Why can't he do something useful when he opens his mouth, like fill it full of concrete?
William Hague: Brussels attacks mean we must destroy crypto ASAP
William Hague, the Conservative former Foreign Secretary in the UK, has claimed that the latest Brussels terrorist attacks “show the need to crack terrorist communications.” Writing in The Telegraph, Hague claimed that the stand-out detail from the attacks in Brussels was “the communications discipline of those responsible.” …
COMMENTS
-
-
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 21:09 GMT h4rm0ny
Hague was the one that led the case for British bombing of Libya to try and sponsor their foreign-backed "popular uprising" (that popular uprising that involved importing troops from Qatar and foreign Special Forces). Libya is now exporting terrorism around the world. Whilst terrorist bombings like we've recently seen aren't a right response to our involvement, they are in significant part a response nonetheless. First Hague wants us to get involved for the sake of British oil interests, then Hague wants us to give up all privacy to the government to deal with the fallout.
No matter that the bombings are terrible, I remain more afraid of the government than I do the terrorists.
-
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 13:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
Given that a lot of the problem was down to "lost" communication between the Turks, the Dutch and the Belgians I think talking about "burner" phones is a red herring.
To be a bit more blunt, Hague is basically saying "whatever the problem is, the solution is more surveillance and no judicial over-site".
-
-
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 12:17 GMT Pascal Monett
"The interception of the contents of an individual’s communications in this country ..."
I salute the performance in political absence of logic. Touching on individual data interception and bulk data surveillance in the same speech without anyone getting a clue is a major success over the eternal enemies of politics : Intelligence and Logic.
Well done Mr. Hague, continue like that and you'll persuade everyone to impose backdoors in encryption schemes yet !
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 12:29 GMT Teiwaz
"the time, care and detail spent on each case, including by the minister"
Unfortunately most of that time was spent talking the minister through the slim hardcover (and hopefully waterproof) book with big pictures and simple words on the elementary topics that were required for them grasp the topic at the vaguest of levels.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 12:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
Yes! The problem was that we didn't know about the Brussels bombers!!
Except that the Turks had warned the Belgians about the extremist activities of at least one of the two brothers that bombed the airport. So (once again!) like Paris, and Boston, and the Lee Rigby murderers, and Nidal Hassan, there were all kinds of tipoffs about bad guys advocating the doing of bad things, but nobody kept these guys under surveillance.
And by the way, not only did Snowden not suggest the use of burner phones first, he didn't suggest the use of them at all!! His expose was entirely about classified bulk surveillance and compromising of IT and telecoms security performed by the NSA and GCHQ.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 13:26 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Yes! The problem was that we didn't know about the Brussels bombers!!
Time and time again it's been shown that the problem isn't really identifying suspects, it's the resources available to track and monitor them. The more bulk data that's indiscriminately hoovered up the more it overloads the intelligence services and the worse it makes the problem, not better.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 19:00 GMT Mark 85
Re: Yes! The problem was that we didn't know about the Brussels bombers!!
You can track and monitor them all you want, but until they actually do something, arrest isn't in the cards. So you k now where they are, who they're talking to, at what point do you legally pick them up and charge them with terrorism or conspiracy? And then there's the question of innocents being sucked up into this... say the local shopkeeper that the terrorist stops by every couple of days and chats for 10 or 15 minutes. Is the shopkeeper a co-conspirator or someone just being chatty?
Every possibility raises more questions. Even watching us all won't stop those who intend to harm.
-
-
Wednesday 30th March 2016 08:34 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Yes! The problem was that we didn't know about the Brussels bombers!!
You can track and monitor them all you want, but until they actually do something, arrest isn't in the cards.
You don't have to actually do anything in our brave new world of acting shit scared of terrorism. For example, simply possessing materials likely to be of use in terrorism, or failing to hand over encryption keys that you may or may not have or remember, can land you in pokey.
-
-
-
Wednesday 30th March 2016 13:31 GMT teebie
Re: Yes! The problem was that we didn't know about the Brussels bombers!!
So the security services already have too much information on suspicious behaviour for them to follow up on it.
Naturally, the solution to this is to swamp them with more information, the vast majority of which will be irrelevant.
-
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 12:44 GMT Vimes
Hague claimed that the stand-out detail from the attacks in Brussels was “the communications discipline of those responsible.”
Umm... No. It wasn't. It really wasn't.
