Cameron Asserts UK Gov't Will Leave No "Safe Space" For Private Communications

An anonymous reader writes with the story from Ars Technica that UK prime minister David Cameron "has re-iterated that the UK government does not intend to 'leave a safe space — a new means of communication — for terrorists to communicate with each other.'" That statement came Monday, as a response to Conservative MP David Bellingham, "who asked [Cameron, on the floor of the House of Commons] whether he agreed that the 'time has come for companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter to accept and understand that their current privacy policies are completely unsustainable?' To which Cameron replied: 'we must look at all the new media being produced and ensure that, in every case, we are able, in extremis and on the signature of a warrant, to get to the bottom of what is going on.'" This sounds like the UK government is declaring a blustery war on encryption, and it might not need too much war: some companies can be persuaded (or would be eager) to cooperate with the government in handing over all kinds of information. However, the bluster part may leave even the fiercest surveillance mostly show: as Ars writer Glyn Moody asks, what about circumstances "where companies can't hand over keys, or where there is no company involved, as with GnuPG, the open source implementation of the OpenPGP encryption system?" Or Tor?

Comments

David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Cameron must be exceptionally ignorant, and poorly advised to spew such drivel.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[digitig]

Cameron sees the world of V for Vendetta as a utopia [1].

[1] Or rather, "Eutopia", for those who know the etymology.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[digsbo]

It's not just Cameron. The people I know in the UK support this kind of thinking. A few years ago there was legislation introduced to assign a caseworker to *every* child in the UK. It didn't have as little support as you'd think. They are, broadly, a bunch of well-behaved socialist conformists who are afraid of the real world, and think that a panopticon surveillance state will make them "safe". It is disgusting.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[maligor]

It's not just Cameron. The people I know in the UK support this kind of thinking. A few years ago there was legislation introduced to assign a caseworker to *every* child in the UK. It didn't have as little support as you'd think. They are, broadly, a bunch of well-behaved socialist conformists who are afraid of the real world, and think that a panopticon surveillance state will make them "safe". It is disgusting.

Just wow, socialism does not advocate panopticon surveillance, infact I don't think socialism has anything to say about matters relating to observation of the population. This is the sort of bullshit that got the US in the hellhole they're in now. I think the most applicable term for it is fascism.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct, however, every modern mobile device now is basically an electronic leash. "They" will be able to locate you, track you, learn about you, whatever. 1984 has become a user manual for governments.

For many years I worried about all of this as an IT guy. Just this year I told myself it really doesn't matter one bit. I'm going to live my life as best I can, as honestly and well-intentioned as I can and let the cards fall where they may. I'm just a normal geek with a wife and children. I don't buy into the BS of "nothing to fear, nothing to hide", but I'm tired of encrypting everything to include my comms, documents, photos. I've decided that I'm only encrypting my really important personal documents.

Some people, do, however, have this wet dream about eluding government, avoiding decryption orders, hiding things with steganography, whatever.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[khallow]

Just wow, socialism does not advocate panopticon surveillance, infact I don't think socialism has anything to say about matters relating to observation of the population.

While sure, it's true that some flavors of socialism don't, it's worth noting that public surveillance is a natural consequence of the creation of public goods. For example, are you going to take my word for it that I'm actually five hundred people, all drawing a public pension and all using up expensive health care at my personal health care facility which strangely enough has an abandoned parking lot as address and only employs a few dozen members of me.

To prevent such fraudulent overconsumption of public welfare-related public goods (a standard tragedy of the commons situation BTW), by necessity, they need to know that the application is a real human and relevant data to that applicant. The more services and goods provided, be it welfare or some other things, the more surveillance of its citizens needs to be done merely to protect the viability of what is provided.

Not only does this directly encourage more surveillance of a populace inching towards total surveillance, it also creates ammunition for a future tyranny. Health care records which can be used to prevent abuse of public health care can also be used in combination with other data to create a more complete understanding of would-be rebels and their associates in a society.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

"Patriot": Someone who agrees with me, and disagrees with what I oppose.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[AmiMoJo]

It's the media. When it was pointed out that Twitter informs users who are the subject of data access requests by the government they framed it as Twitter tipping off terrorists that they were being investigated. Not as Twitter protecting its users from over-use of surveillance and being transparent with them, but as colluding with the enemy. It was disgusting.

Also, what kind of bizarro definition of "socialist" implies wanting a surveillance state? If anything, the more socialist states in the EU tend to be the ones that have better protections for privacy and freedom because they understand that the government works FOR the people.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[FatdogHaiku]

OK, this is all starting to bug me (ba-dum-bump)!
Or taken another way
https://xkcd.com/1012/

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Dutch Gun]

Fascism uses the power of the state to oppress its citizens.

Capitalism uses the power of the state to ensure its corporations can oppress its citizens.

Communism uses the power of the state to oppress its citizens and ensure its economy remains in shambles.

Socialism grants significant power to the state with the expectation that it will use that power for good, and then its citizens are shocked and outraged when the government uses that power to oppress its citizens.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[dryeo]

Actually it is conservationism that demands bigger government and often big business to avoid accountability, usually to enforce their moral values on the people and also to create an enemy to get the people behind them, patriotism is always a good way to stop people from thinking. David Cameron is a conservative and like most conservatives, believes the governments role is to spy on the people and support the authoritarian types who run big business
Many socialists want small government and small business to avoid the tyranny that comes from any organization with too much power, they also want the people to be in charge. This is the reason that during the American Revolution conservatives were attacked by the revolutionaries (tar and feathered at first, then their property removed through Letters of Attainment, forced to leave the colonies and finally Lynch pushed extra-judiciary hanging), they wanted the people to be in charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is one example

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[camperdave]

Democracy allows its citizens to choose who their oppressors will be.

Re: David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

what if my choice is not to have an "oppressor"? where does that vote go?

Re: David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[camperdave]

what if my choice is not to have an "oppressor"? where does that vote go?

No such system exists.

Re: David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

well then fuck it, we should all just accept oppression and quit complaining.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[0123456]

Yeah, I hate those damn conservationists.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

conservatism != conservationism

idiot

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[dryeo]

And I hate spelling checkers

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Smauler]

They are, broadly, a bunch of well-behaved socialist conformists who are afraid of the real world, and think that a panopticon surveillance state will make them "safe". It is disgusting.

You don't know what you're talking about. There are some people in the UK who fit that description, but they are a minority.

Take a guess at the number of firearms now legally owned in the UK..... It'll be a hell of a lot higher than you think. Also, there are some guns that are legal in the UK that are illegal in the US (though getting a license for them might be tricky). I could get a shotgun within a few weeks if I wanted one, despite having a criminal record.

Personally, I'm pragmatic, generally. When we banned hand guns in the UK in the late 90's, hand gun crime (ie. crimes using hand guns, not ownership of a hand gun, which might well have been expected to go up) went up for years afterwards, despite having had being going down previously. The ban actually seemed to increase hand gun crime.

David Davis (for one) Is very influential in the conservative party, just to show one person who is very concerned about privacy issues.

Re: David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[DocHoncho]

Welcome to America. Please enjoy your stay!

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[DocHoncho]

Also, what kind of bizarro definition of "socialist" implies wanting a surveillance state? If anything, the more socialist states in the EU tend to be the ones that have better protections for privacy and freedom because they understand that the government works FOR the people.

That would be the American(tm) definition of socialism. As in the U.S.S.R. was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, therefore Socialism is completely equivalent with the Soviet system, and so it is anti-American(tm).

It's a really simple calculus: If you're a simple minded American(tm) Patriot(tm)(R) who is informed of world events solely by the one true Media: Fox News, Breitbart and the Drudge Report, then Socialism == USSR == Communism == Bad.

HTH.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[stolidobserver]

By choosing to vote, you already voluntarily put someone else in charge of your life. The very act is itself affirmation that you are either not smart enough or can't be bothered enough to rule your own life. Let that sink in a moment.....

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Mass surveillance really isn't along political lines. Socialists, fascists, conservatives and liberals have all supported mass surveillance. Just goes to show that the word liberty does not belong to any polical party.

 

Re: David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Dutch Gun]

what if my choice is not to have an "oppressor"? where does that vote go?

My best guess? I'd say you need a liberal democracy that manages to avoid becoming a complete nanny state, as that undermines the human drive and dignity of self reliance, not to mention it's generally economically unfeasible. At the same time, it needs to be strong and vigilant enough to avoid letting corporations run roughshod over the population. Liberal democracies, while not perfect by any means, seem to be better at protecting individual liberty than any other form of government.

I believe capitalism should be viewed as an amoral economic engine of unmatched vitality, sort of like a nuclear power plant. It's got some nasty downsides, but it's really unmatched when it comes to economic production, and that's important for a society to thrive as well.

I think *all* governments tend toward oppression. Some types of government pretty much guarantee it, while some just inch their way there over years and generations. If the progress is slow, then at least citizens have the opportunity to fight against that inevitable progression, or even reverse it on occasion.

Re: David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[turbidostato]

"what if my choice is not to have an "oppressor"? where does that vote go?"

You don't vote for that. In order not to have an oppressor you'd better become the oppressor.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[xrayspx]

And so what sort of -ism led to the actual panopticon of the NSA, XKeyscore, and GCHQ's actual /ability/ to do what they're talking about trying to do?

But you keep blaming damn dirty socialism. My staunchly Rush Limbaugh listening republican as fuck father in law is firmly in the camp of "I don't care if the government reads all my email and watches all my web traffic, I have nothing to hide".

So fuck your vile, watery pissant argument against the "nanny state" and socialists who beg to be spied upon.

Re: David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[KGIII]

I do not necessarily agree with you but you do use the word liberty properly and do not mistake it for 'freedom.' That, to me, implies you are not a complete idiot and so I will ponder your proposal a bit more. It is not far from what I feel would be most beneficial personally.

I like you. I am going to let you come over to my house and fuck my sister.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

... the power of the state to oppress ...

The political model used is irrelevant: Although the more property the government owns (Communist, Fascist), the faster it devolves into a oligarchy/kleptocracy.

The problem is the government thinking more laws makes fewer criminals. More laws means fewer government-sanctioned opportunities, thereby creating more criminals. It becomes exponentially worse when the voters think the laws only apply to the criminals. Look at any US cop show to see this propaganda in action: With the proviso that cops can do anything to anyone to catch the criminals.

The reality is people do what they want, so more laws just increases the number of people hiding from government regulations. This is why the cost to society is an important principle of justice.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Malc]

Perhaps you don't know very many people in the UK? David Cameron's coalition partners in the last government were considerably more socialist than David Cameron's own right wing party, yet they were the ones putting the brakes on this kind of State overreach and they were the ones try to protect the privacy of the people. You've clearly got some misplaced biases against socialism and considerable ignorance about the UK.

Also, stop and think about the suggestion of assigning a caseworker to every child... does that sound like something the UK could afford, and if they did do it, just what kind things would they be able to achieve given the current budget conditions? Sounds like a nonsense to me.

I live in the UK BTW.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Nyder]

Fascism uses the power of the state to oppress its citizens.

Capitalism uses the power of the state to ensure its corporations can oppress its citizens.

Communism uses the power of the state to oppress its citizens and ensure its economy remains in shambles.

Socialism grants significant power to the state with the expectation that it will use that power for good, and then its citizens are shocked and outraged when the government uses that power to oppress its citizens.

This why for socialism to work, everyone has to work for the Government. You put checks & balances in so no one has power over others and no one gets to stay in positions of powers for overly long.

