UK Gov't Can Demand Backdoors, Give Prison Sentences For Disclosing Them (arstechnica.co.uk) 187
An anonymous reader writes with some of the latest news about the draft Investigatory Powers Bill. Ars reports: "Buried in the 300 pages of the draft Investigatory Powers Bill (aka the Snooper's Charter), published on Wednesday, is something called a 'technical capability notice' (Section 189). Despite its neutral-sounding name, this gives the UK's home secretary almost unlimited power to impose 'an obligation on any relevant operators'—any obligation—subject to the requirement that 'the Secretary of State considers it is reasonable to do so.' There is also the proviso that 'it is (and remains) practicable for those relevant operators to comply with those requirements,' which probably rules out breaking end-to-end encryption, but would still allow the home secretary to demand that companies add backdoors to their software and equipment. That's bad enough, but George Danezis, an associate professor in security and privacy engineering at University College London, points out that the Snooper's Charter is actually much, much worse. The Investigatory Powers Bill would also make it a criminal offense, punishable with up to 12 months in prison and/or a fine, for anyone involved to reveal the existence of those backdoors, in any circumstances (Section 190(8).)"
Professor of journalism at City University Heather Brook writes at the Gaurdian: "When the Home Office and intelligence agencies began promoting the idea that the new investigatory powers bill was a “climbdown”, I grew suspicious. If the powerful are forced to compromise they don’t crow about it or send out press releases – or, in the case of intelligence agencies, make off-the-record briefings outlining how they failed to get what they wanted. That could mean only one thing: they had got what they wanted. So why were they trying to fool the press and the public that they had lost? Simply because they had won. I never thought I’d say it, but George Orwell lacked vision. The spies have gone further than he could have imagined, creating in secret and without democratic authorization the ultimate panopticon. Now they hope the British public will make it legitimate."
Professor of journalism at City University Heather Brook writes at the Gaurdian: "When the Home Office and intelligence agencies began promoting the idea that the new investigatory powers bill was a “climbdown”, I grew suspicious. If the powerful are forced to compromise they don’t crow about it or send out press releases – or, in the case of intelligence agencies, make off-the-record briefings outlining how they failed to get what they wanted. That could mean only one thing: they had got what they wanted. So why were they trying to fool the press and the public that they had lost? Simply because they had won. I never thought I’d say it, but George Orwell lacked vision. The spies have gone further than he could have imagined, creating in secret and without democratic authorization the ultimate panopticon. Now they hope the British public will make it legitimate."
Scary stuff and nobody cares (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scary stuff and nobody cares (Score:4, Interesting)
You are 100% right that the majority does not care. If they did, it would be simple enough to assume that all British companies are backdoored and to drive them out of business by using alternatives in other countries. Granted, those other companies might also be backdoored, but the point is to make a point to the local authorities.
Re:Scary stuff and nobody cares (Score:4, Interesting)
I kind of wonder if this law would impact ARM Holdings, which has potential implications for the smartphone industry.
Re: (Score:2)
It could completely destroy them, or at least force them to leave the UK.
Say the Home Secretary, not really understanding these things, granted a request from MI5 to put a backdoor in the next version of the ARM ABI. If ARM comply it will probably be apparent to all the manufacturers who licence the design. Even if they somehow hide it, eventually it will be discovered and billions of devices will be exploitable with little prospect of a software fix. It could easily sink ARM.
So either ARM screws themselves
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> The scariest thing about living in a "democracy" (Republic) now is that the *majority* really don't care about their rights, as long as they can watch their reality TV
As a non-US and non-UK citizen, my country's history was heavily inspired in fights for Freedom like the US Independence and the famous French Storming of the Bastille.
Those were sad moments to make real the conquest of Freedoms which have a better taste when not tainted by blood. Notwithstanding that, they are of utmost importance and pe
Re: (Score:2)
What i find amazing is that you think this is something new.
It is as old as democracy itself. As long as they aren't being bothered people won't bother doing something.
oblig :http://xkcd.com/1601/
pretty much sums it up.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't new, its been available to the police and government since the first iteration of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in 2000.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Scary stuff and nobody cares (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a colleague who is perfectly happy to throw away his rights - "I don't care what they do if it's anti-terror related" and "we need to get rid of all this human rights bullshit", which was in response to my mention of civil rights, namely being detained without charge and warrant-less access of private data.
