UK Prime Minister Says Gov't Should Be Capable of Reading Any Communications 329
Dr_Barnowl writes: The BBC reports that UK Prime Minister David Cameron has vowed to introduce a "comprehensive piece of legislation" aimed at there being no "means of communication ... we cannot read," in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris. While he didn't mention encryption specifically, the only logical means by which this could occur would be by the introduction of compulsory key escrow, and the banning of forms of encryption which do not use it. While the UK already essentially has a legal means to demand your encryption keys (and imprison you indefinitely if you don't comply), this would fall short if you have a credible reason for not having the key any more (such as using an OTR plugin for your chosen chat program).
The U.S. tried a similar tack with Clipper in the 90s. As we all know, terrorists with any technical chops are unlikely to be affected, given the vast amount of freely available, military-grade crypto now available, and the use of boring old cold war tradecraft. Ironically, France used to ban the use of strong cryptography but has largely liberalized its regime since 2011.
The U.S. tried a similar tack with Clipper in the 90s. As we all know, terrorists with any technical chops are unlikely to be affected, given the vast amount of freely available, military-grade crypto now available, and the use of boring old cold war tradecraft. Ironically, France used to ban the use of strong cryptography but has largely liberalized its regime since 2011.
Dear Prime Minister Cameron, (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see you decrypt the following:
Do kindly fuck off at your earliest convenience. Not a terrorist but like Charlie Hedbo, refuse to live on my knees.
Re:Dear Prime Minister Cameron, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dear Prime Minister Cameron, (Score:5, Insightful)
Awful? Dunno, seems like a run of the mill PM to be honest. Saying he's an awful PM implies we regularly get better PMs.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The alternative offered later this year is either Milliband or Farage - or, god forbid, Alex Salmond if the SNP does win enough seats across the UK to affect the outcome.
There are much worse options than Cameron currently in contention.
Re:Dear Prime Minister Cameron, (Score:5, Insightful)
Cameron's real problem is that he doesn't understand anything that doesn't have profit as a bottom line. And the greedy cronies that he's surrounded by (it would be a mistake to think them idiots) aren't interested in anything that doesn't have profit as a bottom line. It is, they believe, everything that makes reality work.
There is no obvious profit margin in other people's privacy. Therefore it has no value, and is a hindrance to where profit is to be made. So it must be removed.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not saying that the lot of them are not motivated by extreme short term profit, but I assure you that they are idiots too. (Occam's razor supplies a best guess, not a guaranteed solution).
Re: (Score:3)
Don't underestimate them. They look like fools but are actually quite skilled when it comes to being malicious. Particularly Osborne and May need to be watched carefully.
Re: (Score:3)
Living on your knees is entirely appropriate in a modern liberal democracy according to David Cameron.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh do shut up.
If you had the slightest clue what an actual oppressive regime looks like, I wouldn't have to ask.
1984 is not an instruction manual, David (Score:5, Insightful)
If we could hook Orwell's corpse up to a turbine, we'd have the energy problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't use that word Blair!
Capable, sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, you should be capable of reading anything, provided you've got the encryption key, provided you've got a warrant to request it, provided that the warrant is based on certifiable facts and a meaningful threat/need.
Otherwise, fuck off.
Re:Capable, sure (Score:4, Informative)
Almost all terror attacks are perpetrated by non-Muslims according to FBI and Europol reports. Less than 10% involve Muslim terrorists.
https://www.europol.europa.eu/latest_publications/2
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05
One of the largest terror attacks in Europe in the last 10 years were done by a Christian Norwegian, yet we don't blame Christians for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The UK went through 40 years of serious terrorism perpetuated by protestant and catholic Christians, and yet throughout that entire period we never blamed the religion as a whole.
Re:Capable, sure (Score:5, Insightful)
That is because the terrorism was not religiously motivated. Religion had a polarizing effect on the population of Northern Ireland, but the motivation for the terrorism was political, not religions: it was the Irish Republican Army, not the Irish Catholic Army.
Re:Capable, sure (Score:4, Insightful)
You assume I'm talking about the IRA, I was not - I'm talking about the car bombings, attacks, beatings, fire bombings etc etc etc that went on between the Northern Irish protestant and catholic populations during that same period.