The problem is you can NOT trust people. Ever. So you need to set up the Government so no one can abuse the power they are given. Short terms and everyone plays a part does that.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm David Cameron the well known socialist with his left wing agenda and determination to overthrow capitalism and give all power to the proletariat.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a Brit, who has just 5 minutes ago read about GCHQ spying on Amnesty International, I think you are fundamentally missing the point here.

The security services have actually created the worst of both worlds - through their own disregard for privacy and mindless (and pointless) over-reach. Through their impunitive attitude (appearing to act outside of the law or at least what most people believe should be law), they have lost public trust and convinced ordinary people (or perhaps only those with a natural distrust of power - such as myself) that "as long as you are innocent you have nothing to worry about" is not a valid argument for what they are doing - it being a promise that history has repeatedly broken. The _symptoms_ of this are companies like google and apple providing what their customers are asking for - adequate privacy protections which their government have not provided. What's breath-taking is that western governments response to this is not to say - oh yeah, we overstepped - and to revise the legal framework and get security services in check before pushing against encryption - it appears to be to attempt to stick their figures in their ears and rant about terrorism and child pornography.

I can't say I'm particularly worried about terrorism, and I abhore the way politicians use it as such an effective argument against everything particularly when it is such a tiny concern compared to say road traffic accidents - but while its hugely disproportionately focussed on - it is still a risk (and probably a growing one). The whole paedophile thing as well, it is used as an effective scare tool, but its also true that there are a lot of children out there being abused and if authorities do not have a legal means to access information where appropriate we cannot effectively combat this, and I for one don't wish to be part of a society that does not consider itself obligated to protect children.

We ought to support the access to private information by authorities to support investigations when granted under a strict legal framework (Note that Cameron mentions warrants at least). The issue here is preventing abuse and over-reach - which means ensuring rights are enforced through an appropriate set of legal processes. It is also taking appropriate action for anti-democratic actions (e.g. sacking and jail terms) for those acting outside the system of law (e.g. spying on Amnesty International).

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but unfortunately he is not the only one. The majority of British politicians of all parties seem to think along these lines.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet in almost all European countries, the socialist and conservative parties want to expand the surveillance state, while the liberal parties want to reduce it. It makes sense: both socialism and conservatism rely on strong and powerful government to enforce their ideals, whereas liberalism by definition aims to let people be as free as possible, with little government interference.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Cameron is not ignorant. He is intelligent, and thoroughly evil. He knows perfectly well that encryption and private communication can't be eliminated - he just wants the legal freedom to arrest anyone using them. Using the terrorist card is just a convenient way to get those powers without too much resistance from the general public.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

David Cameron's coalition partners in the last government were considerably more socialist than David Cameron's own right wing party, yet they were the ones putting the brakes on this kind of State overreach and they were the ones try to protect the privacy of the people. You've clearly got some misplaced biases against socialism and considerable ignorance about the UK.

Almost all of the current state overreach started during Labour governments (Blair and Brown).

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Stuarticus]

I don't think you understand the tragedy of the commons from your interpretation of it there. What you are describing is straightforward fraud, and it's much more easily dealt with than by saying "well sorry, nobody can have anything".

Re: David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Stuarticus]

Has there ever been any such thing as a nanny state? I'm certainly not aware of any. It seems to just be a standard canard trotted out as something that we should strive to avoid because "even though there has never been one, we are pretty sure it's bad".

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Stuarticus]

The problem is you can NOT trust people. Ever.

Award for Libertard of the day quote so quickly! We might have a new record. Try going about your day without trusting anyone. EVER!

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Stuarticus]

Socialism == USSR == Communism == Bad.

Because they all lead to fascism.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Stuarticus]

Almost like suddenly it was a crime to have a hand gun, especially in a public place.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

... as colluding with the enemy ...

The correct to response is pointing-out the FBI have arrested zero of these known terrorists revealing themselves incompetent, lazy and probably corrupt civil servants.

For extra points, Twitter could PROMISE to publicly publish the name and address of these terrorists to help the local police. Local police, of course, need to know because the FBI is obviously too incompetent, lazy and corrupt to deal with known terrorists.

Re: David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

The worste things going on here in the US today come from our "socialism-lite" administration trying to emulate things that are now falling apart in Europe...

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[BlueStrat]

Capitalism uses the power of the state to ensure its corporations can oppress its citizens.

Incorrect, or maybe incomplete. "Capitalism" without a framework of equably-enforced reasonable and just laws is anarchy and chaos, not capitalism.

What you seem to be talking about is our current system which bears only passing resemblance to capitalism. Fascist oligarchy or crony-capitalism would be more accurate terms.

The larger the government, the more it controls both in wealth and power to control, the more tempting a target it is for corruption and the bigger the payoff when successful, so efforts to corrupt become intense and extreme.

Nobody is interested in buying off someone with little power to benefit them and will spend little or no effort to do so in that case, particularly if criminal penalties are severe for the attempt. And, with a less corrupt system overall, prosecution and conviction becomes a real possibility for all involved.

Corporations use the power and reach of government from lawmaking/enforcement to regulations on everything under the sun to enable them to remove wealth, liberty, privacy, and choice. Corporations can't kick in your doors with a paramilitary force. Yet. Not until the people allow government to become just a bit more powerful, then that will likely change.

A fairly well-run capitalist society ensures that as many people as practically and realistically possible have the opportunity, if they so choose to do so, to create a business/corporation *of their own* with hard work, sacrifice, and whatever other capital they can invest, and with a good business plan, have a chance at competing with others in the market.

The US used to be a fairly-well run capitalist society (compared to most) to which people from around the world took extreme measures to emigrate to. That has not been true for decades.

Strat

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Big Hairy Ian]

Funny the people I know in the US usually come off as arrogant jerks. Of course this isn't true really I know a lot of people in the US who are perfectly nice people. But if you're going to take the views of a few people and tarnish us all with them then you individulally are a bigotted twat.

Thanks

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[digitig]

Actually, the socialists over here are amongst the most vocal in opposing the ubiquitous monitoring. The lobby for the monitoring is from our equivalent of the Republicans who want a docile and obedient workforce so they can exploit us for profit.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Socialism demands big government

I'm not sure that's the case. Socialism requires state ownership of productive assets (if not all of them, then at least the large ones). But considering the traditional meaning of the word "government", I'm not sure that a state-owned factory counts as government. In other words, would you classify a car production line as a part of the legislative, executive, or judicial branch?

Re: David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[K. S. Kyosuke]

We might need some friendly, Vulcan-like AI to decide stuff for us. It won't stop some people from crying "I'm being oppressed!", but at least we'd have some confidence that it isn't actually trying to oppress anyone (or at least greater confidence than is the case with most humans, that is).

Re: David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Asking as a non-native outsider, in your own words, what are the finer distinctions between "liberty" and "freedom" in this context?

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[digsbo]

My descriptors regarding socialist and surveillance state tendencies were intended to be orthogonal. I believe both are true. In a way, though, I think that socialism and police-state stuff both contribute to fascism. It's like the attitude in The Law of Jante. This is a weird grass-roots fascism.

Re: David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Winchy]

Which things in particular do you you feel are falling apart?

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[digsbo]

They are, broadly, a bunch of well-behaved socialist conformists who are afraid of the real world, and think that a panopticon surveillance state will make them "safe". It is disgusting.

You don't know what you're talking about. There are some people in the UK who fit that description, but they are a minority.

That's good to hear. I am exposed to a lot of leftist college educated UK citizens through social media connections and it's pretty terrifying to think that otherwise intelligent people *think* that way. Then I see the UKIP and I have to assume that a strong right-wing response is rebelling against the socialists who are afraid to report the skin color of the London rioters because it would disprove the myth of racial integration in London.

So who's the majority, then? Not the extreme left? Not the UKIP? Then why is the UK ever increasingly moving towards a surveillance state and socialism?

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[digsbo]

crimes using hand guns, not ownership of a hand gun

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[digsbo]

A fairly well-run capitalist society ensures that as many people as practically and realistically possible have the opportunity, if they so choose to do so, to create a business/corporation *of their own* with hard work, sacrifice, and whatever other capital they can invest, and with a good business plan, have a chance at competing with others in the market.

Does it ensure it, or is it simply a basic characteristic? I think of the market-driven economy as amoral, but largely effective -- certainly better than any other solution we've seen to date. But your use of the term "ensure" connotes intent, and intent implies moral cause.

I don't disagree with the larger point here, but sometimes I think pro-market people slip into thinking that markets are positively moral, rather than simply fair through consistency (so long as laws are justly enforced). Markets are not immoral, which socialism is. Markets are baseline neutral, and allow for positive moral decisions because people can do what they wish with charitable or humanitarian use of private property.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[BlueStrat]

Does it ensure it, or is it simply a basic characteristic? I think of the market-driven economy as amoral, but largely effective -- certainly better than any other solution we've seen to date. But your use of the term "ensure" connotes intent, and intent implies moral cause.

I meant 'ensure' in the sense that the structure of laws and government are designed to have the least impact and/or influence possible while maintaining a reasonably fair and level playing field. I understand the point you make and agree. The only 'morality' involved is in basic natural law like penalties for theft, fraud, etc that almost any kind of remotely functional system would demand.

I don't disagree with the larger point here, but sometimes I think pro-market people slip into thinking that markets are positively moral, rather than simply fair through consistency (so long as laws are justly enforced). Markets are not immoral, which socialism is. Markets are baseline neutral, and allow for positive moral decisions because people can do what they wish with charitable or humanitarian use of private property.

Spot on, sir. Could not agree more.

It's very hard to convey detailed meaning & nuance across a wee bit of text on some internet discussion forum concerning deep and fundamental concepts and principles. Intents and viewpoints can be easily and honestly misinterpreted.

Forgive me if my phrasing and choices in necessary brevity caused any misunderstanding or confusion.

Strat

Re: David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[KGIII]

I like to put it this way: I am free to kill you, I am not at liberty to do so.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[fnj]

You don't know me. Don't be a fucking half-wit moron or a liar. I didn't blame socialism for anything. I specifically avoided singling it out. So take your disgusting bile and go jump in a lake.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[fnj]

An interesting way to look at it. I think you will find that it takes big government to control those assets.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[lucien86]

"Fascism uses the power of the state to oppress its citizens."

If only it was that simple. Nazi Fascism used/s the power of words and the media and the manipulating power of propaganda to make the citizens oppress themselves. They specifically use the power of hate and tribal instinct to whip the population into an emotional frenzy.
In a free and open election 75% of Germans voted for Hitler.
In exactly the same way Murdock manipulated the people into putting Cameron into office. - That is why Cameron is attacking the BBC, to pay his master back.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[catprog]

I am not sure if it does require state ownership of productive assets, only state ownership of some of the profits(which then goes back to the people).

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[lucien86]

"Almost all of the current state overreach started during Labour governments (Blair and Brown)."

Blair was and is an anti-socialist. He helped deregulate the financial industry and banking and gave tax cuts to the richest while raising taxes on the poorest.. Blair was best friends with George W Bush, not exactly a left wing president..

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[khallow]

I don't think you understand the tragedy of the commons from your interpretation of it there. What you are describing is straightforward fraud, and it's much more easily dealt with than by saying "well sorry, nobody can have anything".

Fraud when used to overconsume a public good is a manifestation (and a very common one at that) of tragedy of the commons.

and it's much more easily dealt with than by saying "well sorry, nobody can have anything".

