EU ministers look to tighten up privacy – JUST KIDDING – surveillance laws

European ministers are debating a clampdown on encryption and a further increase in surveillance in response to mounting terrorist threats. Bernard Cazeneuve, France’s interior minister is due to meet his German counterpart, Thomas de Maizere, to discuss possible regulations to limit the use of encrypted communications across …

[Dave 15]

Kill ecommerce?

Its bad enough that there are spoofing sites and that gchq and the nsa have back doors and decrypt everything but to make it easier for criminals to steal billions on billions which will obviously kill ecommerce stone dead is lunacy of a type I thought was beyond even politicians.

Then of course the Germans, French and British should all be able to remember using the BBC to broadcast messages to people on the continent.

I am taking a cake to my gran tonight on social media might not ring any bells, but perhaps can be code for taking a bomb to no 10?

[collinsl]

Re: Kill ecommerce?

Jean a une longue moustache

[lukewarmdog]

"Patrick Calvar, French homeland security chief, told the FT that gigabytes of data were collected after November’s Paris attack but “it is often encrypted, and impossible to decipher”."

So AFTER the attack the police sucked up gigs of data. And we're all ok with that, right. That's how you prevent things, by looking at the aftermath. Gigs of data they by and large know are completely irrelevant - thousands of "omg what just happened, are you safe" tweets from people in the surrounding areas and "did you just see that latest cat video I posted lol" from the rest of the world who haven't seen the news yet. Even if all of that wasn't encrypted it would still be lolcat data collected after the fact. Only now we'd have to pay someone to read it all.

I am not sure these guys are doing it right.

[Aus Tech]

lukewarmdog wrote: "I am not sure these guys are doing it right."

I am absolutely certain that they are not doing it right. The consensus in the Technical Community (of which I am a member because of my Computer and Networking skills), is that NSA, GCHQ, etc, are already choking on the huge volume of data that they are collecting, most of which has no relationship to terrorist activity, all of which has been gathered using mass surveillance. It's become obvious that this simply doesn't work, so what will work? Working smarter will do a better job, but that means that all the intelligence organizations will have to get off their fat backsides to work out what they really need to be doing.

[Charles 9]

"Working smarter will do a better job, but that means that all the intelligence organizations will have to get off their fat backsides to work out what they really need to be doing."

But working smarter only goes so far, lone wolves aren't detectable until after the fact which is too late and the voters expect the government to prevent the unpreventable or they'll vote someone else. And no, you can't educate them to bow to the inevitable because otherwise what's the whole bloody point of civilization?

[Doctor Syntax]

"And no, you can't educate them to bow to the inevitable because otherwise what's the whole bloody point of civilization?"

The whole bloody point of civilisation is to allow people to live with the greatest possible amount of freedom within society, respecting each other. To this end we have developed certain principles such as the rule of law, proof beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence.

The whole bloody point of terrorism, and it can be very bloody indeed, is to prevent this.

All we have to do is ask whether or not our governments are promoting those civilising principles or not.

[Steve Evans]

Not only that, but again and again (thinking about the French here), the perpetrators had been, or still were, on a watch list...

If you suspect someone, and you're presumably keeping an eye on them, and yet they still go off and do something "bad", it's not the bulk trawling that you need, it's better abilities when you have a specific target, which is standard investigative skills.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The whole bloody point of civilisation is to allow people to live with the greatest possible amount of freedom within society, respecting each other. To this end we have developed certain principles such as the rule of law, proof beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence."

The problem is people have gotten smart to using civilization against itself. That which frees you can also kill you and everyone else around you. Thus why freedom isn't absolute AND the line keeps moving.

It was just harder to amplify the effort of one man until recently. Now, you have to wonder if one man with whatever you call a group of weasels can successfully create Captain Trips or the like in his basement...

[nijam]

> lone wolves aren't detectable until after the fact

And not only that, they don't encrypt their non-existent communications with their non-existent collaborators.

Obviously.