The problem is that civil/human rights don't feature very high up on people's priorities because they don't need the obvious ones on a daily basis, and they don't realise how much of our daily lives is made possible because of those rights. More succinctly - people don't care about their rights until they need them.
In a way, it's very similar to how all these people are leaving their countries to join ISIL - they're blind to the freedoms they've been afforded and go off to fight the kind of regimes their parents fought to escape from.
Re: (Score:2)
If you find a backdoor (Score:2, Redundant)
Since you can't disclose it, what can you do? I guess your only option is to take a vacation in Russia. Perhaps someone there will talk to you and not do something insane like try to arrest you! They might understand your frustration and try to cheer you up by giving you a few presents.
Is this like American law? If a Malaysian finds a back door in an Indian software program used by the Chinese and gives it to the Malaysian version of the NSA, will the Brits nab him when he passes through some airport in
Re:If you find a backdoor (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this like American law?
No, it isn't. In the 90s, there was an effort by the Clinton Administration to implement a key escrow system whereby all encrypted transmissions would have been required to submit encryption keys to some agency, so that the government could eavesdrop on those transmissions. The IT community here in the U.S. had a shit fit, and eventually defeated that idea, even though the Clinton Administration tried to scare us into thinking that if they couldn't monitor such transmissions, all sorts of awful things might happen. Except for the attacks on September 11, 2001, nothing has happened here, and our government still had plenty of warning about those attacks even without these system in place.
There have been other stories more recently where large telecommunications companies have been cooperating with the U.S. Government in essentially making a copy of all transmissions over the Internet. While those companies were not required to comply (and there were a few who chose not to), they did anyway. There was a huge stink made about that as well, and as far as I know, those operations have been shut down (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong).
As far as I know, nobody here in the U.S. is required to install back doors into their systems so that government agencies can gain access at-will. After the kerfuffle in the 90s, I seriously doubt such a measure would pass into law. In a way, this highlights the silliness of the UK undertaking such a measure in their law. If UK concerns are required to put in back doors, but nobody else in the world has the same requirement, it means the UK government is essentially spying on their own citizens. They are also increasing the likelihood that a foreign concern (government, company or individual) could break into these systems and make it easier for them to effectively spy on the UK. This would drive people to host their email and web sites (among other things) on foreign servers (likely US or Canada), and could put UK hosting providers out of business, along with other consequences.
If I were a British subject, I would complain to my representatives, LOUDLY, that this is a really bad idea.
Re: (Score:3)
The NSA and GCHQ let a generation of users enjoy US based consumer operating systems that responded well to gov malware and keyloggers. After that any compiled export crypto is a junk layer. Some great busy work and a generation of legal distraction.
Re "There was a huge stink made about that as well, and as far as I know, those operations have been shut down (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong)."
The fuss made just further covered colle
Re: (Score:2)
If I were a British subject, I would complain to my representatives, LOUDLY, that this is a really bad idea.
You are obviously outnumbered. Enjoy the ride.
Re: (Score:2)
While those companies were not required to comply (and there were a few who chose not to), they did anyway.
Who told you that they were not required to comply? They lied to you [wikipedia.org].
There was a huge stink made about that as well, and as far as I know, those operations have been shut down
Who told you that these operations have been shut down? Guess what they did?
The Lavabit route (Score:4, Interesting)
Since you can't disclose it, what can you do?
Does discontinuing a service entirely, as Lavabit did [wikipedia.org], constitute "disclosing it"? Or does this bill allow the government to force a private British citizen to provide a service to the public against his will?
Re: (Score:3)
Does disclosing it to your lawyer, in order to get legal advice, count?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know much about the specifics of attorney-client privilege in various jurisdictions, but this article pertaining to England and Wales [wikipedia.org] may help.
Re: (Score:2)
Tutanota seems to be on board as well.
