Reply to post: Re: Orwell alert!

Home Sec Amber Rudd: Yeah, I don't understand encryption. So what?

Bernard M. Orwell
Big Brother

Re: Orwell alert!

Hello... Did someone call my name?

Look, lets not fool ourselves here any longer. I've seen some people ask why the war against encryption is a thing; the governments response is "because terrorism, ofc!". This has led others to ask why there isn't a similar approach to cars, knives, the postal service or anything else that terrorists have demonstrably used in terror attacks. Furthermore, we are told that mass surveillance and intrusion into our private comms. is essential "because terrorism, ofc", despite the evidence being that such terrorists are often "known to the security services" or used unencrypted messaging (as in the Bataclan and Westminster attacks) or runners with notes (as in AQ and ISIS known methodology).

When our tech experts poke their head above the parapet to question the move against encryption, when political analysts suggest that perhaps government policy is off the mark, when the EUHCR and the supreme courts rule against surveillance and when intelligence specialists criticize government strategy the answer is changed to "we're BORED WITH EXPERTS, isn't EVERYONE? Eh?!"

This isn't about terrorism, is it? This is about social control. This is about freedom of speech and association. Most of all, this is about the internet and modern communications. It *terrifies* the powers-that-be.

The internet is without borders, at least in the traditional geopolitical sense. It facilitates instant communication and thus, instant coordination of like-minded persons. It sees censorship as a fault and routes around it. It cannot be taxed. It cannot be silenced. It is beyond the control of politicians.

And that's why they denigrate it and seek to undermine it. Its why they want to censor it and monitor it, because, like the printing press before it, the freedom of knowledge and interchange of ideas that it represents; the very evolution of thought that is the inevitable consequence of so many people freely communicating, is the harbinger of the end of "traditional politics".

Their politics. Their power.

So, we must defend net neutrality, we must resist censorship and state control, we must celebrate our freedom of speech and association, and we must retain our encryption and develop the right to be forgotten. It's that, or we allow a tiny elite minority to determine all those things for us.

Except it won't be for us. It'll be for them. Which is just how they've had it for centuries.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020