[John Smith 19]

"And.. , they don't encrypt.. non-existent communications with .. non-existent collaborators."

Don't forget that in addition to being radicalised without anyone knowing, and deciding to carry out a terrorist act they are in a position to carry out this attack while a)Not being in a job that requires extensive security clearance to attack their target or b) Passing security clearance.

But they can be found by a trawl of everyone's data because they do what exactly??? Some last message to an unrequited love where they just happen to explain their whole plan with enough key words to be flagged for immediate attention?

Sound like a very dumb plot of an episode of Spooks, does it not? You'd have to be dumb as a Home Secretary to believe this rubbish.

[Charles 9]

Re: "And.. , they don't encrypt.. non-existent communications with .. non-existent collaborators."

But doing nothing is not acceptable with the public. And they VOTE.

[John Smith 19]

And no, you can't educate them.. to the inevitable what's the whole bloody point of civilization?

I see

Yes, we have to destroy freedom and privacy in order to preserve freedom and privacy.

Alternatively you can go Mary Shaffers comment on 9/12/01

"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world."

It is inevitable as long as Western governments continue to play into the Islamists hands.

Northern Ireland lasted 38 years. It seemed it would go on forever.

It didn't.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: lukewarmdog

".....AFTER the attack the police sucked up gigs of data....." No. Go read up on Frenchelon, then you'll realise the Fwench have been just as busy sucking up data as the NSA and the GCHQ, they just don't share it with les gendarmes, let alone with the Belgians.

"....I am not sure these guys are doing it right." They're not, which is why they've all been asking for help from the NSA and the GCHQ for spying on their own citizens for years, despite their hysterical pretensions otherwise.

[NoneSuch]

None of these laws stop terrorists (who don't follow the law in the first place). They stifle free speech, privacy and degrades your personal freedoms to give the government power.

[Rolo Tamasi]

Encryption is simpl and well known maths formulae and it can be simply hidden in larger files if necessary.

Outlawing encryption would only disadvantage the law abiding and ignorant.

[Paul Crawford]

"Outlawing encryption would only disadvantage the law abiding and ignorant"

You mean the majority of people? Makes you wonder how much is to do with any real threat and how much to do with general economic espionage and allowing councils to spy on those putting rubbish in the wrong bins or sending kids to school outside of the catchment area.

[Charles 9]

"Encryption is simpl and well known maths formulae and it can be simply hidden in larger files if necessary."

No stego's bulletproof, and a state aware of it can order pictures, sound, and videos mangled to break most of it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go for it. Even if you trust whatsapp encryption today, it could change for the worst overnight.

However if you have opensource applications using encryption between millions of users, you have to convince most of the users to accept a backdoor. Which you never will since many of them won't even realise they're using encryption.

I just assume whatsapp is already compromised, but even if it isn't, let the froggy government have what they want.

[Charles 9]

"However if you have opensource applications using encryption between millions of users, you have to convince most of the users to accept a backdoor. Which you never will since many of them won't even realise they're using encryption."

You do that by slipping it under their noses. You don't do it all at once, but take a piecemeal approach to create a gestalt. An innocuous, even useful update that just happens to do something just so, another one later on by a different shill user, and so on until all the pieces are put together but not one really knows what came in where, and BOOM! The world's your wire.

[Anonymous Coward]

People keep refusing to discuss the scientific fact that voyeuristic behaviour is addictive.

Isn't it time we put time limits on our snoops' access to these things to force them to detox from time to time?

[Charles 9]

You forget that when something is REALLY addictive, people will warp their worlds to get another fix. when it's THAT bad, you can't force detox them because they'll KILL you to get past you. Or in this case, pull law or rank to overrule you.

[Giles C]

Slightly ironic, that the banksy picture you use to illustrate the article was destroyed by a workman yesterday

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/21/banksy-mural-disappears-from-wall-in-cheltenham/

[Teiwaz]

This is likened to using an outdoor leaf vacuum in the flowerbed, yes you might get some leaves, but the flowerbed is now a ruined wasteland where the weeds can flourish.

