Slashdot Mirror
France Says Fight Against Messaging Encryption Needs Worldwide Initiative (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader shares a Reuters report: Messaging encryption, widely used by Islamist extremists to plan attacks, needs to be fought at international level, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said on Thursday, and he wants Germany to help him promote a global initiative. He meets his German counterpart, Thomas de Maiziere, on Aug. 23 in Paris and they will discuss a European initiative with a view to launching an international action plan, Cazeneuve said. French intelligence services are struggling to intercept messages from Islamist extremists who increasingly switch from mainstream social media to encrypted messaging services, with Islamic State being a big user of such apps, including Telegram. "Many messages relating to the execution of terror attacks are sent using encryption; it is a central issue in the fight against terrorism," Cazeneuve told reporters after a government meeting on security. "France will make proposals. I have sent a number of them to my Germany colleague," he said.
People will just make their own.
>Messaging encryption, widely used by Islamist extremists to plan attacks
And much more widely used by spouses to talk to their spouses to remind them to pick up milk from the supermarket because the bottle is almost empty.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Let's re-word this a bit.
We know for a fact that most of the Terror attacks were planned "in the clear". Most are at a loss on how to use encryption or have the tools needed to make use of encryption.
Next, everyone using the internet for anything uses encryption, everyone. be it SSL, TLS, SSH, PGP, GPG, whatever.
What France is trying to say (and what the US and Britain as well intend) is to get people riled up over encryption so that they can make it illegal for EVERYONE to use if it doesn't have a "back-door" or "golden-key".
This would cause a complete failure for security / encryption and safety worldwide. Secure communications between traffic-control and air-towers would be subject to attack. Subway and Train communications that control track switching and timing would be vulnerable.
Identity theft would go through the roof, the stock market would crash, dogs and cats living together, mass-hysteria!!
But, then again, that is what the "Terrorists" want. And our governments are rolling over, exposing their soft, bloated underbellies to ISIS.
...that this is about terrorism. FFS we have the best military intelligence in the world, and we can't stop a rag-tag bunch of third-world "militants"? Bull. Shit.
Every time the elites want more control over the populace or want to ban something, they trot out their wholly-owned and operated subsidiary ISIL (or whatever they're called this week, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc.) to demonize the freedom du jure and everyone bends over. Banning encryption is not "central to defeating terrorism", banning encryption is "central to defeating personal liberty".
These Reuters/AP/wire reports always read properly when you replace terrorism with liberty or freedom anyway. Liberty must be stopped. Freedom is running rampant. Liberty is at odds with modern society. The actual terrorist acts could be stopped if governments wanted them to stop, but they don't want them to, they want to exacerbate them in the name of stopping freedom.
We must ban all people from meeting in groups without authorized monitoring... they could be plotting evil.
We must ban the use of paper, it leaves no lasting evidence after it's destroyed.
We must monitor everything and everyone, everywhere.
Big brother is the only way to stop terror. It is necessary, it is the only moral thing to do. We must make it a world law, all offenders will be punished.
With these wise and urgently needed social advances..finally the populace will be safe, and under control.
Those that plan to do evil WILL ALWAYS find a way to communicate, plan unnoticed, and not get caught.
Short of plugging every mind into a unified collective where all thoughts are known to all, this will continue to be true.
Although the worldwide initiative I have in mind involves a purging of clueless, imbecilic politicians...
#DeleteChrome
We have populace where they think that if you do nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about. The trouble is that they are ignorant of the law and don't realize that if a prosecutor were to look closely at anyone's life, they will find something that they are doing that is illegal. The people have waaayyyy too much confidence in authority.
So, there will always be support for these dragnet operations to get the "bad guy" because everyone else thinks that they are the good guy.
We blame terrorism on encryption because we don't want to admit the real problem. The same is often true for gun control, especially recently. Why do people get offended when I say that Islam is evil? Why is this considered bigotry?
Islam isn't a race or an ethnicity. It's a religious belief. Specifically, it's a belief that Allah is the only god, Mohammed is his prophet, and the Qur'an is the literal word of god. We wouldn't call Christianity a race, so why would we act like Islam is a race? A large number of Muslims are either Arabs or Persians, which are two different ethnicities.
Not all religions or beliefs are equal. Would the belief that the Earth is flat be equally as valid as believing that the Earth is round? Is a belief that the moon landings were faked as valid as believing that they really happened? Is it equally as valid to believe that humans aren't causing global warming as it is to believe that humans are causing a lot of the warming? In each case, one belief is obviously right and another is wrong. And then there are religions like Scientology, which is clearly a scheme to profit rather than a sincerely developed belief. Again, it is not to be taken seriously.
While religions are never supported by testing hypotheses, they can still be judged on how they teach believers to act. Islam clearly teaches that non-believers should be given the choice to either convert or die. This is stated in the Qur'an and echoed in present day Islamic teaching. It is also clearly wrong. A significant portion of Muslims genuinely believe they need to kill non-believers. This is not true of Christianity, which teaches to love your neighbor and love your enemy. Even the most perverted forms of Christianity such as the Westboro Baptist Church don't believe in killing people. They are perverted, no doubt, but they stick to offensive speech and claim that their god is punishing people for sins, usually homosexuality. They are perverted, but unlike Islam, they're not killing anyone.
Virtually all Christians are taught that if they committed acts of terror like what is frequently done by Muslims, they would get an instant one way ticket to hell. Islam could discourage terrorism by teaching the same thing, but instead they teach that it results in a trip to heaven where they get 72 virgins. Unlike Christianity, Islam clearly condones violence and terrorism.
Why, then, do we pretend that Christianity and Islam are equally valid and call anyone who objects a bigot? Islam is objectively worse than Christianity. It is a belief system that needs to cease to exist. Some beliefs are so harmful that they need to be eradicated. Islam is at the top of the list.
I imagine a call for banning clueless politicians who are always framing encryption under the terrorism threat agenda would be way more benefitial to the world.
We need to BAN all types of vehicles, they are widely used by Terrorists!
We want to avoid another Nice, we need to address this on a global level.
In fact, replace "vehicles" with just about anything. Phones. Terrorists use those too. A lot.
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -