Kronos wrote:One is illegal.
so..how is this different to phone hacking
The UK General Politics Thread • Page 29
-
Page
of 116 First / Last -
Aargh. 11,342 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 2 years ago -
Bremenacht 11,696 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 6 years agoTom_Servo wrote:
Here u go:
Bremenacht: Didn't know about that. Any more info?
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2011-05-18b.17WS.1
It's apparently benign -in it's suggested form- but would allow private companies (and maybe HMG services) to request it whenever they feel it's use is appropriate. In other words, just the same way that the new health bill allowing privatisation doesn't mean it will get privatised - yet most people have a strong suspicion that it will happen.
ID via the back-door, basically. -
Bremenacht 11,696 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 6 years agoOh - and look who's promoting it! -
I think it says a whole lot about the government that people are trying to figure out if it is a joke or not. Even now with the other news agencies picking up the story, and the interviews and so on I'm still not 100% sure it's real.Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011 and 2012. -
darkmorgado 22,937 posts
Seen 6 hours ago
Registered 4 years agoAargh. wrote:
As well as the fact that this won't allow them to listen into the content of a phone call/email, they will just know who emailed/phoned who and when.Kronos wrote:
One is illegal.
so..how is this different to phone hacking
It's just the equivalent at looking at someone's browser history or recent calls list.Now with 80% more Cthulhu!
-
Dirtbox 73,958 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 11 years agoDDevil wrote:
It's 100% real.
I think it says a whole lot about the government that people are trying to figure out if it is a joke or not. Even now with the other news agencies picking up the story, and the interviews and so on I'm still not 100% sure it's real.
Watched something about it earlier on the TV news.+1 / Like / Tweet this post
-
Psychotext 49,550 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 7 years agoThen I guess we'll just have to hope that Labour somehow manage to be a little less fucking useless than they have been recently. This needs some serious noise made about it.This post is sponsored by Apple and the iPhone 4S. Think different.
-
Khanivor 38,870 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 11 years agoCan someone explain how this might differ greatly from RIPA? -
MightyMetalMonkey 599 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 5 years agoKhanivor wrote:
Because they'll sneak this one past whilst everyone is out buying fuel and being annoyed at the VAT on their Pasties...
Can someone explain how this might differ greatly from RIPA? -
RobAnybody 575 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 2 years ago -
X201 13,404 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 7 years agoKhanivor wrote:
Not much, just applies to online communication.
Can someone explain how this might differ greatly from RIPA?
The same people are on the user list.
Why the hell does the Charities Commission or the FSA need to be included?
Should be police and security forces only. -
mrharvest 5,057 posts
Seen 32 minutes ago
Registered 10 years agoThe proposed law is as invasive as it is pointless. Real criminals will just use VPN and voip telephony. There will be no identifying data of them left in the operators' records. So who are the government trying to spy on using this law? -
oceanmotion 13,382 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 10 years agomrharvest wrote:
They need someone with technical knowledge to explain this on the news to show it's completely pointless for the reasons the Government are saying so why are they really implementing it. It's all well and good to be barking up the civil liberties tree but calling them out with cold hard facts will go right for the heart. I'm worried nobody is going to bring this up.
The proposed law is as invasive as it is pointless. Real criminals will just use VPN and voip telephony. There will be no identifying data of them left in the operators' records. So who are the government trying to spy on using this law? -
Psychotext 49,550 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 7 years agoIf this comes in I'll switch to using encryption for everything... and I'm not even a criminal.This post is sponsored by Apple and the iPhone 4S. Think different.
-
glaeken 10,426 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 8 years agoThey probably would be able to catch some criminals and some terrorists. The stupid ones. I mean some of these people are not too bright and I have no doubt they will have some success.
The problem with the whole encryption part of this is they don't want to raise it because ultimately it’s a losing battle and they have no answer for it. As a politician you would to deliver the allusion of having answers for problems and you really don't want to raise to public attention an issue you have no answer for. -
MetalDog 23,448 posts
Seen 6 hours ago
Registered 11 years agoWon't they just slide into making using encryption without official sanction an offence as their 'answer'?-- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.