Few if any terrorist attacks of late have been found to have been organised using encryption, our politicians are either not fit to make these decisions due to stupidity or some shadowy ulterior motive.

I'm not surprised France is leading this, they've been heading inexorably toward the right wing for years now, having forgotten the lessons of their post revolution years or Napoleon shortly after. Britain much the same, still basking in righteous afterglow of being in the winning side of WW1 & WW2 it believes any step it takes will be the march of the just and the righteous so much it forgets to look where it's walking.

I'll loose all faith in humanity of Germany follows, it's darkness is not long past the recent unification.

[Black Rat]

Good evening citizen - Crime Blitz!

These people are not going to be happy till they can randomly kick in anybody’s door without provocation or probable cause and search for any evidence of wrong doing no matter how trivial.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUL7XMGWEAA8KPq.jpg

[Anonymous Coward]

It’s a central issue in the fight against terrorism

we're THAT close to erasing terrorism once and for all. I mean, ban the encryption, and it goes, eh?

well, you then have to gas all the pigeons of the world, but then, what good are pigeons for anyway? Other than supporting terrorism?

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: It’s a central issue in the fight against terrorism

If we want to reduce the threat of terrorism, we need to stop selling weapons internationally. That'll help.

[davidp231]

Re: It’s a central issue in the fight against terrorism

They are quite tasty after about 40 minutes in the oven...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: It’s a central issue in the fight against terrorism

Woodies only though, not the pavement pizza eating variety strewn accross alomost every town in the country.

The young 'uns (Squabs) are very tasty as their breast is oh so succulent and tender. A big old pigeon needs a bit more cooking...

[davidp231]

Re: It’s a central issue in the fight against terrorism

Wonder how well they'd go in a curry....

[Chris G]

No more terrism or terrists

If they can't communicate, i.e. send encrypted or plain messages they wont be able to organise.

I say ban reading and writing, close all schools, switch off the interthing and telephones and only allow the politicians and the rich to read and write.

I'm sure they'll look after our best interests won't they?

I'm just off to light my oil lamp and gnaw on a raw turnip.

[Charles 9]

Re: No more terrism or terrists

"I say ban reading and writing, close all schools, switch off the interthing and telephones and only allow the politicians and the rich to read and write."

I doubt you could outlaw pantomime since that's an instinctive language. Shame we never saw a magic mime climb out of the Patrician's snake pit using an invisible rope. Would've made for an interesting conflict.

[David Pollard]

I for one argue against Jacob Ginsberg

"No one can argue with the fact that if intelligence agencies and the police were able to access and look inside all houses, they would catch more criminals."

Where you have policing by consent, the most significant part of crime control comes about through the co-operation and involvement of the general public. When the public's trust is broken this aspect of crime control is eroded. If the authorities invade people's privacy they will forfeit their co-operation and make policing less effective.

[Charles 9]

Re: I for one argue against Jacob Ginsberg

But what option do you have when the public REFUSES to trust you (meaning there's no way to earn it again), YET expect you to prevent massacres? Seems to me the problem behind the problem is impossible demands. It's like having twelve people stuck on a barren island with only three coconuts. No matter how you split it, it can't end well.

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: I for one argue against Jacob Ginsberg

"But what option do you have when the public REFUSES to trust you (meaning there's no way to earn it again), YET expect you to prevent massacres?"

They can earn our trust again, but like a habitually naughty child, it's going to take them some effort. Good places to begin would include not lying to is (Hillsborough), protecting public safety rather than corporate interests (London riots), allowing us to express our political views without extreme response (kettling, G20, Stop the War etc.), allowing us our right of free association, (stop arresting people because they are black), stop misappropriating funds and public monies (ACPO investments, ANPR for profit), increase community outreach, reduce militarisation of the police, answer us in a timely fashion and attend crime scenes when we report incidents (Stop giving us a crime number over skype by way of your only response).

You know, do policing rather than political enforcement.

