Official abuse of state security has always been bad, now it's horrifying The UK government's attempts to worm into Apple's core end-to-end encryption were set back last week when the country's Home Office failed in its bid to keep them secret on national security grounds. Or so we think: the whole business has been massively obfuscated by that special blend of state secrecy and legal gaggery that …
Very few cases ever go to trial.
The defendants can't afford to defend themselves. They usually take a plea deal, even if innocent. Usually the prosecution hits them with 25years of charges, but is willing to drop to 3-5 years if they plead guilty to a few of the charges.
"And a few seconds later, so does the smoke alarm.."
Which is why, in Scottish legislation at least, you are required to install a heat detector in your kitchen - and not a smoke detector.
Yes, totally off-topic, but I couldn't resist responding.
True. As the JFK files are showing, there is nothing classified except things that would cause the CIA embarrassment. Oswald was a CIA asset. Something CIA denied and lied about under oath during both the Warren Commission and The House Select Committee on Assassinations.
They should have named The Official Secrets Act, The Cover Your Ass Statute.
This is going back a number of years but I recall Mark Thomas doing a show about UK Intelligence Classification and IIRC we are (were? This was the 90s I think) the only country with a default classification of secret until classified otherwise, whereas most countries were public until classified otherwise.
It's rather worrying that the Five Eyes has been the public face of weakening encryption for so long, although the antics on t'other side of the pond might well mean that particular organisation being gone before long anyway, or at least becoming Four Eyes.
>>The public face of Brexit was designed to appeal to xenophobic halfwits, leaving the path clear for the Establishment to do whatever suited them best.<<
Ah yes the pinnacle of remainer wisdom: let's call people you disagree with "xenophobic halfwits". Very grown up. This "halfwit" has an IQ of 156 and is xenophilic.
While I agree "the establishment" as an organised force of active malice, with secret handshakes etc.is -most likely- a literary fabrication (which is what they WANT you to believe... )
"the establishment", as the ambient environment which shapes and promotes self interest and exploitive mindsets to the point they are considered normal and even admirable, is a real thing.
With organised religion blowing away its moral authority and social license, there is no convenient source of a 'moral compass', and "be nice to people" is competing directly with "take whatever you can get away with"..
The problem with Brexit is that the two sides of the argument have polarised their positions too much. This combined with the tendency of former UK governments to "gold plate" regulations imported from the EU and to use the EU as a scapegoat for the imposition of necessary but painful regulation tended to aid the side of the Brexiteers.
For instance, the EU regulations on light bulbs merely said "Use something a bit more efficient than old tungsten filament lamps", which given that these were only about 5% efficient at best was fair comment and a very good idea. Tungsten halogen lamps were all that was needed to comply with the EU regulation; gold-plating this regulation and foisting discharge lamps onto an unwilling public was going a bit far.
Then there's the question of negotiation in Brexit; the recriminations about poor deals having been struck presupposes that the EU side were minded to be helpful to the exiting UK; they were not so minded and have remained unhelpful ever since. That the areas that have had the most EU have also fared least well economically is something that the EU member states would prefer not to be reminded of.
"I've always assumed one of the prime drivers of Brexit was to escape adult supervision so as to indulge in such bad behaviour."
Wouldnt that assume adults to supervise (EU? Really?) from a place consisting of such corrupt members that our 'bird house' scandal would be nothing to them.
Maybe the AC(s) know what you're alluding to, maybe not. Regardless, this is a public forum and there are others reading too.
If it wasn't a reference to that Tory MP who tried to claim a "duck house" on his MP's expenses as part of that scandal some time back, perhaps you should clarify what you *were* talking about.
"Adult supervision" in this case means people who don't at that instant owe their jobs, reputation or life to the people they're meant to be keeping honest. Let's assume they - the dread watchers - as childish and corrupt as their targets. But they're politically independent. If you can't have everything, it's still best not to give up entirely.
@KimJongDeux
"Let's assume they - the dread watchers - as childish and corrupt as their targets. But they're politically independent."
Politically independent would assume they were not the self interested party we were dealing with, which the EU is. So having the EU above the UK while negotiating with the UK (EU membership), and back to the prior observation of politicians (UK and EU) being childish, there wasnt much adult supervision going on.
"If you can't have everything, it's still best not to give up entirely."
I get that is the remain position. I remember reading a few desperate articles towards the end saying the EU sucks but we are better off in. But it does suck and personally I think we are better off out
I get that is the remain position. I remember reading a few desperate articles towards the end saying the EU sucks but we are better off in. But it does suck and personally I think we are better off out
A timely example of why the Remnants can be wrong is here-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c175r8z8e1lt
UK in 'good position' for US trade agreement, as Vance talks up chances of deal
Whether any deal is good or bad remains to be seen, but at least the UK can attempt to negotiate a deal that is in the UK's best interests, rather than dependent on the EU negotiating on our behalf.
"UK in 'good position' for US trade agreement, as Vance talks up chances of deal"
He means weaker. Dumbass.
Also, This is for the likes of you:
@KimJongDeux
"Refute. Stop whingeing."
I did, stop running away crying. Remember it was the behaviour of the EU that caused Cameron to look weak and we succeeded with brexit. All over the EU it is the parties offering the most resistance to the EU that gain in support leading to the EU clamping down harder and so more resistance.
The 'Adult supervision' of the EU brought their terrible covid vaccine procurement embarrassment which we thankfully got to watch from outside the EU. Had we remained there is no reason to believe they wouldnt have stolen our supplies as they threatened to anyway.
"their terrible covid vaccine procurement embarrassment which we thankfully got to watch from outside the EU"
With your well documented infatuation with The EU, Madam, one would hope you knew that at that particular moment The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was still in the EU. Get a grip, woman!
It appears Mr Triumphant, that you are nominatively determined.
I concede that the UK had withdrawn from the EU. But it was still party to all EU accords and rules during the UK negociated transitionary year that this vaccine story occured.
I stand corrected for my use of the word, "in".
In simple terms, irrespective of what the transition period tied the UK to and what it did not, the management of the spread of Covid and procurement and administration of supplies of vaccine was carried out by the UK Government, independently of the process within the EU.
It certainly appeared at the time that the UK approach to the vaccine procurement was markedly more organised, and faster acting than what took place within the EU, which (initially at least) did indeed appear to be a bit of a shambles).
thankfully got to watch from outside the EU
Did you not previously say you were an EU resident, being "offered" residency in an unspecified EU country during the transition period, codejunky? Hence you didn't really watch from outside as you were an EU resident profiting from withdrawal agreement rights. No?
@AC
"Did you not previously say you were an EU resident, being "offered" residency in an unspecified EU country during the transition period, codejunky? Hence you didn't really watch from outside as you were an EU resident profiting from withdrawal agreement rights. No?"
Yes and chose to return back to the UK instead of taking residency. However to do so I had to wait for the jab to arrive so I could fly, months after the UK was already vaccinating. After returning this shitshow was still going on and the EU supporters were still trying to justify the failure while the people I lived with could only wish their country left the EU too.
@MarkTriumphant
"They opted out of the EU vaccination arrangements."
Ah yes, later. So as I recall-
>There was a 'we are all in it together' push where all members joined the EU 'plan' and countries (such as Germany) dropped whatever plans they did have. The UK couldnt join because it would have been political suicide for our gov to brexit then join the EU procurement.
>The EU boasted they would be better off together with UK propaganda saying we would be left behind (not sure if such comments had been made in the EU).
>The EU screwed the pooch so badly with the news stories about brexit Britain, the US and even Israel getting deliveries and that the EU had failed to order, facilitate distribution (or even allocate supplies) nor understand its contracts or the law (AstraZeneca). Accusations of French interference with limiting orders based on those placed with the failed Sanofi vaccine compounded the bad news.
