5 ms·

Picked up by Revk who's been banging on about the ludicrousness of banning encryption for a while now: http://www.revk.uk/2016/10/next-it-will-be-burning-books.

Picked up by Revk who's been banging on about the ludicrousness of banning encryption for a while now: http://www.revk.uk/2016/10/next-it-will-be-burning-books.html http://www.revk.uk/2016/10/next-it-will-be-burning-books.htm...

stevetrewick 10y ago
And who has sadly misunderstood and subsequently misrepresented the issue. Despite the click bait headlines, this case has very little to do with encryption per se.
mSparks 10y ago
Pretty sure Theresa May can be arrested under exactly the same charges. That's the thing with these people. Its not just idiocy, it's malicious intent. They really do think Orwells 1984 was a handbook not a warning.
- simonh 10y ago
  You'd have to provide evidence that Theresa May has been planning terrorism. Using encryption itself is not illegal, only using it to prepare for or aid an act of terrorism. Which is stupid of course. S5 is pernicious and unjust overreach, but let's criticize it on factual grounds not misleading exaggeration. Regarding the 'being suspicious makes you a criminal' clause of the act, it's horribly worded and is in serious need to revision, but the commenter on the blog saying it can't override presumption of innocence until proven guilty is correct. This provision of the law would never get past any competent court. It's a nasty, horrible law but is hardly the end of all justice in Britain.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    This provision of the law would never get past any competent court. It's a nasty, horrible law but is hardly the end of all justice in Britain. Translation: "This law is aimed at scary brown people, so I don't have anything to worry about."
    - simonh 10y ago
      Wow. I think this is actually the very first time anyone has ever flat out accused me of being a racist.
      - CamperBob2 10y ago
        That's being a bit dramatic. I don't know you, and I have no reason to accuse you of racism or anything else. But plenty of people take that position towards various objectionable laws here in the US. "Oh, they're not interested in me. I'm sure it'll be struck down in the courts anyway, no need to object."
        simonh 10y ago
        I am objecting. I did so very clearly and explicitly in the post you were replying to. Characterizing my post as arguing against objecting is a lie. Edited - dialing it back a bit. So apparently not exaggerating a racially charged issue is racism and objecting only based on facts and not made up conjecture doesn't count as objecting. The Trumpification of rational discourse is now complete.
    - intoverflow2 10y ago
      Please don't impose your US centric racial issues on UK society.
  - syshum 10y ago
    >>You'd have to provide evidence that Theresa May has been planning terrorism. the problem with that is defining terrorism. Since the government defines what legally constitutes terrorism they exclude themselves from being perpetrators of said activity. However under the technical definition of Terrorism, which is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." I can make a case that almost every nation state on the planet is guilty of terrorism in some fashion. Leaders of those nation states are then terrorists. Most people however give a break to using violence if it is "legal" under the laws of a nation, they associate terrorism with the illegal use of violence, instead of the actual definition which is ANY use of violence legal or not "in the pursuit of political aims."
    - maze-le 10y ago
      Under this definition, protesters hurling stones are terrorists. Not that I am a fan of idiots throwing objects during a demonstration, but I think nobody would reasonably accuse them of terrorism...
      - syshum 10y ago
        That would depend on the circumstances around the stone throwing and the goals of person(s) throwing the stones. In some instances yes it would be terrorism. Terrorism does not have to involve massive loss of life, or even be life threatening. People today seem to believe terrorism is only when Brown people blow themselves up in a Town Square, or when someone goes on a Mass Shooting rampage under the guise of a religion. Terrorism can take many forms, and is more rampant then people want to acknowledge. People today only want to focus on Islamic terrorism, and exclude almost all other forms as they seem to be more socially acceptable often because they are legal
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - w_t_payne 10y ago
    We must tread with caution when we move beyond tools that can only support rule-of-law. The creation of dual-use tools that can also be used for rule-by-law necessarily involves taking on a plausible existential risk to our society. To justify this, the threat that they are countering must pose an existential threat to our society that is demonstrably greater.

stevetrewick 10y ago

And who has sadly misunderstood and subsequently misrepresented the issue. Despite the click bait headlines, this case has very little to do with encryption per se.

mSparks 10y ago

Pretty sure Theresa May can be arrested under exactly the same charges. That's the thing with these people. Its not just idiocy, it's malicious intent. They really do think Orwells 1984 was a handbook not a warning.

simonh 10y ago
You'd have to provide evidence that Theresa May has been planning terrorism. Using encryption itself is not illegal, only using it to prepare for or aid an act of terrorism. Which is stupid of course. S5 is pernicious and unjust overreach, but let's criticize it on factual grounds not misleading exaggeration. Regarding the 'being suspicious makes you a criminal' clause of the act, it's horribly worded and is in serious need to revision, but the commenter on the blog saying it can't override presumption of innocence until proven guilty is correct. This provision of the law would never get past any competent court. It's a nasty, horrible law but is hardly the end of all justice in Britain.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  This provision of the law would never get past any competent court. It's a nasty, horrible law but is hardly the end of all justice in Britain. Translation: "This law is aimed at scary brown people, so I don't have anything to worry about."
  - simonh 10y ago
    Wow. I think this is actually the very first time anyone has ever flat out accused me of being a racist.
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      That's being a bit dramatic. I don't know you, and I have no reason to accuse you of racism or anything else. But plenty of people take that position towards various objectionable laws here in the US. "Oh, they're not interested in me. I'm sure it'll be struck down in the courts anyway, no need to object."
      - simonh 10y ago
        I am objecting. I did so very clearly and explicitly in the post you were replying to. Characterizing my post as arguing against objecting is a lie. Edited - dialing it back a bit. So apparently not exaggerating a racially charged issue is racism and objecting only based on facts and not made up conjecture doesn't count as objecting. The Trumpification of rational discourse is now complete.
  - intoverflow2 10y ago
    Please don't impose your US centric racial issues on UK society.
- syshum 10y ago
  >>You'd have to provide evidence that Theresa May has been planning terrorism. the problem with that is defining terrorism. Since the government defines what legally constitutes terrorism they exclude themselves from being perpetrators of said activity. However under the technical definition of Terrorism, which is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." I can make a case that almost every nation state on the planet is guilty of terrorism in some fashion. Leaders of those nation states are then terrorists. Most people however give a break to using violence if it is "legal" under the laws of a nation, they associate terrorism with the illegal use of violence, instead of the actual definition which is ANY use of violence legal or not "in the pursuit of political aims."
  - maze-le 10y ago
    Under this definition, protesters hurling stones are terrorists. Not that I am a fan of idiots throwing objects during a demonstration, but I think nobody would reasonably accuse them of terrorism...
    - syshum 10y ago
      That would depend on the circumstances around the stone throwing and the goals of person(s) throwing the stones. In some instances yes it would be terrorism. Terrorism does not have to involve massive loss of life, or even be life threatening. People today seem to believe terrorism is only when Brown people blow themselves up in a Town Square, or when someone goes on a Mass Shooting rampage under the guise of a religion. Terrorism can take many forms, and is more rampant then people want to acknowledge. People today only want to focus on Islamic terrorism, and exclude almost all other forms as they seem to be more socially acceptable often because they are legal
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- w_t_payne 10y ago
  We must tread with caution when we move beyond tools that can only support rule-of-law. The creation of dual-use tools that can also be used for rule-by-law necessarily involves taking on a plausible existential risk to our society. To justify this, the threat that they are countering must pose an existential threat to our society that is demonstrably greater.