Look it up, its a *very* interesting period for many reasons. The IRA is certainly the fore runner in most peoples minds, but it wasnt the only thing going on in the area at the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting that someone didnt like that - why didnt you like it? What was wrong with it? Are you unaware of the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland? Are you unaware of the Orangemen marches, and their symbolisms? Why those marches are banned from going through certain areas? The Apprentice Boys?
You do realise that "The Troubles" covers a much broader conflict than that between the IRA and the British Government, right? That there is massive discourse between many protestant and catholic groups in
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is equating every loan idiot to the relatively organized efforts of ISIS and similar groups isn't really useful.
The Islamic terror groups have a well organized recruitment and propaganda system. Groups like ISIS and AQAP come out in support of and encourage others to repeat attacks like those in France last week. They even provide training and funding.
Its a lot more pervasive, resilient, and persistent than Anders Behring Breivik and some fuck tards he drank beer with. Those folks are one-and
Re:Capable, sure (Score:5, Insightful)
It's clear that while not all muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists seems to be muslims, how about a targeted approach. Normal people know that the problem at the moment is islam, why can't politicians see it.
By the same logic, not all humans are terrorists, but all terrorists seem to be human. How about targeting all humans for surveillance?
Oh wait, that's exactly what they wanna do...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its just like the extreme NRA supporters who see anarchy around every corner and need to carry a gun when they go shopping "because its their constitutional right" to do so. Just because something is written down somewhere does
Re: (Score:2)
The Koran is particularly problematic though. The other two books are a collection of stories that are to be interpreted, and the leaders of those religions made sure they were the only ones who were allowed to interpret them and the only ones who had a direct line to God. The Koran is supposed to be the literal word of God, and giving individuals a direct representation of his will and commandments to go on.
Re:Capable, sure (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, the interpretation step performed by the first two is considered a corruption.
The third is purest and best and absolute, whilst the first two are seen as corrupted.
That's why they can use the same god but still trump all the rest.
So the ideal is, never allow Islam to be corrupted, never, by anything or anyone. Never allow reinterpretation or criticism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's because politicians have a lot to lose when they fight islam, and not much to gain.
Re: (Score:2)
Of corse you are forgetting the terrorist from the other religions.
The Far East there is a radical group of buddests (known for peace) who is bombing and other terrorist activities.
In general for every faith or idea there exist people who will twist it so they can feel justified to hurt others.
Idiots at work (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine that the Prime Minister thinks that he can force Google and other emails providers to hand over emails to GCHQ and, crucially, the Prime Minister cannot comprehend the idea that people can set up their own email server.
The same argument goes for other protocols.
Probably, no one, other than politicians and Dail Mail readers, takes this seriously. It will be forgotten about after the next election.
With an Idiot in charge (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
emails are already fair game, as they generally aren't encrypted [as in gmail has the plain text to hand over].
while they claim this is for terrorism, the only terrorists they could catch using this 'idea' are the very dumbest ones [shoe-bomber dumb].
but what they really want is for regular people to not casually use communication methods that they cannot read. they can't have this, and they know that require the big established players like facebook, google, apple, microsoft, yahoo to keep communications
Idiots at work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The UK wants to be able to reconcile every message into and out of the UK.
Tempora gave the UK that ability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The first hop will be seen and then the destination ip within the UK after a connection within the UK or after global networking with Tor.
The idea about that system is to ensure the world still thinks a Tempora system is too co
Starting with him? (Score:4, Informative)
Funny how these guys and gals make such strong claims, but never want to be the victims of their own policies. Don't worry, we have the same exact rules in the US where politicians are immune to laws, and rich people of course. The only people subject to laws are the "common" people, or in the words of Henry Kissinger and his ilk "the useless eaters". Yeah yeah, some of their "business" communications may be classified but their emails to gramma should be fully available for public consumption.
Petitions should go up immediately: Politicians are the "trial" batch for seeing how this works and the public requires full access to their personal communications. Beta group, or what ever you want to call them. A 2 year moratorium should be placed on any other changes pending the usefulness and feedback from that group. Further, anyone with a net worth of more than 50 million should be in the same pilot group, or perhaps make them group C phased in 1 year after the politicians are snooped upon.