>After the backlash the unified plan fell apart. Hungary ordered from Russia (I think it was), Germany broke the EU agreement of not negotiating supplies with suppliers the EU is negotiating with. The EU stole vaccine destined for Australia and threatened to steal vaccine destined for the UK. The UK agreed to share some of the output from Holland but the EU was flailing desperately at that point (I was in the EU still at this point waiting for the vaccine to become available so I could return to England). Various places were raided in the EU looking for vaccine intended for the EU but being exported (a big dud).
The technicality is that it was voluntary to join the EU procurement. In practice every member joined and even ditched their own plans, so it is highly unlikely the UK is so much better run that we would have opted out.
That the EU stole and threatened to steal vaccine removes doubt that they would have stolen from the UK supply if we remained and opted out of joint procurement (probably using membership as an excuse to legalise the theft).
I upset a lot of remainers when I point out this was an uncontested success of brexit, not because our government was great just because circumstances forced our gov to act independently and the EU couldnt use the cover of membership to justify confiscating our supply.
Yes and chose to return back to the UK instead of taking residency.
You already had residency, did you not? As an EU citizen. But due to Brexit you would have had to normalise your immigration status wrt the UK/EU Brexit agreement in the country you were resident. (Which country was it again?) Or leave.
Otherwise you'd have become an illegal immigrant and probably been asked to leave or been deported eventually. Right?
@AC
"You already had residency, did you not?"
Temporary residency after brexit. I received a letter asking me to make an appointment at *address* if I wanted it. So I did. Before I eventually decided to return to the UK I had another invite to go and apply for permanent residency.
I know it hurts your feefees which is why you keep bringing it up but I find it amusing.
<........"rather than the pisspoor "Let them die!" initial UK one.".....>
The UK did not have a "let them die" policy - either initially or subsequently (at least not in the universe in which I was living - perhaps you were in a parallel one?).
The UK NHS moved heaven and earth to accomodate and treat those infected, and vaccines were rolled out very quickly as they became available, starting with those most vulnerable to become infected and suffer the worst symptoms, and gradually extended to everybody being offered a dose as the quantities to do so became available. Don't forget that it took several months for the vaccines to be developed and tested before they could actually be administered.
If you think any differently, then I suggest you find some more reliable and accurate sources for your information.
The difference between temporary and permanent residency residency is five years. It's literally impossible for you to be offered both in the timeframe you've given, even if we suppose "after brexit" means the very beginning of the transition period.
Also, if you want temporary residency, it's up to you to initiate the process, not the host country to somehow magically find you amongst hundreds of thousands of tourists.
Before Brexit, British citizens would have applied for EU citizenship residency and during the transition period they would have applied for Withdrawal Agreement residency. A blue card was not on offer for British citizens until after the Withdrawal Agreement, but codejunky by their own admission wasn't living in France at that point.
@AC
"The difference between temporary and permanent residency residency is five years."
You can put that down to a terrible choice of words, remain after brexit not permanent residency. I do enjoy your apoplexy that they sent out the invitation letters. I am guessing you are one of those UK haters
@AC
"Because hiding the country makes everyone suspicious of your story. It's as if you don't want other commentards who may be resident in the same country contradicting your account."
And the mistake you make there is to think you matter. Your opinion is irrelevant and I just find your inability to accept or even just move on to be entertaining. Why does it bother you so much that this happened? Why does it affect you so much? I know you dont want your obsession being linked to your account so you seem to understand it is weird but I am intrigued at how stuck you are.
For my further amusement are you a fanatical remainer by chance? (voting remain or even missing the EU isnt fanatic, dedicated to the return to the EU and how doomed the UK is without it is fanatical, just for clarification).
Those expense scandals were trivial and could be (and were) dealt with by a small expenses oversight committee. Certainly not the sort of issue that would come up before a multinational entity to deal with. Even the PPE scandals, which were much more significant and more or less swept under the carpet, should have been dealt with internally.
... and a load of tory cunts sent to fucking jail
Fingers crossed: Ex-MP Craig Williams among 15 charged with betting offences
"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Any message can be seen as 'propaganda' when we don't agree with it. The question is does the alleged 'propaganda' basically tell the truth. If the answer is 'Yes', then it isn't 'propaganda', however much we may shout and squirm to say that it is.
'Propaganda', once upon a time, used to describe media deliberately intended to influence opinion—without implying anything about the integrity and honesty of the message. Those days are long past, the pool is now so polluted with cynicism and downright malice that 'propaganda' today is purely a pejorative description of media intended to manipulate opinion by deception, distortion, greed and fear.
So, if you think Mr. Trump is an excellent example of humanity, who we should all admire, trust, and find in him the way to a truly good and honourable life, you are certainly free to do so. Others may beg to differ, and possibly question your integrity and/or sanity.
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump continues to give plenty of people good reasons to be very wary and depressed about anything he says or does.
@Adair
"Any message can be seen as 'propaganda' when we don't agree with it"
Agreed. Some people still believe the exposed propaganda such as the dodgy dossier. In this case bashing Trump over the questionable 2020 election, trying to suggest there wasnt a censoring of information long after it has been exposed or even just the start of the propaganda- "The dark gothic manoeuvers of US President Donald Trump in shutting down criticism seemingly by a combination of punishment by diktat and perverting the invocation of freedom of speech is an exemplar for the ages.".
"'Propaganda', once upon a time, used to describe media deliberately intended to influence opinion"
We definitely have that established dont we?
"So, if you think Mr. Trump is an excellent example of humanity, who we should all admire, trust, and find in him the way to a truly good and honourable life, you are certainly free to do so. Others may beg to differ, and possibly question your integrity and/or sanity."
At no point does anyone need such delusion. Just by simple objective observation we can see a clear attempt to steer opinion (bash bad orange man).
"Meanwhile, Mr. Trump continues to give plenty of people good reasons to be very wary and depressed about anything he says or does."
He has definitely done some things to be unhappy about as well as some good things.
@Adair
"Nice bit of selective quoting there—the modern version of propaganda in action."
I couldnt in good conscience quote the rest of that line ("without implying anything about the integrity and honesty of the message") in relation to the article for the very reasons in my response. Or are you going to try and claim integrity and honesty in-
In this case bashing Trump over the questionable 2020 election, trying to suggest there wasnt a censoring of information long after it has been exposed or even just the start of the propaganda- "The dark gothic manoeuvers of US President Donald Trump in shutting down criticism seemingly by a combination of punishment by diktat and perverting the invocation of freedom of speech is an exemplar for the ages.".
But back to my response, can we not both agree to establishing the above is propaganda which describes media deliberately intended to influence opinion? Lets see what common ground we can find here? You dont have to have a good opinion of Trump to notice propaganda wedged into an article, nor to notice it looks out of place.
"He has definitely done some things to be unhappy about as well as some good things."
I'd be interested to see what those "good things" are. As someone on the left side of the pond, I have yet to see anything "good" that he's done.
Unless you consider taking more golf trips than any other president, or using his personal villa (on the government dime) for those golf trips as "good".
@alisonken1
"I'd be interested to see what those "good things" are. As someone on the left side of the pond, I have yet to see anything "good" that he's done."
If you are in the US and not seeing Trump doing anything good I am not sure how you are achieving that. Instead of your country being run by Walter (See Jeff Dunham) with theories of who's hand is up there you now have someone actually in charge.
> Serious reduction of illegals trying to cross the border.
> After Bidens open border policy a serious effort to round up the criminals and deport them.
> Here in the UK we have envy for what your leadership actually trying to reduce government waste.
> Releasing Kennedy Assassination Records.
> DEI being pushed out.
> Government leakers are being fired.
> Compensated government workers fired unded Bidens covid vaccination insanity.
> The arrest of the ISIS guy who organised the Abbey gate attack.
> Russia and Ukraine actually talking which was considered not an option under Biden (Trumps first term paused the invasion under Obama and Biden).
> Drill baby drill and ditching green madness.
> Ended the LNG export ban from Biden (isnt that the one Biden didnt know he signed?).
> Protection of children from 'transitioning'.
> Stop men invading womens sports.
> Only 2 genders.
> Military recruitment massively increased.
And so on.
@werdsmith
"So, obviously it is what you said then. Your form keeping is immaculate."
That is a long way to say you can read but not comprehend.
There are plenty Trump bashing articles, I dont say the contents are out of place even if I disagree with them. But putting some random Trump bashing in an article that seems to be about state security and its abuses doesnt seem to fit. The clumsy attempt to connect it seems to be Krebs losing his security clearance while being investigated for potentially being part of the misinformation campaign against Trump.
Meh
What would have been a good read had to devolve into another propaganda bit about Trump. You can say secret courts are bad without a tangent about orange man bad. Your examples being so bad I am surprised you didnt suggest there was an insurrection without any insurrectionists.
With this level of reasoning and writing (this being the latest in a long line of examples) it's no wonder you didnt(sic) graduate.
Whose only crime as I see it was to say that the 2020 election was the most secure ever is now under threat of 'Trump's Retribution' as President 'Thin Skin' is still griping about that election.
If some of the statements coming out of Trump's Reichstag are to be believed, then Mr Krebs might be the first US Citizen to be sent to El Salvador without 'due process' or if there is any, it will be done in secret and Drumpf does not want his dirty linen being exposed to the great unwashed MAGA cult.
Whose only crime as I see it was to say that the 2020 election was the most secure ever is now under threat of 'Trump's Retribution' as President 'Thin Skin' is still griping about that election.
But what if.. Krebs had evidence that there were security concerns around the electronic parts of that election, and officially denied them? Some concerns were shot down before any investigation, or investigations were rather shoddy at best. Or just officially denied before any investigation could be completed, so claims of misinformation becoming disinformation. Which is the problem with the whole infowars.
Which I think goes back to Georgia where a judge took the bold move to actually allow a reasonably impartial investigation into voting machine security, which I don't think has been completed yet. But there have been some issues found, like a rogue, foreign email address being found in one system. If we're going to rely on electronic voting for elections, then we should expect that their security is provable beyond any reasonable doubt. Not just take it on trust, and especially as many of us are IT professionals and know that trust in IT security can often be misplaced.
If some of the statements coming out of Trump's Reichstag are to be believed, then Mr Krebs might be the first US Citizen to be sent to El Salvador without 'due process' or if there is any, it will be done in secret and Drumpf does not want his dirty linen being exposed to the great unwashed MAGA cult.
You neatly demonstrate the problems with TDS and a woeful lack of objectivity. Most of the objections at the moment are about Team Trump investigating possible Democrat dirty tricks, and trying to block those investigations. Perhaps they doth protest too much? But then it's a problem with politics in that it's become extremely dirty.
"But what if" - What about . . . etc., etc. Come on Mr Eel link to something that supports you're suppositions. TDS, if it actually exists, is far more likely to be what you have as a Trump ass kisser.
Trump isn't the Messiah - he's a very naughty boy, and likely to come to a sticky end either via impeachment or something else.
If you're not sure how to post a link, you find a web page with the info you want to share, copy the page address (aka URL) and post it like I've done below:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-iowa-caucuses-video-god-b2478729.html
"But what if" - What about . . . etc., etc. Come on Mr Eel link to something that supports you're suppositions. TDS, if it actually exists, is far more likely to be what you have as a Trump ass kisser.
TDS obviously exists, it's just the afflicted are blind to the symptoms.. One of which is a descent into the toilet.
Aother is again a total lack of objectivity, or understanding how the judicial system or investigations work, or are supposed to work. So currently Trump has made an accusation against Krebs. Not much in the way of evidence either way has been presented, yet. He may be guilty, he may not be, neither you, I or the article's author knows the actual truth. Yet because of the way politics has become so polarised, and people have lost objectivity, they'll automatically jump to conclusions.
That extends to some rather basic stuff. People no longer in goverment have had their security clearances revoked. Surely this is a good thing? If they don't need them, there's no reason to keep them. If they're under official investigation, that is a pretty good reason to revoke them, then reinstate if cleared and they're still justified. Krebs' company has said it'll have no material effect on the business, yet somehow, this is meant to be an outrage.
Trump isn't the Messiah - he's a very naughty boy, and likely to come to a sticky end either via impeachment or something else.
I won't ask what you mean by 'something else'. But impeachment is something the Democrats fixated on for 8yrs, failed and will likely continue to fail at, at least until the mid-terms and maybe a reduction in Republicans majorities. Or.. maybe, just maybe the Democrats should forget about fixating on Trump and instead focus on, I dunno, actual policies that might win them votes?
shouldn't that be 4 years? So far they haven't tried it again, and it wasn't until the 3 year that they tried to begin with. As for evidence, he's used the courts to go after people for years. it's just on a new level now that he's president and the justice department ostensible works for him.
People no longer in goverment have had their security clearances revoked. Surely this is a good thing?
People not in government (or goverment) have security clearances all the time for their roles in various companies which process national security data. I'd wager there's probably more people outside government with clearances than inside it, thanks to the prevalence of outsourcing these days. So it's bad if someone has their clearance to do their new day job revoked on a whim by a President because they're upset with a decision they made years ago when they were in government.
Clearances should be held only when required, however revoking them for no reason when they are required is bad.
Clearances should be held only when required, however revoking them for no reason when they are required is bad.
Citation needed. We still don't know why Krebs's clearance was revoked. But it's not certain he needs it. So maybe he had TS/SCI clearance whilst in his government post, now that he isn't, he doesn't need it. The Trump administration is cracking down on leaks, and if people are leaking, they deserve to lose their clearance. Also in a previous article, Krebs's company said the revocation would make no material difference, and if they want to do more government work, they can get vetted if required.
When Trump's team went to court (60+ times) they failed to produce actual hard evidence that the election was stolen and consequently, the cases were thrown out. Even now, some 4+ years later there is still no real hard evidence of a rigged election.
That has not satisfied the Trump sycophants in Congress. This SAFE act will more then likely disenfranchise millions of married women of all political leanings and will be bad in low income areas (mostly Red) and with Native Americans and those serving in the military.
You ain't seen nothing yet.
2026, (if there are even elections because Trump may well declare martial law) will be a defining moment for democracy in the USA.
Those of us who are outside the USA know that the USA is on a slippery slope towards tyranny. Trump will IMHO never leave the Presidency unless it is when he is dead. Yes, you revolted because of Mad King George.... Time for Revolution No 2 to get rid of Mad King Trump (and Elon)
Even now, some 4+ years later there is still no real hard evidence of a rigged election.
Possibly because there was no real investigation. Investigating Krebs might provide some, or it might not, but you're doing the essential part of any good conspiracy theory and getting your official denial in early..
That has not satisfied the Trump sycophants in Congress. This SAFE act will more then likely disenfranchise millions of married women of all political leanings and will be bad in low income areas (mostly Red) and with Native Americans and those serving in the military.
But of course it will dear. Or not, but you don't even know the name of the Act. It's the SAVE Act. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. And it's all very odd. So the Democrats are ranting, much as you are, because married women, low income, minorities and military personnel are somehow not capable of producing identity documents to show they're entitled to vote. But this is nothing new from the Democrats given they used the same arguments when trying to prevent black people from voting and during their campaigning to end slavery, or segregation.