Sure, we'll just make more rules and increase our surveillance of everyone. And sometimes we won't actually do anything to diminish the fraud, because the point of creating the public good was to enable the fraud. One ends up with a lot of theater and a diminishment of human freedom as a result.

For example, I believe that's what US defense procurement is about these days. They make a great show of accounting for screws and a remarkably poor one of accounting for the effectiveness of the resulting military systems. Using substandard screws is abhorrent while building a few hundred planes for a good part of a trillion dollars that are terrible for the roles they are used in is just fine.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[dryeo]

Actually socialism requires the people (workers) to own the productive assets. This can be through government or it can be through co-ops, credit unions, worker owned factories and the old style commune.
Personally, I don't really trust the government to own the productive assets as eventually a different government will get in with a different ideology and fuck things up.

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Uberbah]

Socialism grants significant power to the state with the expectation that it will use that power for good, and then its citizens are shocked and outraged when the government uses that power to oppress its citizens.

The only connection between those dots is the crap in your brains.

Ermagerd! The horrible oppression of graduating college without 5-6 figures in student loan debt! The health care system that provides better results at a fraction of the cost of for-profit medicine in the United States - a crime against humanity!

Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Presumably it would be part of the executive branch, as it is in charge of executing the laws passed by the legislative branch. Assuming the legislative branch passed laws mandating (or at least allowing) such a car production line, it would likely fall under the executive branch to actually do that.

At least he included warrants

[captaindomon]

Well, at least he included "on the signature of a warrant". That's something that seems to be going away swiftly.

Re:At least he included warrants

[firewrought]

Ha ha, did you think he meant warrants? No, no, no... just like every other effort to chip away at freedom and privacy, it comes dressed in the noblest of promises. But once the necessary powers are secured, the promises can be gradually (if not immediately) infringed upon.

Re:At least he included warrants

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they'll be legally required to provide the information with a warrant. There will, of course, be no penalty for providing it without a warrant, and the advantages of doing so (staying in business) will be made clear to them.

Re:At least he included warrants

[JaredOfEuropa]

Be careful: even if this means that they will only require data to be handed over if the requesting agency has a signed warrant, the phrase "no safe space" can only mean that private crypto is outlawed, Encrypted email, peer to peer encrypted chat and even encrypted messages in public channels are closed off to everyone except the key holders, closed even to ISPs, the chat service provider or the app builders. In other words, they are safe spaces.

Requiring a warrant means that the government should have access to our data on reasonable grounds, but only if such data is accessible. I am all for that. But the phrase "no safe space" is a telling one: it means ensuring that our data is accessible in every case, and that goes a whole lot further. If the government has access, then our ISP or the service provider has it, and that means our data is not safe.

Re:At least he included warrants

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they'll be legally required to provide the information with a warrant. There will, of course, be no penalty for not providing it without a warrant, and the advantages of doing so (staying in business) will be made clear to them.

Fixed.

Re:At least he included warrants

[currently_awake]

Spying on everyone isn't effective if everyone knows about it. They need to publicly back down on the spying, let this blow over, then bring it all back in secret. If they don't do this it means they are not interested in gathering intelligence, but rather in the chilling effect.

Re:At least he included warrants

[Anonymous Coward]

The warrant provisions are there to ensure the the political elite can continue to communicate without surveillance. You won't get a warrant for their communications.

Re:At least he included warrants

[whathappenedtomonday]

Come on. We're talking about terrorists using FB, Google and Twitter. Notice something?

Re:At least he included warrants

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it was correct. Providing information in response to, say, an informal emailed request will be legal -- it will not violate any laws, and if it does violate a contract or site policy, the violation will never be revealed to the other party.

Companies who "play ball" in that manner will not be hounded out of business through regulatory shenanigans or other legal means. But they won't be legally required provide the information except in response to a warrant, so your rights are technically protected.

Re:At least he included warrants

[AmiMoJo]

What an unfortunate name though, Cameron. Imagine being named after the act of shoving your tongue up someone's arse and cleaning it out. Possible even worse than that Santorum guy.

Re:At least he included warrants

[IamTheRealMike]

Ha ha, did you think he meant warrants?

He meant warrant. Unfortunately as is often the case with the Tories, they use words differently to how ordinary people do. By warrant he means a ministerial rubber-stamp. For instance Theresa May last year alone "signed" nearly 2,800 warrants, a number that clearly shows zero attempt to investigate their legitimacy and indeed almost certainly means some anonymous flunky is signing them on her behalf.

Re:At least he included warrants

[Anonymous Coward]

That the public are terrorists, not the evil bad guys?

Re:At least he included warrants

[camperdave]

Can warrants be challenged in a court of law?

Re:At least he included warrants

[dcollins117]

The warrant provisions are there to ensure the the political elite can continue to communicate without surveillance. You won't get a warrant for their communications.

We don't need one. Nearly everyone has a recording device in their pocket now. Record politicians, whenever they are in your view, and post it online.

The politicians I'm familiar with have more to hide than the average citizen. If they want to do away with privacy, then so be it. That's what they wanted, right?

Re:At least he included warrants

[DocHoncho]

Indeed, the concept of a warrant has been changed to mean License. That is, the surveillance state has an unlimited license to snoop on anything and everything, warranted by the fact that scary bad guys might possibly maybe do something bad eventually. You have nothing to fear, citizen, because you are not currently exhibiting behavior which matches against whatever specious criteria we currently define as terrorism. However, this license should not be understood to provide defense in the event that your behavior, at some future point, coincides with what is defined by the secret courts as terrorism.

TL;DR: You have nothing to fear, citizen. Unless you do. In which case, you should be tortured and jailed.

Let freedom ring!

Re:At least he included warrants

[DocHoncho]

meant warrant. Unfortunately as is often the case with the Tories, they use words differently to how ordinary people do. By warrant he means a ministerial rubber-stamp.

Let's just agree to call it what it is: License.

The government claims License to any and all communication that occurs within its jurisdiction, and as such has the right to do whatever it wants with said communication. You, as a "citizen" of a given state are owned by the government, and by virtue of being born in said state have given your implicit agreement to the collection of whatever data you may create within the duration of your citizenship. If you for any reason decline to allow such surveillance, you thereby agree to give up citizenship in said jurisdiction and thus are subject to the collection of surveillance pursuant to all legislative orders necessitating the collection of intelligence from non-state actors.

You literally cannot win.

Re:At least he included warrants

[DocHoncho]

Not unless you include secret courts, in which you will have an impossible time proving that you have standing to sue. If the order to collect information about you is secret and you don't have clearance, good luck trying to prove that anything illegal is happening to you because you cannot access information which proves you're being harmed.

It's perfect: We obtain a secret order to spy on Bob, who cannot defend himself because he doesn't have clearance to prove that we're secretly spying on him. We'll just let him spin his wheels with the tin-foil and black helicopter crowd. LOL.

Re:At least he included warrants

[DocHoncho]

A Warrant, in modern nomenclature is a License. You were presented with something akin to a EULA upon birth, and by agreeing to being born you agreed to grand an exclusive, unlimited license to the state to do whatever they want to you, whenever they feel like.

Welcome to Democracy 2.0. Please click Agree to the Constitution 2.0 EULA.

Re:At least he included warrants

[DocHoncho]

The "evil bad guys" are a subset of the "general public", so the collection of information on "the evil bad guys" necessitates the collection of information on the general public.

It's all just a matter of definition. "We have to collect data from Everyone because the bad guys are a part of Everyone." It's simple logistics, we can't just collect the data from the bad guys if we don't know who the bad guys are, and even when we do, the bad guys pretend to be part of the General Public and so we need to spy on the General Public in order to catch the bad guys.

Look, it's all really complicated and we can't expect just anyone to understand our motivations. We're really only looking for "the bad guys," we promise. We totally ignore all the rest of the data we get from the "good guys" and we certainly don't build dossiers in the event that "good guys" suddenly become "bad guys".

Listen, just chill the fuck out about all our surveillance, we're totally not looking at you, unless we are, in which case you deserve to be spied upon because we said you're bad. And our accusation of your badness will require a secret court to clear your name, but you can't know what that secret court has determined because it's secret and your a goddamned terrorist if you think otherwise.

Re:At least he included warrants

[Anonymous Coward]

Spying on everyone isn't effective if everyone knows about it.

But it then cannot be legal. Something is wrong with the society and the people if the effective mean to the end is always the illegal one.

Re:At least he included warrants

[gweihir]

It seems rather obvious that all this spying is about preventing the population from raising up against those in power. That it has zero effect against Terrorism has now been demonstrated conclusively and repeatedly. Hence the chilling effect is very likely what they are aiming for. People will start to self-censor when they think somebody is listening and recording. There is enough experience with fascism in various forms to know who this works and how to keep a population under control that is being screwed over time and again by those in power.

Of course, fascism universally ruins the economy, so Britain is headed for the 3rd world. From what one hears, many people already have problems feeding themselves.

Re:At least he included warrants

[Anonymous Coward]

as a "citizen"

The United Kingdom does not have any citizens; they are "subjects of the crown". Even wiktionary defines citizen as "a member of a state that is not a monarchy". This places such persons in an interesting dilemma, to be sure, since a subject is one who owes allegiance to his/her liege.

Re:At least he included warrants

[Anonymous Coward]

You're living in the 20th century. We live in the 21st century, and in the 21st century the population CANNOT raise against those in power. In most of Europe - the UK being first - the populace is utterly disarmed. Any uprising would be immediately quashed in blood. In the countries were people can still own firearms, it's pistols and rifles against tanks, helicopters, drones and soon enough microwave beams. People are already self-censoring, the trend has started already in the late '80s, for fear of being stigmatized as having the "wrong" ideas. Now they cannot express them anonymously so they'll learn to step in line. And by the way, fascism does not ruin the economy: Chile has been doing very well under Pinochet. It only backfires when the rest of the world puts sanctions against you for being the "wrong" fascism. But when the rest of the world - the world that COUNTS that is - embraces wholeheartedly that brand of fascism, what can you do? It's over.

Re:At least he included warrants

[gweihir]

That is overly simplistic. Without the consent of the population, economic collapse is immediate and drastic. Weapons do not play a role. "Squashed in blood" is not something any western regime can survive.

Re:At least he included warrants

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Right, like how the Iraqis and Afghanis were utterly crushed when the Western powers invaded, right? Oh, an armed populace is still effective against a military that doesn't want to wage total war? Hmm...

More reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to put your company in the UK....

Re:More reason

[DanJ_UK]

There are lots of great reasons to put your company in the UK. This statement is unenforcable.

Re:More reason

[fustakrakich]

What, they have something worse than the weather?

Re:More reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservative, and seriously inbred as well..

Re: More reason

[Anonymous Coward]

This is kind of true

Re:More reason

[Anonymous Coward]

There's NO reason to put anything in the UK. It is the worst country in the western world.

Re:More reason

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone born and raised in the UK, I have to agree with this. It's a fucking terrible country.

People need to snap out of their fucking denial about it.

Re:More reason

[Anonymous Coward]

go back to india

Re:More reason

[ColdWetDog]

Their cooking ...

Re:More reason

[fustakrakich]

Jeeze, I forgot about that. Hasn't anyone told them the war is over? It's no wonder they need a National Health Service...

Re: More reason

[Anonymous Coward]

cunt

Re:More reason

[johanw]

He said WESTERN world. India is not in that part of the world. Outside it there are indeed countries who are even worse, like India where the government is also setting up a surveillance state.

