Slashdot Mirror
Manchester Attack Could Lead To Internet Crackdown (independent.co.uk)
New submitter boundary writes: The UK government looks to be about to put the most egregious parts of the Investigative Powers Act into force "soon after the election" (which is in a couple of weeks) in the wake of the recent bombing in Manchester. "Technical Capability Orders" require tech companies to break their own security. I wonder who'll comply? The Independent reports: "Government will ask parliament to allow the use of those powers if Theresa May is re-elected, senior ministers told The Sun. 'We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in,' The Sun said it was told by a government minister. 'The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long.'"
But only because so many people are willing to give them all their personal information for free.
...Mainstream media are reporting today that the government was given credible warnings about the suspected bomber as many as five times over the past few years, from a variety of sources and via exactly the sorts of channels you're supposed to use if you're worried that someone might do something like this. None of these source appear to have relied on high-tech surveillance and intercepted communications. They were reportedly based on in-person observations, which tragically doesn't seem to have set off the right alarm bells soon enough.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
If the Internet and the World Wide Web become too dangerous for terrorists to communicate they'll find other ways to communicate their nefarious plans which may be more immune to cracking. This could include face to face meetings in secure venues such as caves or messenger transmissions. It may be that the best way to learn of such plans is the old fashion method of inserting moles into such organizations. They must be really good or they'll end up as recent moles have in China.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
It is an ominous action what was performed when parents were waiting to pickup their children after a concert.
After declaring something that it is true, let's talk about technology and the justification to violate the privacy human right in the name of security.
If there is any justification to break all rights trying to catch terrorists, then we must stop using paper because somebody "could" have been designing a terrorist act in a piece of paper. Let's also stop talking, because when we talk could be possible that we let others to receive messages describing how to perform terrorist acts.
Let's give the authorities the right to use "advanced" interrogation methods, because we could be thinking on performing terrorist acts and, in general, let's become guilty by default in a world were it is enforced to demonstrate that we are not guilty on any possible action that could hurt others.
The main problem is that the human being it is very capable to bypass the obvious communication methods and the bad people will continue performing bad actions in one or another way, and in the middle all the really innocent people will become guilty by default and the freedom that humanity has been working to acquire during thousands of years and millions of lives will be lost in just some years. And if this happen, the terrorists will win the war.
Multiple warnings over several years, and the UK government never acted on them. So now, rather than admit they were incompetent or not funding their human agents enough, they're going to cut off free speech online? Congratulations Britain, you have the dubious honor of being the second country in the world to fall to terrorism.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
I'd be saying, "Sure, but we're going to shut down all GovCloud regions. One level of encryption for everybody."
will they force apple to unlock phones as well?
Legislation only removes objects, even virtual and intangible, from the law abiding public.
Not from those outside the law who will carry on doing what they do.
Manchester was someone outside of the law and this crackdown does nothing, yet again, to prevent re-occurance.
Government's cause terrorism, who in turn target the public for voting them in.
You end up feeling like the pig in the middle between both extremists (legislative & violent).
I'm old enough to remember when bombings like Manchester were commonplace in England, but they still let Irish Catholics into the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't remember cryptography coming after INTERNET
According to the front page story in today's Telegraph, a mosque banned him and reported him to the authorities because of his extremist views.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Um, do you even know the history of Britain. Look up "the Troubles". The IRA were way more sophisticated than any would-be Jihadi. They even managed to blow up Prince Charles' uncle. All ISIS's band of maniacs seem able to do is blow up concert goers and little girls.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But the IRA weren't terrorists, they had friends in Washington, DC.
Also, Saudi Arabia doesn't fund any terrorists, it's the Iranians sponsoring the people who want to burn them as heretics.
As many here have pointed out, attacks like this were far from unknown during "The Troubles". Yet somehow, the UK managed to muddle through without turning into a police state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain
May and the rest of her pet fascists need a strong lesson in reality, and I don't think the voters can deliver it without some encouragement about votes having consequences.
I wonder what would happen if every social media account in the UK...all of them...stopped working. Email only if you want to contact somebody there. And telephone, of course.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Because it isn't the 60s anymore?
b-b-but they did it too is a pretty piss poor argument. It's completely irrelevant at this point, it doesn't matter who is doing it, it needs to stop.
"Cracking down on the internet" will do nothing but inconvenience innocent ordinary citizens.
The US had a very hard time finding Osama bin Laden after 9/11. He dropped off the net, and no cellphones either. He communicated via trusted couriers.
