Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Crime Encryption Government The Internet Politics

British PM Seeks Ban On Encryption After Terror Attack (boingboing.net) 339

"British Prime Minister Theresa May has used last Saturday's terrorist attack to again push for a ban on encryption," according to ITWire. Slashdot reader troublemaker_23 shared their article, which quotes this strong rebuttal from Cory Doctorow: Use deliberately compromised cryptography, that has a back door that only the "good guys" are supposed to have the keys to, and you have effectively no security. You might as well skywrite it as encrypt it with pre-broken, sabotaged encryption... Theresa May doesn't understand technology very well, so she doesn't actually know what she's asking for. For Theresa May's proposal to work, she will need to stop Britons from installing software that comes from software creators who are out of her jurisdiction... any politician caught spouting off about back doors is unfit for office anywhere but Hogwarts, which is also the only educational institution whose computer science department believes in 'golden keys' that only let the right sort of people break your encryption.

British PM Seeks Ban On Encryption After Terror Attack

Comments Filter:
  • real world (Score:5, Insightful)

    by religionofpeas ( 4511805 ) on Saturday June 10, 2017 @10:33AM (#54591533)

    In the real world, people just buy a set of knives from Lidl, rent a van, and discuss the plans in someone's living room. Banning encryption isn't going to stop any of that.

    • Re:real world (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 10, 2017 @10:51AM (#54591623)

      In the real world, people just buy a set of knives from Lidl, rent a van, and discuss the plans in someone's living room. Banning encryption isn't going to stop any of that.

      You, as many people, are assuming that she's getting this wrong through stupidity. Even if she is stupid, the people asking for this aren't. They know that every terrorist involved in the recent attacks was reported, by the British muslim community, five or more times over. Less encryption means only more data that the police have to, but aren't able to follow up. For these people terrorism is a pretext, in fact I would't be surprised if they don't want to encourage more of it.

      Theresa May is a typical (though extremist) European Christian "Democrat". What she wants more than anything else is to spy on and control the normal people of her country.

      • Theresa May is a typical (though extremist) European Christian "Democrat"

        "Tories are Democrats!"

        • Re:real world (Score:5, Informative)

          by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Saturday June 10, 2017 @11:16AM (#54591775)

          If you want to compare European politics to the US... you can't. Even our far-right parties would be on friendly speaking terms with the US far-left.

          Can you imagine a serious politician in the US suggesting the government establish a national system of hospitals and healthcare providers, almost free of private sector involvement, operated by government employees and funded with tax money? They would be laughed out of office. But that's the normal thing in most of Europe. In the same way you rarely find European politicians who proudly lead religious ceremonies to win support and try to argue that gay marriage is an existential threat to civilisation, because that's just not going to go down here. Well, maybe in Poland.

          • Re:real world (Score:4, Informative)

            by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Saturday June 10, 2017 @11:45AM (#54591943) Journal

            In the same way you rarely find European politicians who proudly lead religious ceremonies to win support and try to argue that gay marriage is an existential threat to civilisation, because that's just not going to go down here.

            You may have heard of the UDP. They're forming a coalition with the Tories as we speak.

          • Even our far-right parties would be on friendly speaking terms with the US far-left.

            Sausage makers will always talk to fellow sausage makers.

            It's the people who say "fuck politics, let's shut this shit down" who nobody will play nice with.

            And playing nice is bullshit.

          • Can you imagine a serious politician in the US suggesting the government establish a national system of hospitals and healthcare providers, almost free of private sector involvement, operated by government employees and funded with tax money? They would be laughed out of office.

            During the proposed Hillarycare of the 1990's, people were seriously discussing a single-payer system as an alternative. And some states have passed single payer universal healthcare systems in the past, even if the implementation wasn't successful (Massachusetts). And most states have at one time or another had some kind of universal healthcare system proposed.

            So don't make up bullshit about how US politics work, unless you want to be called out on it. Europe also has its left and right factions, but the d

      • You, as many people, are assuming that she's getting this wrong through stupidity

        I'm sure she's stupid either way, even if she has sinister plans.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The recent election proves beyond all doubt that she is an idiot. Extremely poor judgement.

          Doesn't matter anyway, she won't be PM for very long. Bookies are saying Tuesday.

    • I think I don't get UK politics as well as I thought I did. Didn't they give May the boot?

      • They didn't give May the boot, she won her own constituency. However her party now hold less seats than the majority required for them to form their own government (executive branch for the US), but with help from other like-minded parties, they can gain that majority. Of course that help comes with promises and agreements and favours to be called in later.

        IF the Tories can't find enough friends, then the other parties can try and club together to get the majority required and put their own chaps in. If th

        • by Bongo ( 13261 )

          I feel like reality is punishing me because I never bothered to finish watching the Borgen box set. Now life imitates art.

          Now excuse me whilst I go rewatch Veep and Yes Minister.

        • by KGIII ( 973947 )

          Thanks!

          I have one more question (that I know of - maybe more)...

          Let's say some of the others agree to band together - I think the UKians call that a coalition. They can then present as the coalition and majority, correct?

