PDA

View Full Version : Cameron complaints of internet companies


ExXB
25th Nov 2014, 18:51
Apparently internet companies have to do more ....

BBC News - Lee Rigby murder: Internet firms must do more on terror, says PM (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30200311)

Surprised he hasn't asked the Royal Mail to open everyone's mail, or the telephone companies to bug everyone's conversations.

No, I don't agree. The benefits don't outweigh the costs.

airship
25th Nov 2014, 19:05
The Royal Mail would probably need a couple of nuclear power stations all to themselves in order to produce the amount of steam required to open all the envelopes without us knowing. And doesn't GCHQ and the NSA bug all our internet and telephone comms anyway?

Anyway, most of what David Cameron spouts forth is just a load of hot air these days. Half a mo' - perhaps if the Royal Mail could hook-up the PM to the steam-irons...?! :)

VP959
25th Nov 2014, 19:20
Although, like most right-minded people, I abhor terrorism and extremist brutality and murder carried out by animals like those that murdered Fusilier Rigby, I do not believe that such abhorrence and fear should be used as an excuse for the state to have unlimited access to any private correspondence they wish.

Back when we introduced the Royal Mail, we protected the privacy of the written word, and made it a criminal offence to open mail en-route to others, for the purpose of spying, unless a specific warrant had been executed.

Now our government seems intent on making all private communications open to the government spy agencies, something I find abhorrent.

It won't, of course, do a damned thing to counter organised terrorists, as they will use secure communication methods, just as spies and insurgents have done over the centuries, especially as now they've been warned and are aware that secure comms methods exist outwith the normal internet.

As such, opening up all normal email and social media private chit-chat to government scrutiny won't do anything useful to catch the real threats, all it will do is result in a lot of innocent people feeling rather uncomfortable about "big brother" looking over their shoulder.

I, and many of my friends, now routinely encrypt emails, just to prevent them being arbitrarily read en-route, or to prevent them being read by any unintended recipient. I doubt it will be long before others start doing the same.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
25th Nov 2014, 19:27
I, and many of my friends, now routinely encrypt emails, just to prevent them being arbitrarily read en-route, or to prevent them being read by any unintended recipient. I doubt it will be long before others start doing the same.

That'll only work where two parties have pre-agreed an encryption / de-encryption method for use just between themselves. Not a model that fits most e-mail traffic.

Capetonian
25th Nov 2014, 19:30
I would not particularly wish to live in a country where commuincations are often under surveillance (I have, twice) but as someone who has nothing to hide, and no shame for my 'extremist' views, if it keeps me safer, I'm not going to complain.

'Social media' on the other hand are an evil, and routinely monitoring them could probably avoid, or solve, a lot of crime. People who use sites such as Faecesbook, Twatter, and even Pprune, are putting stuff into the public domain and should be prepaered to accept that fact, and the consequences thereof.

west lakes
25th Nov 2014, 20:22
A great bit of political posturing, so Mi5 & Mi6 failed to spot the intent though the two involved were on their list, but despite monitoring a couple of hundred potential terrorists the UK intelligence agencies failed.

A quick search threw up this gem of information

Facebook passes 1.23 billion monthly active users, 945 million mobile users, and 757 million daily users. As part of the financial results for its fourth quarter, Facebook today announced a number of new milestones.

Which is the sort of numbers our political masters expect to me monitored
As it was put on the news, for the internet companies to find the information is not like looking for a needle in a haystack, it's more like looking for a needle in 100 haystacks

BOAC
25th Nov 2014, 22:23
As far as I know all the above is 'off the mark'. I believe the major complaint is that while FB acted correctly in taking down the 'terrorist' posts, unbelievably they just did not bother to let anyone know this guy was going to kill a soldier. That is the major omission. It is obvious that, to their credit, they ARE managing to monitor the content, but just ignoring the commonsense follow-up. Unforgiveable. It seems legislation is needed to wake them up.

cdtaylor_nats
25th Nov 2014, 23:47
So as I understand it the politicians require social media sites to analyse and report on all their users posts while simultaneously guarding their privacy, in the meantime traditional media people doing similar things but in a lower tech environment are going to jail.

For example I found this on-line today.

"Al Qaeda is planning an attack in New York City, when Queen Elizabeth and the super liner Queen Mary 2 will visit during July 4th celebrations."

Should this be reported to the authorities? In New York, London or should I simply give the book with this plot a bad review?

If you are wondering its "Fireworks: Terrorists Have Planned an Explosive July 4th for New York. Can Two Divers and a Dolphin Foil Their Deadly Plot?"

BOAC
26th Nov 2014, 19:31
So as I understand it the politicians require social media sites to analyse and report on all their users posts while simultaneously guarding their privacy - I don't see it that way. I see the need for a social 'must-have' young person's accessory to take on an adult approach. Take down a user due to 'suspicious activities'? Tell someone. Simple. What on earth is the problem?

