Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bruce Banner

Amber Rudd - Only terrorists benefit from end to end encryption.

Recommended Posts

TBH I can't understand why any terrorist would leave their encryption to a service.

On that basis, in theory, it's only terrorists (and criminals) who shouldn't give a toss about services offering end to end encryption.

If she ever gets the techs on board, sales of steganographic software will take off, not just because terrorists will want it, but because the rest of us fail to see why only terrorists are to be allowed privacy.

In its infancy, the internet carried few pictures and no movies. Nowadays with the ton of media circulating, it will be completely impossible to detect a stegaongraphic picture or even movie / clip in transit. She's living in a dream world.

She should shut up and do her best to use what data is available from the non-tech savy, rather than publicizing ways to communicate privately. Sooner or later well all 'go dark', and that day will only be hastened the more she threatens people's privacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No terrorist with a brain would use any electronic form of communication anyway. All are suspect and capable of interception.

The sensible policy is to stick to old fashioned typewriters and meetings in person held in the middle of nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Errol said:

 

The sensible policy is to stick to old fashioned typewriters and meetings in person held in the middle of nowhere.

 

Thing is, I don't think  'nowhere' exists anymore. Plus, 'nowhere' generally only has one road in and one road out. If the person you are communicating with is being watched, it won't be long before you come home to find your cctv footage full of white noise and your glitter-nail-varnish tamper-tells broken!

Best then check the tin foil hat for alpha-wave reading bugs!

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was once clobbered on here for suggesting that the internet would never be made secure for the simple reason that the PTB do not want it to be secure- the losses from online fraud ect are a price worth paying to retain the ability to peruse the 'private' communications of the great unwashed. Terrorism does provide an excellent rationale for a less than secure system but even if there were no terrorists I suspect the idea of a genuinely opaque web that allowed the plebs to talk privately among themselves would never be tolorated.

As it turns out the problem never really arose because far from demanding privacy most people are positively eager to publish online every detail of their lives via social media anyway, making Big Brother kind of redundant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear.

We all have something to fear by an establisemt riding us harder than a TT bike rider who's bike just list control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amber Rudd's position is so ridiculous, I can only presume they are saying this to convince bad people that Whats App etc are actually impeneterable at the moment.

Which makes me think they actually have a backdoor already, classic redirection move if so.

This is also what happened with Blackberry messages if I remember correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

We all have something to fear by an establisemt riding us harder than a TT bike rider who's bike just list control.

I must try to remember that irony does not work on this forum :(.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Habeas Domus said:

Amber Rudd's position is so ridiculous, I can only presume they are saying this to convince bad people that Whats App etc are actually impeneterable at the moment.

Which makes me think they actually have a backdoor already, classic redirection move if so.

This is also what happened with Blackberry messages if I remember correctly.

It's an extension of Theresa May's "snoopers charter". 

That quotation is from  Joseph Goebbels (Nazi propaganda minister)

Reinhard Heydrich would have given his eye teeth for a fraction of the snooping equipment used by governments these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, wonderpup said:

As it turns out the problem never really arose because far from demanding privacy most people are positively eager to publish online every detail of their lives via social media anyway, making Big Brother kind of redundant.

The things that people want to do, and seem to think I'm weird for for not liking, never cease to amaze and depress me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, wonderpup said:

I was once clobbered on here for suggesting that the internet would never be made secure for the simple reason that the PTB do not want it to be secure- the losses from online fraud ect are a price worth paying to retain the ability to peruse the 'private' communications of the great unwashed. Terrorism does provide an excellent rationale for a less than secure system but even if there were no terrorists I suspect the idea of a genuinely opaque web that allowed the plebs to talk privately among themselves would never be tolorated.

As far as I can determine fraud from snooping unsecure traffic is minimal - the vast majority of it would work no matter what actual connection security was provided as there is no protection against being stupid enough to give your login details to some dodgy email / caller etc.

Also most communication is one-to-many where there is little point in securing it since (like this forum) anyone can create an account and read the contents. So I dont think there is any deep state agenda to keep the internet snoopable, its just evolved as a bit of a hotchpotch of mechanisms some of which are secure and some of which arnt.

If two people want to communicate in guaranteed privacy over the internet its fairly simple to do. The watsapp thing is interesting because I think there is a bit of a trend towards clientside end-to-end encryption. Its makes commercial sense as well because of you can legitimately claim you cant see the encrypted traffic then you cant be held accountable for any misuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Riedquat, I agree it's deeply depressing how social media has created such narcissistic and superficial time-suck, and worse, an advertising money-suck.

But ... on another note.

Why the feck does she need to go to California? Can't she speak to them a cheaper way? Who's briefing her? Oh, I forgot, we've had enough of listening to experts!

Data is their hoard, their gold - it's doubtful they will relinquish access willingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2017 at 4:59 PM, Riedquat said:

Only those with an oddly pressing desire to be seen to be squeaky clean don't mind people watching them.

...  and doggers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I dont think there is any deep state agenda to keep the internet snoopable

Given the choice between a genuinely secure internet that could not be hacked and the current situation I suspect that most Goverments would want to keep the status quo- why else do we employ an army of spies and hackers if not to take advantage of the opportunity to listen in?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/08/2017 at 6:48 PM, wonderpup said:

As it turns out the problem never really arose because far from demanding privacy most people are positively eager to publish online every detail of their lives via social media anyway, making Big Brother kind of redundant.

There is a big difference between choosing to publish personal details online and being spied on without consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Eagle said:

There is a big difference between choosing to publish personal details online and being spied on without consent.

Very true, but unfortunately there are very, very large numbers of people who simply don't see the difference - and don't care that it happens. The human race has pretty much lost most of its self-respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   58 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.