8 ms·

We're a very long way from being a totalitarian state and likely to remain so for quite some time but, make no mistake, this is the thin end of a very long and

We're a very long way from being a totalitarian state and likely to remain so for quite some time but, make no mistake, this is the thin end of a very long and ultimately very fat wedge. It therefore behooves us well to hold the government to account when they try to get us to swallow more of that wedge. Sure, encryption helps terrorists as well as ordinary citizens but it's my belief that freedom and privacy are more important than that. The work of police and security services has never been easy in a free society, but protecting and upholding that free society is the very essence of the job. Dilution of that freedom is therefore counter to the purpose for which these agencies exist, and so when the government tries to move in that direction we, as citizens, should voice our resistance, and keep voicing it until they understand.

alistproducer2 10y ago
At some point, some politician is going to have to man up and speak the truth. The public will have to either accept that the government can try and protect it from low probability events by invading every aspect of our lives or people will have to accept the idea that there is a sub 1% chance of being killed by a crazy person.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  Corbyn has already spoken up: Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said authorities already had "huge powers". There had to be a balance between the "right to know" and "the right to privacy", he said. [1] Unfortunately when it came to actually doing something he provided practically no opposition to the Investigatory Powers Act. [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39396578 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39396578
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    I suspect that will prove to be Corbyn's "tuition fees" moment. If he's still there by the next general election, the Lib Dems will surely attack him for being all talk and no action.
    - sergior 10y ago
      Lib Dems are experts at all talk and no action. Oh irony.
      - sctb 10y ago
        Unsubstantive partisan comments are a kind we really need fewer of, so please don't post them here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    That's how it's always been. Northern Irish terrorism was used to justify many restrictions of civil liberties in the UK, and while opposition figures made disapproving noises nothing actually changed and their opposition was limited to expressing their opinions while sitting in comfy chairs. It's one reason I left the UK in the first place; not because of facing personal discrimination for being Irish (I did face some but most British people are pragmatic and fair-minded), but because of the whole securitized atmosphere with security cameras everywhere - it was like being in prison. However, I have little hope of this changing. As far as I can tell the vast majority of people value security over privacy or autonomy, and of course they never think Bad Things are going to happen to them because they're Good People - like the woman in the news the other day who voted for Trump and is now surprised that her husband is being deported even though he's not a 'bad hombre.' It's unlikely that there will ever be a mass movement for privacy and autonomy, because the genius and failure o democracy is that it's harder to blame your problems on some antipathetic Other - foreign invaders, aristocrats, an elite social class or whatever. Democracy really depends on people thinking about issues, and most people want to be firmly embedded in a social context, perhaps because were a eusocial species. It's hard for them to conceptualize an oppressive state in the same way that it's hard for most people to imagine hating their parents or the people int heir community. Happily, as far as digital technology is concerned there is not a whole lot the UK government can actually do about the issue, and May's speechifying is more directed at appeasing the drooling tabloid-reading class than it is reflective of any serious policy initiative. the likely effect sit aht operating systems on computing devices sold in the UK won't be allowed to have built-in encryption and the smart set will be using mods of some sort. Pretty much how it was with PGP 25 years ago.
- emmab 10y ago
  > sub 1% chance of being killed by a crazy person. Please don't attribute homicidal political views to insanity. These people don't have schizophrenia, and people with schizophrenia aren't terrorists.
  - simonbarker87 10y ago