[collinsl]

Re: I for one argue against Jacob Ginsberg

Are you an American by any chance?

Yes, the police lied to us and tried to cover up hillsborough, but that was the 80s/90s - it was a totally different policing culture to what it is now.

During the riots the police were short of resources and they certainly didn't protect corporate interests - if they were they would have stopped the looting rather than hanging back and protecting people who weren't involved.

Policing of demonstrations is a delicate balance - you have to give the demonstrators their right to demonstrate, but you must also balance that with not allowing them to interfere with other members of the public going about their lawful occasions, and you can't allow the bad elements of a protest (protests attract a small number of people who are only there to attack people and incite riots) to start a riot.

And the police aren't as racist as they once were - black people are targeted more for stop and search because black people commit more crime due to their disadvantaged background - if you want the police to be more even handed then get white people to commit more crime. The police target people based on how likely they are to commit crime not on their skin colour.

Community outreach is one of the things which has to be cut in these stringent times as the number of police falls and the core of the service (responding to incidents) has to be kept the same - in fact with the increase in paperwork you have to allocate more officers to it to keep the same level of service

And neither our police nor American police are militarised - they are responding appropriately to the level of threat they may encounter in their jobs. The police in the UK wear stab vests due to the risk of them being, well, stabbed, and most of them aren't armed. Those that are are highly trained and are only sent to the serious incidents which require them and their specialist training. And Amercian police are responding to the fact that any citizen in the US without a felony conviction can purchase and carry a long-barreled rifle and can use it to shoot at the police if they feel so inclined. Plus events like the north hollywood shootout have taught the police in the US that they need armoured personnel carriers (not tanks) to evacuate wounded officers and civilians and to get their SWAT teams close to the suspects to deal with them.

And as for the rest if the government keep cutting the police budget they're going to have to prioritise what they attend to in person as they can't employ enough people to do the job. If they know they are likely not to be able to catch a burglar by visiting a flat when they're long gone then why send a police officer when they can just give the crime number via an email for a thousandth of the cost? The only thing it's going to be used for is the insurance report anyway.

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: I for one argue against Jacob Ginsberg

"Are you an American by any chance?"

No. I'm British.

"Yes, the police lied to us and tried to cover up hillsborough, but that was the 80s/90s "

the recent findings by the Hillsborough enquiry show that the police were covering up the facts right up until 2014, most usually by blaming the fans and families in attendance.

"Policing of demonstrations is a delicate balance"

No, they just need to step back and let the demonstration continue until and unless it becomes violent. I was at G20 and subject to kettling; let me assure you that it was the police who were violent. Furthermore they covered their badge numbers with tape to avoid being identified. They knew they were committing questionable acts and G20 was an experiment in "crowd control" nothing more. Remember that an innocent man died that day on his way home from work after being beaten by police officers.

"small number of people who are only there to attack people and incite riots"

Agreed, they do indeed attract such people. Often they are agent provocateurs from other groups and there is a body of evidence to suggest that the police themselves engage in escalation tactics in order to allow them to break up protests they feel may threaten the peace.

"And the police aren't as racist as they once were - black people are targeted more for stop and search because black people commit more crime due to their disadvantaged background "

Granted, this was a good few years back, but whilst visiting London with some friends of mine (Asian & African by extraction whilst I am Caucasian) we were subject to stop and search. My friends were treated very roughly indeed (slammed into walls and over a car bonnet) whilst I was politely taken aside to be asked what I was doing out at night with the "N****rs". Yeah, racism doesn't exist in the police, right.

"Community outreach is one of the things which has to be cut in these stringent times as the number of police falls and the core of the service (responding to incidents) has to be kept the same"

Meanwhile the cost of policing rises through increases in council taxes, profits through ANPR are soaring and the ACPO have just been criticised by Theresa May for having a share and property portfolio in the tens of millions of pounds, including overseas holiday homes. I'm sure that the reduction in actual police is justified....not.