Another example is "Millenium Challenge 2002" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... This was a simulated war game with "Blue" force (USA) versus "Red" force (middle eastern, probably Iran).
> Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted
> an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic
> surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line
> troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.
The initial result was an absolute disaster for "Blue" at the beginning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed;
[...deletia...]
> After the war game was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script
> drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among other rules imposed by this script,
> Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be
> destroyed, and was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue
> Force troops ashore. Van Riper also claimed that exercise officials denied him
> the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue Force, and that they
> also ordered Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue Force
> and even ordered the location of Red Force units to be revealed.
The USA lost to "low tech" in Viet Nam. Afghanistan and Iraq weren't exactly "glorious victories" either. The UK seems to be falling into the same trap. They'll only succeed in shutting down internet connectivity for innocent citizens. Terrorists will continue to use "sneakernet", trusted couriers, etc.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Just like our government used 9/11 to implement all kinds of useless but intrusive laws to poke into our private lives, expect the UK to do the same. It's unlikely something that protects the citizen will come about, but that really isn't the point. The government has a golden opportunity to do all kinds of shit that people would normally be up in arms about, but now they will cheer the erosion of rights along.
-- Will program for bandwidth
The IRA were terrorists and were supported by Washington DC.
How many duch credible warning do they get per day, and how many can they realistically investigate ? If the y get 5 per day in average and can realistically investigate 10, no excuse. But if they get 50 per day for the same workforce, the y have to prioritize, and maybe some of the workforce were locked into other investigation too (the other nutjob at the bridge comes to mind)
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
...an internet to communicate. Still, anything that will slow down terrorists communications will be most welcome among us proles.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Clearly they learnt nothing from the CIA exploits leak that cased the NHS to go into meltdown when black hats got hold of the code. They just don't have a clue, compelling legitimate companies to provide ways to break into their encryption just means that the terrorists will use other encryption techniques either developed themselves or from a company outside of the UK who doesn't care about UK laws. End result, law abiding citizens loose their privacy, terrorists continue with impunity.
Mate, the IRA basically established the modern Terror franchise. They were terrorists before all the cool kids were doing it. If you looked up "Terrorist" in the dictionary before 9/11 it would have just been a picture of an Irish bomb maker
Unfortunately it is likely to be a crackdown on people supporting equality, democracy, and free speech and pointing out that Islam is against all of these. The muslims will be allowed to carry on as normal.
Why is it that when the muslims say they fear reprisals from non-muslims after an attack it is fine, but when non-muslims say they fear further attacks by the muslims it's islamophobia?
The existing anti-terrorism laws didn't work so we need more of the same shit, even if this guy is a loopy mass murderer and has nothing to do with terrorism.
How convenient that governments can use their own incompetence to increase their power.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
It is not possible to understand a crime deeply without answering a question: Cui bono? or Cui prodest? (Eng. Whom does it profit?)
In fact the original text of Marcus Tullius Cicero's speach was: "...asking, time and again, To whose benefit?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You must be joking, that's the local equivalent of the National Enquirer.
Is that you never, ever, EVER give the president a power that you will regret later when someone like Trump steps in.
It's a matter of scale. But first, there's some issues:
The monotheistic religions go on the premise that there's one God, one true way, one single identity which is above all else.
In history, many regions of the world have seen the rise of empires, which expanded through war and conquest.
An empire is a large social order, and so monotheistic religion and empire building were very similar, and worked hand in hand.
So it was noble to die for King and empire and God.
The notion of empire isn't that there are a bunch of empires, there is actually only one "empire" and everyone else is "barbarians".
Later, with things like the French Revolution, personal individual freedom started to ascend, and hand in hand with that, the modern nation state, and diversity, live and let live.
I've no idea why personal freedom and democracy started in Europe. It could be a historical fluke. Some argue Jesus inserted a virus into the monotheistic religions and that later flourished as the idea of personal freedom. But I've no idea if Jesus was even a real person.
Europe also discovered that monotheistic one true way dogmas tend to eat themselves, as competing interests all claim to be the superior party, and you get armies each shouting "God is on our side" all fighting each other. After say, 30 years of that, people start to see sense.
The separation of church and state becomes part of the matrix of modern nation states.
Now here's the kicker: the world is one planet in space but it is many places in time. Depending on where you travel, you will encounter ways of life and social structures from all of Earth's human history, right back to Kalahari bush people.