    There is also a wide spectrum of mental illnesses that aren't schizophrenia that may make people act in these ways. While OP was being flippant I don't think the essence of what they were saying is out of line, doing something extreme and causing a lot of harm and damage could justifiably be called crazy even if not medically accurate with out being a slur on those with diagnosed a mental illness.
  - tomc1985 10y ago
    'Crazy' refers to more than schizophrenia... nobody uses that word to refer to an exclusive group anymore
  - seanhandley 10y ago
    Terrorists are politically motivated murderers. So are soldiers in any army. The only difference is in who they answer to.
    - humanrebar 10y ago
      You just called a lot of really honorable people murderers. Murder is unjust killing. Killing civilians to make a point or to cause chaos is, by definition, murder. Let's not equate that with all the legitimate things armed forces are for.
      - megous 10y ago
        Sorry, many soldiers are murderers. There's clear intention to kill. And justification does not happen simply because some idiot in power tells someone to go kill other people for political reasons. And coalition is also killing civilians for political reasons, more than thousand of them a month ATM. It is obviously calculated. It's just that someone determined murdering perhaps 5-10 thousands civilians is a OK to give power over Mosul back to Iraqi government, and gave it a go.
Silhouette 10y ago
We're a very long way from being a totalitarian state and likely to remain so for quite some time The scary thing is that the difference between the UK and the kind of place we might describe using words like "totalitarian state" is now more about how our laws are used in practice than what the laws actually say. The government and its agents already have very broad powers, our courts have already taken surprisingly illiberal positions when some of those powers have been challenged, and we lack the constitutional checks and balances often found elsewhere, more so if the government uses Brexit as a mechanism to remove those deriving from Europe without replacing them. We're basically just trusting that the government and its agents will be decent people and use the powers they have responsibly at this point, but as we've seen with the likes of Trump, that's a dangerous strategy when you don't know who the government will be in the future.
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  I agree with this. The last thing we need is more laws and new powers for the surveillance state. For example, Australia's Lindt Cafe siege - the guy was already under "24 hour surveillance" by ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence) - which did nothing to prevent the attack. Despite this, AFAIK there was not much blame placed on ASIO. I'm sure there are many other examples. I'm not saying it's an easy problem to solve, just that more surveillance is probably not the answer. Sure, the attacker is the real culprit, but adding more laws and surveillance will not prevent crazies from doing crazy stuff.
  - Khaine 10y ago
    Man Monis was not under surveillance by ASIO. He was considered a "serial pest" and "not a threat".
    - brokenmachine 10y ago
      Sorry, yes I was mistaken. > Dr Barrett placed Monis on anti-psychotic medication after he told her he was under surveillance 24 hours a day from ASIO and Iranian authorities, including in the bathroom of his home. [1] > Mr Abbott conceded Man Haron Monis was not on a security watchlist, despite his long criminal history and known "infatuation with extremism". [2] Still, the whole thing demonstrates how useless more surveillance would be. If they can't even watch someone with a long criminal history and infatuation with extremism, why do they expect us to believe that looking at my dick pics will somehow stop terrorism? [1] http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lindt-cafe-siege-inquest-man-haron-monis-may-have-been-diagnosis-shopping-in-lead-up-to-siege-20150527-ghb0zf.html http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lindt-cafe-siege-inquest-man-haron... [2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-17/sydney-siege3a-could-it-have-been-prevented3f/5971968 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-17/sydney-siege3a-could-i...
ouid 10y ago
It doesn't seem very thin from here. Encrypted messaging is a mathematical fact that your government is attempting to deny. If I need a communication to be secret, I will encrypt it, and I don't need special software.
- fredley 10y ago
  Not all people who need it can write their own encryption.
  - sergior 10y ago