Re:More reason

[Chrisq]

There's NO reason to put anything in the UK. It is the worst country in the western world.

It's not much to brag about but Greece is probably worse

The Panopticon is coming

[Anonymous Coward]

It knows all. It sees all.

It is the only way to be safe. To be free.

It will save us from ourselves.

Rejoice.

You know it's not going to work

[surfdaddy]

It's like guns in the US. If they were outlawed then those who don't care about the laws would still use them. Encryption is out there, it is widely available. And the more that governments try to block it the more determined companies and individuals will find more convenient ways to use it. It's a lot of bluster but not very practical. And ultimately (IMHO) the availability of rapid communications does more to help humanity than to hurt it.

Re:You know it's not going to work

[mlts]

It also is going to backfire.

Take SSL/TLS. Are they going to demand both parties stash the session key, or do their handshaking through a proxy logging each packet? The first time some intruders nail that data store and find out a bunch of banking passwords, the cost of that breach will be incredible. If they alter the SSL/TLS algorithm, will it bring unexpected changes that destroy the algorithm's security, or the code used not implement the changes in a secure fashion?

As for outlawing it, it -could- be done, but it would require far-reaching internal and external controls, with very sophisticated algorithms to detect unauthorized encryption, and pull that machine from the net. However, this is a cat and mouse game... and ultimately, the bad guys are just going to do like Daesh, and AQ before them... and go back to couriers, dead drops, and burner phones. Yes, it doesn't give as fast results as the Net, but it is a lot tougher to intercept. So, it an be done... but it is doubtful that even the British people would tolerate this much interference in their lives.

Re:You know it's not going to work

[Krishnoid]

Yes, it doesn't give as fast results as the Net, but it was a lot tougher to intercept.

Now that inexpensive, massively interconnectable cameras are available, if there's someone you want to keep an eye on, I'd think surveillance is much easier nowadays.

Re:You know it's not going to work

[s.petry]

Sadly, there will still be a push to outlaw encryption just like there is a push to outlaw guns. Everyone should know the consequences of giving up everything to the Government. Cretins have always been attracted to public offices. Rights for you are expendable as long as their rights are covered. Every government in history has had to be overthrown because of the same damn problems. Too bad we never learn.

Can the politicians! Order the code red! Don your helmets! E... Dang it, I'm out of ideas for my cypher....

Re:You know it's not going to work

[kheldan]

How do you tell the difference between, say, video data and encrypted data? Or audio data and encrypted data? If you have some encrypted data embedded into an image file (or spread out over many image files) how do you detect that? Yes, I know that's called 'steganography', and it's been around a long time now. Also, if they want a 'backdoor' into all forms of encryption, don't they understand that's a double-edged sword? Or, as you say, people just go back to pre-Internet, pre-digital methods of passing information back and forth. Seems to me like they're just going to spend billions of their taxpayers' money chasing their own tail for little to no benefit.

Re:You know it's not going to work

[IamTheRealMike]

Take SSL/TLS. Are they going to demand both parties stash the session key, or do their handshaking through a proxy logging each packet?

Probably not. You're thinking like a geek instead of a politician. Politicians don't get their way by understanding technology. They get their way by finding people who do and forcing them to obey their will.

In this case, what Cameron means by banning encryption is passing laws that say something like, "If your website is used by people in the UK, you must always be able to comply with a warrant demanding data and you must provide all data, even if it is encrypted". The exact details of how that works is neither here nor there to them.

Now of course the interesting thing is how this interacts with jurisdictions, and whether it would be enough to make GCHQ shut up (probably not). The UK may or may not be able to force the hands of Facebook/Google/etc because the UK is such a huge market and they all have offices there, but China was a huge market too and Google walked away from that anyway. So it's hard to know how things would play out. For companies that have no UK exposure it's not clear what they'd do - probably use ad-hoc blocking of any website they suspect might be used by The Evil Terrorists if it doesn't comply. Could be a mess depending on how heavily they enforce it.

Re:You know it's not going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

I am reminded about a court that ordered a website to keep track of all changes done to their webservers, even the contents of RAM were ordered to be saved. Of course, this is an impossibility, but as the parent stated, it is a legal person making these items with no clue about the technology.

As for gun control... it can easily work, and might be a good thing for the US. It would be quite enforcable -- grab all names belonging to gun groups on FaceBook, use that as probable cause for a search warrant, and if so much as a brass casing is found, have it be a mandatory 20-life sentence. From there, keep watch on social networks and catch the gun runners and lock them under the jail for life. This worked for Australia, and there are enough Everytown members that would ensure it would work in the US.

Re:You know it's not going to work

[mlts]

I just wonder where the point of pushback is. For example, one reason I see kigurumi becoming popular is because it allows people to interact with each other, except FB and other pictures only have the person's doll masks as photos. Yes, wearing masks and zentai suits can be made illegal, but it only ensures people will push back harder, especially here in the US where prohibition, and the War on Drugs have showed that making something illegal only makes it more popular... basically a long term Streisand effect.

I'm also noticing that physical gaming at stores is resurging, so people are trending away from stuff like WoW, and going back to Warhammer or just playing pencil and paper AD&D or Pathfinder. Having people not interested in doing every bit of communication electronically is a positive step.

Re:You know it's not going to work

[Jack Griffin]

How does this get modded Insightful? Regulation is never an elimination strategy, it's about overall reduction.
Just as gun control has proven to reduce gun violence overall, so too will encryption control reduce casual usage amongst non-experts.
It's the exact same reason you lock your door. Any decent thief can still smash a window and steal your shit, so why do you bother?

Re:You know it's not going to work

[gweihir]

It cannot be done. This has been proven conclusively in the last crypto war. What you always can to under the officially sanctioned crypto is to add an additional layer of non-sanctioned crypto. Unless they decrypt and check everything, they are not going to catch this. That is infeasible, as you would have to have more people working on it than the population which is being surveilled. And when you just add an additional layer that encodes the second layer encrypted data in something that looks genuine, they have completely lost.

Re:You know it's not going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

"but it is doubtful that even the British people would tolerate this much interference in their lives."
The brits have become sheep over the last few decades. They care more about their princesses sisters ass than about their rights.

Re:You know it's not going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as gun control has proven to reduce gun violence overall, so too will encryption control reduce casual usage amongst non-experts.

Has gun control reduced overall violence or simply replaced it with other kinds (knife, blunt object etc)? Same thing will happen with encryption.

Re:You know it's not going to work

[Uberbah]

Has gun control reduced overall violence

See: Australia.

or simply replaced it with other kinds (knife, blunt object etc)

The 'they'll just use something else' canard died a well-deserved death when, on the same day as the Sandy Hook shootings, a crazy guy in China stabbed a couple dozen people - but nobody died.

"Or Tor?"

[Nutria]

The Tor that was developed by the US military? That Tor?

Re:"Or Tor?"

[Sowelu]

Man, Tor has been a joke for years now. It's commonly accepted that it's compromised with dozens of documented or secretive exploits all over its endpoints. It feels like it offers about as much security as putting a password on a zip file: enough to discourage someone who doesn't really care.

Re: "Or Tor?"

[sys64764]

Source?

Re:"Or Tor?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello NSA, propaganda still the most effective way to break tor?

As somebody that almost religiously reads tor papers and news on it, the only thing with some significant issues at this point in time is hidden services, but even that is relatively limited. You are free to argue that every case where somebody using tor got caught because of stupid stuff they did when not using tor or not using tor correctly that its all parallel construction, but there is no proof for it. In none of the cases was it shown that the person did not in fact do the stupid things which the law enforcement found, so even if they do parallel construction, they could have found everything about as easily using just the mistakes. The only thing all of this proves is that it is extremely hard to handle privacy/security correctly all of the time. More so because you have to have practiced it in the past for it to work well in the future. If you want to become private tomorrow, either your past must have been private as well or you must disconnect yourself entirely from your past.

Re: "Or Tor?"

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet he himself uses Tor, and the documents he revealed showed that they couldn't deanonymize tor users most of the time.

Re:"Or Tor?"

[Anonymous Coward]

> Tor isn't 100.0% effective

...and? Is there a point? A logical conclusion? An alternative? Is the information pertinent to something? A call to action?

Or are you just a shillfag?

Re:"Or Tor?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Endpoints? I assume you mean in the protocol, because otherwise you just said that Tor was broken because the machine it is run on has exploits. Which doesn't actually break the protocol, although I would grant that the end result is similar.

Re:"Or Tor?"

[AmiMoJo]

Tor isn't compromised, it's secure for what it does. Compromised end points are not something it is designed to protect against. It isn't a substitute for HTTPS or checking certificates. It doesn't stop you being an idiot and giving away your location or software on your computer leaking your real IP address. That's not what Tor is.

Also, passwords on zip files have actually been effective for over a decade now, when AES encryption was added. Zip file encryption is now actually quite good, covering both data and filenames, and using a secure hash to generate the AES key from your password. Essentially it is as strong as the password, and has been since V6.2.

Re: "Or Tor?"

[AHuxley]

The ability of the UK to reconcile every network packet in and out of the UK makes any message sent from an UK ip to an UK ip in the UK an easy daily database task.
The random path around the world does nothing to hide the UK origin and UK destination ip at a service provider level (a persons ~modem like device/residence/cell /phone id).

Re:"Or Tor?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't even keep up these days, I have checklists now just for logging into my bank. You don't want to know what I go through to manage my bitcoins.

The good news is this is all becoming much, much easier as millions is being poured into open source blockchain 2FA security solutions, hardware and software.

I wouldn't be very surprised if someone was already working on an Aura (modular cell phone from Google) bitcoin module, micro miner, partial node optimized for cell networks, ect. in a plug and play package. All other security could route through this crypto module. So instead of having to verify every chip in your phone is secure you only really need to worry about the single security module that could be specially built to be verifiable.

That should enable a baseline security level high enough for the internet of things to function without being hacked to death.

And who watches the watchers? The blockchain does.

Re: "Or Tor?"

[AmiMoJo]

Tor does in fact mask such traffic. It randomly merges and splits packets, adding in random padding data too, and small random delays. It is designed to prevent just such packet tracing, even if multiple nodes along the way are compromised.

Re:"Or Tor?"

[gweihir]

It was not. Get your facts straight. Maybe read what the TOR developers write about their funding sources?

Re: "Or Tor?"

[gweihir]

Indeed. They are deep into stupidity now. Wait until they find out that TCP/IP was developed by the US military...

Re:"Or Tor?"

[gweihir]

Indeed. And TOR warns you that it is not enough to use it to ensure privacy wight there on the first page of the TOR check and gives references what you need to do in addition.

By now I am convinced that there is a systematic, paid-for campaign to bad-mouth TOR in order to make less people use it. The telling thing is that they always use the same old lies and misdirections, i.e. they are working from an anti-TOR propaganda manual.

Re:"Or Tor?"

[AmiMoJo]

Yep, the GCHQ/NSA shills are hard at work on sites like Slashdot. They are a bit shit at their jobs though, so it's usually obvious who they are.

Re:"Or Tor?"

[gweihir]

Yes, they are. Shills of equal quality seem to be active on other topics as well.

Re: "Or Tor?"

[sys64764]

A daily database task? Are you in sales?

You do know how TOR works, right?

Without a doubt certain agencies are capable of decrypting TLS/SSL and some probably have a good chance of identifying high-value TOR targets in a serious effort but I am pretty sure your ISP or even my country's National Intelligence Service lacks the capability to decrypt TOR traffic and the encrypted payload traffic, let alone being capable of orchestrating meaningful global timing attacks to capture all and everything in a useable daily-database-task format with a spiffy frontend.

