Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AArdvark]

Nice follow up on the OP question after 'dubious' article has been responded to by Paul Bernal, law lecturer at the University of East Anglia and author of Internet Privacy Rights: Rights to Protect Autonomy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/24/silicon_valley_helping_techsavvy_jihadists/

Even the Comments are worth a read !!
Reference made to article by Frankie Boyle that is actually this side of sane and not 'Funny/Extreme/Cringeworthy' by FB standards at all !! (See Below)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/frankie-boyle-fallout-paris-psychopathic-autopilot

Edit:
Nice quote which has some Truth in it IMHO.

We’re always dealing with terror in retrospect – like stocking up on Imodium rather than reading the cooking instructions on your mini kievs. The truth is that modern governments sit at the head of a well-funded security apparatus. They are told that foreign military adventures put domestic populations at risk and they give them the thumbs up anyway. Charitably, the safety of their populations just aren’t of great concern to them. Realistically, domestic terrorist attacks play into their agenda: they allow them to grab ever more authoritarian powers with which to police their increasingly unequal and volatile societies. Of course, no one wants to believe that our government isn’t interested in our safety, just like everyone really wanted to believe that Jimmy Savile cared about whether kids got to meet Duran Duran.

[sevenlayermuddle]

Nice follow up on the OP question after 'dubious' article has been responded to by Paul Bernal, law lecturer at the University of East Anglia and author of Internet Privacy Rights: Rights to Protect Autonomy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/24/silicon_valley_helping_techsavvy_jihadists/

Even the Comments are worth a read !!
Reference made to article by Frankie Boyle that is actually this side of sane and not 'Funny/Extreme/Cringeworthy' by FB standards at all !! (See Below)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/frankie-boyle-fallout-paris-psychopathic-autopilot

Edit:
Nice quote which has some Truth in it IMHO.

We’re always dealing with terror in retrospect – like stocking up on Imodium rather than reading the cooking instructions on your mini kievs. The truth is that modern governments sit at the head of a well-funded security apparatus. They are told that foreign military adventures put domestic populations at risk and they give them the thumbs up anyway. Charitably, the safety of their populations just aren’t of great concern to them. Realistically, domestic terrorist attacks play into their agenda: they allow them to grab ever more authoritarian powers with which to police their increasingly unequal and volatile societies. Of course, no one wants to believe that our government isn’t interested in our safety, just like everyone really wanted to believe that Jimmy Savile cared about whether kids got to meet Duran Duran.

Haven't and probably won't read in detail, but does appear to be same old, same old.

When will these people learn that public attitudes have moved on?

[AArdvark]

When will these people learn that public attitudes have moved on?

News to me

[sevenlayermuddle]

When will these people learn that public attitudes have moved on?

News to me

Try reading a different newspaper.   

Or better still, just don't read a newspaper, online or otherwise, it really is optional. There's plenty information out there nowadays to form your own opinion on matters, rather than just swallow what agenda the leftist/rightist journalists happen to think will get themselves the most readers.

For the kind of sensationalist stuff in the Reg' and Guardian, I see a common journalistic style is emerging...

Prefix each paragraph by a name, as if it were a famous name, so as to make the reader feel inadequate for having never heard of it.   Then throw in a job title, carefully chosen to sound authoritative, and yet be completely meaningless as it often implies no formal qualifications.  And then let rip with some extremist twaddle... 

[AArdvark]

Your reply is so full of assumptions, I don't know where to start. 

The only thing I can pick out is the implication that the newspapers are biased, which is true and widely known, I think.
This is why most people will compensate for the bias of each newspaper they may read.

Try reading a different newspaper.   

I read many including Foreign ones and also watch News on various channels, these are the same places other people get their news from as far as I know !!
They all have their biases and political leanings but the basic facts do tend to be the same.
Additionally, I am capable of reading around the wider historical contexts of the News assisted by access to Historical Texts/Documents and critiques via the internet & other places, much like you.
Additionally, foreign newspapers often give you a different spin on events as the known biases in the UK can sometimes be 'too predictable' and the UK does have historical biases as well like the rest of the world.
 
The fact I may quote 'The Register' is not to be taken as proof that is all I read.
It may be proof that I am lazy and quote from the 'first thing' that comes to hand, as it raises interesting (to me) points. 

The addition of the name and title was a 'quote' to anticipate the question "Who he ?" [Note it is as per the original article]
There was no implication of any authority as I read it just setting of the context of 'who' the person was, much like
I would consider the person to be just 'slightly less' of a 'nobody' than the original author of the 1st article*. IMHO [If we were applying some sort of scale.]
[*Clare Foges former Speech writer for David Cameron]

But back to the question I raised re: ... public attitudes moved on
It would imply that there has been wide spread coverage of popular support for the removal of encryption (the argument/point that was being highlighted in the 1st article).
This I have not seen, hence the 'News to me' comment.
There has been no informed popular support for this in anything I have read.
There may have been some 'knee-jerk' reactions in certain press which is NOT representative of anything due to the aforementioned known biases.

At the end of the day your reply is more a statement of your personal view rather than the 'News' that 'public attitudes have moved on'.
Of course, I could be wrong and you are speaking for millions of people whom you have canvassed for their opinion after clearly explaining the issue at hand. 