It was the utter incompetence of the Belgian authorities. That and the failure to communicate vital information to the people that needed it even if they happened to work in different agencies.
I remember being in Brussels during the new year celebrations after the Paris attacks last year. Ever been to La Grande Place? It's surrounded by entrances by paths and small roads.
Armed police had established checkpoints around there. Not only did they seem to be engaging in outright racial profiling (they only seemed to be stopping people who were too brown) but they rather oddly only seemed to establish these checkpoints at certain places. We were able to make our way from the restaurant to La Grande Place without being stopped or seeing a single officer. It's only when we left at the other end that we encountered any checkpoint.
They had one job and didn't even seem to manage to do that properly. Thank god terrorists didn't think of setting off something there, because God knows they wouldn't have found it very difficult.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 15:58 GMT Charlie Clark
It was the utter incompetence of the Belgian authorities.
To be fair, they're under-staffed and suffer significantly from the fragmented government of the autonomous districts that make up Brussels. Cooperation between the various French and Flemish districts is notoriously poor.
To this you can add the various periods where Belgian has only had a caretaker government which has held up all kinds of projects while making sure that the state keeps ticking along.
-
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 12:46 GMT Anonymous Coward
the look on their faces
Does anybody have video of the reaction of Hague, May, or their ilk to somebody standing up and declaring complete opposition by the tech/hacker community to these measures?
I just want to be sure they know that some millions of techies will be making sure to counter everything they try, no matter the "consequences" of a few terror attacks (many not utilizing encryption, with perpetrators known to intelligence agencies in advance).
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 12:46 GMT Anonymous Coward
Logic?
Snowden leaks were 2013. The term "Burner Phone" here defined in 2009.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Burner+phone
How do Snowden leaks travel backwards in time and explain burner phones to terrorist?
The Belgium terrorist communicated WITHOUT encryption. They were from Molenbeek, friends of the other attacker in Paris, the one who travelled to Syria to volunteer against Assad. Their attacks were shortly after one of their number were captured by Belgium police.
So these were needle shaped communications, from needle shaped people, at the most needle-ly time possible. Burying these needles in a haystack of noise makes no sense. Hague makes no sense.
How does stripping away the encryption for Parliament so GCHQ can read MPs private speeches and communications help GCHQ catch terrorists? Do you think Parliament might harbour terrorists? What about Journalists? Press? Judges? Their families? Campaigners? Wannabe MPs? Children?
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 12:51 GMT Alexander J. Martin
Re: Logic?
As mentioned, burner phones have been in the public eye as an opsec measure for a long time. The Wire (a brilliant show regarding the conflict between criminals' opsec and law enforcement's work to get the bad guys all the same) was talking about their use in street-level organisations more than a decade ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxC5BbqKtBE
The journalist who created The Wire, David Simon, had an interesting back-and-forth over Twitter with Edward Snowden about them at the time this information came out, if you're interested.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 13:01 GMT Teiwaz
Re: Logic?
"How does stripping away the encryption for Parliament so GCHQ can read MPs private speeches and communications help GCHQ catch terrorists?"
You really think that should they get their way with this nonsense, that those they deem 'acting in the public good' i.e. themselves and most government agencies involved in security would also be included in an encryption ban?
Only inner party members get to switch off the telescreens.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 13:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Logic?
@"You really think that should they get their way with this nonsense"
Nah, there's no justification for stripping privacy right and encryption. Hague just wants to take advantage of a terrorists incident to push an agenda it doesn't fit.
Once you start realizing that groups of people NEED encryption, e.g. how can Parliament control GCHQ if GCHQ can spy on Parliaments comms? How can we have free elections if GCHQ builds big surveillance files on every candiate, ripe for abuse? etc etc. Then you realize that encryption is essential.
Bad actors simply migrate to the easy place to do their bad deeds.
Theresa May wants to strip privacy and judicial protections and let the police go wild. But then every crook, stalker, molestor will become a policeman. Everyone who wants power will go the GCHQ route to power like Putin did via the KGB.
@"Only inner party members get to switch off the telescreens."
Telescreens didn't have GPS, your smartphone is worse than a telescreen!
William Hague, BTW, is the one who moved Parliaments emails into the Microsoft cloud in Ireland, which by GCHQ's legal theory (actually Farrs legal theory) means that its "foreign comms" and free game for GCHQ.
So, even after Snowden had revealed the PRISM program, and Obamas daily digest of politicians private thoughts, Hague moved their email into a known PRISM access point.
