The strangest thing about these law enforcement wish lists (that Obama is so in favour of) is that they don't actually work; terrorists will still be able to find or build software that doesn't have back doors and the rest of us will have our privacy and security compromised permanently.
I'll also note that you never seem to see the laws (RIPA in the UK for example) that do exist used against paedophiles and terrorists; more often they are used against peace campaigners, whistle blowers and reporters.
Has it always been that the government doesn't trust the people? It certainly looks increasingly that we should not trust our government.
> I'll also note that you never seem to see the laws (RIPA in the UK for example) that do exist used against paedophiles and terrorists; more often they are used against peace campaigners, whistle blowers and reporters.
Where are you getting your list of targets of RIPA action?
> Twenty-six local authorities used Ripa to spy on dog owners to see whose animals they believed to be responsible for dog fouling,
Before RIPA they would have done the covert surveillance and we wouldn't have known and there wouldn't have been much control over it. After RIPA they have to follow a legal framework, we know about it, and there are controls. This is exactly what ripa is for. It's supposed to regulate, not eliminate, regulatory powers. RIPA brings the surveillance that was always happening under tighter legal framework. This is not an abuse of RIPA. This is RIPA working as intended.
If you want to say there's too much surveillance you should just say that. There probably is too much surveillance in the UK.
If you want to knitpick, right back at you because that's 100% not true; the last link is about all known cases of RIPA being used.
I feel that if a judge orders you to hand over encryption keys you probably should, but I worry about these laws being misused; for example we are sold on them being about paedophiles and terrorists and most of their use cases are simply not about that. That's the basic premise of my argument, I'm not saying (at least here) that there is too much surveillance. Instead I'm saying the powers are given for one reason and then used for another. I don't see how you can disagree with that given what I've provided as evidence.
More generally are you asserting that anti-terror powers are never granted and then used for the wrong reasons?
10 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 30.7 ms ] threadWhat!?
For those in the USA:
https://savesecurity.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_King...
I'll also note that you never seem to see the laws (RIPA in the UK for example) that do exist used against paedophiles and terrorists; more often they are used against peace campaigners, whistle blowers and reporters.
Has it always been that the government doesn't trust the people? It certainly looks increasingly that we should not trust our government.
Where are you getting your list of targets of RIPA action?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8868757/Council...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-and-royal-...
https://p10.secure.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/ssl/spybl...
https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investig...
Good enough :-D
Not really, no.
For example:
> Twenty-six local authorities used Ripa to spy on dog owners to see whose animals they believed to be responsible for dog fouling,
Before RIPA they would have done the covert surveillance and we wouldn't have known and there wouldn't have been much control over it. After RIPA they have to follow a legal framework, we know about it, and there are controls. This is exactly what ripa is for. It's supposed to regulate, not eliminate, regulatory powers. RIPA brings the surveillance that was always happening under tighter legal framework. This is not an abuse of RIPA. This is RIPA working as intended.
If you want to say there's too much surveillance you should just say that. There probably is too much surveillance in the UK.
RIPA: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents
You want part two: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/27
RIPA has several sections. Only one of the cases you've linked to are under the intelligence service authorisation level. The rest are under the
I feel that if a judge orders you to hand over encryption keys you probably should, but I worry about these laws being misused; for example we are sold on them being about paedophiles and terrorists and most of their use cases are simply not about that. That's the basic premise of my argument, I'm not saying (at least here) that there is too much surveillance. Instead I'm saying the powers are given for one reason and then used for another. I don't see how you can disagree with that given what I've provided as evidence.
More generally are you asserting that anti-terror powers are never granted and then used for the wrong reasons?