[sevenlayermuddle]

Yawn.

[AArdvark]

If you are so tired of the subject why do you reply at all ?
A simple ignore would save much more of your time which would provide more opportunities for monosylabic discourse elsewhere.
I won't wait for your witty reasoned reply as I am now also tired of this game.
But, do feel free, when you are less tired, to reply to any other of my future posts with the same level of wit, reason and brevity as it is so enlightening to all while saving everyone's reading time.
I know I will be waiting with bated breath for the next word you are able to type on any subject which is worthy of your attention.
At this point, I would suggest you have a lie down as the effort expended to read this reply may have fatigued you again.



Sent from my LG G3 via Tapatalk (Typos & bad formatting are free)

[sevenlayermuddle]

@AA, sorry if I have offended but maybe you need to accept that no matter how often and how emphatically you express a view, and in how many words of prose, you cannot assume that others will ever be persuaded to that view?   

I still think that public attitudes have moved on, as regards worries over government interference in IT, surveillance, etc.   That is my view, and I am entitled to it.    I could justify it on the basis that I have never once in recent weeks walked into a pub and found it to be the subject of debate, and never once overheard people on trains or busses giving it a mention.   But it remains just my point of view, your point if view is valid too.   

[sevenlayermuddle]

By way of promoting a more constructive debate, may I pose once again the following specific question to those who are opposed to encryption controls.  I have asked it before, in different ways, but yet to see any real answers...

Question:    Obviously encryption is important for banking and the likes.  And it is needed for journalists so they can report on the world's goings on.   It has many other valid uses.   But can anybody provide a valid hypothetical example of a simple message exchange between two ordinary law-abiding people, that actually needs to be strongly encrypted, to the extent that not even nation-state resources can crack it?

[Dray]

In a democracy the right to privacy is fundamental.

[sevenlayermuddle]

In a democracy the right to privacy is fundamental.

My question really was, under what circumstances would it actually be needed?

In years gone by privacy was achieved by whispering, even though there might in theory be a spy with his ear pressed against a jam jar on the other side of the wall.   Or more latterly, higher tech equivalents thereof.   And until a few years ago, that was good enough, if the spies really wanted to listen then what the heck, good luck to them.   I just don't understand what's changed, and why we should worry any more now than before?

[roseway]

Ordinary people like you and me have all sorts of information which we don't want getting into the wrong hands. The reason I want to keep it secure from everyone is that I don't trust anybody to keep it secure from the bad guys. It's all very well to talk about the 'nation state' as if it's a totally trustworthy entity, but it isn't. It's populated by human beings who make mistakes (or are simply dishonest). The more people who have access to our confidential information, the more likely it is that there will be a leak.

Total security is an illusion of course, but I want the right to do everything in my power to keep my personal information (and that of my family and friends) as secure as possible.

[oldfogy]

But also don't forget, by developing these programs the encryption keys can then be passed to the powers-that-be to keep track and decrypt with ease what is going on.

[WesBez7]

Apply the logic to owning a gun. Are gun and weapons manufacturers helping jihad

Also why do you have to have something to hide in order to be allowed privacy.

Caught by association. Finding who they associate with. Not a free reign on info.

[AArdvark]

@AA, sorry if I have offended but maybe you need to accept that no matter how often and how emphatically you express a view, and in how many words of prose, you cannot assume that others will ever be persuaded to that view?   

I am offended by your constant mis-representation by implication or convenient mis-understanding of my statements.
Also by the fact that you presented your opinions as facts, which I challenged to receive a rude response.

I am so glad that you apparently 'now' have agreed that the statements made are 'opinions' which is one of the points I was making.

To clarify, where is the assumption coming from that I have any expectation of persuading anyone ?
I am stating my opinions, just like you, and opinion rarely changes anyone's mind while facts often do. [In my experience]
Are you assuming that someone will be persuaded by your opinions ? 
Maybe that is where the confusion is coming from.!!

Also I am not aware that there is a limit on expressing your opinion (repetition (numerical), wordcount or otherwise) though I am sure I will be told soon enough.
I would suggest that the optimum wordcount is somewhere between 1 and 'a big number', taking into account the need to express your views in a form that makes sense to yourself & your audience while constrained by available time to produce the 'missive'.
All other constraints are with the reader and cannot be 100% anticipated and compensated for, I have found.
That is usually the purpose of the facility to reply, which is also not constrained by (repetition (numerical), wordcount or otherwise).

I still think that public attitudes have moved on, as regards worries over government interference in IT, surveillance, etc.   That is my view, and I am entitled to it.    I could justify it on the basis that I have never once in recent weeks walked into a pub and found it to be the subject of debate, and never once overheard people on trains or busses giving it a mention.   But it remains just my point of view, your point if view is valid too.   

Your view is yours to have, which I think is a reciprocal arrangement as you have alluded to, so we may agree on something after all.

In terms of justification, I could also apply similar arguments based on other 'counter-evidence' but neither is in any way valid as a proof for the population as a whole.
So at the end of the day we have opinion, no more no less.