If you take any group of people who claim to belong to one identity, like "Christians" or "Moslems", there will be a huge variation of characters, beliefs, and values, within that group. A billion Moslems are not all the same, by any means, and Trump's idea of painting all Moslems with one brush is stupid stupid stupid.
Likewise, Buddhists have this sort of aura of being peaceful, but if you look at the world's Buddhists, and atheists for that matter, you'll again find a massive variety of beliefs, ideas, philosophies, ways of life, attitudes, etc. A person can take Vedanta and use it in their minds to go bomb people.
A fact remains, today, that terrorism and Islam are tied together by terrorist groups, in their minds, and we continue to see attacks.
The same could have happened with say, Buddhists in Tibet when the Chinese kicked them out. But it didn't, not on the scale we are seeing.
So let's say that you wake up one day and decided you want to become a terrorist and your ego demands you do it for a higher purpose. Which religion are you going to pick to give you that all-mighty feeling of supremacy over everyone else?
Back in Roman times I guess you could have joined one of the outlawed religions sects I guess.
Today, Islam has certain characteristics which make it more appealing. First, it sees itself as the version 3 coming after two failed and corrupted versions (Judaism and Christianity). It also has a culture of purity and return to earlier ideals and examples. Its founder was a tribal warrior. It expanded to cover India and many regions, building an enormous empire. I mean, the list goes on.
The Ottoman Empire was one of the most recent great empires to fall.
Now, many of those features of Islam are of no relevance to many many Muslims. See what I said about how within any large group there will be a huge variety of people with different attitudes and beliefs and os on.
The question then is, what percentage of Muslims go for this monotheistic, empire building, purity, supremacist, AND war-like or political conquest ideology and will act on it?
A tiny tiny percentage. And we all hope it stays that way.
The scary part, where everyone want to demonise everyone else, is that we have had major events like the Nazis coming to power in Europe's most leading culturally advanced nation, Germany, and that it reall
You're implying that there is something innately wrong with terrorism.
I believe that terrorism/guerrilla/freedom fighting is warranted in some circumstances. Though not for purely religious reasons. There has to be a political component that cannot be addressed peacefully -- and the Troubles fit that description.
All ISIS's band of maniacs seem able to do is blow up concert goers and little girls.
Could they have staged an attack on centers of power like 9/11? Those hit the Pentagon, WTC towers and the 4th plane was probably going for the White House or Congress. They have hit places like Charlie Hebdo. But going after "important" people would imply that the "unimportant" people were pretty much safe except for some collateral damage. They want everyone to feel unsafe just for going to a concert or restaurant or nightclub or football game or Christmas market or beach stroll or running the marathon or going to the airport or taking the subway or train or whatever.
They don't need to hit Paris and London, they can just as easily pick Nice or Manchester or any other gathering of people. They are on a campaign of universal terror and it's not an accident that they can strike pretty much anywhere, killing anyone. They're deliberately picking soft targets they know there's a million of and no real way to secure to make us seem powerless to stop it. It's pure malice and hatred, not incompetence. It's intended to fuel an anger towards Muslims, so they can find more angry rejects of society to recruit. Not sure it's working, but they're making a mess in the progress.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I can see it now. Banners, pitchforks, and people chanting, "Broken encryption for safety!!!"
(Government is the best solution for EVERYTHING! Just ask someone in government and they will tell you!!!)
Actually countries can decide for themselves who is and who isn't a citizen. Jus soli or Jus sanguinis are the two main priciples.
Worldwide community, WTF is that?
That says a lot more about your attitudes than it does mine.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And if ousting a small number of homosexuals would make the majority feel safer? Or gingers? Or geeks?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
If your cause involves killing innocent people you are a coward and a terrorist, and your cause deserves to crumble into nothing.
What if the cause you're fighting against is causing innocent victims?
This could involve all encryption on their networks, however. Implying that operators would be required to ban forms of encryption that they cannot crack.
Which has an interesting knock-on in that concealing unbreakable encryption within breakable encryption will only be caught and excluded if breakable encryption will be circumvented as a matter of course.
The IRA could easily have done something like 9/11. It's not like it was that hard at the time to take over a plane and fly it into a building. There are two reasons why they didn't which both stem from the fact that their motives were political, not ideological.
Firstly, they never did suicide attacks. The IRA perceived themselves as soldiers fighting for a cause, not jihadis fighting for God. Consequently, there were no IRA suicide attacks. 9/11 would have been impossible if you had to factor in an escape plan for the perpetrators.