Lets also not forget that the recent terrorists in France _were_ snooped upon and used zero encryption on their mail. They were just missed in all the noise, probably because of the massive haystacks of data people "claim" they need to find something. Bigger haystacks don't make needles easier to find, quite the opposite. Many of our security experts on both sides of the pond have said that same thing.. repeatedly.
Re: (Score:3)
And also repeal the official secrets act and make public all communication between civil servants. After all, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Governments need to remember that they are the servants of the people not the other way round,
David Cameron! Read THIS communication! (Score:4)
FUCK YOU! You big-brother assmunch!
Government or Authorities? (Score:5, Funny)
Three Syllables? (Score:2, Funny)
You think is things go good and they good think but big words not think so good in House.
Bottles and horses (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has vowed to put the genie back in the bottle. On the way to do that, he's going to shut the barn door and go looking for his horse.
The UK is an evil place (Score:2)
as is its little brothers Australia and NZ. Canada gets a pass since they have hockey.
funnily enough (Score:3, Insightful)
it's not the terrorists attacking a magazine's office that affects your free speech...
it's the government's RESPONSE to said attack on a free speech medium, that will have a much larger impact in limiting your free speech.
The irony is rich, yet the statist types will NEVER understand this.
Gotta stop all those law abiding terrorists... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gotta stop all those law abiding terrorists... (Score:4, Insightful)
We all know that's not the goal, so stop going for the cheap mod points.
If you stop people being able to do something legally, then the vast majority of law abiding people stop doing it. Hand guns were de-legalised back in the 1990s, and hand gun ownership dropped dramatically - so now its easy to make a judgement call as to whether than gun you found on that teenager with a hoodie is actually legitimate or not, without having to go through a license check etc. So it makes it easier, and less time consuming, for the police to remove guns from those who shouldn't be in ownership of them.
We have seen it a lot with various things over the years - mobile phone use in cars, smoking in enclosed public places, various "legal" highs etc etc.
The same thinking goes for encryption - allow only government approved encryption for the law abiding and when you come across a message which uses non-approved encryption then it has a higher likelihood of being related to something the police would be interested in rather than just Auntie Gene's shopping list shes sending her son.
Note - I don't agree with the sentiment, but the thinking is sound.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, The thinking is consistent , not sound.
It's a good thing when law enforcement officers have to take time to do their jobs. The power of the state is a terrible and awesome thing. The last thing a free society needs is law enforcement with spare time.
An idle cop is a cop who will find something to do. If his job is to arrest people and present cases for prosecution, he'll find new and creative ways to make that happen.
In the UK, they're doing random searches for knives...That's unthinkable in most of my
My encryption key (Score:5, Funny)
My encryption key is the full text of a copyrighted book that was never licensed to me nor anyone in my country.
If I told you it or wrote it down, it would be public performance or copyright infringement.
Yours,
Trollface Q.C.
Then we need plausable means to deny the key (Score:2)
For example, lets say we don't have just one password that secures everything but thousands.
Then we can... OOPs forget it when ever the government asks and we don't want to share.
Re: (Score:2)
Just use the Declaration of Independence as key. That would be ironic.
Re: (Score:3)
I get what you're saying but that is not constructive. We need a plausible means to deny the key.
Their attack is ultimately coming through the legal system. So we need to think about what works in a court of law.
If we can find reasonable ways to forget keys then we can reasonably claim to have forgotten them.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep a few of those fake USB flash drives from eBay that claim to be 32GB but are actually 128MB around. Make sure they are full of corrupt data. When required to hand over your key, hand them one of those drives and tell them that the keyfile is on there. If they damage it while trying to read the data back, then they destroyed the key and there is nothing you can do about it. Chances are some low level thug, sorry constable will have gathered it up along with anything else electronic when they raided your
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting idea. Ideally damage it before hand. Just keep a smashed USB drive handy and say the key file is on that... "Wait, what did you do to it?!"
That's pretty solid. Where to keep the real key file though?