Very very very odd don't you think? To move your highest law making bodies documents into a server that you (as deputy PM) know is a tap point for foreign surveillance. I know they say "never attribute to malice what you can attribute to ignorance", but I don't see how he could defend the program, and also be ignorant of it.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 22:50 GMT rtb61
Re: Logic?
All summed up as rich versus poor laws. The 1% vs the 99%. The 1% with privacy and the ability to invade the privacy of the 99% to control them.
Think the wrong thought and based upon data analysis be rendered a true non-person in a cashless society, unable to access anything, until you lose control and then the storm troopers simply arrest you and transfer you to a slave labour camp, work or die.
It really is that sick, psychopathic capitalisms eventual inevitable progression.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 12:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
if people could see – which they obviously can’t – the time, care and detail spent on each case, including by the minister, I believe they would be greatly reassured.
So, I am supposed to be reassured about something that currently and in the future will not catch terrorists due to the fact they use burners.
Furthermore people can't see because you can't see and even by trying foolishly to eliminate encryption you will never see these communications at least not till it's too late and by definition the communications will be useless.
Complete asshat.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 12:53 GMT Chris G
Jugend
Having heard and read one or two of Mr Hague's speeches as a youth, makes one think he is actually much older than he pretends and attended many youth rallies in Germany in the 1930s.
He certainly has the outlook and mindless sense of superiority.
As leader of the opposition he demonstrated an amazing ability to make apparently clever retorts without having to resort to thinking about what he was actually going to say.
Nothing has changed.
At one time some of his speeches as a teen were to be found online but now appear to have been redacted.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 13:04 GMT Anonymous Coward
But they often don't act on what they already know about terrorists
Even putting aside the fact that burner phones and data encryption are different things, given the number of times that we know that the authorities knew about dangerous terrorists and failed to do anything to stop them committing attacks indicates that things just aren't what they could be when it comes to the legal and practical sides of arresting those bent on terrorism.
Rather than seeking to wreck internet commerce by trying to legally bugger the encryption options available to the general public (and in the process effectively declaring cyber war on those of us with sufficient knowledge and sense to know how stupid an idea that actually is) just so they can, perhaps, maybe gather some more intel on terrorists that they can possibly ignore in future, wouldn't it be more sensible to look carefully at the legal framework and the logistics of finding better ways to bring known terrorists to book earlier and faster?
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 18:28 GMT Charles 9
Re: But they often don't act on what they already know about terrorists
"...wouldn't it be more sensible to look carefully at the legal framework and the logistics of finding better ways to bring known terrorists to book earlier and faster?"
No, because it's probably the best you can come up with short of a Big Brother regime. And even then you're going to have to deal with the lone wolf with legal access to stuff. Take the farmer behind the Bath Township Massacre. One man, a disgruntled farmer who snapped after losing an election, so it was pretty much spontaneous, plus he had no prior history. True lone wolf, he did this completely on his own. As a farmer in a rural township, he had legal and justifiable access to his long gun and the excavation explosives he used to bomb the school. Some tragedies you just can't prevent no matter how much you try. Thing is, the level of damage these people can inflict is increasing by the year. What happens when a lone wolf can cause a serious catastrophe such as unleashing a mutant flu he raised through his pet weasels and then unleashed in say London Heathrow or JFK?
-
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 13:07 GMT Andy 97
Mr Hague should go back to delivering barrels of beer in his beloved Yorkshire.
Not only are his advisors completely misguided, but they are also creating a situation where the 'bad people' completely circumnavigate any chance that GCHQ has of intercepting comms from people with sociopath issues.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 13:20 GMT John Mangan
I find myself wondering . .
. . .if 'terrorists' eschew encrypted communications because they fear they would raise a large flag over any device that sends such messages.
Surely easier and less conspicuous to post on facebook/twitter about "meeting at the 'cafe' on Tuesday. Bring your 'packed lunch'.", and get lost in the morass of other vacuous meanderings filling the intertubes?
-
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 21:05 GMT Graham Marsden
Re: Huh?
And how is her "bill to prohibit the anonymous sale of pre-paid mobile phones in America" going to stop someone from buying a boat-load of these phones and then flogging them out by all sorts of clandestine methods?
Another idiot politician whose knee-jerk reaction to a problem is to pass a law banning it.
-
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 18:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: if people could see
Surely you should trust Terrorists more than Governments?