Secondly, (and admittedly this didn't always apply) they had a concept of enemy combatants and civilians. As a rule their attacks were targeted at the system that prevented a united Ireland (police officers, politicians, soldiers) or causing disruption rather than deaths. If they planted a bomb targeted at civilian areas, they normally sent a warning to the police.
Also, let's not forget that they several times got close to "centres of power". They successfully murdered a British MP in the House of Commons car park, they slaughtered a troop of mounted ceremonial cavalry in Hyde Park, they murdered a relative of the Queen and they came close to assassinating the prime minister and many important cabinet ministers at a party conference.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
The sooner we can just admit that humans are naturally xenophobes and respond accordingly the better. The problem isn't encryption is communication in general. A smaller world really does not mean better understanding it just means we are all at each others throats.
The real problem is the Internet *NEEDS* national boarders. We need heavy restrictions on any kind of real-time cross boarder communication.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Now we'll see if AFRINIC, the internet registry, is more than hot air.
"No IP addresses for governments that shut down internet access," they said. If you cut access or start censoring feeds from tools like Google, Twitter, and Facebook to deny their citizens access, the infringing government could find themselves refused new IP addresses. Well, this seems exactly what Britain seems to be thinking of doing. They say that the Internet views censorship as damage and routes around it; is it time to start routing around the UK?
Okay, technically, this was a measure that was to be considered in June. However, the proponents of the measure really should speak up about it now. The Manchester attacks were terrible but the Investigatory Powers Act is even scarier.
It was sarcasm, ya wanker.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
30 years of violence in (and from) Northern Ireland proves what a fuckwit you are.
Okay, this is foolish on SO many levels and proves either that the conservatives in the UK know knowing about security in general, or are just looking to increase it's grip on the public (and manipulate the public/elections with the data they will have unmitigated access to.
First, we already know may of these violent collaborations are done without encryption or even high tech in many cases. So that won't stop anything.
Second: It will be an open invitation for hackers worldwide to probe for the back doors in products they know will be required if this power hungry party gets it's way.
It will make everyone's information open to the hackers/groups with less than ideal motives and will protect no one. All it will do is allow the government to get more information on the innocent citizens, whom I suspect is what these laws are really about and terrorism is just an excuse to tighten the grip of a party whose power hunger will never be sated. In essence, make innocent public citizens more vulnerable to extortionists, manipulators and hackers both foreign AND domestic. Which in the end will make the country less secure.
Benjamin Franklin had incredible foresight. HIs words "Those who give up their civil liberties for a little extra security deserve neither" are proving so true today.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Okay so they maybe inspired/ordered this and decided to CLAIM it as one of theirs
Do They not know about the IRA, The folks that fought the IRA and the Gurkas??
you start blowing up kids on purpose and you had better be well hidden
Of course. That's exactly what I said, almost word-for-word. And must you post two replies to the same comment?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"It's my company that no one is forcing to use. We like making sure people are safe online as much as its YOUR job to make sure they are safe offline. I will not break encryption, and you are free to block us out of your tiny, wolf in sheep's clothing, KGB wannabe country. You are a constant headache to deal with and we'll gladly take the minuscule loss in profit compared to the hell you'd catch for doing so. It's costing us to deal with you anyway. Besides, thank god for Tor and VPN." ---- Your reality face-smacker, Social Network.
Yeah, I think that was his/her point.
Sure, the Constitution guarantees the freedom to share more information in the public, and the right to free speech is great... but NOT when it will cause a danger to National Security. The info Snowjob likely possesses is probably EXACTLY the kind of stuff al Qaeda wants leaked out so they can learn better of how to successfully find ways to kill Americans at will. Not to mention, maybe names and locations of counter-terrorism spies that the U.S. has out in the field infiltrating the ranks of those would-be murderers. People want to complain about the NSA and allegedly "spying" on them, but then they'll also complain about not feeling the government is doing enough to protect them from al Qaeda! The NSA is not "hiding" anything, but they'll be truly ineffective if EVERYONE knows what they're working on. They're not interested in photos of your baby or mom's recipes. Has NOBODY stopped for a moment and asked "why" the NSA has been doing what they're doing? Did people think the authorities use magic to uncover terrorist plots? Which would you prefer, "spying" on you or terrorism on you? Snowflake (a high school drop-out) did what he did for the fame (for the escape from obscurity that everyone wants... although most average people simply use Facebook). http://www.newser.com/story/17... Special Ed is a traitor... Some still say what he did was NOT treasonous... But those weren't "leaks". He falsified his credentials and used other agents' identification so he could flat out steal sensitive information...