Re: (Score:2)
An interesting idea for sure. I think we definitely need to make it harder for them find the information encrypted or not in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen people with encrypted volumes... the issue is that they tend to keep them in their unlocked state. That is, encrypted but mounted and readable. If you cut power to the system the data would be safe but they use their encrypted data so often that it is hard to say it doesn't exist.
A certain amount of this might require physically isolating sensitive information and making it difficult to find PHYSICALLY in the event of problems. Obviously encrypt it as well but really your goal here should be to no
Deniable encryption (Score:2)
Again, this has nothing to do with terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
All 3 Charlie Hebdo terrorists were known extremists and were under surveillance [cnn.com]. The French authorities simply dropped the ball and fucked up - for lack of resources or for negligence.
They could convincingly make a case for vastly increased means of putting known terrorists under 24/7 surveillance, but the Charlie Hebdo attacks are a really poor argument for enhanced decryption powers, because the FUCKING TERRORISTS HAD BEEN CLEARLY IDENTIFIED ALREADY!
Clearly this is yet another exploitation of people's fear-du-jour to bring the world closer to a panopticon society. Me, I'm more scared of the government than muslim terrorists. 1984 anyone?
Re: (Score:3)
That and the White House de-prioritized terrorism, and ignored the clear warnings that they were repeatedly given. Why?
Speechless. (Score:2)
I'm sad and furious. Those are the goons we are paying to protect our values. Need to puke.
How to spot an authoritarian (Score:5, Informative)
Keep that in mind next time one of these authoritarians tell you how conservative they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Also keep this in mind when saying "Liberal" when you mean "Socialist".
Re: (Score:2)
Also keep this in mind when saying "Conservative" when you mean "Fuck the Poor".
Conservative has not had the proper definition for decades. Today it's all about helping the rich friends that fund re-election coffers.
STASI think the same (Score:2, Interesting)
I notice UKIP, a competing party to the conservatives, have had their private phone calls leaked.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30467897
How exactly can it be that old phone calls are recorded then leaked just as a person stands for an elected seat. Let me guess... GCHQ.
Hrmpf (Score:2)
The UK government really don't like it's people.
Pity Scotland didn't manage to leave.
Turn it around instead. Let the people see all official documents and plans.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, its a pity Scotland didn't manage to leave - Salmonds plans would be right down the shitter at the moment as his entire fiscal policy was based on North Sea oil and gas income, which has just been completely slashed for the forseeable future. Losing Scotland would have been worth it to see him try and talk his way out of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I live in Scotland and voted No. Was really worried at the time, however the vote was nowhere near as close as advertised mostly due to what I would describe as voter intimidation by Yes campaigners.
However I would like another referendum next month so we can hammer the SNP's economic plans for the lies they always where and get another No vote to shut the them up permanently.
I would note the SNP have been very quite on the issue of oil and gas prices and the impact this would have had on their fiscal
Any communication? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You realise that unless you have opted out, there is already third party access to your doctors notes, right?
I agree (Score:5, Funny)
UK Prime Minister Says Gov't Should Be Capable of Reading Any Communications
Yes, literacy level in the government is appalling, something really should be done about it,
I don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Some random guys in ski masks shoot up a newspaper office because the newspaper prints something they don't like and all of a sudden most of Europe wants to bring in censorship and restrictions on the freedoms that a democracy is supposed to bring? Isn't that exactly what the terrorists want? Shouldn't we (and by we I mean the democracies of the world and their citizens) be protecting our freedoms in the face of bad people like this?
I dont support terrorists but I also dont support most of the actions that have been taken by governments in the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany and elsewhere in the name of the so-called "war on terror" (there are some measures like strengthening and securing cockpit doors that do make sense though)
And in 5 years time... (Score:2)
An in due course, will leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition David Cameron accept that Prime Minister Edward Milliband, as leader of the government should be capable of reading any communication such as Conservative party policy, election and campaign plans, electorate candidate profiles, and such-like.
I mean, he did say: "any communications"....
UK = Hypocrites (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
Prime Minister David Cameron told the House of Commons, "[...] we stand squarely for free speech and democracy. [...]"