British Intelligence? (Score:3, Insightful)
The clause about penalising those who reveal the existence of backdoors created for use by British security service surveillance is classic upper class twat thinking... "If we don't tell anyone it exists then no-one will find it, tee hee". Problem is there is a world full of people smarter than them that will find the backdoors easily.
Re:British Intelligence? (Score:5, Insightful)
The clause about penalising those who reveal the existence of backdoors created for use by British security service surveillance is classic upper class twat thinking... "If we don't tell anyone it exists then no-one will find it, tee hee". Problem is there is a world full of people smarter than them that will find the backdoors easily.
Your problem is that you assume that you're smarter than these people because they do things which are harmful to the citizenry. That's stupid. They're doing this shit on purpose. They have no illusions about being able to hide the back doors from malicious actors. They don't care about the fallout! They only want to stifle dissent, like any well-heeled fascist. If they make it illegal to talk about the back doors, then many people won't talk about them, and the full extent of the problem will be hidden from the masses. They aren't trying to avoid people discovering the back doors. They're trying to keep the masses of asses complacent.
They are, of course, succeeding. You're glad they took your guns away. Next you'll be happy when they ban large chef's knives.
Re: (Score:1)
"You're glad they took your guns away."
You got that right.
Re: (Score:2)
"Next you'll be happy when they ban large chef's knives."
The UK already has knife control. In fact, it is technically illegal to carry around any object, such as a flashlight or a cricket bat, that could be used as a weapon depending on the situation at a given time.
Re: (Score:2)
Joyfully it's also legal to carry around a rifle while you have a large knife on your belt.
It's all down to circumstances.
Re:British Intelligence? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell me, "drinkypoo" when are you going to start fighting back with your guns?
There's no point to terrorism, only armed revolt, which one can't do oneself. You claim to be against gun violence, but then you ask when the individual will use it because that's what you really want. You're dead inside, so as long as something is happening, you're excited.
Re: (Score:2)
You only have to snipe a few selected individuals. You don't need to take on the Army or even the cops. Target the One Percenters.
Yeah, try that, and see how quick the cops or even the army shows up to show you the error of your ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, let's suppose you manage to kill a couple of well placed individuals before you're caught and sent to prison (if you even make it into custody/to trial alive and aren't given the death penalty). Do you think the entire program will simply crumble without those VIPs? There are plenty of power hungry folks waiting to take the place of the VIPs you take out. Some might be slightly better than the VIPs, some might be worse.
What's more, after you've killed the VIPs, those in power will spin the event as p
Re: (Score:2)
Some might be slightly better than the VIPs, some might be worse.
What's more, after you've killed the VIPs, those in power will spin the event as proving that these "enhanced security measures" are not only needed, but aren't enough and they need MORE power.
And there you have it in a nutshell. These right here are the very reasons why it doesn't make sense to start shootin' by oneself. It will only make things worse. That's how you can tell someone is insane. They don't comprehend this. They really think they're going to make the world a better place by assassinating some people. But if I may speak stereotypically metaphorically, removing some cogs from the machine won't help if they can replace them faster than you can remove them.
Re:British Intelligence? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not the point at all. It's not about keeping the backdoors secret but about stopping people from advertising that they exist. Companies like Apple and Google and Facebook and even the BBC would comply with the request to put back doors in but they would put a notice on the log in screen (for British customers only) along the lines of
"Although we respect your privacy, be aware that, by order of the British Government we have to make your data available to them on request".
There's nothing like having a reminder every time you use Facebook, that your own government wants to snoop on you for driving up opposition.
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind the fact that in today's world, everyone everywhere is constantly looking at things for bugs, vulnerabilities, exploits, and once you're discovered, the game is up. You either have to patch the backdoor, rendering it useless, or anyone will be able to use it. You can't make it "just for us 'good' guys." (And of course, that's leaving aside the fact that it's highly problematic to be granting unchecked spying powers to domestic agencies,
Re: (Score:2)
How would a multinational company even comply with this? Most of Google's services are not developed by Google's UK staff, or managed by them. If they tried to insert a backdoor it's likely that staff in the US would notice pretty quickly and kick up a fuss. UK law can't silence them.
