referring to nuclear land torpedoes or foolish authoritarian politicians.
And lest we forget how the modern era of Apple started:
(link)![]()
EDIT:
Agree with most of your points except (c). There is no expectation of privacy in a public space so photographers should be able to take pictures of people in public as long as they are not breaking other laws (e.g., laws against upskirting, which is rightfully illegal in the UK).
You got it. I totally agree.If there is a back door it’s only a matter of time before someone finds the way to use it other than the government. I stand with Apple and meta on this one: there should be no backdoor at all.
Enjoy being refused entry due lacking your social credit score.If you're not guilty of committing a crime (and don't plan on doing so), why get so worked up about this? Are we so paranoid as to believe that a worker at the Home Office is going to randomly access a person's messages for a laugh? We have the least amount of privacy ever; a person can literally walk down the road and record videos of you without you even knowing, then share it online where it will be forever available - but I'm not going to Hogwarts to rob the invisible cloak.
The removal of privacy from an entire population can be an extremely powerful method of social, political, and psychological control. Here’s how and why:So if a terrorist who caused untold personal trauma was apprehended yet no-one was able to access said person's phone due to the above encryption, you would say that's fine because their privacy is more important than supporting the case?
I understand laws vary by country. However, I am sure there are laws about photography, say, in North Korea, that we would not want to copy. People don't own the photons reflecting off them. At any rate I got tired of self-righteous people erroneously arguing that that one cannot take their picture in public in the UK that I just photograph landscapes and nature now.The view that as soon as someone in a public space s/he loses its privacy rights is not shared in other countries, e.g. Germany. Yes, it can be taken too far (pic of a crowded football stadium must be legal), but recording a specific person, lingering on a person; in general if the inclusion of the person is other than incidental; it may well not be legal without the person's consent. It's definitely not legal to then post the pic or vid, and even less legal to do so with identification.
A public space must remain safe, that includes safety to ones privacy. Same reason you cannot be searched, just because you may be in a public space. Again, UK is way too lenient here, and they are because the government wants to have access to as much video/photo footage as possible.
As a rule of thumb: laws in the UK are there to allow the government / state to have rights over the citizens, seldomly to protect the citizens from the government. That is also why German politicians often speak about prosecuting people "as required by the law", while UK politicians generally speak about prosecuting people " to the fullest extent allowed by law".