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."
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).
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.
Not to marginalize the awfulness of those bombings, but I don't remember a lot of them that specifically targeted young girls. That takes a special kind of evil.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
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
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?
Also, the IRA's goal was to blow stuff up and survive. This involves getting in and either placing the device well in advance (which risks it being discovered) or sneaking out after depositing it (which risks either the device or the bomber being spotted).
It's an order of magnitude harder.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Is that you never, ever, EVER give the president a power that you will regret later when someone like Trump steps in.
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."
A Texas sheriff actually made this argument: "Pay attention to what you see in Manchester England tonight. Pay attention to what is happening in Europe. This is what happens when you disarm your citizens."
Not sure what good a gun does against an exploding suicide vest, but whatever.
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