I mean, with a Terrorist organisation, you know where you stand, you know what they want, and you know what they will do to get it. So you can trust them to be terrorists...
Those governments however... well, they lie, cheat, and act as terrorists. You certainly cannot trust them to govern justly, or even vaguely coherently if this latest ramble is anything to go on.
-
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 13:47 GMT Whiskers
Coded, not encrypted
Perhaps idiotic public statements such as this are the coded (not encrypted) messages being sent by the politician concerned to ... whoever it is such messages are sent to. The absence of metadata means it will never be known what the messages mean or who they are meant for unless someone in on the secret reveals it.
The geese flew overhead at dawn.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 18:32 GMT Charles 9
Re: Coded, not encrypted
But even coded messages can stand out if people actually take the time to peruse every ad and message since it's about the only way you can get your agents to actually see the message. Odd team bets, strange messages like that of the geese, peculiar want ads and so on.
If I were an evil autocrat, I'd tell every newspaper that if they're found to have passed a message that caused a massacre, their assets would be seized, forcing them to vet all their ads for fear of that.
-
Wednesday 30th March 2016 11:55 GMT Stoneshop
Re: Coded, not encrypted
If I were an evil autocrat, I'd tell every newspaper that if they're found to have passed a message that caused a massacre, their assets would be seized, forcing them to vet all their ads for fear of that.
"Next week friday special: beef mincemeat. Butcher Fillinsomename"
-
Wednesday 30th March 2016 19:14 GMT Intractable Potsherd
Re: Coded, not encrypted
"At dawn, the geese flew overhead" - meaning #1
"The geese flew overhead at dawn" - meaning #2
"A skein of geese flew over my house at 6am" - meaning #3
"At 6am, a skein of gees flew over my house" - meaning #4
"At dwan*, the geese flew overhead" - meaning #5 ... and so on.
There is no effective way of monitoring for "odd phrases" - we have so many people with different levels of English language skills that there is really no way to do it. If someone is on a list, then it would be possible to do textual and fist analysis (though the number of false positives would be huge), but to do that for every, or even a small proportion, of the messages sent would be impossible.
*Example of a deliberate "typo" thrown in.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 13:48 GMT Len Goddard
Must do something
This is typical. He has no idea what could be done to prevent another outrage like Brussels but rather than admit this he simply jumps on the nearest bandwagon in the old political philosophy that it is better to be seen doing something (even if it is non-productive or downright dangerous) than it is to admit that there is currently nothing that can be done.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 13:48 GMT Franco
Opening of the next Parliament:-
Good news and Bad news.
The good news we've banned encryption so terrorism is a thing of the past.
The bad news is we've fucked the global economy as ecommerce is now a thing of the past and bank branches have to send each night's transactions via snail mail to head office like they did in the good old days (before terrorism obviously), we've fucked R&D as scientists can't collaborate on projects without being in the same room and we have fucked defence until we get hard lines to the nuclear silos.
Feel free to add any more of the quite literally thousands of legitimate uses of encryption I've omitted. I feel the need to quote Einstein in regards to the current attitude from Governments on encryption. The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has it's limits.
-
-
-
Wednesday 30th March 2016 09:19 GMT DropBear
But now they'll stick out like sore thumbs, and there are ways to put limits on steganography such that they're likely to be either detected or mangled.
Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger are personally sending you their best regards.
-
Wednesday 30th March 2016 14:56 GMT Anonymous Coward
How do you hide data in a photo that gets routinely resized and gamut-reduced when uploaded to a website. How do you hide stuff in spaces when a sanitizer forces everything to a uniform spacing? And so on? The more elaborate the information you wish to convey, the harder it is to send it covertly without the data getting lost to mangling or producing a tell.
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 13:50 GMT Sir Sham Cad
Greatly reassured.
Why yes, Mr Hague, I am greatly reassured that someone who doen't even know what a fucking burner phone is took care to sign off a shitload of wiretap requests. Prick.
As has been obvious for a long time now, Intelligence agencies and Law Enforcement have more data than they can actually process which is why, after every one of these incidents, one or more of the perps was "known to the authorities" but not followed up.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 13:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
Hampered by technology?
The UK is fortunate in having some of the world’s best intelligence agencies and capabilities. That they have prevented many attacks is publicly acknowledged. But they have been hampered in recent years by the Snowden leaks, by the rise of widespread encryption by communications firms, and by developments in technology.