    You don't have to, because it is already written and fairly easy to use. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to encrypt a message using asymmetric cryptography, that will be difficult - if possible to break. People who will want to conceal contents of their messages could still send them encrypted via WhatsApp or other platform regardless if there is a backdoor or not. UK Home Secretary has just displayed unprecedented level of incompetence.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      > People who will want to conceal contents of their messages could still send them encrypted via WhatsApp or other platform Even if posession of encrypted messages without the ability to decrypt carries a 10 year prison sentence? (Yes, this has serious enforceability problems, but that doesn't mean it can't become law)
      - clubm8 10y ago
        How will you prove what I possess is encrypted data and not random bits?
        pjc50 10y ago
        No, how will you prove that it's random data and not encrypted data? What if you're ordered to provide a password to decrypt it or go to jail? https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/02/justice-naps-man-jailed-16-months-for-refusing-to-reveal-passwords/ https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/02/justice-naps-m... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989
mseebach 10y ago
I'm not sure that's even true. This seems more like a clipper chip moment, and more than being the beginning of a slippery slope, it made the government a laughing stock and probably sped up the pivot to encryption. This too will fail spectacularly.
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  Even looking at the recent Westminster attack, is it realistic to think that monitoring of his WhatsApp messages would have prevented anything from happening? Was he already under surveillance? Could the attacker really have written anything so specific and unequivocal that it would have actually made police go to Westminster and stop his car? Police with limited resources can't just go investigating everyone who sends messages, so I doubt it would have helped anyway. I hope you're right, but I don't think so. The next time there is an attack, I don't think there will be an outcry that the all-pervasive surveillance has failed us, only an outcry against the terrorists (who, let's face it, are the real offenders).
lb1lf 10y ago
Every time a person in a position of power calls for the intentional weakening of cryptographic systems - be it via backdoors, limits on key length or whatever, I long for a gutsy interviewer to ask them - preferably live - whether they advocate that position out of ignorance or malice. There really aren't many other alternatives.
- FatalBaboon 10y ago
  I believe they do it because they've been elected to do so. It takes too much to reply: "Tell you what, I'm going to educate you better instead". Because you can educate all you want, you will not have results that helps your re-election 4-5 years down the road.
  - beedogs 10y ago
    No properly-informed voter would want this kind of legislation.
    - Buge 10y ago
      "No true Scotsman..." I have a feeling that some top level FBI people are properly informed, but still want this kind of legislation.
      - abustamam 10y ago
        Simply because it wouldn't apply to them.
- daemin 10y ago
  More likely they would say they want to do it because it would be "helping the police and security services to do their job" and be "protecting the people".
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    For sure, but wouldn't it be nice if the interviewer at least challenged the assumption that such measures do protect people overall? Leaving aside the question of whether there would be any benefit in the case of attacks like the one we saw last week, which is debatable in itself, there's also the question of whether the reduced security would do more harm than good. The interviewer could explore the impact of online fraud or identity theft or cyber-bullying, and look at how fast these problems have been growing in recent years. Then challenge the advocate of weakened encryption or mass surveillance over why they want to require security vulnerabilities or create huge databases that will make great targets for criminals. If they claim everything would be securely held and strictly for police use or similar, go with Snowden and Wikileaks. If the advocate brings up their other favourite argument about protecting children, the interviewer could ask whether it's really a good idea to make it easier to intercept private picture messages between teenagers. They could ask why the government wants measures that would inevitably undermine investigative journalism that holds the government and the police and the security services to account. Then start listing past controversies relating to the behaviour of those groups to demonstrate why that public interest reporting matters. It's not as if privacy and security advocates only think these things are important because they don't like the government or something. There are real, serious consequences in play several different ways here.