Obviously if you go over TOR to UK based sites the packets received by the website can indeed be stored but would still be encrypted unless you do http ofcourse but in that case, you are in sales. Suppose hell froze over, packets are decrypted one way or another and The Man finds out too much about you and it foils your evil-take-over-the-world plan you could consider a second hand laptop that's not linkable to your identity in any way. Run https://tails.boum.org/ and go about your merry little evil business from some free wifi spot in the sun but mind the CCTV's and -avoid- doing anything that potentially could expose a hint of your true identity, like checking your fb stats (sales). If you are really paranoid about selling that suitcase nuke you could chain some vpn's you bought over TOR using bitcoins, scratch credit cards or paid for with blowjobs (sales again!) and mix some proxies in there for the hell of it. They can daily-database-task all they want but they will have a significant hard time finding out wtf you are doing and an even harder time discovering your true identity.

Re: "Or Tor?"

[AHuxley]

re "global timing attacks to capture all and everything in a useable daily-database-task format with a spiffy frontend."
The UK has Tempora like cost effective efforts for just that kind of emerging networking issues. UK wide and ready for any packet tracking in and out of the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Re "could chain some vpn's" The UK has thought of that aspect too with US help
"Prying Eyes: Inside the NSA's War on Internet Security" (December 28, 2014 )
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

Finally.

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

Just remove all of the humans's brains and put them in jars. That way, people can't have private chats in a park, or the woods. What is taking the people on this planet so LONG????? You humans need to get safe.

New application for CryptoWall in GB

[sinij]

New application for CryptoWall in GB. We have encrypted your data on your hard disk and it is illegal in your area, the password to decrypt it is "password". If you do not pay 1 Bit Coin, we will notify the authorities.

Clipper chip

[martin]

Yeah cos the clipper chip was a huge success and export grade crypto from the 80's and 90's hasnt caused any problems ever.

I'll go back to painting steganography with unicorn poo then.... which is about as workable as the proposals we've heard so far.

--
One of many brits who'll argue against this

So god damned stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't let the people have privacy, because there are bad guys that might abuse that privacy to do bad guy stuff. Same argument as "don't let the people have guns because there are bad guys who might use those guns to do bad guy stuff".

Re:So god damned stupid.

[Jack Griffin]

If you want privacy then don't email photos of your cock to Snapchat. It's not rocket science...

Re:So god damned stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but say people got sick of this nonsense. And an outside party was to start to gain steam. I'd like to think they could run their campaign without being watergated but if they can't use encryption that protects them from the powers that be well that's just not going to happen is it.

Re:So god damned stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... you're American, aren't you?

The correct argument is, "Don't let the people have easy access to guns because guns are f*cking dangerous, both to the people that own them and to the innocent people around them." That's not exactly a parallel.

(Fun facts. If you live in the US:
- You are 17 times more likely to be killed by lightning than by the gun lobby's favourite "what if?" of someone invading your home.
- You are vanishingly unlikely to be the so-called "good guy with a gun" who is in a position to make a difference at a critical moment; it almost never happens.
On the other hand:
- Just having a gun in your home almost doubles the odds that someone in your family will die in domestic violence of some sort
- Just having a gun in your home almost doubles the odds that your husband or teenage son will successfully kill himself in a moment of depression.
Oh, and by no coincidence whatsoever, the US states with the tightest gun-control laws are also the ones with the lowest rates of gun-related deaths.
But, hey, it's your country, and the gun lobby has never been greatly interested in fact when machismo is on the line.)

Re:So god damned stupid.

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Oh, and by no coincidence whatsoever, the US states with the tightest gun-control laws are also the ones with the lowest rates of gun-related deaths.

This in particular seems wrong to me; Chicago has very tight laws but pretty high rates of gun homicides.

Good luck with that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody using the internet could consistently use completely unencrypted communication even if they tried, when will this asshat understand that computer networks and encryption are inseparable.

in other news

[Anonymous Coward]

encryption is about to get a huge boost!

in other other news, people start learning to speak klingon

What's the big deal?

[fustakrakich]

I mean, he won the election...

Re:What's the big deal?

[WillAffleckUW]

I mean, he won the election...

No, the SNP won it.

Re:What's the big deal?

[DanJ_UK]

Which is just as well considering Scotland wanted their separation from the rest of the UK.

Good luck to them when all their funding is cut from London / Westminster, let's see how you can afford free Universities et al after that.

The SNP taking the 'left wing' Labour parties votes in Scotland was the best thing that ever happened to this country in recent years.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am confused about UK politics. Are the left and right parties the same as they are here in the US?

Re:What's the big deal?

[fustakrakich]

LOL!

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anne Thwacks]

No. In American terms, are paries are "Left, Super-left and Mega-left". Or, to put it another way, what you consider Left, we would consider Extreme Right.

Re:What's the big deal?

[DanJ_UK]

Conservatives (blue) aka ("Tories") see website (our current party for the last 5 year term and current term who were reelected in May) - are right wing, the Labour party (red) aka ("Idiots") [you can look for the labour party website yourself] are left wing socialists, although in recent years people like Tony Blair for example from the Labour party, were actually more centre right, resulting in an arguably ok PM that made some equally substantial fuck ups.

Our conservative party cuts welfare and taxes for business and drives an economy built on business that rewards the people that create jobs and grow the economy, Labour just hires more people to work for the government and public sector and increases welfare spending for those that manipulate a system Labour are too fair with.

Unlike the US, our welfare system isn't funded by paying back what you borrow, it's funded by every tax payer constantly; so it's great news that a lot of the sponging c**ts have fucked off to support another political party and left the conservative goverment that aids the further development of our economy and rewards all the hard workers instead of the lazy c**ts that sit on their arse all day expecting everything to be handed to them on a silver platter.

We're planning on ditching the European Human Rights bill now with our gov and adopting a 'British bill of human rights', among other things; which is shaping up to be more like the constitution you guys have to protect number 1, your nation, the UK becomes more like the US every day, fortunately though I feel we have it slightly better in areas where we have regulatory / administrative bodies that protect us from monopolisation and other corporate fiasco's that damage the interests of the nation. We have those because well, we've been around quite a while longer than you guys.

I love the concept of the American dream but, it really is just that. America's great if you have lots of money, but any country is TBH. In the UK we're referred to as 'middle England', because everyone has access to healthcare, welfare etc, in some ways Obama has tried to make the US more like the UK in that respects while we in the UK try to adopt a more firm approach to civil liberties like the US has.

This is why the UK and the US have a 'special' relationship.

On the subject of this thread btw, I like Cameron, but to claim to be able to intercept and decrypt traffic across the board the way stated is nothing short of a naive and dumb statement. We're a nation of incredible engineering minds that go back to the industrial revolution, the code breaking world war era and lots of funky shit we do now and I'm proud of that, but really? What a crock of shit, there's always going to be a way to secure communications traffic, if there wasn't, our intelligence services and governments across the world wouldn't be able to use computers or networks now would they?

Rubbish.

Re:What's the big deal?

[DanJ_UK]

Tories are right wing, everyone other party are 50 shades of left.

Apart from UKIP, they're neither left nor right, they're just c**ts.

Re:What's the big deal?

[fustakrakich]

Bleh, both Labour and Tory are middle of the road Reagan/Thatcher neo-liberal parties, which essentially what the republican/democrat parties are also. They maintain enough domestic spending to avoid widespread rioting and very robust arms trade with the Middle East and Africa for those nice vacation houses they don't want to pay taxes for.

Cameron is just talking 'Trump', I mean ... trash, eh, same thing.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, AFAIK. Our definitions of the ideologies of each side differ between countries.

Re:What's the big deal?

[0123456]

Tories are right wing

Ha-ha. You're presumably one of those nutters who thinks Stalin was 'right wing'.

Re:What's the big deal?

[fustakrakich]

All powerful authority is right wing, by nature. 'Left' is anti-authoritarian.

Re:What's the big deal?

[DanJ_UK]

Stalin was a communist, you can't get more left wing than that.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Och aye, its rare nice o yeh to gies the money my Lord. My daughter's ge'ing married on the morn, would you like to claim yer fuck?

Oh the irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe not?
Since it was the Brits who cracked the enigma.

Re:Oh the irony

[Tokolosh]

It was the Poles.

Re:Oh the irony

[DanJ_UK]

Was that after they lost their country?

Re:Oh the irony

[Tokolosh]

Before. http://www.codesandciphers.org...

Re:Oh the irony

[KGIII]

It was also before your country was saved by the Polish pilots. Of course, you could have just fulfilled your obligations, your very promises - your word - your honor, and attacked Germany right when they were attacking Poland and been done with the whole thing. However, your cowardice enabled him to grow stronger (and more courageous) while you sat around during sitzkrieg and then got your asses handed to you so had to turn tail, run, and leave the equipment behind rotting on the coast. Then you had the temerity to beg for assistance from the United States who opted to support you financially and with equipment which you did try to use effectively but failed at - meaning you had to rely on the Russians to weaken the Germans so that you could claim some sort of victory. All-in-all? Good job. You managed to beat the country who has won, like, no real wars in forever and then only with the help of the Russians and Americans.

And, the best part, you got to maintain your sense of dignity.

Re:Oh the irony

[gweihir]

They did not. It was Polish mathematicians. The Brits did not have the experts for it.

Tradition

[Anonymous Coward]

UK has a history of either code breaking or restricted use of encryption....

But these moves sort of paint a picture of a world like in Children of Men

Re:Privacy is for Luddites.

[Anonymous Coward]

Irrelevant to story. You can't just ad lib words from the summary into your fill in the blank app redunancy comment model. Please go curl up and die.

Sounds Like -

[Anonymous Coward]

He wants all of his private communication and that of his family to be made public.
Let's hope he gets his wish!

New technology trumps politics

[WorldWarPi]

I look forward to communicating with point-to-point encrypted neutrinos. Try to block those.

What do you mean what about circumstances?

[sims 2]

Has every one forgotten Lavabit already? It was only two years ago. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... They found out the hard way. http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

  "Glyn Moody asks, what about circumstances "where companies can't hand over keys, or where there is no company involved, as with GnuPG, the open source implementation of the OpenPGP encryption system?" Or Tor?"

"Ladar Levison, founder of the encrypted email service Lavabit that shut down last year because of friction with U.S. government data requests, has an article at The Guardian where he explains the whole story. He writes, 'My legal saga started last summer with a knock at the door, behind which stood two federal agents ready to to serve me with a court order requiring the installation of surveillance equipment on my company's network. ... I had no choice but to consent to the installation of their device, which would hand the U.S. government access to all of the messages â" to and from all of my customers â" as they traveled between their email accounts other providers on the Internet. But that wasn't enough. The federal agents then claimed that their court order required me to surrender my company's private encryption keys, and I balked. What they said they needed were customer passwords â" which were sent securely â" so that they could access the plain-text versions of messages from customers using my company's encrypted storage feature. (The government would later claim they only made this demand because of my "noncompliance".) ... What ensued was a flurry of legal proceedings that would last 38 days, ending not only my startup but also destroying, bit by bit, the very principle upon which I founded it â" that we all have a right to personal privacy.'"

Re:What do you mean what about circumstances?

[Anonymous Coward]

The lesson here is not to rely on a company or a single entity for security of service... decentralised services that users can host themselves are the only way to maintain privacy and freedom of speech because there is no single point of vulnerability that a government can mess with.