But if you actually stop and think about it.. How do you get legally married, without identity documents? And why are the Demorats singling out married women. Isn't that just a tad sexist? If you're on a low income and accessing benefits, don't you need ID for those? If you're serving in the military, the DoD will even check your identity, issue a new one and has long established processes to allow service people to vote whilst at sea, under it, or overseas.
So it doesn't really make any sense. It's difficult to do anything in the US without ID. The Democrats seem to think millions of Americans are too dumb to prove voting entitlement, even though US law specifies who is entitled to do that, along with responsibilities to maintain clean electoral rolls. Democrats even fielded teams to 'help' voters fill out forms, some even going above and beyond, and finding themselves in jail for a spot of ballot stuffing.
Strange the way the supposed Democrats don't actually seem to believe in the US Constitution, laws, or actually ensuring fair elections, isn't it?
Those of us who are outside the USA know that the USA is on a slippery slope towards tyranny. Trump will IMHO never leave the Presidency unless it is when he is dead. Yes, you revolted because of Mad King George.... Time for Revolution No 2 to get rid of Mad King Trump (and Elon)
Nikita Casap.. is that you? He seemed to have the same idea, and is currently awaiting trial for doing what you seem to be proposing. Or if you're not an American, then you just seem to be inciting people that are to rise up, and violently overthrow the democratically elected President. There's a word for that.. begins with an 'I'..
your right, you can't even go shopping without an id! isn't that what some maga gentleman said? Probably never shopped in their life. Obviously there are problems, i had to submit a birth certificate in order to get a learners permit and then a driving license. every license since has been renewed on the basis of that first presentation of a birth certificate. i had to find it again the last time i renewed as my first presentation is no longer valid or something like that. spent a day trying to find it, they said all they needed was the number, but then said they (the registry of motor vehicles) couldn't find it so had to take a picture and send that. this was at the end of covid when the offices were still closed. story i was told, an african american goes to vote. he's asked to read a pamphlet of the constitution, no problem he's educated and a professor. then presented with the bible and asked to read, no problem. then presented with something in a foreign language, no problem, he's educated. finally they pull out something in greek and ask him what it says, it says he replies "it says that it doesn't matter how well read or educated this black man is he's never going to get to vote". On the other hand jimmy carter a former president talked about how they finally were saying that relatives couldn't cast votes for dead family, i think after they'd been dead for more than 6 months as you couldn't know if they'd changed their mind after that long.
Possibly because there was no real investigation.
So you're admitting that despite 60+ court cases, hundreds of lawyers, innumerable hours of lawyer fees and mountains of time spent on this that no one in the Trump camp actually looked into these issues?
You're saying that they just frivolously launched court cases without having any evidence to back them up? Because that's what the rest of us believe, so maybe there's some hope for you yet.
So you're admitting that despite 60+ court cases, hundreds of lawyers, innumerable hours of lawyer fees and mountains of time spent on this that no one in the Trump camp actually looked into these issues?
No, because those are your words, and made entirely from straw. Many of the court cases were simply dismissed. Now the Trump camp is in charge though, they get a peek behind the curtains. Which might be the Krebs issue and possible false claims wrt election integrity.
You're saying that they just frivolously launched court cases without having any evidence to back them up?
No, and again this is what you're saying. Court cases a formalised arguments and there has to be some point of law to argue, and some evidence to support your claim. Then if the court case gets going, plaintiffs can depose witnesses and request disclosure to obtain evidence to support their case. Some cases have been successful, ie there have been prosecutions for ballot stuffing and other election irregularities, other cases were either rejected outright, or appeals denied.
But the issue is about election integrity, along with possible political interference. Democracies rely on voters being able to trust the results, and every recent election has had some controversy. So Al Gore and the 'hanging chads', or Clinton wailing that she was robbed and then her supporters firebombing Federal buildings, declaring independence for a few blocks in Seattle because Trump wasn't the 'legitimate' President.. And then of course Trump v Biden.
So there's some trust issues, especially as Biden got an unusally, and statistically anomalous number of votes. Plus new procedures and systems for voting, ie electronic voting and counting. The US has laws regarding voting, both at the State and Federal level. Only people entitled to vote should be allowed to vote. Ineligable votes should be discarded, and not counted. States have a legal duty to maintain accurate voter rolls to support this. Arizona cleaned their rolls by 50,000+ voters, and Arizona is usually a swing state. There were complaints about 'cured' votes, that may have violated election procedures, along with late votes being counted.
And of course the machines. We're mostly IT types, so we know those should always be trusted. It's also a challenge that isn't unique to the US. So the UK introduced a requirement to present ID at the polls. People grumbled, but mostly went along with it. There are aspects of creeping compulsion to force in national ID cards, but those are sadly becoming inevitable. The US is already conditioned to driving licences as ID, with driving licences already supporting additional 'entitlements' like CCW permits. Then the RealID Act making ID cards more secure, along with necessary for things like internal flights..
Or voting.
Which is why some of the objections are.. strange. People in the US already need ID. The States are already legally obligated to maintain clean voter rolls. Stick your RealID drivers licence in the voting machine, and if you're entitled to vote, then vote away. Still leaves issues around postal and absentee ballots, but it's a step in the right direction. Only the people that are entitled to vote get to vote. This is the fundamental of democracy. But for some reason, the Democrats hate the idea, and that doesn't really make sense. Rather than whining, or coming up with ludicrous claims like millions of married women being too stupid to follow process.. Why not just run projects to help with voter registration?
Biden got a large and statistically anomalous number of votes because people wanted Trump gone. And unfortunately went on to become such an embarrassment, that Trump got in again.
Trump is well known to be corrupt in business, and a very poor statesman, but the dems dropped the ball
@Martin-73
"Biden got a large and statistically anomalous number of votes because people wanted Trump gone."
And then all those anomalous voters vanished from the face of the earth. They were so anti-Trump they didnt cast a vote to keep him out. Even when Trump gained an incredible number of votes there were enough magic votes appearing late enough to certainly beat out Trump.
But we must not question it.
@alisonken1
"BTW - when a court dismisses a claim, it's because there's not enough or no evidence of a crime. Lack of evidence is a pretty strong indication."
It is difficult to have enough evidence of voting crimes because to consider a crime would damage confidence in voting. So there needs to be serious evidence for the court to take it seriously, even when Biden somehow gets a lot of magic votes that should be investigated.
"But, now that Trump is president again, you claim "new" evidence will be found? Wow."
After the 'interesting' win by Biden people became more interested in voting integrity and one election was nullified because of video evidence. In the recent election a Supreme Court was ignored and illegal votes were counted, the court ordered a recount. Ballot lists have been going through a serious clean up to remove those who should not vote legally! Seriously contested by democrats surprisingly.
Disbarment and suspension of the lawyers involved provides the clearest lens to view the whole corrupt effort through.
Or ask-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7vn1rymz38o
Donald Trump's administration is accusing New York Attorney General Letitia James of mortgage fraud, and has made a criminal referral to the the justice department seeking federal prosecution.
Oh, the irony. If true. Or ask Fani Willis-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fani_Willis#2020_election_influence_investigation
Or with Giuliani and well, Georgia again, whether any new investigation would allow him to reverse all, or part of the $148m judgement made against him in his defamation lawsuit. Curious how that might work given it cost Giulani most of his property. His disbarment could be lifted, but I'm guessing any compensation would end up coming from Georgia rather than the duo he defamed. Same could be true with the massive Fox payout over voting machines, but from memory, that involved false claims over Dominion's ownership rather than just the security of their machines.