"And neither our police nor American police are militarised"

In my current job, I have contact with the police every day. A police unit operates in this building and until three months ago I knew them all by name and had a good working relationship with them. They were uniformed but not armed. They have all been removed from their roles. Now, each day, I pass two heavily armed police guards at the entrance; H&K MP5's across their chests, 9mm pistols at their side, body armour and silence. Yeah, we've not militarised them at all. In the US its worse; armoured vehicles, assault weapons, 50cal ammo....Yeah, nothing to worry about at all.

"as for the rest if the government keep cutting the police budget they're going to have to prioritise what they attend to in person as they can't employ enough people to do the job"

Didn't you just claim that "core of the service (responding to incidents) has to be kept the same" despite these times of austerity? So, income up, services down, less real policing.

[Charles 9]

Re: I for one argue against Jacob Ginsberg

"No, they just need to step back and let the demonstration continue until and unless it becomes violent."

Unacceptable. They're charged with PREVENTING the violence or the victims blame the police, so they lose either way.

"Meanwhile the cost of policing rises through increases in council taxes, profits through ANPR are soaring and the ACPO have just been criticised by Theresa May for having a share and property portfolio in the tens of millions of pounds, including overseas holiday homes. I'm sure that the reduction in actual police is justified....not."

You should see the LOCAL police budgets. Many of them are tied to local COMMUNITY budgets, and they're stripping to the bone as it is.

"Yeah, we've not militarised them at all. In the US its worse; armoured vehicles, assault weapons, 50cal ammo....Yeah, nothing to worry about at all."

What do you expect after events like the North Hollywood shootout (the two guys packed AK-47s, loads of ammo, and body armor; they weren't crooks but paramilitary) and the rash of assassinations on the job, usually targeting them for no other other than they were there.

[Charles 9]

Re: I for one argue against Jacob Ginsberg

"They can earn our trust again, but like a habitually naughty child, it's going to take them some effort."

It's too late. The population is already past the "Fool Me Once" phase and will NEVER trust the police again, meaning it's a lost cause to even try. Plus after events like 9/11 and the increased incidents of targeted police assassinations, police everywhere are assuming siege mentality out of necessity. It works both ways. If you want the police to earn your trust again, you have to produce an environment conducive to them extending the olive branch. Trying to make peace while the bullets are flying only results in more bodies.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Charles 9 Re: I for one argue against Jacob Ginsberg

".....The population is already past the "Fool Me Once" phase and will NEVER trust the police again...." LOL, maybe you should try talking to someone outside your tiny herd of the tragically hip and uneducated? You know, the ones that actually have some experience of interacting with the Police, rather than just watching too much TV and listening to rap "music". That other 99.99999% of the population think you and your mates are just funny!

[Charles 9]

Re: Charles 9 I for one argue against Jacob Ginsberg

Ahem. I speak FIRSTHAND. I interact with the police on a daily basis because I work in what's known as a "bear trap" area, so cops come EVERY SINGLE DAY.

As for riots, not too far from where I live is a local college party magnet. Once school is in session it's pretty much clockwork (about once a week) for police to be summoned to that location in riot gear. Every so often in the same general area, there's a shooting.

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is simple: Governments should advertise to get information on potential terrorists.

[Swarthy]

"Report your family and friends - Win Fabulous Prizes!"

[davidp231]

Just keep away from Despair Squids... unless you have a compliment of limpet mines.

[John Smith 19]

"Governments should advertise to get information on potential terrorists."

The Americans tried this.

That's where most of the detainees from Guantanamo came from.

IIRC the reward for a "terrorist" was about 2 years average salary in the local currencies.

So if you knew a police officer and wanted 2 years pay what would you do? Keep your eyes open for suspicious behavior, or find someone you could frame for the money?

And no one will try to prove you innocent because by definition you wouldn't be there if you were, would you?

[Matt Bryant]

John Smith 19 Re: "Governments should advertise to get information on potential terrorists."

