Emergency lockdown in London after Policeman stabbed outside Parliament

[tobyjugg2]

The argument then (which I don't accept : see above for postcards v. letters in envelopes) is that only people up to no good need to use encryption, so anything encrypted is then worthy of attention.

 

Mind you : who knows how secure the encryption method is?.

It has been alleged that after World War 2 machines based on the "unbreakable" Enigma method were sold for diplomatic and commercial use, with the fact that the electromechanical method (the 'bombe') for breaking the encipherment was available to GCCS.

 

 

Encryption is secure (depending on what you use)

 

Encryption prevents anyone from reading your PRIVATE conversations particularly given use of open wifi points and the very nature of the internet where anyone can intercept any packets on your bit of the network (which could be from and to anywhere in the world)

 

So unless you are happy with any tom dick or Amber reading your private interactions with your friends and loved ones, encryption is a necessity.

 

I can and will add currently unbreakable encryption to all my friends and loved ones phones and there will be no back door.

and if I can so can REAL terrorists - certainly far better.

 

BUT the real point is that this is just an excuse to implement spying on everyone - real terrorists will bypass this before its got past the end of today - in fact they almost certainly already do

 

 

(this doesn't even touch the issues of reporters sending articles from war zones or police states - where privacy and free speech isnt allowed (sic))

[Guest]

About slave mentality:

I have no fear of being under surveillance, in fact i couldn't care less.

I also have no fear of terrorists because I believe that i will go when my time is up, so I have very little control over when I'm gonna die.

Death doesn't scare me either.

How am I a mentality slave if I live my life without caring about people watching me?

I do what I have to do and carry on, I do not care about people looking at me or listening to my conversation.

ah king, your posts seem a shame.

it seems you are pretty much what toby posted about the willing subservient.

it seems you have pretty much bent your back so it can be ridden.

and then blame others, like the eu etc

 

Personally I only lock the door to signal that the toilet is occupied.

why lock the door in the first place then if you don't give ****e someone watching . leave it open. the 'occupied' excuse doesn't wash, as with the door open someone can see you're occupied on the ****ter anyway.

[king12345]

Will go further, when you get home you close your front door to shut out the outside world

 

You have no argument then for a CCTV camera in your own home monitoring your private movements by the state?

 

I have no problem whatsoever with that if it means saving lives.

[king12345]

ah king, your posts seem a shame.

it seems you are pretty much what toby posted about the willing subservient.

it seems you have pretty much bent your back so it can be ridden.

and then blame others, like the eu etc

 

why lock the door in the first place then if you don't give ****e someone watching . leave it open. the 'occupied' excuse doesn't wash, as with the door open someone can see you're occupied on the ****ter anyway.

 

Why do you say that I bend my back and blame others?

This is about surveillance, not eu.

I state it again, if it saves lives I have no objection in being spied on 24/7.

 

Regarding the toilet, you'll find that if I left it open most people will feel embarrassed when they open the door and find me on the throne, that's another reason to keep it locked.

As said, I don't care if someone is amused by watching, as far as I'm concerned I would go in the middle of Trafalgar square.

[Guest]

Why do you say that I bend my back and blame others?

This is about surveillance, not eu.

.

you blamed the eu in yr prior post #5, which i then said was rubbish to do so...

so, you now agree...ah, the hyprocisy

 

Regarding the toilet, you'll find that if I left it open most people will feel embarrassed when they open the door and find me on the throne, that's another reason to keep it locked.

nice try, but it doesn't wash. i 'wont find' anything such. you're the one that wants it open, but at the same time you want it closed! just leave it open, and let whomever wants to watch you watch.

[renegadeimp]

Funny after all thats happened, they now slide back to their little scheme of trying to force companies to open encrypted messages. Its no wonder conspiracy theorists are rife. The governement does make it kinda obvious what their agenda is

[Guest]

Why do you say that I bend my back

i meant to explain.

its basically re bending over for the state, further to what has been posted.

'whenever men and women straighten their backs up, they're going somewhere. 'cause a man (or whatever) can't ride ones back unless it is bent.

[king12345]

you blamed the eu in yr prior post #5, which i then said was rubbish to do so...

so, you now agree...ah, the hyprocisy

 

 

nice try, but it doesn't wash. i 'wont find' anything such. you're the one that wants it open, but at the same time you want it closed! just leave it open, and let whomever wants to watch you watch.

 

I mentioned the eu in the context of protecting criminals.

We are now discussing whether it is ok for me to be watched at all times.

Of course eu doesn't allow that, so even more against it.

If I left the toilet door open, it would be inconvenient to say to everyone opening the door: "sorry, I'm using this, but you can watch if you want"

The answer would inevitably be: "why don't you lock the door then???"