          Now, if they band together with enough to have a greater majority - can May's party *also* band with the remainders (whomever they may be) and form a larger coalition and thus go to the queen and ask her blessing and get their leader appointed as PM?

          I am not talking about political feasibil

          • The core idea behind the Westminster parliament and the Prime Minister is that the parliament can vote on their confidence or lack thereof in the PM. This is a binding vote and results in the resignation of the PM if there is no confidence.

            In the current environment, there is no clear majority, so to gain the majority, either a coalition must be formed or the party needs to rely on the goodwill of the other parties. A coalition is a formal agreement between the parties that guarantees the vote of confidenc

        • Rinse, lather, repeat.

          That's not right.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Apparently, that idea is too difficult to understand for many, many people, including the current British PM. It seems "stupid" is now an acceptable mainstream state-of-mind.

  • by MindPrison ( 864299 ) on Saturday June 10, 2017 @10:38AM (#54591557) Journal

    Well, you did it U.K.

    First, massive monitoring of your citizens with country wide CCTV, that didn't help crime statistics at all, so you extended that with the worlds most advanced facial recognition system.

    Second, laws on what you look at, what you view and thought crimes, congratulations, you're now only ONE step away from draconian laws Orwellian surveillance state.

    Third phase, Brexit - no one comes in, no one goes out. We decide who does what in OUR country, the mindless sheeple will do what WE say. Sip your tea and shut up sir. Pomeroy.

    Fourth and FINAL phase - Total monitoring of every citizen, forbid all encryption, have anything to hide? You are hereby found guilty by the court of LAW until WE say otherwise.

    How did you guys manage to let all that slip past you? Are you this desperate? My God - England! You're letting them take every ounce of dignity and freedom you had left.

    • by Vrekais ( 1889284 ) on Saturday June 10, 2017 @10:42AM (#54591581)

      We've only had an elected Primeminster for 1 year out of the last 10, that should be a ridiculous enough situation to bring about some politcal reform and actually have some representation but we're apparently stuck with First Past the Post regardless of it not working for over a decade now.

      I've voted every time I've had chance to, been strategic too knowing the failings of our system. It's in a spirallng stall hurtling towards the ground now our country. Tempted to leave.

      • by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Saturday June 10, 2017 @10:57AM (#54591683) Homepage
        Despite the Conservatives being the largest part in 2010 under Cameron who was then PM via the LibDem coalition through 2015, then on their own merit until 2016 (almost six years), the UK has *never* had an elected Prime Minster. We elect MPs to the House of Commons and the party with the most MP then gets to put forward whoever they want to be Prime Minister and form the government. Normally that's the leader of the party at the time of the election, but that doesn't actually have to be the case, and couldn't be the case if the party leader in question had lost their seat for some reason.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Vrekais ( 1889284 )

          That's all very techically true but what I meant is;

          2007-2010 Gordon Brown become PM when Blair resigns,
          2010-2015 David Cameron PM but his party didn't have a sole majority casuing the coalition,
          2015-2016 David Cameron spends 1 year as PM who's party has actually won a majority then resigns after EU Membership referendum,
          2016-2017 Teresa May becomes PM after all competition withdraws from Tory Leadership Contest,
          2017 to Present Teresa May possibly to remain PM after losing majority and seeking to form a new

      • No, you've had an elected prime minister for 0 years out of the last 10.

        That's because in the UK the public doesn't elect the prime minister. They elect ministers, the ministers chose a prime minister amongst themselves.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's our own fault. We were offered the Alternative Vote, a vast improve on First Past the Post. We rejected it, because many of us are too stupid to understand such a simple scheme. People seemed to think that "the loser could win" and even seemed comfortable admitting on national TV that there were too thick to grasp such a simple concept as ranking your preferred candidates.

        Things are crap and that's how we like it. Seriously, the UK is incredibly conservative and rejects many improvements just because w

      • We've only had an elected Primeminster for 1 year out of the last 10, that should be a ridiculous enough situation to bring about some politcal reform and actually have some representation but we're apparently stuck with First Past the Post regardless of it not working for over a decade now.

        Two entirely unrelated things. Are you sure you're not a yank?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      "country wide CCTV, that didn't help crime statistics at all"

      Fake news.

      BTW regardless of the size of the impact, one of the greatest benefits of CCTV is objectivity. When minorities commit more crime on camera you can simply show the images, avoids all the social justice systemic X lies and stupidity.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        CCTV is a lot like fingerprint and DNA evidence. Superficially seems great, if there is video who can argue with it, right? But in practice it shows events from one angle and often without context or even sound. And when it is really needed the tapes magically go missing or the machine was broken that day.

        I'm not saying it isn't useful, but it isn't really objective or infallible either. As an example, there was a case police were prosecuting people for dangerous driving based off CCTV evidence showing them

    • BRB, going to watch V for Vendetta now.
    • by alexo ( 9335 )

      First, massive monitoring of your citizens with country wide CCTV, that didn't help crime statistics at all, so you extended that with the worlds most advanced facial recognition system.