-
glaeken 10,426 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 8 years agoDifficult to see how they could do that given business regularly encrypts stuff as part of business requirements so how would it be Ok for a business but not a private individual? How do you tell what data is from a company or what would be from an individual? I work from home via VPN for instance.
Some governments have already attempted to control encryption by making it illegal to use keys over a certain length (the French government had a 40-bit encryption key length restriction) but they found it very difficult to enforce (think how that would work in a company that operates in multiple countries). The idea of the key length restriction is this was something they supposedly had the processing power to crack with brute force methods
How do you even tell the key length based on a stream of data unless you attempt to decrypt it all which is going to be logistically impossible given the amount of data constantly being transferred around the globe. Anyway things moved on quite a bit from that time as a 40-bit key would not be considered secure enough now for any business use. At the time it was thought that would be beyond say a criminal but within the realms of a government to crack. I am not sure that perceived difference in available processing power still exists given distributed computing networks that some criminal organisations have managed to control.
Edited by glaeken at 14:55:58 03-04-2012 -
Chopsen 13,790 posts
Seen 6 hours ago
Registered 8 years agoI did not know about the French thing.
Werent't there also export restrictions limiting American companies selling software that used 128-bit encryption, despite the fact that you could do this anyway using open source anywhere in the world?Thanks for expressing interest in my signature!
-
glaeken 10,426 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 8 years agoBack when I was involved in this sort of thing the export restriction was 56-bit. I believe it has changed since though to something like 128-bit though I am not sure if that is still current.
It never made a huge amount of sense given as you say you can find other non US products that would exceed these limits anyway. -
darkmorgado 22,937 posts
Seen 6 hours ago
Registered 4 years agoAnother petition (over 30,000 signatures so far):
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/stop-government-snooping#petition
Edited by darkmorgado at 16:33:42 03-04-2012Now with 80% more Cthulhu!
-
Megapocalypse 4,527 posts
Seen 14 minutes ago
Registered 9 years agoHas a petition for this sort of thing ever had any effect whatsoever? -
figgis 7,368 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 8 years agoLoads of petitions work. -
Psychotext 49,550 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 7 years agoYeah, just not the ones asking for retarded shit (like not releasing FFXIII on the 360).This post is sponsored by Apple and the iPhone 4S. Think different.
-
Plant 176 posts
Seen 14 hours ago
Registered 6 years ago -
Dougs 59,439 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 10 years agoMegapocalypse wrote:
They work in so far as they get the issues debated in the House. Which is a start at least.
Has a petition for this sort of thing ever had any effect whatsoever? -
As far as I understand it is only for helping top secret agents to catch terrorists, not available to your average copper or 'the government'. I had no objection and assumed that they could already do this. I'm surprised they have no ability to monitor internet activity.
-
darkmorgado 22,937 posts
Seen 6 hours ago
Registered 4 years agoThey can already do this, but they need a warrant.
They've so far avoided to answer whether or not this new bill means they can do it without a warrant or reasonable suspicion - which makes me think that the need for a warrant will go out of the window.Now with 80% more Cthulhu!
-
darkmorgado 22,937 posts
Seen 6 hours ago
Registered 4 years agoDougs wrote:
It will probably get debated anyway. There's already a rebellion brewing among Lib Dem MPs and Milliband is bound to point out the Tory U-turn as another broken election pledge tomorrow at PMQs.Megapocalypse wrote:
They work in so far as they get the issues debated in the House. Which is a start at least.
Has a petition for this sort of thing ever had any effect whatsoever?Now with 80% more Cthulhu!
-
If they insert a need for a jUdicual warrant then it will be more restrictive than the current powers.
Edited by Khanivor at 19:28:27 03-04-2012 -
Page
of 116 First / Last