For example, Android OS updates and security fixes are managed by Google in the US. If the UK arm suddenly requested that they take that function over, but with no explanation as to why, it would be suspicious to say the least.
Re: (Score:2)
You develop versions for each country you sell in, which the local subsidiaries. Might create a whole market for "offshore electronics..."
We are in trouble if these government overreaches are not stopped. Don't have much hope personally though.
Re: (Score:3)
The UK got access to most embassies in Europe in the 1920's-30's, Engima, all French diplomatic communications after 1945 into the 1960's, almost all trusted export crypto used globally until the 1980's. More is now understood thanks to whistleblowers.
It worked because nobody was smart enough to look or had the ability to openly publish Western crypto findings. No book, magazine, newspaper would really consider the story interest
Huh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Huh (Score:4, Informative)
Only if they are in the UK. Everyone other country can find and tell everyone about the backdoors as they are not bound by UK law.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder: If someone from outside the UK found and reported a backdoor used by the UK government, could a UK security firm repeat this report in any way (since it has now been disclosed)? Or would that get them in trouble too? Either way, could they tell colleagues outside of the UK "hey, want to see something interesting, look over there" (i.e. not saying where/what the backdoor is but pointing their colleagues in the right direction) without getting in trouble?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes: although there have been attempts to prevent publication in the UK of facts 'revealed' in another country, the government has usually ended up taking the pragmatic approach and back down - if it is out overseas, then it is OK to publish in the UK -- but often only after quite some delay.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another reason to run Antivir or Kaspersky or ESET.
It strikes me as sublimely ironic that the realities of the current international political landscape make it far, far safer for most of us to run software from a country with a government antagonistic to my own - Sure, it no doubt still contains malware friendly to Germany or Russia or Slovakia, but those governments ha
Only if the home secratary thinks it's reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
Ooh it's all OK then. It'll only happen if the home secretary thinks it's "reasonable". Good job we don't have a party independent constitution which guarantees there's always a hard line nutcases as home secretary.
The answer of "is it reasonable according to the home secretary" is always a resounding "yes", with a side order of "fuck you, proles".
Shortsighted law (Score:5, Insightful)
So what happens if the backdoor leads to a different criminal offence - such as leaking of the medical records of millions of citizens? Will the company be allowed to disclose that the vulnerability has been introduced to comply with another law? Can the company be held liable for the consequences?
Re: (Score:3)
It's the UK. They'll just say that a CD was left on a train and everyone will believe it.
Proof-reading... (Score:3, Funny)
Someone's misspelt Grauniad [urbandictionary.com].
Police State (Score:3)
One can only hope that they will leave the EU, the sooner, the better.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Well, if they stay in the EU, and the EU decide to come up with a complete different set of conflicting laws, they may be obliged to change their laws to match that of the EU.
By leaving the EU, any protection the EU can give to its citizens goes away. And the EU are very big on personal privacy.
By leaving the EU, UK citizen would likely be worse off.
Unfortunately for them, they probably don't think that way - saving the pound* is probably more important to most of them. *sigh*
* Many will say that the poun
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sorry Europe, we know we are being tawts but we need to stay in because the ECHR is the only thing that stops us descending into an East Germany style paranoia fuelled police state.
Re: (Score:2)
Tragically I think that this analysis is fairly close to the mark. The moronic public have been sold the lie that opting out of human rights legislation is all about preventing the EU from forcing the UK to give prisoners the right to vote and preventing the deportation of assorted terror suspects. It is actually about giving the Tory parties sponsors the right to treat their employees as slaves but the media never discusses this.
Catch-22? (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3)
hope the British public will make it legitimate. (Score:1)
They did that when they voted for these people. Five more years... Enjoy
Always assume they know... (Score:3)
When I was studying IT Security and encryption, one of the things that came up a lot was that you should always assume the process of the encryption is known [as well as some of the text of the message]. Typically it's because the encryption process is a standard (AES, for example). Security through obscurity doesn't exist. And it's far easier to keep a key secret than an algorithm (or source code).