At a minimum, the SAFE act is performative. Creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and supporters can say "of course its a real problem otherwise they wouldn't put a law in about it"
Again, it's the SAVE Act. But an example-
https://www.newsweek.com/arizona-partner-dhs-remove-names-voter-rolls-2059210
Counties in Arizona, a state that flipped to President Donald Trump in last year's election after narrowly supporting former President Joe Biden in 2020, have agreed to work with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to review their voter rolls and verify the citizenship status of voters, according to court documents reviewed by Newsweek.
Which has apparently lead to the removal of 50,000 voters from their rolls so far. In swing states, thats enough to, well, swing the vote. Democrats are of course screaming, and they would because they love swinging. Or something. Some of those 50,000 voters might lawfully be entitled to vote, so they can fix that by showing ID documents that pretty much every American has to have. I was once suprised that I had (or was asked to) show ID.
But don't you think it strange that the party that allegedly believes strongly in democracy doesn't want clean voter rolls, and believes it's prospective voters are too stupid to possess ID? Or is it possible that the contempt the Democrats show for the electorate is one of the reasons they got hammered in the last election..
You raise Arizona, I see you North Carolina where servicemen and women serving abroad are likely to have their vote wiped out just to get a MAGA Judge elected to the NC Supreme Court.
They can't take their ID to an election office if they are on a ship somewhere... yet US Federal Law permits them to vote while deployed. If that ain't voter suppression then I don't know what it.
Sorry Mr Eel, the GOP/GQP/MAGA are the party of voter suppression and district gerrymandering.
They can't take their ID to an election office if they are on a ship somewhere... yet US Federal Law permits them to vote while deployed. If that ain't voter suppression then I don't know what it.
You really are spectacularly clueless, aren't you? If they're on a US warship, I'd respectfully suggest that they already have ID confirming they're actually US citizens and entitled to vote. Same with any shore-based personnel because for some strange reason, illegal immigrants aren't just allowed to wander onto a base. ID again. So it's something the US military is well versed in dealing with given they frequently deploy personnel away from the US.
But try and find a clue here-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDWIOqG5yGk
Which covers voting in the US Navy..
Yeah, they had to spend 10 years in the Navy to get citizenship.
They were highly background check and constantly watched for subversive actions.
I was active duty on board ship and was very vocal about my right to be drafted and die with no right to vote in 1971.
My theme at the time was "Don't switch dicks(Nixon) in the middle of a screw, vote for Nixon in 72' ".
/No fuck'n sarcastic intended!
"If they're on a US warship, I'd respectfully suggest that they already have ID confirming they're actually US citizens and entitled to vote."
When civilians talk of military matters in a confident manner they nearly always come unstuck.
https://www.usa.gov/military-requirements
Tsk Tsk, Mr Eel.
When civilians talk of military matters in a confident manner they nearly always come unstuck.
Quite so. From your link-
U.S. citizens and some non-citizens can join the military. If you are not a U.S. citizen, you must:
Have a U.S. Permanent Resident Card (Green Card)
Tsk Tsk, Mr Eel.
Bad monkey. Not sure what point you were trying to make other than trolling. Are you seriously suggesting the US Military can't manage ID and voting for their upholders of democracy and the Constitution? Even after providing a link to a video explaining how the US Navy handles the process? Or even that the military encourages personnel to vote. After all, they'd be voting for the people who'll be trying to get them killed.
But you may also be blissfully unaware of this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act#Documents_for_boarding_flights
U.S. Department of Defense identification, including for dependents
which is coming into force from next month. Other aspects of the RealID Act make common ID cards like drivers licences more secure. But the DoD has their RealID compliant CAC-card that all US service personnel need to enter bases, or just buy stuff at the PX-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Access_Card#Visual_identification
The CAC can be used for visual identification by way of matching the color photo with the owner. This is used for when the user passes through a guarded gate, or purchases items from a store, such as a PX/BX that require a level of privileges to use the facility. Some states allow the CAC to be used as a government-issued ID card, such as for voting or applying for a drivers license.
So.. what's the problem again? If the US can already handle voting for service personnel, and even civilians in far-flung places like Antarctica, why do the Demorats think married women are too stupid to get ID and vote?
Your premise is that every serving member of the US armed forces is a full US citizen with voting rights.
No, it is not. Again that is your premise, along with the bizarre idea that US service men and women are somehow disenfranchised when they swear their oaths to defend the US. Again, I cited a video showing how voting worked in the US Navy, inclduding at sea. I provided you with details about RealID requirements and CAC.. Which you don't seem to believe exist and can confirm both identity and voting entitlement.
You have been corrected. Take it in good grace and withdraw, Sir.
Grace is sadly lacking in the pro-Democrats in these parts, as are clues, common sense, objectivity etc etc. The link you provided did not correct me, although if you'd actually read it, you might have realised how you were mistaken on this point, just as you were on your Brexit comments. So it's hardly suprising you're unable to tell the difference between real and fake news.
This post has been deleted by its author
"along with the bizarre idea that US service men and women are somehow disenfranchised when they swear their oaths to defend the US. "
At no point did I say this.
A slippery marine creature indeed. Try and hide your erroneous postings by secreting as much factless mucus as you want.
Good day, Sir.
if the cost of the ID documentation is above $0
then it's Voter suppression, especially on the poor.
It's the same right wing shit that tory cunts did in the UK. (in that case they made it easy for their pensioner voters to use ID, but made it tricky for younger voters)
Just because someone is living on the so-called bread line, from pay-day to pay-day, how is it anti-democratic to expect these people to take unpaid leave for the day, catch the omnibus to a government office on the other side of their city to obtain their document?
If I needed to obtain a voter identity card, I would send my butler to fetch it.
Yup......that would be the Home Office!!
But it's misdirection......completely false!
Any group can develop and deploy encryption.
And their private encryption can use ANY transport......email.......even Signal!! ....or Apple!! ....or Meta!!!
Reading list:
(1) Bruce Schneier
(2) Daniel Bernstein (samba20, chacha20, curve25519)
El Reg readers seem allergic to samples of E2EE, so I won't provide a sample.
Happy reading!! Private coding!! Take personal responsibility for privacy.....
.....and, of course, the Home Office fails to mention that most private messages have a value that declines SHARPLY with time...............
.....which is why the snoops need backdoors!!
.....and why private encryption is a VERY GOOD IDEA!!
Well, I have thought long and hard about this and here is my response, encrypted, of course ...
:2\E0\D7*\FCa[\8Dv\88\F0r\90 4\AB~[\DE\B7 .@\A8h\E6\D6b\BD\A9Z\83\D9M՝!\ACz\FELj\81CT\B0\90\81\D8$l\BDp+\qA4K\EC\FDw\C1\82\EB&\C0\98`\A1n\85\F0\FF\FA_\F2\DCi Vĭ;x\B9\B0\AC݅P\FF\A2\E1\FEiS\E6MA\F73\FD\B5\EC\00w]\CF!S33\99{\85.k AD<\FC\FDk\E3\C1\9Fk\ECjj\CA\E5\B9R\AE\A0\96\CA.\DC\FE\E3x\8C\B7B\8D\C7\EA\EA\8A \E9\E7?\8Ag[\B0b\F5\DA\B5\8E\A0\AE\84<\A1'\FFk\E2<\887Xǁ\BAN \FEQnBCk<Zy\F8\EFn\EF\FF\C7\A2\C9"\E8B\A6\AE]\BBzE\EE&\AE\EC\BEA)\B9\AB W\88\F3
\EC+*,\C2h\F0ф\CCX#\ADxhEʉCQ\94\CD\C45
\FDũ\8FJ+X:\D0 Be6\F3[\B0\B6`\B9\8E\F9\81g\E5j\F4\D3'\E7,_\B9&wu\p90\EA\AF(\95\A5\E0\9C)\AC\\F3P%\B8\FB\8[-X\B9|\85z\BF\EE
!\F3s V殑\80\4C\FF\D2\86D\D81\C1"<\BFJ\F8=\BF-\F0\A3\E3!\FC\8B`\81_ȼ\B9\ACZ\F1\A0$\8F6w\E0\A6'\83\E0\CCG \A5\8F\82a3\B0\E0y\B9\B2\9E\D8ݫ]*\A4\F0\D8:(\D2<\8Cz:c\DA\CA
I hope you all agree with item 3.