nthcolumn 10y ago
A long way? Real democracies do not spy on their people because it isn't a democracy anymore when you do. Whether that was always just a... well it is another matter. Business had a reasonable expectation of safe-passage. Who will want their traffic coming through the UK now? What multi-national/trans-national wants all their IP belong to the UK government? They will just go elsewhere. It's the economy stupid. Rudd is using the recent murders to her own twisted ends.
- toyg 10y ago
  On the other hand: China.
  - kbart 10y ago
    China just reinforces the parent comment. How many online services do you use from China?
    - toyg 10y ago
      China is doing just fine, economically speaking. When they first implemented the Great Firewall, a lot of people predicted it wouldn't last under economic pressure. 20 years later, and it's still going strong. That was my point. The lack of adoption of Chinese services elsewhere has more to do with cultural and technological issues than anything related to censorship.
SubiculumCode 10y ago
Suppose we came upon a time where some new technology had emerged allowing anyone with an average intelligence to be able to create a virulent bio weapon from materials so common and available that their restriction is impossible. In this world, we are almost surely doomed, but perhaps the only hope for survival on earth (ignore space diaspora for the moment) would be from instituting an all pervasive surveilance presence. In this scenario, I do not see the value of privacy trumping survival. One might counter that the scenario I lay out above is not possible. However I would posit that technology enables our capacities to create/preserve and to destroy. However, perhaps stemming from thr laws of thermodynamics, it does seem that our capacities to destroy is always outpacing our capacities to create or preserve, and eventually the gap between these capacities will unsettle the center which cannot hold.
- tsaoutourpants 10y ago
  That's a happy Sunday afternoon thought, but we are not at that point yet. The point we are at is one in which corrupt governments seek to control us not for our own safety, but because they crave power and control.
  - SubiculumCode 10y ago
    I agree. However, I frequently see absolute declarations about how freedom should not be curtailed for security, and while I believe that is true today, I can envision a possible future where that is not possible without leading to near or complete extinction. Therefore I find it useful foil to shake up absolutisms.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  > I do not see the value of privacy trumping survival. Survival is not a value. Survival is a prerequisite for a lot of other values, but it's not a value in and of itself. As many people have difficulty grasping what living in a world without privacy would be like, let me propose a different solution: We'll put everyone into solitary confinement, to ensure everyone's survival, as I do not see the value of freedom of movement trumping survival. Would you agree with that as well? If not, why not? Also, you might want to realize that surveillance does not ensure that your set of values gets enforced. It's the values of whoever manages to obtain that power, and whose power as a result of the surveillance might be impossible to challenge. The idea that you could create such a power structure and then guarantee that it's going to be used exclusively to prevent that bio weapon from being built and used is extremely naive. You would instead most likely find yourself alive, living in a world that makes you constantly wish for being dead, but thanks to the surveillance unable to kill yourself.
pera 10y ago
> The work of police and security services has never been easy in a free society, I think the work of security services have never been easier as it is now thanks to the massive use of social networks and mobile phones, CCTVs everywhere, GEOINT, etc. At least for the Five Eyes.
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  Just my opinion, but I think now they are having problems because they are getting too much information in, so separating the wheat from the chaff is difficult.
ghughes 10y ago
I wrote a letter to Amber Rudd based in part on your comment: https://medium.com/@flukes1/my-letter-to-amber-rudd-on-encryption-19afd4834ae5 https://medium.com/@flukes1/my-letter-to-amber-rudd-on-encry...

