3 million face uncertainty and deportation from UK

[al_yrpal]

Yeah, the internet has been great for identifying terrorists. In some ways it and smartphones have made things easier. There are said to be plenty that have been neutralised before they got a chance to do anything. We had a local guy that obligingly put his test explosion on YouTube, hes doing lots of time.

Al

[Psamathe]

Not having the means to communicate via the internet would hamper terrorists severely.

So before the internet was opened up to the general public there was no terrorism?

No but before the internet the type of home grown terrorism that now threatens us didnt exist on such a massive scale. In the middle east terrorists are operating the strings of their puppets here largely via the internet. Back then there was a series of hijacks abroad, that was it. And before that practically nothing in Britain except what happened in Ireland of course.

Al

But those terrorists can communicate quite freely over the internet and GCHQ/May/County Councils could never crack what they are actually saying to each other. It is very very simple - hence the Snoopers Charter having no effect on such people but it does provide for mass monitoring of those "with nothing to hide" i.e. mass surveillance of the population.

If they were going to be able to crack the terrorist communications then there might be a case to discuss but it wont and there is no way in Earth it can.
(Demonstrates the naiveté of our Ministers)

Ian

[53x13]

Not having the means to communicate via the internet would hamper terrorists severely.

So before the internet was opened up to the general public there was no terrorism?

No but before the internet the type of home grown terrorism that now threatens us didnt exist on such a massive scale. In the middle east terrorists are operating the strings of their puppets here largely via the internet. Back then there was a series of hijacks abroad, that was it. And before that practically nothing in Britain except what happened in Ireland of course.

Al

Clearly you are absolutely ignorant of security and communication systems which terrorists and criminals employ. Up until very recently Al Qaeda/ISIS were using pictorial messages sent via Fax (a virtually unhackable medium) to transmit and receive orders. Mays snooper legislation is her way of legitimately spying on the entire UK population.

The means with which those above the law communicate are beyond the means of gchq to detect them. Hence the success of operations in Belgium and Paris, and doubtless the UK, in due course. In Paris, plain SMS text messaging was used, in real time, which meant any reaction to an attack would only be after the event.

ISIS have IT gurus working for them 24/7 to make sure their communications are completely hidden from 'the internet'.

May is a power crazed lunatic. End of.

[53x13]

There is absolutely no need for a snoopers charter. Those who wish to ' go black' online use end to end encrypting systems and write their own key generating code. In effect, even with a multi discipline government agency working flat out with all the computing power at their disposal, it would take years to break even one of these keys, if it were possible at all.

May wants to spy on you and your kids. Terrorists use other means of communication, which can be as simple as sending a person 2000 miles overland to deliver a spoken message, or as complex as a hard/strong encryption which is beyond the means of even any government to crack.

Even the encryption available for free on my phone would take several supercomputers months of dedicated flat out processing to discover it.

Such is the sheet inefficacy of something like Mays legislation.

[pete75]

Not having the means to communicate via the internet would hamper terrorists severely.

So before the internet was opened up to the general public there was no terrorism?

No but before the internet the type of home grown terrorism that now threatens us didnt exist on such a massive scale. In the middle east terrorists are operating the strings of their puppets here largely via the internet. Back then there was a series of hijacks abroad, that was it. And before that practically nothing in Britain except what happened in Ireland of course.

Al

Just a few at random from before the age of the internet and not in Ireland. You may regard them as practically nothing but I doubt many share your view.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... at_Britain

1972 Aldershot 7 killed
1973 KIngs Cross Bomb 21 injured
1972 M62 coach bomb 12 killed
1974 Birmingham pub bombs 21 killed
1982 hyde park 11 killed
1984 Brighton bomb 5 killed
1983 Harrods bomb 6 killed
1989 deal barracks 11 killed

[[XAP]Bob]

No but before the internet the type of home grown terrorism that now threatens us didnt exist on such a massive scale. In the middle east terrorists are operating the strings of their puppets here largely via the internet. Back then there was a series of hijacks abroad, that was it. And before that practically nothing in Britain except what happened in Ireland of course.

Al

Or maybe we just didn't hear as much about it.

Really - how many people have been killed by terrorists over the last decade?
It's a small number.

How many of those attacks were orchestrated by anyone other than the perpetrators?
How many of them used encrypted communications?
(Here I exclude the fact that GSM calls are encrypted in the air, because law enforcement can already tap the contents anyway)

I think we're approaching zero.

And you want to open everyone's communications with everyone else up to scrutiny by every criminal in the world - even those in our one government.

[mjr]

And you want to open everyone's communications with everyone else up to scrutiny by every criminal in the world - even those in our one government.

And of course our government's workers have never let privileged information out into the public domain by leaving it insecure on a train or anything like that.

If this wasn't so important, it would be hilarious that some of the loudest voices against trusting the EU government make the loudest calls to bend over for the UK and US governments.

[[XAP]Bob]

And you want to open everyone's communications with everyone else up to scrutiny by every criminal in the world - even those in our one government.

And of course our government's workers have never let privileged information out into the public domain by leaving it insecure on a train or anything like that.

If this wasn't so important, it would be hilarious that some of the loudest voices against trusting the EU government make the loudest calls to bend over for the UK and US governments.

Exactly - the problem is it won't just be left on a train, it will be online.
And a target that tempting *will* be compromised.