Hyph
26th Nov 2014, 23:02
This week's media circus seems to have had four objectives:


Absolve the security services of any blame for failing to prevent the abhorrent murder of Lee Rigby, in spite of the fact that the murderers came to their attention seven times
Pass the blame for [1] to internet(*) company Facebook
Create a bogeyman out of the entire internet to make the it seem like a lawless desert in urgent need of Government intervention (on a different day this week, the killer of Breck Bednar was described, not as a murderer, but as an "internet gamer" or "internet predator" by various UK news outlets.)
Soften up the public to willingly accept even greater Government intrusion into their private lives

The internet firm Facebook was no more responsible for the atrocity than BT, the Royal Mail or the Highways Agency.

I strongly suspect that #4 is the real agenda. The amount of personal information available via the internet is just too juicy to resist. I suspect that the Government's interest in it has little to do with fighting terrorism, crime or anything else - their actions clearly demonstrate this. They think they can know everything about each of us and they want that very badly.

(*) - it is vitally important for the Government, or mouthpieces thereof, to mention the word "internet" as often as possible when they are trying to scare us, so that we know what it is we are supposed to be afraid of. Internet. Boo!
I'm sure there's a Monty Python sketch in there somewhere.

funfly
27th Nov 2014, 16:38
I, and many of my friends, now routinely encrypt emails,

I think you will find it illegal to send a message either written or by email in code.

ExXB
27th Nov 2014, 16:58
Funfly, can you attribute that? What law and how is it enforced. As I recall all my e-mails were encrypted when traveling mit laptop and VPN. While I wasn't UK based, I certainly sent mail while on UK soil.

Not saying there isn't a law, but I,can't see how it could be enforced.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th Nov 2014, 17:08
And of course all SSL (HTTPS) payment transactions on the web are encrypted.

airship
27th Nov 2014, 19:29
I think you will find it illegal to send a message either written or by email in code.

I don't know about that. But it's certainly true that in many countries, it is a criminal offence if you do not (or cannot) supply the 'key/s' to decrypt encrypted content, whether they're simple emails or whole CDs, hard disks etc., when required to do so by the judicial authorities.

Which is why I always use morse code for very important communications. By the time they get round to finding someone who can understand it, it's no longer important...?! ;)

racedo
27th Nov 2014, 19:37
I am happy to let Govt know all my secrets but the quid pro quo is that I want to know all of theirs.

After all if they have nothing to hide they don't need to be worried.

Govt's are the biggest threat to the Individual, way more than any Terrorism, which the state tends to sponsor anyway depending on what country the Terrorism is acting in.

After all a bit much for Western Countrys to be warning of Jihadis in Syria when its sending hundreds of millions to the supposedly moderate one .............. definition of moderate is they don't put the video of your death on You Tube.

VP959
27th Nov 2014, 19:48
Not as far as I can see. Private communication can be by any means available, and there a re many, many, historical references to codes being used perfectly legally, from simple backslang used in the meat markets, through some of the arcane codes used at auctions, to the custom amongst some classics academics who routinely correspond in aramaic, or ancient Greek.

Add in that ALL digital phones ecrypt speech data, and that there are a plethora of legal to use personal email encryption systems available (some provided by fault by some internet providers, and then add in that even Leonardo da Vinci encrypted his notes by using mirror writing, and it seems that even if there is an old law prohibiting encrypted personal communication is is widely being ignored, and so could be said to have fallen into disuse.

airship
27th Nov 2014, 20:12
...even if there is an old law prohibiting encrypted personal communication is is widely being ignored, and so could be said to have fallen into disuse. 'Ignorance of the law' is never a valid excuse. And 'old laws' often remain on the statute books for precise reasons IMHO - that they might come in useful to prosecutors some time in the future, if or when it suits them. :}

Keef
27th Nov 2014, 23:36
I encrypt messages to my wife by whispering them in her ear while the music is playing. Am I breaking the law?

Fox3WheresMyBanana
27th Nov 2014, 23:47
Depends on the music.
If it's Rhythm & Blues, you're good.

You're ...
http://postmediavancouversun.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/blues_wh_bk_cl.jpg

late-joiner
28th Nov 2014, 22:28
I think you will find it illegal to send a message either written or by email in code.

Completely wrong in England. You can encrypt whatever you like.

However you can be compelled to produce plaintext or keys by court order under RIPA, or suffer up to 2 years in jail.

mixture
29th Nov 2014, 18:34
I, and many of my friends, now routinely encrypt emails, just to prevent them being arbitrarily read en-route, or to prevent them being read by any unintended recipient. I doubt it will be long before others start doing the same.

VP959,

You of course work on the assumption that :

- Your choice of encryption tool is kosher, and its crypto is correctly implemented (i.e. no bugs, even if kosher)
- "They" won't just target the weak points of the chain instead