alistproducer2 10y ago

At some point, some politician is going to have to man up and speak the truth. The public will have to either accept that the government can try and protect it from low probability events by invading every aspect of our lives or people will have to accept the idea that there is a sub 1% chance of being killed by a crazy person.

k-mcgrady 10y ago
Corbyn has already spoken up: Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said authorities already had "huge powers". There had to be a balance between the "right to know" and "the right to privacy", he said. [1] Unfortunately when it came to actually doing something he provided practically no opposition to the Investigatory Powers Act. [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39396578 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39396578
- Silhouette 10y ago
  I suspect that will prove to be Corbyn's "tuition fees" moment. If he's still there by the next general election, the Lib Dems will surely attack him for being all talk and no action.
  - sergior 10y ago
    Lib Dems are experts at all talk and no action. Oh irony.
    - sctb 10y ago
      Unsubstantive partisan comments are a kind we really need fewer of, so please don't post them here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  That's how it's always been. Northern Irish terrorism was used to justify many restrictions of civil liberties in the UK, and while opposition figures made disapproving noises nothing actually changed and their opposition was limited to expressing their opinions while sitting in comfy chairs. It's one reason I left the UK in the first place; not because of facing personal discrimination for being Irish (I did face some but most British people are pragmatic and fair-minded), but because of the whole securitized atmosphere with security cameras everywhere - it was like being in prison. However, I have little hope of this changing. As far as I can tell the vast majority of people value security over privacy or autonomy, and of course they never think Bad Things are going to happen to them because they're Good People - like the woman in the news the other day who voted for Trump and is now surprised that her husband is being deported even though he's not a 'bad hombre.' It's unlikely that there will ever be a mass movement for privacy and autonomy, because the genius and failure o democracy is that it's harder to blame your problems on some antipathetic Other - foreign invaders, aristocrats, an elite social class or whatever. Democracy really depends on people thinking about issues, and most people want to be firmly embedded in a social context, perhaps because were a eusocial species. It's hard for them to conceptualize an oppressive state in the same way that it's hard for most people to imagine hating their parents or the people int heir community. Happily, as far as digital technology is concerned there is not a whole lot the UK government can actually do about the issue, and May's speechifying is more directed at appeasing the drooling tabloid-reading class than it is reflective of any serious policy initiative. the likely effect sit aht operating systems on computing devices sold in the UK won't be allowed to have built-in encryption and the smart set will be using mods of some sort. Pretty much how it was with PGP 25 years ago.
emmab 10y ago
> sub 1% chance of being killed by a crazy person. Please don't attribute homicidal political views to insanity. These people don't have schizophrenia, and people with schizophrenia aren't terrorists.
- simonbarker87 10y ago
  There is also a wide spectrum of mental illnesses that aren't schizophrenia that may make people act in these ways. While OP was being flippant I don't think the essence of what they were saying is out of line, doing something extreme and causing a lot of harm and damage could justifiably be called crazy even if not medically accurate with out being a slur on those with diagnosed a mental illness.
- tomc1985 10y ago
  'Crazy' refers to more than schizophrenia... nobody uses that word to refer to an exclusive group anymore
- seanhandley 10y ago
  Terrorists are politically motivated murderers. So are soldiers in any army. The only difference is in who they answer to.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    You just called a lot of really honorable people murderers. Murder is unjust killing. Killing civilians to make a point or to cause chaos is, by definition, murder. Let's not equate that with all the legitimate things armed forces are for.
    - megous 10y ago
      Sorry, many soldiers are murderers. There's clear intention to kill. And justification does not happen simply because some idiot in power tells someone to go kill other people for political reasons. And coalition is also killing civilians for political reasons, more than thousand of them a month ATM. It is obviously calculated. It's just that someone determined murdering perhaps 5-10 thousands civilians is a OK to give power over Mosul back to Iraqi government, and gave it a go.

Silhouette 10y ago

We're a very long way from being a totalitarian state and likely to remain so for quite some time The scary thing is that the difference between the UK and the kind of place we might describe using words like "totalitarian state" is now more about how our laws are used in practice than what the laws actually say. The government and its agents already have very broad powers, our courts have already taken surprisingly illiberal positions when some of those powers have been challenged, and we lack the constitutional checks and balances often found elsewhere, more so if the government uses Brexit as a mechanism to remove those deriving from Europe without replacing them. We're basically just trusting that the government and its agents will be decent people and use the powers they have responsibly at this point, but as we've seen with the likes of Trump, that's a dangerous strategy when you don't know who the government will be in the future.

brokenmachine 10y ago
I agree with this. The last thing we need is more laws and new powers for the surveillance state. For example, Australia's Lindt Cafe siege - the guy was already under "24 hour surveillance" by ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence) - which did nothing to prevent the attack. Despite this, AFAIK there was not much blame placed on ASIO. I'm sure there are many other examples. I'm not saying it's an easy problem to solve, just that more surveillance is probably not the answer. Sure, the attacker is the real culprit, but adding more laws and surveillance will not prevent crazies from doing crazy stuff.
- Khaine 10y ago
  Man Monis was not under surveillance by ASIO. He was considered a "serial pest" and "not a threat".
  - brokenmachine 10y ago
    Sorry, yes I was mistaken. > Dr Barrett placed Monis on anti-psychotic medication after he told her he was under surveillance 24 hours a day from ASIO and Iranian authorities, including in the bathroom of his home. [1] > Mr Abbott conceded Man Haron Monis was not on a security watchlist, despite his long criminal history and known "infatuation with extremism". [2] Still, the whole thing demonstrates how useless more surveillance would be. If they can't even watch someone with a long criminal history and infatuation with extremism, why do they expect us to believe that looking at my dick pics will somehow stop terrorism? [1] http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lindt-cafe-siege-inquest-man-haron-monis-may-have-been-diagnosis-shopping-in-lead-up-to-siege-20150527-ghb0zf.html http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lindt-cafe-siege-inquest-man-haron... [2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-17/sydney-siege3a-could-it-have-been-prevented3f/5971968 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-17/sydney-siege3a-could-i...