Don't blame the government, they are just this inevitable political construct that breeds corruption, freedom must be won through better technologies, don't leave it in the hands of the ignorant and greedy.

Re:What do you mean what about circumstances?

[Anonymous Coward]

The lesson here is not to rely on a company or a single entity for security of service... decentralised services that users can host themselves are the only way to maintain privacy and freedom of speech because there is no single point of vulnerability that a government can mess with.

Yeah, they'll simply arrest you and force you to decrypt all your communications under threat of stricter penalties.

Re:What do you mean what about circumstances?

[Anonymous Coward]

decrypt what now? what communications are you talking about? seriously if i had anything i didn't want found or felt that the government did not have a right to, it wouldn't only be encrypted - it would have no apparent relationship with me, especially physical... eg no local encrypted hard drives. You can't ask someone to decrypt something that you don't even know exists.

Re:Privacy is for Luddites.

[Anonymous Coward]

Better watch your app, buddy. Them's fightin' apps.

Easy to defeat

[WillAffleckUW]

Just use spam terms in the body and it still can be received but the stupid software says it's not what it is.

Only non-techies think spies are good at what they do.

Re:Easy to defeat

[AHuxley]

Yes other governments will just enjoy secure one time pads, distant public radio broadcasts and number stations for all their international staff.
The result is just another huge investment in contractors as the UK offered in the 1970's, 80, 90's, 00's to track all emerging and long term digital networks.

Re:Easy to defeat

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a complete fool thinks that technology is the only way intelligence is gathered.

Re:Privacy is for Luddites.

[Adriax]

This troll meme deserved a single +1Funny mod the first time it was posted. And only because it reminds me of the martian's "Ack ack!" language from Mars Attacks.

But now, it's just boring.

David Cameron is the reason the terrorists win.

[Anonymous Coward]

David Cameron, you delusional fuck, you will be the reason the terrorists will win.

The internet just makes it EASY for people to communicate.
If you take a war out against encryption, all you will do is force people to use the mail.
If you attack the mail (further), you will just force people to speak in person.

In EVERY case, you will lose.
You cannot ever win unless you put implants in peoples fucking heads.
Good luck doing that without causing an actual war.

Re:David Cameron is the reason the terrorists win.

[Falos]

If your thought process allows for unrevealed data to affect the equation, you'll realize this all makes a lot more sense. Specifically, ulterior motive.

This isn't about pedorist druglord arms dealers. It never is. They want to watch everyone everywhere everytime.

Re:David Cameron is the reason the terrorists win.

[ColdWetDog]

Dear Mr. Cameron:

AADU JKE87 HBX7 HCNM 77UEM QNSQ C79JK 473JH Q9JKK ZX346 LANE7 UYJHK EUWYT

There, that's better.

Re:David Cameron is the reason the terrorists win.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that your Windows key?

Re:David Cameron is the reason the terrorists win.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. If we all add a little noise to the mix we could render their surveillance systems ineffective.

1b ea fe 0a 97 c6 d3 fe 83 39 56 e1 cf 79 bf 1d
6b 53 31 8d cf fd 06 6d db e4 dc 56 86 bd e5 96
2d bb f2 54 2a b3 81 be 13 01 c2 9c f8 b4 13 3d
5d 82 ec 4b b4 34 73 b3 bf 88 fb 4e ed 3b c7 1a
e5 bf 5d da e9 7d ee 3a cc 98 02 2b a0 a3 ab d8
43 b9 ad b7 f7 d1 7b c2 d4 bf 40 94 03 86 83 c7
7d cf ce 64 b1 55 a2 c4 eb 06 e4 06 cc df 17 c0
3a b7 38 20 6d 4b cb eb df e4 81 87 70 fe 0a 9a
1e 2f 5b 66 80 e8 f2 2a d7 e8 34 82 cf 7d 4d 81
26 bd fa 5b 1b c9 fa ad 3f b9 1c 35 4d 98 0d 7a
72 9e da 95 1f 5d f3 4f ae 4f d4 39 f6 79 da 22
8d 6a a2 a1 59 20 35 ef 83 0f f9 ce d6 c1 03 79
9d 7d 36 99 3f fc 7c c3 2b cf 0a bf 9f be a7 72
14 95 4c 98 7e 0d 33 c3 c0 38 51 0e ed 75 b5 66
8a 5a 8a 71 38 11 1b 59 a3 80 6f c1 ba 70 2f b4
73 7b 24 e8 f5 df a7 6a 74 68 9c cb dc a7 61 61
90 d4 4a 41 15 71 36 cc 13 ce e5 24 fc 51 29 69
35 49 ff bd 64 64 88 49 46 4b ef 53 3c 5d bc 7b

DHS & Other Agencies

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Coast Guard (USCG)
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
Border Patrol
Secret Service (USSS)
National Operations Center (NOC)
Homeland Defense
Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Agent
Task Force
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Fusion Center
Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)
Secure Border Initiative (SBI)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)
Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS)
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
Air Marshal
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
National Guard
Red Cross
United Nations (UN)

Domestic Security

Assassination
Attack
Domestic security
Drill
Exercise
Cops
Law enforcement
Authorities
Disaster assistance
Disaster management
DNDO (Domestic Nuclear Detection Office)
National preparedness
Mitigation
Prevention
Response
Recovery
Dirty Bomb
Domestic nuclear detection
Emergency management
Emergency response
First responder
Homeland security
Maritime domain awareness (MDA)
National preparedness initiative
Militia
Shooting
Shots fired
Evacuation
Deaths
Hostage
Explosion (explosive)
Police

Re:David Cameron is the reason the terrorists win.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, I decoded your super secure secret ROT13 system

Dear Mr Cameron,

Go fuck yourself and the rest of your party.

Does the UK even have terrorism threats?

[omems]

How many people have been killed in Britain by terrorists since the IRA was assimilated? Or how many terroristic threats have been nullified thanks to any measure of government surveillance other than plain old policing? So how is this justified?

Re:Does the UK even have terrorism threats?

[DanJ_UK]

Quite a few - List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain.

My friend was on the bus approaching the one that blew up on Tavistock square, and if I hadn't slept in that morning I would have been on that piccadilly line train.

A more interesting list would be the prevented / thwarted potential attacks; of which there have been many more than most with a lot more potential for significant loss of life.

Re:Does the UK even have terrorism threats?

[AmiMoJo]

Jean Charles de Menezes died because of botched surveillance. Many others have had their lives ruined, and we are all diminished by giving up your right to privacy. The "cure" is worse than the disease.

Re:Does the UK even have terrorism threats?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was ten years ago.

Do you have any idea how many people are killed by US police every day? No, you don't, because nobody even bothers to work that figure out.

Re:Does the UK even have terrorism threats?

[91degrees]

Seems to average somewhere around 3

Re:Does the UK even have terrorism threats?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you f***ing kidding? Remember the 7th July bombing of the London metro? Or the recent stabbing of a soldier?

UK has a large muslim population. They will not stop their jihad just because you don't read the news.

Re:Does the UK even have terrorism threats?

[Anonymous Coward]

London Tube bombing was done by MI6

Re:Does the UK even have terrorism threats?

[lucien86]

The UK is building one of the worlds biggest and most vulnerable terrorist targets - HS2.. Our government is also helping ISIS to grow by totally failing to understand what they are and calling them terrorists.
ISIS Goals -
- To create a new Caliphate. (inc slavery, constant war, and full Sharia law)
- To conquer the whole Middle East and probably beyond.
- To exterminate all Shia Muslims and other 'Apostates'.
- To kill or convert all liberal Muslims.
- To die in an apocalypse, either in a stand up fighting war with the west or in a nuclear war.

They only care about us as an enemy to fight and as a propaganda tool to help encourage more recruits.. All they have to do is continue to survive and they will continue to grow bigger and stronger. They also know that even if they are destroyed they will inspire the next ISIS which they hope will be even worse and even more extreme. They want to invade Israel so they can steal its nuclear weapons. They want the same from Pakistan.
To them terrorism is more entertainment than anything else.

To all the Governments

[rtkluttz]

F-U. Thats why I use linux and encrypt everything myself before it goes to the cloud. I'm not a criminal, but you still ain't going to look at my shit to prove I'm not.

My Rant For Years

[JimSadler]

No government on this planet wants or accepts private communications. In one sense of the term secrecy is in itself a hostile action and not just by nations but by individuals as well. A simple example is Russia. Because we do not know exactly what the Russians are doing at all times we carry a heavy expense burden of trying to be able to defend against any hostile actions by any new imaginable technologies. So secrecy is sort of an act of war. Taken down to the man and wife level any degree of secrecy puts stress on the party who does not know all about the mate. A parent must take precautions and purchase various forms of insurance as it is so well known that teens will keep secrets from their parents. It all boils down to secrecy being a rather overt, hostile act. And it works in both directions. It means nothing to be able to vote when a government is allowed to keep secrets from the public. Should I vote for a man who wants to shrink our military when i am not allowed to know the true strength of our weapons?

Re:My Rant For Years

[dryeo]

Taken down to the man and wife level any degree of secrecy puts stress on the party who does not know all about the mate.

So what you are saying is that my relationship with my wife would be improved if I don't keep secret that a certain dress makes her ass look big?

Re:My Rant For Years

[mark-t]

n one sense of the term secrecy is in itself a hostile action...

Really?

Care to tell me what hostile act wearing clothes in public constitutes? Clothes, after all, cover up your body... keep it hidden from view. That's secrecy.

Wanting to keep something private isn't a hostile act... wanting to know something that somebody was trying to keep private can be, however.

Your line of reasoning parrots those who would say that if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide...

Except that almost everyone *DOES* have something to hide. Not because they've done anything wrong, but because they have things that are private or personal.

People like Cameron don't seem to get it...

[mark-t]

... That even *IF* we could, however hypothetically, completely trust the government to not abuse the ability to eavesdrop on private conversations, and that the government had absolutely no security leaks whatsoever....

Again, I stress that *EVEN IF* absolutely everything was working exactly as such a government intended...

... it is unavoidably true that if the government has the ability to break your encryption, however altruistic they may claim their intentions to be, then so can the bad guys... people with less benevolent intentions, who will abuse that information, and cause harm to completely innocent parties.

This is because laws don't actually *stop* people from breaking them, they only ensure that something that is considered appropriate punishment will follow when people do. Unfortunately, such punishment cannot always negate the effects of the harm that was done while someone broke the law in the first place.

And again, this is even *IF* their system for eavesdropping on encrypted communications was function as best as they can possibly intend.

So hey, Mr. Cameron.... I can sincerly appreciate that you might have the very best of intentions, but your goals will deprive entirely innocent people of the ability to even have the most rudimentary protections from people that will use the same abilities that the government has, however illegally, to cause very harm to people who have done nothing wrong except to follow a law that says they are not allowed to take precautions against such means.

Re:People like Cameron don't seem to get it...

[Some nick or other]

Or in Schneier's words: Either everybody spies, or nobody spies.

Re:Privacy is for Luddites.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop it! You're driving me app-shit.

The Terminator said it best:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fuck you, asshole."

No safe space

[presidenteloco]

So I guess Cameron's comment means that they will be putting microphone bugs in every car and every few meters of public space, oh, and all the buildings.

Hey wait a minute, what is THAT?

CONservatives are such drama queens

[Anonymous Coward]

They really do hate us and are trying to hurt us with their childish exaggerations. Hyperbole is the way of their kind. They do it to hurt us. They want to hurt us. Stupid Republicans.