This is the same country that:
* Arrests people for saying "offensive" things on Facebook/Twitter
* Prosecutes people for having "offensive" Japanese manga featuring lolicon, yet defends cartoon images of the Prophet Muhammed which some members of the Islamic community finds "offensive."
* Sends GCHQ thugs around to a newspaper to smash their hard drives and other perphierals into a gazillion pieces
* Has secret trials
* Forces people to disclose their passwords for encryption volumes or other things such as websites and jails those who fail to do so
Need I go on?
Happening already? (Score:2)
Free speech is impossible under mass surveillance (Score:4, Interesting)
Encryption insures you can speak freely without the chilling effect of knowing your government may be listening. To ban it is clearly to eliminate freedom of speech.
Sounds Great! (Score:2)
So, when is he going to allow all UK citizens to read his Mail, Email, and listen in on his phone conversations?
His ass needs to lead by example.
Here we go... (Score:2)
After the Charlie event, I wondered how long it would take before politicians start speaking about stuff like that. It did not take too long, that was expected. They are so predictable... This event creates great opportunities for some to push a long standing agenda. Noting new here.
Hopefully, people in France remain really prudent about the "privacy vs security" debate, and viscerally attached to liberty (but not necessarily to privacy). I have seen some ex minister asking for a "french patriot act"... som
Why bother? (Score:3)
It's easy to set up secure communications within a small, trusted group. So this won't affect any real terrorists that are organized enough to be a real threat. They just install PGP (for example), just as anyone else can. And since the security is end-to-end, it's secure no matter what mail system it passes through. And no matter what laws anyone passes, math still works, so end-to-end encryption is secure from anyone attacking the security. And it's open source, so they can't sneak in corruptions to subvert security. Math doesn't care about politics - if the attackers are your government, or foreign attackers, it's all the same math that protects your communications.
What it will do, though, is let them collect tons of data from from people who aren't serious terrorists. Think of the fun the can have with that!
The real answer to terrorism isn't increased surveillance, or the "magic pixie dust" of data mining, it's real police work. That's what's stopped ever terrorist attack (that's been stopped) so far. If they cared about security, instead of surveillance or big equipment contracts, they'd focus on the stuff that works. Hire lots of smart people, train them and equip them, and pay them well, to do the hard work. The rest, attempting to outlaw encryption, scanning people's shoes, etc., is all a stupid waste of time and money, degrading our society's freedom (i.e. doing what the terrorists want) while achieving nothing of value.
Yep, the government _is_ the terrorist ! (Score:5, Insightful)
I ran away from China some decades ago because the Communist government of China was more or less acting like a terroristic entity
I ran away from China and ended up in the West, and I thought I am safe ... apparently, I was wrong!
Now the Western nations are trying to become more China than China !
Oooooh, my !
Re:Yep, the government _is_ the terrorist ! (Score:5, Interesting)
The word is tyranny, or despotism, not terrorism. However, I'm not sure that even the former words apply (I'm an American).
In the UK and in the US, the basic principle is "government by consent of the governed". This philosophy probably originated by the Athenians in ancient Greece and was further developed by a series of philosophers in England, France, and Germany between 200 and 450 years ago. Unlike the democracy in ancient Greece, its usage in the West does *not* mean that the governed are to be consulted for approval of every individual act done by the government, e.g. reading your email. It *does* mean that the electorate can vote out the politicians at the head of the government, and in the legislatures, if they aren't pleased with their policies in general.
Re:Yep, the government _is_ the terrorist ! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say it's starting to drift into terrorism territory fairly quick. A tyranny (or other forms of despotic rules) gives absolute power to the ruler, who use force to control his subjects. What is going on right now is more similar to terrorism, using fear to control the masses. It's not a threat of direct violence like a tyranny, but rather a threat of indirect violence.
In fact, this is sounding more and more like dialogue from classic mobster flicks, where the men in suits warn you that not paying for protection might result in your shop burning to the ground or your kneecaps being broken.
God and the Devil (Score:5, Insightful)
* - As some one pointed out on Twitter: ask yourself why Al-Queda has never even once tried to attack Israel.
Re: Obviously on the right track (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obviously on the right track (Score:5, Insightful)
If you ban encryption, then only criminals will have encryption.