"....That's where most of the detainees from Guantanamo came from.....So if you knew a police officer...." The majority of Gitmo detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, by the military, and not on UK streets by the Police. Please do try to keep at least one foot in reality when frothing.

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: John Smith 19 "Governments should advertise to get information on potential terrorists."

"The majority of Gitmo detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, by the military, and not on UK streets by the Police. "

To be fair, Matt, I think JohnSmith19 was suggesting that the majority of Guantanamo detainees were handed over by the Afghan police forces, rather than by UK law enforcement. This is borne out by the statistics, which show only a very small percentage of detainees being captured by armed forces.

"From documents released by the U.S. government in 2006, the U.S. Pentagon attributes the American forces with capturing only about 5% of the total detainees sent to Guantanamo Bay prison. It reports that another 2% were captured by Coalition forces. This means that approximately 93% of the prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay were not captured by either the American or the Coalition forces."

Source: http://the-beacon.info/countries/united-states/demographics-of-guantanamo-bay-prison/

We have to ask where that 93% of captives came from, and it is not unreasonable to assume that a number of them were captured following an offer of reward that was often collected by local law enforcement...

"The Pentagon documents show that in the cases where either the captors or the locations of the capture are identified, 68% of prisoners were handed over to the U.S. officials by the Pakistani authorities and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The capture of these prisoners coincides with a widespread campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan offering big financial bounties in exchange for anyone suspected of links to al-Qaeda and to the Taliban."

That accounts for many of the detainees, and as for the rest....

"In an article published in the New Statesman in October 2006 the legal director of Reprieve, Clive Stafford Smith reported that many of his clients held at Guantanamo Bay insisted they were not captured on an Afghanistan battlefield but were seized in Pakistan and sold to the U.S. like slaves. These accounts coincide with statements made by the then-president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf in his memoirs, In the Line of Fire, published in September 2006. In his book Musharraf recounts, “Many members of the al-Qaeda fled Afghanistan and crossed the border into Pakistan. We have captured 689 and handed over 369 of these to the United States. We have earned bounties totalling millions of dollars.”

Interesting stuff, reality, eh?

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Bernie Re: John Smith 19 "Governments should advertise.....

".....I think JohnSmith19 was suggesting that the majority of Guantanamo detainees were handed over by the Afghan police forces...." What "Afghan police forces"? The Afghan National Police didn't get going again until training efforts started in 2005. The only "police" in the Afghanistan theatre at the time of invasion was the Taleban's religious "police", and they were not going to hand over AQ or Taleban fighters to the Allies!

"....We have to ask where that 93% of captives came from...." There were a number of armed militant groups that the CIA befriended (and paid) to do the majority of the ground fighting, led by the Northern Alliance. These were the same mujahideen that had fought the Afghan Civil War against the Taleban, and who captured the majority of battlefield Gitmo detainees, handing them over to the Allies. The US bounty actually saved the lives of a lot of detainees as the militants fighting the Taleban had a lot of personal scores to settle, and often killed captured Taleban and AQ fighters out of hand (AQ allegedly assassinated the popular leader of the Northern Alliance just prior to 9/11). Another chunk of the Gitmo detainees were handed over to the US by countries that AQ had cells in, including Arab countries such as Egypt, Saudi and Libya, and some even from Pakistan. Some, such as the Uyghurs, were caught whilst training for other Islamic terrorist groups in Afghanistan, and it would be speculative to suggest they were detained in the interests of US-Chinese relations.

As far as I can recall, no-one arrested by the British Police has been extradited and sent to Gitmo, as John Smith 19 claimed, and it is certain no British Policeman or woman ever received a bounty for arresting an AQ member. He's probably confused by reading the male bovine manure spouted by McKinnon supporters.

[John Smith 19]

"That's where most of the detainees from Guantanamo came from."

https://www.aclu.org/infographic/guantanamo-numbers

Specifically Items 17,18 and 19.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: John Smith 19 Re: "That's where most of the detainees from Guantanamo....

