3 ms·
If I may ask a very naive question: Do politicians like her really think encryption is dangerous or is it a devious way to expand mass surveillance? Attacks of
by cJ0th 10y ago
If I may ask a very naive question:
Do politicians like her really think encryption is dangerous or is it a devious way to expand mass surveillance?
Attacks of the past have shown that terrorists don't have a need to resort to encryption. The people involved in the Berlin attack last year, for instance, were monitored. Authorities knew they would strike but they didn't have sufficient incriminating evidence that would count in court to lock those guys up.
Even if encryption on messaging services were forbidden (which would make millions of law abiding people vulnerable in some way), terrorists could use throwaway email accounts from internet cafés and wrap their messages in password protected attachments.
- GordonS 10y ago> really think encryption is dangerous or is it a devious way to expand mass surveillance The latter her and the precious home secretary (now PM) have been banging on about how under threat we are from the terrorist hoards for years now - all so they can erode freedoms and increase mass surveillance under the guise of 'keeping Britain safe'. The idea that banning encryption of private conversations will prevent these few crazy people from causing damage is of course ridiculous.
- brokenmachine 10y agoIt's an interesting question though, isn't it. They must know enough to know that this won't actually fix the problem, so I would have to surmise that they are just trying to do something and stay somehow relevant before their term comes to an end. "Never mind the collateral damage, I'll be retired on a government pension by then."