Yes, let us go back to the trees dear Mr. Hague, for without swords or fire, we would not have had the Crusades all those hundreds of years ago.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 14:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
This:
Whatever means of co-ordination [the Brussels attackers] used, it was sufficiently private or encrypted that the authorities do not seem to have been aware of it.”
Fuck reet off, Hague.
The breakfast cake eaters knew EXACTLEY who they were, hell, they had been watching them before and let them slip through the net.
The only communication issue here was within the Belgain authorities.
Burner phones!! Bite my fat white yorkshire arse you fucking clown.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 14:06 GMT Anonymous Coward
"if people could see – which they obviously can’t – the time, care and detail spent on each case, including by the minister, I believe they would be greatly reassured"
They've lied about everything else; conducted flagrantly illegal and unbelievably far-reaching surveillance on everybody; and have used every dodgy trick in the book to try and get it made retrospectively legal. The thought of a minister with this mindset spending time and care on each case is -frankly- risible.
More to the point, encryption, SIM cards and hardware can be obtained from a wide variety of sources. If you legislate weakening encryption in the area you control then you're just weakening security for everybody in that area; thus increasing everybody's vulnerability to fraud etc.; while simultaneously not even slowing down anyone with genuine naughtiness in mind. Plus terrorists- in this particular case- have to get together at some point to distribute guns etc.; so it would be laughably easy easy to distribute code phrases at the same time. If you're planning your attack for Saturday morning, use the phrase "God I was wankered last night" to start the attack, for example, and you don't need to bother with encryption (as well as putting 85% of Reg commentards on the suspect list in the subsequent analysis).
To sum up; the guy's a fucking idiot.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 14:31 GMT Andrew Newstead
History tells us...
I seem to remember that we didn't need encrypted digital communication methods for most of the cold war, World War 2, or the rest of recorded history come to that. Remove Crypto from mobile phones, internet, etc. and the bad guys will just go back to methods which don't rely on electronic communications, such as couriers (assuming they haven't already...).
Coat? - Mines the one with the John le Carre book in the pocket.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 15:06 GMT Bibbit
I am shouting at the screen again.
Every time I hear his name I just think of that little twat's speech at that Tory party conference when he was 16 (or was it 15?). If any time travelling assassins read this thread and are stuck for something to do I would suggest that would be a good place to pop to. Or when he wore that baseball cap at the Notting Hill Festival. In fact do Notting Hill first then go to that party conference just because.
Not that I condone violence.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 15:08 GMT astrax
Metadata vs Data!
“Whatever means of co-ordination [the Brussels attackers] used, it was sufficiently private or encrypted that the authorities do not seem to have been aware of it.”
So...you have the "metadata" available, already processed/analysed. Considering the outcome, that fact alone implies one of two things:
1). They (the relevant authorities) were already aware of the identities of the suspect(s) and as such had probable cause to issue a warrant to confiscate their IT equipment or attempt to infiltrate their systems; ultimately they failed to act upon the intelligence they had.
2). They did not have such metadata to hand in the first place (or more accurately it was not sufficient to instigate the process of discovery).
My gut feeling is that it's more likely to be point 1, although the real question becomes whether the fault was genuine or merely acted as a vehicle to manouver the "concept" of global communication transparency into a more favourable position.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 15:18 GMT abedarts
Blaming crypo is just an excuse
The authorities failed again in Brussels and they need someone to scapegoat. Blaming encrypted communications and Edward Snowden takes the monkey off their backs and puts it somewhere else.
If they had access to every word written and spoken electronically it would make no difference, except that they'd be blaming pigeon breeders for selling their birds without sufficient care and telling them that it was their responsibility to be aware of the contents of every note the birds subsequently carried.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 18:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
A wish, all Neo-con/lib thugs, including him, get their names put on a real Death Note
... to die in appropriate ways soon, especially for any sick Shock Doctrine excuses like this!
Massive spying on a population is futile, a gross violation of privacy, the search time and storage requirements will become impractical, and it was quite stupid to assume it could be kept secret forever, so no surprise that people are increased use of encryption. This only makes it clearer that we have a Police State government seeking only it's own protection, so a worse danger than terrorists.
Each government disarming of the population, via restrictions or bans of firearms or any other tools, makes it ever easier for criminals to do bad things, because the public have less effective tools to stop them and the Police often only get involved later after a lot of damage has already occurred, so WTF use are the Police and surely that effectively make the government an accessory to crime!?