Re:Obviously on the right track (Score:5, Insightful)
And the criminals will have the same access as the governments wreaking havoc among bank transactions and identity thefts as well as trade in company secrets.
It will really be opening Pandora's Box to restrict encryption.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but you can monitor the Internet for encrypted traffic and anybody found using it is automatically a terrorist. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
Heh, too much work. All the terrorists should simply be required by law to set a 'terrorist' bit in their network protocols.
Re: (Score:2)
And by extension anyone who uses encryption is probably a criminal. Recently a Spanish judge locked a bunch of people up for using secure email, because taking measures to secure your email is apparently suspicious.
Re: (Score:3)
That is fine. This is not about catching criminals anyways, it is about identifying dissenters and other "undesirables".
Re: (Score:2)
Surprise: Freedom-hating authoritarian scumbags make the argument that safety is more important than freedom and privacy, all the while pretending that they value freedom and democratic values. I wish these people would move to North Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
You assume that the spying by governments in the UK & US is actually about stopping Islamic terrorists or terrorist acts. That has not been born out by the facts surrounding many if not most of the terrorist attacks carried out by Islamic terrorists who arrived from n
Re: (Score:2)
How many allies died after Enigma was broken? Just because every threat isn't countered, doesn't mean they didn't know it was coming.
Re: (Score:3)
How many allies died after Enigma was broken? Just because every threat isn't countered, doesn't mean they didn't know it was coming.
There's a huge difference between wartime-code breaking of enemy military communications, and the bulk collection/monitoring/analysis of all domestic civilian communications in peacetime in direct violation of the rights and protections guaranteed in the US Constitution. Especially when that collection is sold to the public as being created precisely to stop such terror attacks.
Sorry, that doesn't wash.
Strat
Re:Hope the muslims win then. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't wish any member of the US government to be put to death, what I do wish is for these bastards to be stripped of all their wealth and privileges and forced to live in a roach infested studio apartment in the bad section of town. Then I would force them to work as an assistant night fry cook at Walley's Wonderful World of Burgers in Festering Boil, Oklahoma. These people have forgotten, if they ever knew, what the rest of us put up with in order to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table. We need to have these people learn what real work looks like.
Re: (Score:3)
Also this would mean that people prepared to do this, probably did have serious motivation to improve societ
Re: (Score:2)
"Trouble is. that might dispose of the the Mandelas and Ghandis too."
We probably wouldn't need quite as many Mandelas and Gandhis. Both of those rose up against regimes run by politicians, remember.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hope the muslims win then. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't wish any member of the US government to be put to death, what I do wish is for these bastards to be stripped of all their wealth and privileges and forced to live in a roach infested studio apartment in the bad section of town. Then I would force them to work as an assistant night fry cook at Walley's Wonderful World of Burgers in Festering Boil, Oklahoma. These people have forgotten, if they ever knew, what the rest of us put up with in order to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table. We need to have these people learn what real work looks like.
So, uh, Mike Rowe for President, then? Sounds good, the few political statements he's made have been bipartisan and very well thought out.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians needs to be changed more often. The longer they are in place the dirtier they become.
And considering the fact that information can be hidden in images etc. using steganography it would be easy to circumvent the ban.
settled law - roe v wade (Score:2)
To paraphrase B. Franklin... "You have privacy, if you can keep it."
Re:Don't Understand (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"I really just don't understand why England doesn't ditch their monarchs completely." - because the monach has no power, they are just window dressing that attract a load of tourists and sycophants
Re: (Score:2)
The English monarchs are today just figureheads without power.
Gives the English a certain level of glamor and are tourist magnets.
Not worth to waste any effort on to try to overthrow them. Save your energy for the true problems - corrupt politicians with power.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't just wait. They let the actual plot play out. If there were no random acts of terrorism, how would they go about arguing for increased capabilities? The mass murderers in France were well known and were allegedly also being watched. They found an ID in the car? How convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit harsh burning the UK just for being submissive, like.
Re: (Score:2)
Or Max Headroom.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I suggest we burn politicians instead.
it eliminates the possibility of hurting someone innocent.