What you might have missed in Bruce Schneier's writing is how difficult it is to write faultless encryption, and how anyone can come up with encryption that they can't break. (Others, quite likely.)
Lots of home grown and inadequately peer reviewed encryption is likely a dream outcome for the snoops.
@Greybearded_old_scrote
True.....but the encryption does not need to be "faultless"!! Usually it only needs to survive attack for a short time!!...."...a value that declines SHARPLY with time...."
Yup....it does not have to be "faultless"......just tough enough to survive attack.....until the message is OUT OF DATE!!!
In many cases the METADATA is more valuable than the actual message content (ie: who sent messages from where to whom and when along with the recipient's web of contacts)
Even if an organisation is using burner phones there's almost always sufficient data to map out the connections and nexus points (both physical and electronic)
"Even if an organisation is using burner phones there's almost always sufficient data to map out the connections and nexus points (both physical and electronic)"
I read a story about a drug cartel boss that used a burner phone for business transactions, but tripped himself up by using his personal phone while standing in the same remote location moments afterwards which gave the cops the intel they needed. Some of the henchmen also used their phones at the same time/location which gave investigators even more of a picture when they pulled all of those records as well.
It's a real chore to make a burner phone work to maintain secrecy and doing it wrong negates any advantage since the contents of calls/texts may not be needed in evidence.
@Alan_Brown
Burner: Sender - Location, Yes; Sender ID: No; Encrypted message: No
Burner: Recipient - Location, Yes; Recipient ID, No; Encrypted message: No
VPN: Sender - Location: No; Sender ID: No; Encrypted message: No
VPN: Recipient - Location: Maybe; Recipient ID: Maybe; Encrypted message: No
Score so far out of 12: Yes: 2 No: 8 Maybe: 2
Metadata scores 2 out of 12.....and only for "Location".....does not sound like a huge success for metadata.
@Greybearded_old_scrote
....and of course the snoops ACTIVELY want ONLY FOUR encryption targets (Signal, Meta, Apple, Telegram).
How do you think they might deal with HUNDREDS of "less than faultless" encryption protocols?
No.....the misdirection is because they ONLY WANT FOUR protocols!!!........and they want backdoors in all four......................
Please provide some support for people who might take PERSONAL responsibility for their own privacy.
No.....the misdirection is because they ONLY WANT FOUR protocols!!!........and they want backdoors in all four....
Which is where it all gets a bit pointless. It may catch low hanging fruit like Waltz et al, but does nothing for the more serious & organised criminals who'll just come up with their own alternatives, as they did with EncroChat and alternatives, once it became obvious that EncroChat was thoroughly compromised. So the arms race will continue. Then again, our useless shower of sh*te are still scrabbling around for ways to justify their DigitalID plan. So if we're not careful, we'll end up with that, and only officially approved apps shall be used.
Why would you need to invent your own encryption? Plenty of "unbreakable" open source implementations available, pick your flavour. All you need is a secure channel for exchanging the keys. I suggest a MicroSD card embedded in a postcard, if meeting in person is not possible. Or if you need to keep a digital distance, embed it in a lolcat picture on imgur. Or in the audio track of a Youtube video. Air-gap the crypting system. It's so simple it makes me wish I had a reason to do it. Sadly I'm not involved in organised crime or terrorism or kiddyfiddling, so I'll just have to put up with being snooped on.
@Lomax
Quote: ".......... exchanging the keys.............."
Nope! Some of us use a Diffie/Hellman protocol....NO ONE GETS TO SEE THE KEYS!!
Even Signal does it this way!!!!
Sharing keys (as in PGP) is so....so.....so.....twentieth century!! Get with the program!!!
.....Diffie/Hellman.........curve255219..........ABSOLUTELY ZERO PUBLISHED KEYS.....either public or private!!!
.....new random keys for EVERY MESSAGE!!!!
.....where have you been living?
This post has been deleted by its author
Keir Stamer's government does represent a step away from orange-nepo-babyism, and impunity exemplified in the UK by Boris Johnson. They have not returned to the Blair/Cameron era (which was bad enough in it's own way) where whilst there were many missteps, and some of this abuse, most norms were observed. If/when investigative journalists discovered the misdeeds leaders simply admitted defeat. Either due to inertia, a desire for continuity in civil service, or something else, the UK remains less inclined to observe democratic norms and call out fascism than it was before Boris. I know some people will say the electorate thinks that way, but outside of the ideas of migration and Brexit, which the UK electorate were misled on, people in the UK still support democracy, the rule of law, and facts, even if the government does not. The Tories were worse and it's a two party system so who knows what is next.
"Either due to inertia, a desire for continuity in civil service, or something else, the UK remains less inclined to observe democratic norms and call out fascism than it was before Boris."
ALL the anglophone countries have drifted this way due to the enormous cultural influence of the USA. Don't forget that fascism existed LONG before Mussolini coined the term, in the form of the United Confederate States of America - which is what Hitler mostly based Nazi on, with added Eugenics, Flag worship (complete with the bellamy salute), Crow and "mission from god", but with significantly decreased racial purity laws (Even Nazis felt that the American miscengenation laws were over the top)
Obtrivia: "Nazi" is dreived from a pet name of "Ignatio" - the Bavarian equivalent of an uneducated catholic redneck farm boy, which was their support base.
Nazis only ever referred to NSDAP or "the party" and took great offence at being called Nazis
Don't forget that fascism existed LONG before Mussolini coined the term, in the form of the United Confederate States of America - which is what Hitler mostly based Nazi on, with added Eugenics, Flag worship (complete with the bellamy salute), Crow and "mission from god", but with significantly decreased racial purity laws (Even Nazis felt that the American miscengenation laws were over the top)
Yep. I think this is why understanding the background and context is an important part of the whole 'never again' thing, and avoiding sleepwalking back into fascism, or similar repressive/authoritarian forms of government. The German goverment published an authorized version of Mein Kampf that explains a lot of the background, and how things like eugenics were depressingly popular amongst European 'intellectuals' of the day. And those ideas spread to the USA with the spread of books, pamphlets or just people. So the US ended up with people like Henry Ford, H.P.Lovecraft or most of the Southern Democrats. Plus the way the NSDAP borrowed heavily from other cultures, and some are still borrowing from them. So the 'Bellamy Salute' borrowed from a form of Roman salute, and the US form of government borrowed heavily from the Romans as well. Just ignore the slide into decadence and corruption that tends to befall many empires that did much the same.
Obtrivia: "Nazi" is dreived from a pet name of "Ignatio" - the Bavarian equivalent of an uneducated catholic redneck farm boy, which was their support base.
Yep. Also why I'm not a fan of using similar terms in similar ways to denigrate or dehumanise outgroups. Orcs, vatniks, khokhols, MAGA Republicans.. So many names for the intolerant to choose from.
"Secret courts have no place in a democracy." That phrase says it all, doesn't it?
And in the U.S. it's even worse. There are secret laws there as well. No one (except some lawmakers that have to rubber-stamp them) knows what's in them. No opportunity for journalists and the public to even discuss the implications of these laws.
The wheels are coming off of democracy in the Western world. How long before we resemble something like Turkiye, China or even North Korea?
@StrangerHereMyself
"And in the U.S. it's even worse. There are secret laws there as well. No one (except some lawmakers that have to rubber-stamp them) knows what's in them. No opportunity for journalists and the public to even discuss the implications of these laws."