Nevermind the bollocks, here's David Cameron

[LessThanObvious]

Do the Brits just not want any rights? Why do you tolerate this? At least American politicians still have to pretend to give a damn about basic civil rights while they try to scare us into forgoing them. Communication in the modern world is an unstoppable force. Even prison gangs that live in a tightly controlled environment where they are forbidden from free communications and have little or no technology, find ways to communicate without authorities knowing the contents of their communications. Spying on all communications all the time may sound good in theory strictly from a security standpoint, but the moment the actual bad guys know that is the environment in which they operate, they will find ways to evade that scrutiny. Everyone else should not have to tolerate being constantly observed just so the government can pretend that it offers reasonable assurance that they will get the intelligence they seek from the small number of actual persons of interest.

Re:Nevermind the bollocks, here's David Cameron

[AmiMoJo]

Our democracy is broken. Here are the the numbers of votes each party received, followed by the number of MPs they got:

Party                        Votes                Seats

Conservative Party            11,300,303 (36.9%)    330 (50.8%)
Labour Party                9,344,328 (30.4%)    232 (35.7%)
UK Independence Party        3,881,129 (12.6%)    1 (0.2%)
Liberal Democrats            2,415,888 (7.9%)    8 (1.2%)
Scottish National Party        1,454,436 (4.7%)    56 (8.6%)
Green Party                1,157,613 (3.8%)    1 (0.2%)

So as you can see, 3.8 million people voted for UKIP (a bunch of wankers, but still...) but ended up with just one MP and no power at all. The greens got the same number of MPs with juste 1.1 million votes. Only 1.5 million people voted for the SNP and they got 56 seats.

The system is rigged so that power is always held by either Labour or the Conservatives. No-one else can get a look in, even if like UKIP they manage to gain quite and impressive amount of support. 12.6% of the vote, 0.2% of the seats. See how it works?

So at election time the choice is basically Labour or the Tories. The Tories will sell our freedom off with glee, and Labour aren't much better. But no-one cares about that come election time. Since the system is designed to avoid hung parliaments and any kind of power sharing it tends to produce totalitarian governments who rip away our rights and freedoms (human rights are being flushed away as we speak).

Re:Nevermind the bollocks, here's David Cameron

[LessThanObvious]

Very interesting. It doesn't leave you in much better shape than the US two party strangle hold. They all place so much value on predictability and control. If there were no parties and each man or woman had to stand on their own with no party line talking points and an empty canvas on which to hang their own ideas it would just be too complex for the rich and powerful to exert their rightful level of control. It would be much too dangerous to let the people choose anyone they like to represent them, easier to let them choose from the acceptable few and present the illusion of free will.

Re:Nevermind the bollocks, here's David Cameron

[IamTheRealMike]

All those figures say is that birds of a feather flock together. Tory voters tend to live near each other and because the UK has a political system designed a long time ago for resolving local issues, not surprisingly it doesn't translate votes to seats directly at the national level. As local politics becomes less and less relevant, of course, people feel this system no longer works well for them.

However, as you note, it would not have mattered if Labour had won, or any other party. There are NO parties in the UK that believe people should be able to keep secrets from the government. It's just not something that fits into the political worldview. And because the voting system collapses thousands of decisions down to just one every so many years, surveillance and encryption is simply not democratically decided at all. Basically the wheel of power is decided by the economy, and that's about it.

Unfortunately this is not specific to the UK and is true nearly everywhere, France is even worse for example, and the USA pretends to care but realistically lots of Congressmen would very much like total surveillance of Americans .... and only feel they can't demand it openly because of that darned constitution. That won't stop them doing it in secret though!

Re:Nevermind the bollocks, here's David Cameron

[Anonymous Coward]

The Brits are a bunch of pussy men, all they do is work in the bakery and go home and suck on their mommies saggy teats.
They were pussies in WWII and WWI and when the USA beat their ASS for 1776.
But because the USA literally saved their ass in WWII,
all they are now are lapdogs for the USA.
Everything outta them damn Brits bloomin mouths now comes straight from the USA.
Simply put, the Brits suck USA cock.

Re:Nevermind the bollocks, here's David Cameron

[advocate_one]

they 'gave' us a referendum on switching to Alternative Voting as a sop to the Lib Dems, but they managed to make the explanation of the system and the question on the referendum so confusing that most people stuck with the status quo which is what the tories were backing... while Labour actually wanted PR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Nevermind the bollocks, here's David Cameron

[AmiMoJo]

That's one way of looking at it. Personally I think their efforts to confuse people were pathetic, the biggest problem is that people are just too stupid to participate in democracy.

Re:Nevermind the bollocks, here's David Cameron

[Stuarticus]

It is worth pointing out that the SNP stood in 58 seats and UKIP stood in 624, so the vote disparity doesn't really tell the whole story, in fact if the SNP stood in as many seats they would probably get more votes, but the same number of seats.

Re:Nevermind the bollocks, here's David Cameron

[ljones0]

Our democracy is broken? What democracy? That went out of the window ages ago!

Absolutely it it definately broken. Only snag is though - just how do you change something like the voting system in the UK? There was a referendum a few years back but the main parties simply turned their backs on it. It all ended up being one big non-event, so it got nowhere.

Neither labour nor the tories will ever want to change the voting system because that system is the exact same one which keeps them in power. Unless something really *does* truly change, it is basically turkeys voting for christmas style of effect.

My own personal thoughts on this? Voting numbers keep going down and overall people joining mainstream (i.e. con/lab) political parties isn't going up by any big numbers anytime soon. So prehaps by 2030 as the votes dribble away and older party members die off being replaced by well...nobody either one of these parties (lab/con) dissapear. Maybe by 2030, either labour or conservatives will be dead (the lib dems already are close to this even now).

Another problem over here in the UK is the idea of a safe seat. I have the displeasure of living in a tory safe seat so no matter what I do or which way I vote, my vote counts for absolutely nothing. I'm stuck with a tory who has been here for decades now. Safe seats mean a politician can do basically b****r all and still retain power in their seat.

What's worse is that a lot of people over here in the uk when it comes not just to their own privacy but even just basic run-of-the-mill politics they don't care. In fact they don't even *want* to care which is even worse. Mindless comsuming mouths is all they are; they have seemingly no brain with which to think, but only respond to stimuli when poked and prodded by an advert. They are the first to scream and shout when something enrages them at the drop of a hat, but yet scream louder if they can't see that film or can't buy that expensive car.

Even trying to get people over here (speaking from where I work) to do something as simple as "installing adblock" seems to be met with the sort of looks either akin to the deer trapped in headlights or the "don't talk to me I don't care" look. You get about as far as banging your head against a wall.

*sighs. :-(

At least people in the US actually still seem to care about their privacy and are trying to do *something* about it.

Re:Nevermind the bollocks, here's David Cameron

[jez9999]

Care to elaborate on why UKIP are "a bunch of wankers"? Do you happen to be Russell Brand?

Re:Nevermind the bollocks, here's David Cameron

[jez9999]

Bollocks.

The SNP don't even pretend to give a shit about anyone outside Scotland. I'm aware that there were a few English people who wanted to vote SNP. I consider them idiots. I think the SNP's vote share outside Scotland would be in the low single digits at best. It would be like Jews voting for the Nazis.

Re:Nevermind the bollocks, here's David Cameron

[Stuarticus]

Low single digits of an electorate of 46 million is quite significant, evidently your Maths is as weak as your politics.

Re:Nevermind the bollocks, here's David Cameron

[andrewbaldwin]

But spread over many constituencies it would have no effect. See comments about the first past the post/ safe seats above.

There are several considerations at play here which may not be obvious to overseas commentators:

Cameron is trying to appeal to the "Daily Mail" readership who make up a large chunk of his support. The DM is a newspaper in the loosest sense of the world which has one aim - to make its readership scared/angry. It does this by targeting foreigners, the EU, the BBC, Muslims, the gay community, the Labour party, any number of materials that cause cancer (though some can miraculously cure it as well - e.g. coffee - the DM relies on its readers having a short attention span/memory) and anyone who doesn't fawn over royalty**. One of its current campaigns is against porn.

He's also reacting against the atrocity in Tunisia. "Something needs to be done!" "I'll do something -- sorted!!"

The UK government in general, irrespective of party, has a terrible reputation with regard to implementing IT systems. Their incompetence is one of our safeguards.

Finally this is the summer - the "silly season" when there's little news.

** How do you confuse a Daily Mail reader? Tell them that gypsies kill paedophiles.

Re:Nevermind the bollocks, here's David Cameron

[Stuarticus]

See my initial comment that clearly says "get more votes, but the same number of seats". I agree with most of your comment.

Re:Nevermind the bollocks, here's David Cameron

[JigJag]

you want to watch this very interesting video about the latest UK election.

Here's the translation:

[kheldan]

Because some people are criminals and terrorists, we now have no choice but to treat everyone as if they're criminals and terrorists, therefore no one will be allowed to have any ability to have any sort of private communications.

I don't give a damn what he said about 'warrants', either, that's just a piece of paper after all.

Normal

[nospam007]

That man has obviously no idea how the series of tubes work.

Re:Privacy is for Luddites.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck David Cameron.

Mr. Prime Minister of England, you, sir, can go eat out a latrine.

captcha: record
(Ironic or what?)

Re:Privacy is for Luddites.

[geekmux]

Better watch your app, buddy. Them's fightin' apps.

Uhhh, yeah...anytime you want to stop trying to make fetc..er, I mean apps happen, that would be cool.

Cameron's wet dream is unattainable

[fnj]

You can't stop people from communicating with each other sub rosa. You can make it awful tough for them if they use a cipher (SSL). A cipher is pretty obvious, and you can use force to compel them to give up the key if they don't destroy it first. And you can immediately see if the key works. So they don't use a cipher. They use a code. "The oranges are falling from the tree in Grant Park". That could mean "attack against Fort Sumter the third week of August". Or it could mean "The pigs discovered cell number 377". Or it could equally well mean "I left three joints of marijuana for you at the agreed place". Want to know what it means? The target can tell you it's not written down anywhere, and he's not telling you. Hell, street slang is a code that is not written down.

Or they can just go into the woods and whisper to each other. They can send runners. Carrier pigeons.

Re:Cameron's wet dream is unattainable

[AHuxley]

The UK has the option to revert to the 1950's and have massive numbers of expensive undercover, informant, police, special forces teams in every community per village, town, city.
Find, follow, attract, use front groups (peace, human rights, anti war) and attract interested people in and give them safe busy work 'issues' over decades.
Anyone with any state connection would have understood network tracking since about the 1970's know to avoid any of the new hardware of software methods.
The other issue the UK has is CCTV and cell phone tracking. Any member of the press, a lawyer going out can be tracked and any meeting they have can be noted.
Networked office equipment, new office computer equipment that arrives been ordered online is another way in.
It all comes back to staff numbers the UK can offer good wages to for the skills of tracking most people within the UK for decades.
Hire too many new staff with skills and the UK cannot trust the vetting. The UK has a long issue with trying to secure its own gov workers.
The UK faced staff issues, working conditions and wage claims from its gov staff over many decades (1950's-early 1980's).
Growing the staff count to watch all of the UK all the time might be a budget and vetting issue long term.
Why watch everyone when the UK has front groups that can draw people in?
The UK will have an interesting question soon, find the cash to pay contractors and gov staff to watch the entire nation or find a very easy way to watch front 'groups' in the community.
Front groups are very tricky to keep public enough to attract new members but well away from the press and citizen journalists asking questions. re "Or they can just go into the woods and whisper to each other." The UK would offer both people a lot of cash/deals. Cell structures are easy to turn given time and a lot of cash. Once a few cells get turned the entire can be uncovered and turned.