So if the UK are trying to ensure that a backdoor exists in any encryption method created, then EVERYONE IS GOING TO KNOW ABOUT IT! It will be impossible to keep the existence of a backdoor secret. They may have a 12 month sentence for anyone who leaks this information, but you have to assume that it will be leaked, and you have to assume that everyone (who wants to) will know how it works.
This, then, leads to the problem of how to implement such a backdoor in such a way that only one group can use it but everyone else can't -- simply, impossible.
This reminds me of one of the major flaws of Enigma (that a character can't be encoded as itself) that was insisted upon by people who didn't really understand encryption - a flaw that was, in a large part, responsible to helping to break the Enigma codes.
Re:Always assume they know... (Score:4, Insightful)
They may have a 12 month sentence for anyone who leaks this information, but you have to assume that it will be leaked, and you have to assume that everyone (who wants to) will know how it works.
Even if it isn't leaked, chances are someone will find it. People are constantly looking for backdoors left in for debugging or by nefarious companies/governments, or for flaws that can be exploited. It's probably worse than 50/50 that the person discovering the problem will make it public rather than just selling it on the black market, or giving it to their employer (e.g. foreign security services).
This creates a huge problem for companies that are forced to create backdoors. When discovered will they be able to patch it immediately? Maybe the reason why some companies take months to fix problems is because GCHQ/NSA won't let them fix it. Will they be compensated for the reputational damage? If it's a security focused company a backdoor could destroy them.
Tech companies really need to move to another EU country where they will be safe from having their business destroyed overnight on the whims of a clueless Home Secretary.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they have any backdoors in the encryption itself in mind. They're thinking about particular implementations. Suppose, for instance, you make an encryption program. They will either force you to give them the source code so they can compile a backdoor version themselves or 'ask' you to put a backdoor in it. The backdoor will most likely be some key escrow. Unless it's made transparent in the first place, it's hard to detect this from the outside in an executable without extensive reverse engine
Re: (Score:2)
It was brilliant, don't get be wrong. Some very intelligent people came up with it. It was almost perfect.
But that small little thing about a letter not being allowed to encrypt to itself was enough to get a start on breaking it. If nothing else, it could be used to prove that the plaintext didn't match the cyphertext, so we can immediately ignore all of these keys...
So no matter how brilliant a system is, if someone who doesn't understand something demands a change, that will likely be the cause (or par
What's the problem? (Score:4, Funny)
They demand a back door -- you make it. They ask what it is, you say you are in compliance with the law and cannot disclose any information.
WIN!
Time to jump across the channel (Score:3)
This is after the impending EU referendum which, anyone with a brain will be voting against so that we can actually stay in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I and, several other British overlords are taking some serious consideration to moving to Amsterdam or Berlin, for good.
Berlin? Isn't that the city famous in this age primarily for that wall that only came down just recently? History, it's not just for boring schoolkids with any more
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what the relevance of your comment was, nor what the intention of it was but if you haven't been to Berlin, you should go, it's fantastic.
"Revealing" the existence... (Score:2)
Commonwealth you're dead to me (Score:2)
I once wanted to go to Australia, NZ and Scotland. No more. Every time I think they can't slide further into the abyss they do. Heck I don't even want to go to Canada any more.
Canary? (Score:2)
"We have not been instructed by HM Government to put any back doors in our software."
Goole, Apple. et al need to man up (Score:2)
What we need are Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter and other companies in the communication business cease all operations in Great Britain when this (or similar legislation) passes.
Let the people of the UK deal with the government when Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. stop doing business with them because of this law. If suddenly the people of England couldn't buy a smart phone, update their status, or tweet their latest selfie because of the government, they would take to the streets and they would ha
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, that is the only option. Conversely, any product that is still available in the UK after this law passes has to be regarded as compromised.
Here's a partial solution (Score:2)
We set up a public database where companies can register the fact that they are not creating any backdoors. This registration has to be renewed each year. This registration is not illegal - it simply informs the public that the government has not made any special demands, which is perfectly lawful.
Of course, if the government does make any special demands, the company cannot register the lack of backdoors anymore, and the registration will automatically be removed from the database. From that point we know
Time to stop selling tech products to the UK (Score:2)
If the cannot get mobile phones, network equipment, computer OSes, etc., they may notice how utterly stupid they have become. Then, maybe not.