Our votes are effectively worthless in the UKs socialist/corpocracy/lobbyist and few corrupt political parties 'democracy', especially with unlawful power transfers to the EU gangsters, this soft dictatorship could be toppled if a large enough minority of people realise that direct opposition is required, say when central banks have run out of deceptions to prop up the much worse Ponzi tower of speculation than 2007/2008!
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 19:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
Requiring ID to buy a phone or SIM
How's that going to help? One of the things reported about the Brussels attackers is that they had access to guy who can make forged documents. You can also order them online through all sorts of places. You don't need a document good enough to fool US border control, only good enough to fool the cashier at the convenience store - who isn't going to care if the ID is fake since unlike with selling alcohol to a minor using an obviously fake ID he/she wouldn't get in trouble for it.
So yeah, I'm sure it will be really helpful to record whatever bogus name the terrorist buying the burner phone used, especially if they are smart and use that ID just the one time. If they have the discipline to use burner phones and delete text messages etc. from them they will have the discipline to use their fake IDs in a similar manner. So such laws will only hurt law abiding citizens and maybe catch some dumb low level criminals. It won't do a thing against terrorists or other big time criminals.
-
Wednesday 30th March 2016 10:23 GMT DropBear
Re: Requiring ID to buy a phone or SIM
Ah, but they won't be able to fool the cashiers who will be required to simply check the IDs embedded RFID at checkout. And they won't be able to forge that, because the data on it will be signed with strong crypto! Which we must backdoor! ...uhhhh, wait, this used to make sense...
-
-
Wednesday 30th March 2016 16:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Requiring ID to buy a phone or SIM
Only a few US states include RFID chips in the driver's license, since there is no federal requirement to do so - at least not yet - so you just get a fake ID for one of the states that doesn't have it. Even in states that do, a checker at a convenience store will definitely NOT be using an RFID scanner to verify driver's licenses and refuse sale if your RFID chip doesn't work.
So no need to care about crypto or RFID in your fake IDs for buying burner phones. Before anyone says "the US isn't the rest of the world", I spoke to the status in the US since that's where the bill to require ID for purchase was proposed.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 21:52 GMT allthecoolshortnamesweretaken
"This ability "is vital in order to see patterns in the behaviour of those who might join a cell such as the one in Brussels. And it can help us to spot them if they make a mistake," wrote Hague."
So the game plan is to wait for the opposition to make a mistake? Very reassuring, Mr Hague, very reassuring.
-
Tuesday 29th March 2016 23:11 GMT All names Taken
Same old same old?
In the UK we should be wise to these things now - privilege and disparagement is one of the tools used by both the under and over privileged in the UK no?
What he merely meant was that widespread use of crypto (whatever that is) should be limited to the privileged few and in the minds of the under-privileged many it should be perceived as "destroyed".
But there again it might just be me - just saying that's all.
-
Wednesday 30th March 2016 00:03 GMT Stevie
Bah!
"if people could see – which they obviously can’t "
Because of the blanket top secret "laws" put in place by you and you ilk, Mr Hague. If you are so assured of the correctness of your position, how about letting the public review the warrants YOU signed off on and the things that were done sans warrant that you agreed to.
But I imagine that is an entirely different use case.
-
Wednesday 30th March 2016 12:06 GMT John Brown (no body)
What's REALLY worrying...
...is that not only do so many politicians come out with this obviously dumb kneejerk crap, but the vast majority of the media gleefully "big it up" even more to report it with not even the slightest attempt to point out the idiocy.
Surely there must be some journalist (NOT reporters) out there who realise that the big story is people like Hague spouting such errant nonsense and call them out on it instead of terrorising the general public with scare stories.
-
Wednesday 30th March 2016 15:33 GMT Brent Beach
It is fun, of course, to point out all the blunders in the Hague article.
Ask yourself - is he stupid? Are all his advisers stupid? Does he consult with Intelligence agencies who are all stupid?
The answer is that he must know that what he is saying is wrong. He also knows it is plausible. That many will believe him and agree to more and more power for the Intelligence Industry. People will be afraid and hence compliant - not just compliant on security issues, but compliant on other issues.
He praises the strength of the British people - in effect saying that you are brave enough to get through this and you will if you trust your leaders and give us just a little more power.
He is not stupid, he is attempting a propaganda coup and will probably succeed.