ouid 10y ago

It doesn't seem very thin from here. Encrypted messaging is a mathematical fact that your government is attempting to deny. If I need a communication to be secret, I will encrypt it, and I don't need special software.

fredley 10y ago
Not all people who need it can write their own encryption.
- sergior 10y ago
  You don't have to, because it is already written and fairly easy to use. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to encrypt a message using asymmetric cryptography, that will be difficult - if possible to break. People who will want to conceal contents of their messages could still send them encrypted via WhatsApp or other platform regardless if there is a backdoor or not. UK Home Secretary has just displayed unprecedented level of incompetence.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    > People who will want to conceal contents of their messages could still send them encrypted via WhatsApp or other platform Even if posession of encrypted messages without the ability to decrypt carries a 10 year prison sentence? (Yes, this has serious enforceability problems, but that doesn't mean it can't become law)
    - clubm8 10y ago
      How will you prove what I possess is encrypted data and not random bits?
      - pjc50 10y ago
        No, how will you prove that it's random data and not encrypted data? What if you're ordered to provide a password to decrypt it or go to jail? https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/02/justice-naps-man-jailed-16-months-for-refusing-to-reveal-passwords/ https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/02/justice-naps-m... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989

mseebach 10y ago

I'm not sure that's even true. This seems more like a clipper chip moment, and more than being the beginning of a slippery slope, it made the government a laughing stock and probably sped up the pivot to encryption. This too will fail spectacularly.

brokenmachine 10y ago
Even looking at the recent Westminster attack, is it realistic to think that monitoring of his WhatsApp messages would have prevented anything from happening? Was he already under surveillance? Could the attacker really have written anything so specific and unequivocal that it would have actually made police go to Westminster and stop his car? Police with limited resources can't just go investigating everyone who sends messages, so I doubt it would have helped anyway. I hope you're right, but I don't think so. The next time there is an attack, I don't think there will be an outcry that the all-pervasive surveillance has failed us, only an outcry against the terrorists (who, let's face it, are the real offenders).

lb1lf 10y ago

Every time a person in a position of power calls for the intentional weakening of cryptographic systems - be it via backdoors, limits on key length or whatever, I long for a gutsy interviewer to ask them - preferably live - whether they advocate that position out of ignorance or malice. There really aren't many other alternatives.

FatalBaboon 10y ago
I believe they do it because they've been elected to do so. It takes too much to reply: "Tell you what, I'm going to educate you better instead". Because you can educate all you want, you will not have results that helps your re-election 4-5 years down the road.
- beedogs 10y ago
  No properly-informed voter would want this kind of legislation.
  - Buge 10y ago
    "No true Scotsman..." I have a feeling that some top level FBI people are properly informed, but still want this kind of legislation.
    - abustamam 10y ago
      Simply because it wouldn't apply to them.
daemin 10y ago
More likely they would say they want to do it because it would be "helping the police and security services to do their job" and be "protecting the people".
- Silhouette 10y ago
  For sure, but wouldn't it be nice if the interviewer at least challenged the assumption that such measures do protect people overall? Leaving aside the question of whether there would be any benefit in the case of attacks like the one we saw last week, which is debatable in itself, there's also the question of whether the reduced security would do more harm than good. The interviewer could explore the impact of online fraud or identity theft or cyber-bullying, and look at how fast these problems have been growing in recent years. Then challenge the advocate of weakened encryption or mass surveillance over why they want to require security vulnerabilities or create huge databases that will make great targets for criminals. If they claim everything would be securely held and strictly for police use or similar, go with Snowden and Wikileaks. If the advocate brings up their other favourite argument about protecting children, the interviewer could ask whether it's really a good idea to make it easier to intercept private picture messages between teenagers. They could ask why the government wants measures that would inevitably undermine investigative journalism that holds the government and the police and the security services to account. Then start listing past controversies relating to the behaviour of those groups to demonstrate why that public interest reporting matters. It's not as if privacy and security advocates only think these things are important because they don't like the government or something. There are real, serious consequences in play several different ways here.