I still wouldn't care if there was a camera or a number of live onlookers.

Anyhow, we're going around in circle.

I agree to be monitored for the common good, others prefer to keep their privacy even at cost of innocent lives.

[tobyjugg2]

Anyone who listened to radio 4 this morning (let alone got themselves reasonably informed) would have heard the UK spooks saying just what I said, that access to whatsapp etc will not make any difference and criminals and terrorists will just use other methods.

 

You would also have heard that Rudd is applying to the EU for authority to access these private messages of ordinary citizens, which should be refused.

Is that Rudd trying to politic 'the EU protects terrorists' BS or is it just her 'get out of stupid clueless rhetoric' card so she can say she tried and was blocked by the EU.

 

I think its an element of both to try and con some support from anti EU camps.

 

 

 

Well our security forces say exactly the same thing I did. Its utterly pointless with regards to organised criminals and terrorist messaging.

 

So I say again - its just attempts at blanket surveillance of the law abiding population by the back door.

[king12345]

Anyone who listened to radio 4 this morning (let alone got themselves reasonably informed) would have heard the UK spooks saying just what I said, that access to whatsapp etc will not make any difference and criminals and terrorists will just use other methods.

 

You would also have heard that Rudd is applying to the EU for authority to access these private messages of ordinary citizens, which should be refused.

Is that Rudd trying to politic 'the EU protects terrorists' BS or is it just her 'get out of stupid clueless rhetoric' card so she can say she tried and was blocked by the EU.

 

I think its an element of both to try and con some support from anti EU camps.

 

 

 

Well our security forces say exactly the same thing I did. Its utterly pointless with regards to organised criminals and terrorist messaging.

 

So I say again - its just attempts at blanket surveillance of the law abiding population by the back door.

 

Why would the government be interested in what law abiding citizens do???

They/we live a pretty boring life without never breaking the law.

What would they get from monitoring us?

Nothing, nothing of interest.

It's true that terrorists will use encrypted communication, but most of them are not the sharpest tools in the box and would slip.

[renegadeimp]

Why would the government be interested in what law abiding citizens do???

They/we live a pretty boring life without never breaking the law.

What would they get from monitoring us?

Nothing, nothing of interest.

It's true that terrorists will use encrypted communication, but most of them are not the sharpest tools in the box and would slip.

 

You might like giving all your privacy away, i certainly dont.

[BazzaS]

Why would the government be interested in what law abiding citizens do???

They/we live a pretty boring life without never breaking the law.

What would they get from monitoring us?

Nothing, nothing of interest.

It's true that terrorists will use encrypted communication, but most of them are not the sharpest tools in the box and would slip.

 

Because they (the politicians, not the terrorists!) don't understand what they are doing re: cryptography

 

You have a Home Secretary who doesn't understand the difference between a cryptographic hash function and a hash-tag on social media.

That on its own wouldn't be too bad, but if the environment exists where the people briefing them can't or won't make sure they know the difference before they go on the Andrew Marr show......

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08l62r7/the-andrew-marr-show-26032017

At 49:25

[tobyjugg2]

Because they (the politicians, not the terrorists!) don't understand what they are doing re: cryptography

 

You have a Home Secretary who doesn't understand the difference between a cryptographic hash function and a hash-tag on social media.

That on its own wouldn't be too bad, but if the environment exists where the people briefing them can't or won't make sure they know the difference before they go on the Andrew Marr show......

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08l62r7/the-andrew-marr-show-26032017

At 49:25

 

They almost certainly have, or would have if she had asked.

But it seems reality is not suiting her agenda.

[obiter dictum]

Then why do people who protested on saturday in london have their photographs taken by the police forward inteligence teams without their consent??

 

They were no breaking the law and exercising a democratic right to protest.

 

Do you call that type of surveillance reasonable and proportionate to be labeled as a subversive by the state??

[tobyjugg2]

FROM THE HORSES MOUTH

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-masood-idUKKBN16Y1ZT

 

"British police said on Monday they had found no evidence that Khalid Masood, who killed four people in an attack on Britain's parliament last week, had any association with Islamic State or Al Qaeda,"

 

Neil Basu, senior national coordinator for UK counter-terrorism policing said:

"His (Masood) attack method appears to be based on low sophistication, low tech, low cost techniques copied from other attacks, and echo the rhetoric of IS leaders in terms of methodology and attacking police and civilians, but at this stage I have no evidence he discussed this with others,"

 

 

and despite this, Rudd says

'we have major terrorist plots, we want to spy on everyone.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvs4bOMv5Xw

 

 

EU must think, This Brexit negotiation will be either easy for us as they are idiots, or they will ask for Crazy unreasonable things.

 

 

(linked infamy video not showing for some reason)