The Cameron

[Opportunist]

Soon to be the official SI unit describing the minimum distance between two blunders.

Re:The Cameron

[coofercat]

I'm inclined to agree, however, sometimes those blunders can be helpful. Not so long ago, Obama was talking about some sort of military deployment into Syria. For such things, it's generally considered that us Brits will go along with whatever the yanks want, so we'd have had to go too (just like Iraq, which wasn't even legal).

Cameron put forth a motion, which needed a vote. However, he did it with such a short time scale (because he's "eager to help"), that he was defeated and thus, the UK could not participate in the Syria plans.

We can argue about whether the US/UK should or should have not gone into Syria at that time. Had it happened though, it would have been another illegal war with undefined objectives, and a huge expense for the UK (which was very contra the 'austerity' of the time). As such, keeping out of it seems like a wise thing to have done. Of course, it wasn't followed with a proper, UN based plan or anything which is arguably why Syria is in the shit state it is now, but that's another problem.

As for this one though - it's pretty obvious he's been leant on by the Americans again. If it gets through, then the NSA gets a whole new avenue of data collection, and if it doesn't, then the NSA/Obama/etc don't lose any political capital in the attempt. I suspect the latter as it's unworkable. For example, I'll make sure my servers all talk gibberish to each other constantly, should any laws against encryption be passed. Who's to know if it's data or cyphertext?

Re:The Cameron

[lucien86]

"As such, keeping out of it seems like a wise thing to have done"

Hardly. The wests not intervening in Syria was as big a mistake as invading Iraq in the first place, and both lead pretty directly to the creation of ISIS. Two sets of rebels in Syria, The pro-freedom and pro-democracy groups basically depended on help and military aid form the west. The jihadi factions were helped by other Jihadi groups and supplied with weapons and supplies - mainly from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.. Assad was being helped and funded and armed by the Russians.
Result : pro democracy groups all but obliterated, Assad in retreat, and ISIS ascendant in Syria and Iraq, and growing elsewhere..

UK's porn filter

[mars-nl]

How long will it take for UK's porn filter will by UK's porn AND encryption tools filter. My guess is not long.

Re:UK's porn filter

[mars-nl]

Without the typo:

How long will it take for UK's porn filter will be UK's porn AND encryption tools filter. My guess is not long.

Re:UK's porn filter

[camperdave]

Perhaps you want "to become" rather than "will be"?

Not just internet

[Anonymous Coward]

But the thing is strong encryption is used everywhere. How does Cameron think GB will do without credit cards, ATM's anything using a PIN number and I think GPS. What about the financial sector - encryption is used there just a bit. What about Wifi security?
Man there's a lot of places encryption is used...

Cheat death, OH YEAH YOU SAVED US CAMERON

[Anonymous Coward]

replace "terrorist" with "boogeyman" every time you see it.

boogeymen are real too. only the weak/gullible are scared.

I'm curious if the world's population is actually collectively stupid enough to let the sneaks sneak this hard. Not doubting, just curious.

basic lessons in information theory

[JustNiz]

There is no way the can target just terrorists, so this has bulk data collection of everyone in the UK written all over it.
Normally I think Cameron is OK but on this point he's making himself look like a complete fool and is clearly a dangerous enemy of fundamental human rights.
If nothing else he needs some basic lessons in information theory for even implying that its always possible to decrypt messages. Its not even possible to always know when some data just contains an encrypted message.

How well you know about socialism?

[Taco Cowboy]

It's not just Cameron. The people I know in the UK support this kind of thinking. A few years ago there was legislation introduced to assign a caseworker to *every* child in the UK. It didn't have as little support as you'd think. They are, broadly, a bunch of well-behaved socialist conformists who are afraid of the real world, and think that a panopticon surveillance state will make them "safe". It is disgusting

Just wow, socialism does not advocate panopticon surveillance, infact I don't think socialism has anything to say about matters relating to observation of the population. This is the sort of bullshit that got the US in the hellhole they're in now. I think the most applicable term for it is fascism

Tell us, my friend, how much do you know about socialism?

No, not the 'theoretical socialism' but the ones which had been implemented in real life

Do not tell us what you 'think', as what you 'think' doesn't matter in the whole scheme of things

But do tell us what you know, my friend

I am from China, a socialist country - in fact, I ran away from my own motherland because socialism had turned it into a hellhole

Massive social upheavals and people suffered greatly because under a socialistic society, it is the STATE (or whoever is in power) which dictates what happen, and the people must follow

Whoever dare to go against the grain will be tagged as 'anti-social' and even 'counter-revolutionalist' and are severely punished

I am not saying that capitalism is the panacea, but at the very least, under true form of capitalism, it is the individuals who are responsible for his or her own action, not the state

Those of you who never understand the real horror of socialism please understand this --- we who have gone through the baptism of fire under socialism will never sing hosannas praising socialism because we know how harmful it is

Re:How well you know about socialism?

[Anonymous Coward]

in what world does true capitalism exist? it's as fictitious as true socialism, and both are used to do nothing other than oppress. at least camperdave seems to have figured this out.

Re:How well you know about socialism?

[Smauler]

I am from China, a socialist country

China's not very socialist now. It's more capitalist than most western democracies.

Re:How well you know about socialism?

[qeveren]

I'm from Canada and... well, things are pretty decent here.

Re:How well you know about socialism?

[lucien86]

Sorry the Chinese might have called it socialism but it definitely wasn't / isn't.

What is the true heart of any socialist system? a legally bound police force and fair universal justice system paid for through general taxation.. China falls down on that very first precept.
Since socialism requires taxation to work it is in fact a sub-type of capitalism. True Socialists believe in equality, freedom, justice, general human rights, and above all democracy.
What China had/has is a corrupt form of Soviet Communism. It has more in common with fascism or dictatorship than true socialism..

BTW Capitalism without socialist restraints looks more like ISIS or Somalia than the modern USA or Europe. Is murder illegal? is slavery? is rape? is paedophilia? all laws that are essentially socialist inventions.

The Race

[nehumanuscrede]

Sometimes I wonder if the US and the UK are in a race to see who can hit bottom first.

There is so much absurdity at the decision making levels that we're in danger of creating a singularity. Once it reaches sufficient density levels, we're all pretty much f*cked. :|

It will never be implemented because "profit"...

[Anonymous Coward]

The banks will not be able to provide genuinely secure links any more.
Because of legal requirements, any "bank at home" or "mobile banking" solutions will be forthwith terminated.
This will cause enormous outrage at the banks, cause they fleece customers blind for making mobile transactions.
And they save MASSIVE sums by allowing people to bank at their leisure without a desk clerk to process the payments.
If they lose even a minor percentage of that traffic because of even PERCEPTIONS of insecurity, they'll go to the wall to stop it happening.
So it won't happen, cause corporations (including banks) run the world and won't permit any laws to go through that remotely impact their profits in a negative manner.

So move along, there's nothing to see here, it's just noise, and What Cameron Says is irrelevant.

Bring it on!

[Meneth]

All right, then. Try it. Let's see what happens.

In particular, I'm interested to see what will happen to TLS-encrypted streams between Europe and the US, most of which pass through London.

too funny

[Anonymous Coward]

They make encryption against the law and they will be able to spy on everyone except for criminals who will ignore the law.

Re: too funny

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It will simply reduce the number of people to keep tabs on. When (not if, when) non government-approved encryption is banned the vast majority of people will simply comply. With all communications intercepted, the risk of pubishment in financial terms (heavy, crippling fines) or worse (prison) is simply too great. A minority will use some clandestine tools in a futile effort to "thwart the Man" and they will be tracked down and made an example of. The rest will be deal with - harshly - by internal security. You see, the deal is done.

Re:Privacy is for Luddites.

[johanw]

Privacy app users use TextSecure, SMSSecure and Redphone on Android, and Signal on iOS to communicate. No pesky government can read that.

Re:Privacy is for Luddites.

[Anonymous Coward]

It this kind of utter rubbish that makes reading comments for news stories on /. awful and uninformative and becoming irrelevant. In the good old days people would comment on issue with additional information about the subject, now we have uneducated dumbwits making stupid comments just so they can get their 60seconds of fame on most /. articles or being stupid claiming they are thick and uneducated because they have nothing irrelevant to say other than "First Post" or that crappy King Frosty. Perhaps there should be a /. survey to find out what people generally think about a commenting system on /. and is it worth while.

Unsustainable...

[GoddersUK]

the time has come for companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter to accept and understand that their current privacy policies are completely unsustainable?

Unsustainable means that it will become inherently impossible for Google, Facebook and Twitter to continue sustaining them, not that bad stuff will happen (which it won't); or whatever David "Call-me-Adolf" Cameron thinks it means.

Re:It will never be implemented because "profit"..

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of them do not even now. They only offer cipher suites using RC4 and none using PFS.

Re:Privacy is for Luddites.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Please go curl up and die.

Is there an app for that?

Re:Privacy is for Luddites.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Unless they have access to your phone on a lower level, I suppose.

Re: Privacy is for Luddites.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if they're the ones that created the app.

Ahh .. Great Britain - Truly leading the pack...

[doccus]

Truly leading the pack...In undergarment searches, cameras in the loo, on every street corner in the entire country, plus over every doorway and in every hotel room.. all properly fitted with the newest facial recognition software. And microphones! Where ever the cameras are, with high tech audio filtering. And yes, even aimed at residential windows where they can even hear through walls. . So, my oh my, it must have stung then to hear about the American data collection of all posts and emails , when the UK simply didn't have anything nearly as invasive. Well, they've fixed that NOW.. with "no safe space". Now they can safely hear private communications about junior's pooping in his diaper over and over, or what a twit the local mayor is, or, y'knoiw, whatever.Frankly,. I doubt they'll catch anyone planning harm or fear and loathing to society via email or the phone, but I bet they're dyiing to "accidentally" overhear someone planning to harvest their grow-op.. Once they (didn't) hear that, they now know to pull their car over for a full search on suspicion of speeding. George Orwell would be so proud of what his mother country has become. :satire:

Re:Privacy is for Luddites.

[lucien86]

Ur.. original commenters age detected - 7 to 10 years old. Talking to them might get you labelled as a pedo... :)

Re:Privacy is for Luddites.

[lucien86]

"Mr. Prime Minister of England, you, sir, can go eat out a latrine." You obviously don't know a lot about Cameron, him eating out of a toilet would be cannibalism..

A real problem

[jandersen]

I think we are facing a real problem, and I don't think we can solve it by waving lofty ideals about from the comfort of our armchairs. Fundamental right like privacy and freedom of speech are too important to be used frivolously. If they get pulled out again and again as a knee-jerk reaction every time somebody can't have it all their own way, then they will get watered down to the point where people in general get sick enough to allow them to be taken away completely - or at least severely restricted.

So, instead of automatically whining, try to come up with a better way tol solve the problems: organised crime and terrorist organisations, just to mention two, are very good at using communications that are difficult to trace, and our best weapons are hampered by having to follow the law. Shall we simply roll over and take it on the chin, let internal gangs do what they like and terrorists organise ever bolder attacks on civilians?

Amongst the readers of Slashdot are some, at least, who aspire to be clever and able to solve problems; so contribute constructively, if you think you can.