nthcolumn 10y ago

A long way? Real democracies do not spy on their people because it isn't a democracy anymore when you do. Whether that was always just a... well it is another matter. Business had a reasonable expectation of safe-passage. Who will want their traffic coming through the UK now? What multi-national/trans-national wants all their IP belong to the UK government? They will just go elsewhere. It's the economy stupid. Rudd is using the recent murders to her own twisted ends.

toyg 10y ago
On the other hand: China.
- kbart 10y ago
  China just reinforces the parent comment. How many online services do you use from China?
  - toyg 10y ago
    China is doing just fine, economically speaking. When they first implemented the Great Firewall, a lot of people predicted it wouldn't last under economic pressure. 20 years later, and it's still going strong. That was my point. The lack of adoption of Chinese services elsewhere has more to do with cultural and technological issues than anything related to censorship.

SubiculumCode 10y ago

Suppose we came upon a time where some new technology had emerged allowing anyone with an average intelligence to be able to create a virulent bio weapon from materials so common and available that their restriction is impossible. In this world, we are almost surely doomed, but perhaps the only hope for survival on earth (ignore space diaspora for the moment) would be from instituting an all pervasive surveilance presence. In this scenario, I do not see the value of privacy trumping survival. One might counter that the scenario I lay out above is not possible. However I would posit that technology enables our capacities to create/preserve and to destroy. However, perhaps stemming from thr laws of thermodynamics, it does seem that our capacities to destroy is always outpacing our capacities to create or preserve, and eventually the gap between these capacities will unsettle the center which cannot hold.

tsaoutourpants 10y ago
That's a happy Sunday afternoon thought, but we are not at that point yet. The point we are at is one in which corrupt governments seek to control us not for our own safety, but because they crave power and control.
- SubiculumCode 10y ago
  I agree. However, I frequently see absolute declarations about how freedom should not be curtailed for security, and while I believe that is true today, I can envision a possible future where that is not possible without leading to near or complete extinction. Therefore I find it useful foil to shake up absolutisms.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
> I do not see the value of privacy trumping survival. Survival is not a value. Survival is a prerequisite for a lot of other values, but it's not a value in and of itself. As many people have difficulty grasping what living in a world without privacy would be like, let me propose a different solution: We'll put everyone into solitary confinement, to ensure everyone's survival, as I do not see the value of freedom of movement trumping survival. Would you agree with that as well? If not, why not? Also, you might want to realize that surveillance does not ensure that your set of values gets enforced. It's the values of whoever manages to obtain that power, and whose power as a result of the surveillance might be impossible to challenge. The idea that you could create such a power structure and then guarantee that it's going to be used exclusively to prevent that bio weapon from being built and used is extremely naive. You would instead most likely find yourself alive, living in a world that makes you constantly wish for being dead, but thanks to the surveillance unable to kill yourself.

pera 10y ago

> The work of police and security services has never been easy in a free society, I think the work of security services have never been easier as it is now thanks to the massive use of social networks and mobile phones, CCTVs everywhere, GEOINT, etc. At least for the Five Eyes.

brokenmachine 10y ago
Just my opinion, but I think now they are having problems because they are getting too much information in, so separating the wheat from the chaff is difficult.

ghughes 10y ago

I wrote a letter to Amber Rudd based in part on your comment: https://medium.com/@flukes1/my-letter-to-amber-rudd-on-encryption-19afd4834ae5 https://medium.com/@flukes1/my-letter-to-amber-rudd-on-encry...