Re: Draft (Score:3)
When they write up these "drafts", usually what they just do is figure out what kind of legal crap they're already doing and put it down on paper for ratification by the "representatives".
Re:Concerns of a US citizen (Score:5, Informative)
Not too long ago, Europe objected that the US wasn't adequately protecting European citizens' data when US businesses are subject to government spying. These are legitimate concerns, but Europe is doing exactly the same thing the US is. As a US citizen whose data might be processed in Europe by multinational companies, how can I trust that my data is safe? When US companies and the US government are involved, I have the recourse of the court system. But there's no such recourse for me if the EU is spying. As a US citizen, I don't want my data shared with or processed in Europe. At least if it's in the US, I have a modicum of hope that the courts can protect me from government abuses.
UK != EU, especially when the UK's not even fully in the EU. Although reduced from what they used to be, Germany's concept of privacy far exceeds American or British standards; your data is much safer there, although ultimate privacy is an incompatability with the advent of the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
UK != EU, especially when the UK's not even fully in the EU.
Yes, yes, France makes sure that everybody knows this.
Re: (Score:2)
Your data is not safe in the EU. European laws and jurisdiction are fairly reasonable and overall much better than in the US, but it takes quite some effort to get something to the European level, and the local laws and jurisdiction differ vastly from country to country. But the real problem is that politicians and local authorities seem to always find a way around European legislation anyway.
And now that the European idea is crumbling due to a new rise in right-wing nationalism and Nazi movements in German
Re: China as a precursor (Score:1)
There will be no revolution. Surveillance will detect any trouble-raiser and they will be arrested and dealt with before they can do anything. If push comes to shove, and people take it to the street, the police will open fire on them without mercy. The was is long over, we lost without firing one shot. We waited too long. Now it's over, for us and everybody else. All hail the Ruling Elite.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In a country where self defense is illegal in most circumstances, the legal theory is that any response to attacks on people, whether by criminals or terrorists, has to be a police matter. The price of such a philosophy is you have to keep granting the police more and more power. And then you find that's never enough.
Re:Streisand effect to the rescue (Score:2)
Overseas security companies and the Streisand effect. Anonymous tip-offs by post with false return addresses of backdoors to security researches will be published. Streisand effect can't be stopped by 1 rogue nation on the global internet. Search for photos of Barbara's coastal home, Tienanmen square, German concentration camps, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Here's one:
A guy gets 8 years jail for defending himself against a home invasion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_... [bbc.co.uk]
Re:George Orwell lacked vision (Score:5, Informative)
Also, that article is from 11 years ago, can you not find a more relevant example? We've had 2 (semi) different governments since then.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why we need samurai control laws and mandatory background checks on samurai.
Re: (Score:2)
So far, Britain has been steadfast under threats by Big Knife, though fork control has been less successful.
Re:George Orwell lacked vision (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why it's called human rights. everyone has them, even murderer and nazis.
Re: (Score:3)
How is stabbing someone in the back while they're running away "self defence"?
I'm happy to live in a country that recognises there should be limits on unjustified violence.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're within your abode, they're already on the offensive. Just because they make a retreat doesn't mean they don't intend to continue their assault; only an idiot would assume otherwise.
Just so you know, the Castle Doctrine is that when you're in your own abode and it is being invaded, you have no responsibility to attempt to retreat and/or attempt to leave your own home, and are permitted to use any means necessary to neutralize the threat.
Re: (Score:2)
The threat was already neutralised. Had there been an extant threat and it would have been self defense.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are in your house, they are probably there to harm you. There relative position to you, be it retreating to find a better weapon against you or actually running upon realizing that you won't go down without a fight, is not really important. If they didn't want to face a lethal end, they should not have threatened your life and home by breaking in and then subsequently trying to steal or kill or whatever.
I don't believe any of that violence in unjustified. Better to be tried by twelve than carried
Re:George Orwell lacked vision (Score:4, Informative)
What's missing from the story is the fact that Lindsay was a drug dealer. The men entered posing as drug buyers, Lindsay chased them outside repeatedly stabbing one of them in the back with a sword he kept to protect his "business".