You missed it being even worse in the US when Pelosi said- "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”
Madam, you are being disingenuous, which is so out of character for you.*
*Obviously this is a little joke on my part. You are, based on your own musings, a woman who has something-of-the-night about them. And who likes to deal in half-truths and moonlight.
"Secret courts have no place in a democracy." That phrase says it all, doesn't it?
Not really. Secrets still have a place in any functioning democracy. Problems really only arise when you can't trust either the courts, the government, or the democracy... Which is really the problem we have right now. Government obviously doesn't want to reveal exactly what they're asking Apple to do because then criminals will be able to work around it. But then government is also taking a very unhealthy interest in reducing people's privacy and security.
>” Which is really the problem we have right now. Government obviously doesn't want to reveal exactly what they're asking Apple to do because then criminals will be able to work around it”
It is notable that Apple are not contesting a specific order, instead they are focusing on the overall intent and the provisions of the Online Safety Act that came into force this month, that require companies to provide “backdoors” to encryption. The Government is doing as it always does in security matters and trying to keep everything out-of-sight. Hence given the provisions of the OSA, it obvious why the Judge would have concluded matters need to be aired in open court.
I wonder if part of the defense is that currently, we don’t know how compromised some encryption/services are and hence there is a risk this case could make this public, just like making the breaking of Enigma public effectively killed off a multi decade long HMG eavesdropping operation as until then many, including governments thought Enigma was unbroken…
The Government is doing as it always does in security matters and trying to keep everything out-of-sight. Hence given the provisions of the OSA, it obvious why the Judge would have concluded matters need to be aired in open court.I wonder if part of the defense is that currently, we don’t know how compromised some encryption/services are and hence there is a risk this case could make this public, just like making the breaking of Enigma public effectively killed off a multi decade long HMG eavesdropping operation as until then many, including governments thought Enigma was unbroken…
Yep. It's also a tad unfortunate when government decided on Online Safety Act so an acronym clash with the Official Secrets Act. But part of the new Act puts obligations on CSPs that effectively require them to be able to break E2E encryption, nominally to stamp out CP.. Which is outwardly reasonable, but obviously could be used for other purposes. So elements are hidden in plain sight, while others are classified under the OSA. The Telecommunications Act places a requirement on any licensed Telco to provide lawful intercept capability, but how that is implemented and operated is mostly classified.
I think this is why the court case has been argued for some elements to be heard in closed court and others in public, ie the details regarding the obligations the government is trying to impose should remain secret. But I think it's also fair to say that encrypted services will be compromised. Some already are, ie parasocial media companies that only encrypt user-server already monitor messages so they can flog ads, profile users, train AIs etc. If they can already do that, then government also wants lawful intercept capability. And of course there's the old adage that there is no such thing as privacy on the Internet.. Especially in the UK, EU, US.
"And in the U.S. it's even worse. "
Ed Snowden has said he would return to the US and stand for charges, but was told that he would not be allowed to show or discuss any information he was accused of leaking. The US government very clearly told him that he would not be allowed to make a defense. That made it a no-brainer to stay in Russia, obtain citizenship, get married, have kids, etc. The other path would have been, at a minimum, a lifetime sentence in prison with a chance of execution.
I have to agree that there's no point in trying to keep things secret that have already been published. While I can see keeping Official Secrets for a period of time, they don't often remain secret and if somebody's life/freedom in on the line, keeping the secret is a disservice to the meaning of a democracy where the State exists in service to the citizen. "The greater good" is a slope covered in ice.
I have to agree that there's no point in trying to keep things secret that have already been published.
It's the nature of the beast. Until things are declassified, they remain secret.
..and if somebody's life/freedom in on the line, keeping the secret is a disservice to the meaning of a democracy where the State exists in service to the citizen.
Sometimes, citizens (or subjects) are the lives being protected by those secrets. Or the lives of allies.
"The greater good" is a slope covered in ice.
Yep, but slopes that governments have been skating for centuries. Balance is rather key.
"But then government is also taking a very unhealthy interest in reducing people's privacy and security."
There's a name for what they're doing even if with the best intentions: Noble Cause Corruption (aka: the ends justifies the means)
It's THE most common entry point for massive levels of corruption to creep into an organisation (especially policing) and extremely hard to get rid of once it's taken root.
“[T]he House Un-American Activities Committee under Senator Joseph McCarthy persecuted thousands of people”
McCarthy, a member of the US Senate, had no effect on the US House of Representatives, or vice versa. Starting in 1953, Tailgunner Joe chaired the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, through which he carried out the worst of his depredations. HUAC was its own, entirely independent can of worms.
I completely agree with the article. The UK government—any government—has no right to intercept private, end-to-end encrypted communications. Allowing backdoors sets a dangerous precedent that weakens everyone’s privacy and data security.
The “but it's for the children” argument sounds good, but it's just a distraction. Emotionally powerful but technically hollow. I’m glad Apple pushed back. It’s a rare reminder that companies still understand that security without privacy is just surveillance in disguise.
I also agree with Vice President Vance here, though he may not be the most popular figure here—he’s right to call out the UK government’s attempts to stifle freedom of speech. Somebody has to - it’s a fundamental, as-yet-unresolved problem.
I completely agree with the article. The UK government—any government—has no right to intercept private, end-to-end encrypted communications. Allowing backdoors sets a dangerous precedent that weakens everyone’s privacy and data security.
Ermm.. Yes it does. EncroChat again, which resulted in a lot of arrests for drug & arms smugglers, murderers and more. That also established that the police and security services can, if necessary create backdoors that weakened a lot of serious & organised criminals privacy and data security. It also involved a fair bit of legal wrangling in closed courts to determine the extent of surveillance, and why doing this stuff in secret is rather important.
But it's also back to the trust argument. TPTB really aren't interested in our comms, unless they have evidence that we're up to no good. Then they can apply for a warrant presenting evidence, and have a peek if the warrant is granted. Unless of course we can't trust our governments, and they decide to do a spot of AI profiling.. But there are hundreds, if not thousands of data rapists already slurping up every scrap of PII they can find, just to try and flog us stuff we probably don't want. So somewhat ironic that Apple is objecting to LEAs.
"TPTB really aren't interested in our comms, unless they have evidence that we're up to no good. "
That’s a comforting thought, but honestly, it feels a bit naïve. The idea that governments always act with perfect restraint and never misuse their powers just doesn’t hold up.
I guess we’re not a full-on dictatorship (though some would debate that after the last few legislative rounds), and we don’t like to think of the UK as a banana republic - yet - weakening end-to-end encryption puts us on that slippery slope.
The point isn’t whether the government is currently snooping on our everyday chats—it's about allowing them to. Once that door is open, it stays open. Not just for “the right people” either, but for anyone who can get through. That includes hostile states, criminals, and YES, potentially even a future UK government that decides to be even less respectful of personal sovereignty and due process.
EncroChat is always wheeled out as an example, but that was a specific, targeted operation, not a justification for breaking encryption across the board. We don't zap everyone's privacy just to catch a few bad actors. That’s not how a democracy should work.
We shouldn’t trade away fundamental rights and secure infrastructure just because “someone might be doing something wrong.” To paraquote Ben Franklin, anyone that does deserves neither and will lose both.
Slippery slope arguments aren’t about predicting doom tomorrow—they’re about recognizing patterns. The UK is ticking a lot of boxes: erosion of privacy rights, attempts to undermine encryption, expanding surveillance powers without meaningful oversight... It’s not full-blown authoritarianism, but don't kid yourself the trajectory doesn’t exist.
Waiting until it’s irreversible is a great way to ensure it’s irreversible.