"....Specifically Items 17,18 and 19." Wow, John, please do explain how those points in any way, shape or form, somehow translate into any of the Gitmo detainees having being captured by "corrupt" UK police? Oh, they don't. And those handed in by locals in return for the bounty, were they locals on the streets of the UK and handed in to UK police? No, they weren't, they were captured by armed Afghan groups allied to the Allies in Afghanistan, and handed over to the Allies who then vetted each one before issuing the bounty. Maybe you should try reading your own material before trying to claim it supports your debunked argument?

Indeed, the ACLU document (as with most ACLU documents, IMHO) is carefully slanted to paint as bad a picture as possible, for propaganda purposes. Note the bald statement that the US government admitted 92% of the detainees were not AQ fighters - that is irrellevant as the vast majority of unlawful armed combatants in Afghanistan were Taleban, allied to AQ. AQ itself is estimated to have had only about 170 foot soldiers, instructors, "scientists" and leaders in Afghanistan when the Allies invaded, whereas the Taleban fielded as many as 35,000. If the Gitmo detainees reflected an unrepresentative number of AQ detainees, that just anyone at random was grabbed for an unchecked bounty, then less than 0.005% of Gitmo detainees would be AQ members, so the US was actually very effective in detaining AQ members. Please do try and find an ACLU doc that debunks that simple bit of maths.

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternative solution..

Let's sack the current crop of politicians. All of them. Might be a boost for the economy as well - especially if we stick the lot of them on welfare..

[Charles 9]

Re: Alternative solution..

No, because we'll just end up with even worse. No one realizes they can get worse until they throw the lot out and find out it's possible. Like the Beast being replaced by the Smiler (in Transmetropolitan).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Alternative solution..

No, because we'll just end up with even worse.

I suspect the idea is to get rid of them completely, not replace them. Most organisations function perfectly without - after all, they had to learn that as politicians add no functional value anyway.

[Charles 9]

Re: Alternative solution..

Name me one organization that runs COMPLETELY without SOME form of hierarchy or structure. I bet you won't because we call such a thing a MOB.

You can't get rid of them because structure is a necessary evil in society. Without it, you just have anarchy. Problem is, the structure by its very nature concentrates power, and you know what they say about power...

[Alastair Dodd 1]

Re: Alternative solution..

stick em on welfare? Most wouldn't even notice as their other investments/jobs/backhanders have already made them richer than most of the population.

Strip them of all possessions, tar and feather them - then give them welfare. That would work..

[Roj Blake]

Quid Pro Quo

I'm quite happy for the government to be able to read all of my communications, as long as I'm able to read all of theirs.

[Danny 5]

lack of knowledge

People who don't understand the basic principles of encryption should not be allowed to pass legislation in regards to it. These people have no idea what they're actually saying and what it implies, but their obvious lack of knowledge doesn't seem to hold them back at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: lack of knowledge

People who don't understand the basic principles of encryption should not be allowed to pass legislation in regards to it.

If you applied that as a generic principle you'd find they would not be able to pass ANY legislation. Which may not be such a bad thing :).

[Charles 9]

Re: lack of knowledge

"If you applied that as a generic principle you'd find they would not be able to pass ANY legislation. Which may not be such a bad thing :)."

Until private enterprise sees that as carte blanche to covertly use cheap not-necessarily-safe stuff and trick the people into thinking it's top-grade stuff. Regulations (like road safety regulations) are there for a reason.

[collinsl]

Re: lack of knowledge

"Ministers are not experts. They are chosen expressedly because they know nothing." - James Hacker, former PM

[Chris G]

Re: lack of knowledge

Perfect! That will stop 99% of poli's legislating for anything. How many Health Ministers have any training at all on the subject?

How many Transport Ministers understand fully the functioning of a nation's transport system? Roads and their maintenance, private vehicles and their contribution or cost to society, railway systems, underground, freight etc?

I don't think there has ever been a science and technology minister with a clue, look at the current ministry that laughably put science under the same banner as skills ( Laying concrete is a skill).