[Psamathe]

No but before the internet the type of home grown terrorism that now threatens us didnt exist on such a massive scale. In the middle east terrorists are operating the strings of their puppets here largely via the internet. Back then there was a series of hijacks abroad, that was it. And before that practically nothing in Britain except what happened in Ireland of course.

Al

Or maybe we just didn't hear as much about it.

Really - how many people have been killed by terrorists over the last decade?
It's a small number.

How many of those attacks were orchestrated by anyone other than the perpetrators?
How many of them used encrypted communications?
(Here I exclude the fact that GSM calls are encrypted in the air, because law enforcement can already tap the contents anyway)

I think we're approaching zero.

And you want to open everyone's communications with everyone else up to scrutiny by every criminal in the world - even those in our one government.

Some quotes I saved from the internet (but stupidly did not save the source - but not my own work)

"Since 9/11, 53 people have been killed by terrorists in the UK. Every one of those deaths is tragic. So is every one of the 26,805 deaths to have occurred on Britain's roads between 2002 and 2012 inclusive."

Statistically you're more likely to be killed by almost anything but terrorism. Last year 33,000 people died in terrors attacks worldwide - that's about as many who died in car crashes in the US alone. 7 million died from pollution every year, and 372,000 die from drowning. Air and water are greater risks to you life than ISIS. Where is the crazy overreaction to reduce pollution. And drowning deaths?

Ian

[Psamathe]

Following the slightly off-topic discussion on the Snoopers Charter, I find it very encouraging that so many here appreciate what a useless and damaging bit of legislation is, that it is really designed for mass surveillance of the population (rather than criminal/terrorist activity) and how contrary it is to a modern society.

Given how few MPs seems concerned about what has been happening, how little attention the UK population gives the snooping, etc. I had been rather disheartened that everybody just accepted that our governments should be watching and recording everything we do and that this was just part of life. But, from this discussion I'm reassured that people do appreciate what the government is trying to do and the damage it will cause.

Ian

[matt_twam_asi]

Following the slightly off-topic discussion on the Snoopers Charter, I find it very encouraging that so many here appreciate what a useless and damaging bit of legislation is, that it is really designed for mass surveillance of the population (rather than criminal/terrorist activity) and how contrary it is to a modern society.

Given how few MPs seems concerned about what has been happening, how little attention the UK population gives the snooping, etc. I had been rather disheartened that everybody just accepted that our governments should be watching and recording everything we do and that this was just part of life. But, from this discussion I'm reassured that people do appreciate what the government is trying to do and the damage it will cause.

Ian

+1

There's been a few (understandable) misunderstandings in this thread about how the Snooper's Charter that Theresa May has pushed for will affect encryption over the Internet. My understanding of the current Bill is that it roughly boils down to two non-exclusive options - 1) outlaw encrypted communications and 2) put pressure on UK based organisations to weaken encryption.

If you have a few minutes and want a good primer on the encryption that is being targeted by the Snooper's Charter, I'd recommend the following videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7kEpw1tn50 - The mathematics behind RSA encryption.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSIDS_lvRv4 - Some other examples of how public key cryptography can be legitimately used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShUyfk4QB-8 - Some history of failed attempts at legislation and examples of how encryption protects you on the internet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPBH1eW28mo - Wraps up the other three videos in a nice bow. If you only have time for one video, watch this one.

[matt_twam_asi]

Yeah, the internet has been great for identifying terrorists. In some ways it and smartphones have made things easier. There are said to be plenty that have been neutralised before they got a chance to do anything. We had a local guy that obligingly put his test explosion on YouTube, hes doing lots of time.

Al

If someone was convicted based on something posted publicly to Youtube then this has no relevance to a discussion about encryption.

[53x13]

Yeah, the internet has been great for identifying terrorists. In some ways it and smartphones have made things easier. There are said to be plenty that have been neutralised before they got a chance to do anything. We had a local guy that obligingly put his test explosion on YouTube, hes doing lots of time.

Al

If someone was convicted based on something posted publicly to Youtube then this has no relevance to a discussion about encryption.

Indeed. I think the ignorance of the general public on this absolutely heinous piece of legislation is gobsmacking.
It's not only the GP, even my local MP has no idea of the implications. Should this bill go through unchecked we're all under the microscope, and privacy online and in your personal life, and on your mobile phone: it's finished.

And you'll NEVER get it back.

[Psamathe]

...My understanding of the current Bill is that it roughly boils down to two non-exclusive options - 1) outlaw encrypted communications and 2) put pressure on UK based organisations to weaken encryption....

I'm unsure about the "outlaw encryption" (i.e. I really don't know what plans are in that regard). Whilst UK Gov. might be successful at putting pressure (legal and commercial) on the likes of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, etc., they might not find the "Open Source" community quite so responsive. So it raises questions as to if or how they are going to outlaw software legally developed outside the UK and legally published on websites outside the UK (e.g. OpenVPN). Are they going to make the users subject to prosecution ? Are they going to ban https: (in which case bye bye online banking in the UK, bye bye HMRC online self assessment, etc.). And if https: is allowed how are they going to distinguish between OpenVPN (on port 443) and https: ?

Ian

[mjr]

And if https: is allowed how are they going to distinguish between OpenVPN (on port 443) and https: ?

Deep packet inspection. Of course, that's a huge waste of electricity that could be doing something useful, such as securing conversations through encryption...