The point isn’t whether the government is currently snooping on our everyday chats—it's about allowing them to. Once that door is open, it stays open. Not just for “the right people” either, but for anyone who can get through. That includes hostile states, criminals, and YES, potentially even a future UK government that decides to be even less respectful of personal sovereignty and due process.
My point is that we've always allowed lawful interception, going as far back as 'black rooms' that could intercept people's letters. Also the door doesn't always stay open. So some years back, the Conservatives cracked down on RIPA and reduced the number of entities that could conduct surveillance because it wasn't reasonable and proportionate wrt privacy. But sure, there are risks, so dear'ol HMG is busily making enemies that are very serious & organised, like the current electronic war with Russia. We hack them, they hack us, that's just the way the Great Game gets played. And then we have to trust our government to keep our secrets safe.. Which might be a very misplaced trust.
EncroChat is always wheeled out as an example, but that was a specific, targeted operation, not a justification for breaking encryption across the board. We don't zap everyone's privacy just to catch a few bad actors. That’s not how a democracy should work.
But it's exactly how it works. We trust our governments to keep us safe, which again might be a misplaced trust. But although EncroChat was a great example of why these powers are sometimes necessary, it's not the only example. So there's often a bunch of reports about very violent criminals caught and convicted, based in part on their digital evidence. So stuff like people having searched for 'How to committ the perfect murder' and then killed someone. Digital evidence is often used. But sometimes after the fact, ie it would be best to catch someone before they murder.. Which is a risk if the ability to profile is extended, along with stories like a plan to use AI to detect pre-crimes.
Your reply is full of confident justifications and historical references. All well and good but relies heavily on trust and a vague sense of inevitability.
Comparing black rooms steaming open letters to undermining end-to-end encryption across the digital world is like comparing a magnifying glass to a satellite-mounted death laser. The potential scale for abuse is wildly different now.
Your “trust the government” angle works if that trust is earned and held to account (spoiler alert: it rarely is).
Even if today’s leaders were saints (they’re not), tomorrow’s might not be. The infrastructure you build today doesn’t care who’s in power tomorrow.
EncroChat was a targeted operation. Great. That’s what good intelligence looks like—cold, clinical, targetted, evidence-based, proportionate. Turning that into a rationale for weakening encryption at large is like saying, “This scalpel worked well, so now let’s use a chainsaw for every diagnosis.” That “Great Game” stuffis fine in spy thrillers, but is not a basis for dismantling citizens’ rights. You don’t win cyberwars by making your own systems more vulnerable.
What you're advocating for is not public safety, it’s predictive authoritarianism.
Your reply is full of confident justifications and historical references. All well and good but relies heavily on trust and a vague sense of inevitability.
All security does this.
Even if today’s leaders were saints (they’re not), tomorrow’s might not be. The infrastructure you build today doesn’t care who’s in power tomorrow.
Yep. That's just one of those things that comes with democracy. Maybe in a few years time, the UK might elect a tyranical goverment that decides summary executions are a great way to deal with the housing crisis. Governments still have to obey laws and can be held to account. Maybe lawyers will sue the government for violating UN HR principles. Maybe the future government will decide to opt out of the UN so beatings can continue until morale improves. Maybe that would lead to the population withdrawing consent and removing a tyranical government by force.
Maybe a foreign government might try to precipitate that by using agents, or agent provocateurs. And maybe our security services will use lawful surveillance and intercept powers to catch and prosecute those foreign agents.. As they've done a couple of times recently.
Turning that into a rationale for weakening encryption at large is like saying, “This scalpel worked well, so now let’s use a chainsaw for every diagnosis.” That “Great Game” stuffis fine in spy thrillers, but is not a basis for dismantling citizens’ rights. You don’t win cyberwars by making your own systems more vulnerable.
I hate to break it to you, but one of your citizens' rights is the right to be investigated, if you're suspected of committing a (serious) crime. Which is again a trust and proportionality thing. So we've just had the OSA and a new swath of 'hate' crimes. Those are currently law, until the judiciary kicks it back as unworkable, or lawyers argue elements are illegal and the Act has to be amended or repealed. Because it's law, law enforcement has to, well, enforce it.
Laws, or supporting laws might indeed make systems more vulnerable. Like in the US, where CALEA seems to have been compromised. But CALEA was rather public. You can go to say, Cisco's website and read documentation about how to configure and troubleshoot it. You can download CALEA compliant versions of IOS and disassemble it to look for vulnerabilities. And of course if you're China, you're making the hardware.
Slow clap. It got hacked. I am Jack's lack of suprise, especially that it took this long. Whch is a bit of an Apple scenario, and why some of this stuff gets argued in closed court because often the details around what TPTB want are classified. But it's something goverments, and government agencies are very experienced with. They want the ability to lawfully intercept suspicious and criminal activity. They've been doing this for centuries and generally understand the risks.. Which are often internal, and there are often arrests and prosecutions of people caught looking at things they shouldn't. People (and systems) really do watch the watchmen.
What you're advocating for is not public safety, it’s predictive authoritarianism.
I'm not advocating that at all, I think it's very dangerous, and I've campaigned against things like Labour's ID Card plans.. Not so much for the card, but more the all-seeing database that was planned to sit behind it. I think some predictive stuff can be extremely dangerous, especially given issues like FMR & FRR, or just the lack of adequate compensation, if the prediction is wrong. Other tools like SNA (Social Network Analysis) and traffic analysis can be very powerful and useful in rounding up gangs planning drug deals, murders, or other serious & organised criminals. But for those to work, and criminals caught, intercepts are needed.
:-) Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, eh Liz ‽ .......... Bravo, and Welcome. What kept you so late to the Coalition of the Oven-Ready, Willing and Almightily Enabled Upstart Startup Party ......... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/apr/15/liz-truss-to-launch-uncensored-social-network-to-counter-mainstream-media
And yes ..... that is not nonsense no matter how much you might dislike it and downvote it.
And if a GOD’s Honest Truth be told to Renegade Rogues and SMARTR IntelAIgently Designed Entities ..... an Absolute FCUKing Knightmare for Parliamentarians, Roundheads and Cavaliers and Mainstream Media BullShitters alike to have to engage with and do hopeless vainglorious battle against ...... which many might say be their richly deserved just desserts.
Changed days in deed, indeed ..... and apparently as is so oft usually the case, at the most awkward of disruptive times too. :-)
Rupert, Hi,
The sad and inescapable fact is that both and all current incumbent domestic and foreign secret intelligence services tolerate, and therefore by inference and non-interference do they support and reinforce government designed actions and programs which cause increased division and further hardships rather than them being a smarter source and independent force for a greater unifying good providing benevolence, which is a dirty rotten crying shame that an ignorant and arrogant humanity has to wear and bear.
And now they would seek to do battle against AI and Virtual Machines too .... and in so doing prove Einstein more right than wrong with the information he shared in these two quotes ....
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.and
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
If you see your future media and leaderships struggling and proposing to wage cyber war against AI and Virtual Machines you will not have greater sorrows to seek if they do not desist and you assist and do not form an effective resistance and deadly force against them.
That is the honest reality which truly threatens your Earthly existence .... so beware, and be aware of such a clear and present danger and of that which is required of you to avoid that of which you have no prior knowledge ..... unknown unknowns.
Often as in this article, the term "The state" is used. More properly it is individuals in power positions rather than the anonymous "state". Using state implies a non stoppable machine like process rather than individuals abusing and over reaching or changing the use of power in ways that are undemocratic and harmful to the very people the government is charged with ensuring their well being and protection.
While individuals are mentioned, Trump, McCarthy the emphasis should always be on the individuals abusing the power rather than some amorphous, unstoppable state apparatus.
For the people, by the people
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