Minister rely on advice from Civil Servants who know as little as they do about most things, or, so called professional advisors (normally a few mates who have some spare time ).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: lack of knowledge

"Laying concrete is a skill"

But MIXING concrete is a science since it relies a lot on chemistry (getting the proportions of cement ingredients right to have a proper set, also knowing your weather conditions if outdoors) and physics (again, having the proper ratio of cement to aggregate for proper strength).

[Matt Bryant]

Re: AC Re: lack of knowledge

"....But MIXING concrete is a science...." Que? I was mixing concrete aged twelve, wasn't much scientific about it, TBH.

[Charles 9]

Re: AC lack of knowledge

Yeah, and I was doing carpentry at age 10. Thing was, it wasn't really anything important.

What were you using the concrete for? Were you working in extreme temperatures or in heavy rain? How important was the job? Given we've had more than a few incidents involving improperly-set concrete, perhaps there was more to it than you thought but was overlooked in your youth.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Cahrles 9 Re: AC lack of knowledge

"....What were you using the concrete for? Were you working in extreme temperatures or in heavy rain...." Summer job over several summers, building housing. Mostly concrete structural supports, foundations and driveways, with the odd tennis and squash court. Under the supervision of a proper civil engineer who taught us the most important ingredient in concrete is actually the water - dirty water, especially salt water, leads to concrete "cancer". Sand and gravel taken from the seashore is also likely to contain saltwater residue, which leads to the alkali-silica reaction and rusting reinforcing rods (when they rust they expand and crack the concrete), so good-quality or washed sand and gravel were also a priority. Once you had that under control, the rest was pretty much a cooking recipe, mixed well, no degree required. Up until a few years ago I used to regularly drive past one of the homes I contributed concrete to several decades before and it was still standing just fine.

[Charles 9]

Re: Cahrles 9 AC lack of knowledge

Cooking is both art and science, too, especially if you have to deal with things like inconsistent ingredients and boiling with salt (it's not just for taste, it raises the boiling point and the cooking temperature of anything you put in it).

You worked over the summer; that's a key consideration, too, since concrete doesn't set so well when it's cold (which highway crews could be forced to negotiate when performing emergency repairs in the winter). And you noted the bane of salt; that's actually a scientific consideration though you don't acknowledge it. You had less concern because you were working terrestrially, but it's one reason concrete exposed to the sea (like a bridge or pier at the coast) needs extra considerations.

[Tubz]

So the powers that be want to block us from using encrypted messaging, but as in the case of UK Govs EU Stay campaign, they were happy to use WhatsApps for project FEAR messages to avoid having to keep any records for parliamentary scrutiny, this is true criminals at work !

[Matt Bryant]

Too late!

Merkel is determined to push through an EU "army" and she wants an EU spooks organization to go with it. Not that it's not needed - the current level of co-operation between even local police forces in Europe is beyond pathetic, it is deliberately obstructive. The EU sulked so badly when the UK opted out of Shengen they refused to let the UK have visibility of the database on criminals and terrorists they did manage to keep tabs on! Which is why criminals love Shengen. And it is why Merkel has got the support from the rest of the supine EU she has always wanted for her pan-European army, and the pan-European spooks will be next. Merkel has long used and envied the NSA's and GCHQ's capabilities, and - despite their faux outrage - the rest of Europe has been in on the game for years. Grand frere vous regarde déjà!

If you think the GCHQ or NSA are worrying, imagine their equivalent being run by Brussels!

[Laurence66]

Really?

The only surprise here is that we are discussing something that any god fearing government would have been doing since the inception of networked devices, just now they seem to need to legitimise it.

[Dave 15]

Didn't we...

Instruct people in the 'French resistance' on what to do and when using broadcast of plain language on radio the whole continent could hear?

Wouldn't parts of the German government at the time have suggested that blowing up trains, convoys of equipment, roads, bridges etc was terrorist incidents?

Really, all of this is just crud,