Re: (Score:2)
So, let me be clear; you're saying it's alright for the government to deny one the natural right to protect ones body and life from mortal danger, if they don't like some activity you engage in?
He is saying that if you are engaged in illegal activity, not just an activity "they don't like", then any harm that results from your illegal actions that is a reasonably foreseeable consequence, including the death of a person who attacks you trying to steal your contraband, is considered your fault since it wouldn't have happened if you weren't breaking the law. The law is the same in the United States. You can defend yourself, but you will still be considered guilty of causing the other person's death
Re: (Score:2)
So, let me be clear; you're saying it's alright for the government to deny one the natural right to protect ones body and life from mortal danger, if they don't like some activity you engage in?
He's saying that first, the men entered, then pulled the gun.
And he's also saying that chasing someone down the street to stab them repeatedly is more akin to murder and not self-defense. Self-defense is saving yourself from imminent threat. Killing someone fleeing from you is not self-defense.
Re: (Score:2)
And he's also saying that chasing someone down the street to stab them repeatedly is more akin to murder and not self-defense.
That depends. Are they likely to come back if you don't? That seems to be a bit of a grey area. Since he's engaged in criminal activity, he can't utilize law enforcement services for protection. The government created this particular class of crime willfully in exchange for a little more power in court.
Re: (Score:2)
You normally aren't allowed to kill people because you think they'll try to kill you. You can kill someone if they're trying to commit grievous injury at that time, and if lethal force is necessary to stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
You normally aren't allowed to kill people because you think they'll try to kill you.
Unless you are a cop. Then apparently you can kill anyone that instills any fear in you, whether they are armed or not.
Re: (Score:3)
this could be as simple, he stabbed the robber once - OK , robber started fleeing and he stabs the robber 3 more times to make it fatal, make him the attacker, it is simple as that
Re: (Score:3)
I plead guilty to an offense where I'd defended a third party (he was hitting his girlfriend outside of a bar) and I was sued in civil court for it because I'd not stopped when the threat was concluded. Interestingly and tangentially related, I did get away with breaking a police officer's jaw. He had grabbed me from behind without identifying himself. I did spend the weekend in jail as they would not let me bail out without seeing a judge. The latter case was dismissed in criminal court, the former was one
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is "a lot" - "alot" is not a word. :-) I say that because I presume you to be an English as a Second Language speaker - not to be a jerk but to be helpful. I'd say that they should be allowed to engage in willful combat with one another, up to and including the use of weapons. They should have a declared and agreed upon outcome. If two people are willing to risk death and are of sound mind then they should be, in my opinion, able to act on their wishes without fear of legal repercussions. I admit, I'm a
Re: (Score:2)
but the thing is, if atleast two people are involved they are not making a decision that affects individually themselves, as one party is agreeing to not only be the one to get hurt\killed but also agreeing to hurt\kill the opposing party else even if both parties have agreed on it
Re: (Score:2)
They are - they're agreeing to accept death as a potential consequence of their actions. That affects only themselves. You can try to interpret it differently but I'd strongly disagree. Their decision impacts nobody, by default, except themselves. The other may act on it - and would, presumably, if they were to take the same risks. There's some shared responsibility but the decision is their own and impacts only them. The other isn't deciding that they've a right to kill you - you're giving them the right t
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it was considered to be amazing news when the Secretary said that yes, if you feel your life to be in real danger, it's okay to resist an attacker so long as sone overzealous prosecutor doesn't feel you violated his treasured Marquis of Queensbury rules of engagement.
Re: (Score:2)
There is also the problem that anybody still operating in the UK after this passes has to be regarded as not trustworthy and selling compromised products. Specifically for Apple, that could be a killer.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple: You point out the obvious backdoors, and the UK is asking their friends in the US to drone-murder you, because you are clearly a terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
That would bring some companies to a grinding halt....
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent reply, too bad /me has no mod points :)
About the second suggestion: it could work, if getting any number of people enough to do it would work; which it doesn't, hence it wont work.