      Second, laws on what you look at, what you view and thought crimes, congratulations, you're now only ONE step away from draconian laws Orwellian surveillance state.

      Third phase, Brexit - no one comes in, no one goes out. We decide who does what in OUR country, the mindless sheeple will do what WE say. Sip your tea and shut up sir. Pomeroy.

      Fourth and FINAL phase - Total monitoring of every citizen, forbid all encryption, have anything to hide? You are hereby found guilty by the court of LAW until WE say otherwise.

      No. it is not the final phase.

      You forget step 5: Lock up anyone who is a "terrorist suspect" (And who is deemed a suspect? Why, anyone we say we suspect, no proof or even evidence needed because, you know, national security) and tear up any human rights legislation that prevents you from doing so.

      Quote:
      “And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in c

    • First, massive monitoring of your citizens with country wide CCTV, that didn't help crime statistics at all

      As others have said, fake news. Researchers counted the CCTV cameras on a mile of a busy high street and multiplied my the total miles of road in the UK, including rural lanes.

    • An example of the first phase is the level of surveillance and tracking as seen in Torchwood is actually real, at least for the cameras everywhere part.
  • Law of the jungle. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 10, 2017 @10:38AM (#54591563)

    If one outlaws encryption, only outlaws will have encryption.

  • Counter proposal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Saturday June 10, 2017 @10:40AM (#54591569)

    Couldn't we just ban politicians from making laws about shit they have no clue about? I'm aware that this means we'll get WAY, WAY fewer laws but then, you take a look at the laws we've gotten recently and try to tell me with a straight face that it would be a bad idea.

    • by fikx ( 704101 )
      I am not sure if it is just me, but this post seems deeply, deeply ironic.
      Was it deliberate?
      to solve a problem over-generalized : suggesting a law to fix the issue....
  • To be or not to be (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Saturday June 10, 2017 @10:40AM (#54591571) Journal

    The only people who can get into the backdoor'd encryption are good governments stopping crime and terrorism, and every dictatorship out there intending to keep their own people down for ever and ever.

    And good governments won't ever abuse it secretly to aid those in power, nor fall from freedom to dictatorship, because we have no historical examples of that ever happening.

  • by pablo_max ( 626328 ) on Saturday June 10, 2017 @10:42AM (#54591579)

    I guess we all know by now that these power grabs have nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with consolidating power.
    I wonder, do these dip-shits every stop to think what would actually happen without encryption? For fucks sake, your average basement dwelling hacker already has a relatively easy time of it, may as well just open everything up.
    Sure, out credit cards will be stolen every other week, but at least we will can finally end the 10's of thousands of deaths every year in the UK by terrorism ....wait....

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They don't care about terrorism and even less about the average citizen being "hacked". They do care about accessing your online transactions to make sure that you don't hide anything from the government, that you pay all your taxes and you don't oppose the government in place. They don't care about terrorists having a "safe place" - they don't want normal people to have such places.

  • She may just as well ban fire that can harm people and mandate that alcohol be only capable of affecting people who aren't minors.
    • by Feneric ( 765069 )

      She may just as well ban fire that can harm people and mandate that alcohol be only capable of affecting people who aren't minors.

      Politicians seem to miss a couple of key points about encryption. The first big one is that like fire or alcohol or math, encryption exists and they can't simply make it illegal. The second point is that also like fire or alcohol or math, there's no way to limit the use or impact of encryption to certain select parties.

      • I don't know. I mean, I am pretty sure they can make it illegal. They can make farting illegal. It's not smart and it's impossible to effectively prohibit it, but they can make it illegal.

        At the same time, laws don't really prevent anything. They just provide a means of punishment and may be selectively enforced. People still rape and murder, after all.

        So, they can make it illegal, methinks. It'd be stupid, but they can do it.

      • Politicians seem to miss a couple of key points about encryption. The first big one is that like fire or alcohol or math, encryption exists and they can't simply make it illegal. The second point is that also like fire or alcohol or math, there's no way to limit the use or impact of encryption to certain select parties.

        No, the understand quite well. This is about expanding the surveillance state and reducing individual liberty, privacy, and freedom.

        It's the Alinsky "bottom-up, top-down, inside-out". Import terrorists, wait for the people to cry out (bottom-up) when an increasing number of attacks occur, and step in to save the day (top-down) with new infringements on privacy, freedom, and civil rights (inside-out).

        Western governments *want* terrorist attacks, just not the catastrophic kind like destruction of an entire ma

  • red herring (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The attackers were known to police and MI5. Oops! And PM May is responsible for firing 10000 police officers. Oops again! So this anti encryption and controlling the internet BS is simply a red herring to soothe people.

  • Wouldn't banning encryption be to the detriment of the government as well as their own citizens' personal data that any terrorist would now be able to exploit to say, fake their ID or steal government clearance info and intel?

    What could they possibly be thinking?

    • Do as I say, not as I do.
    • by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Saturday June 10, 2017 @12:09PM (#54592113) Homepage Journal
      The thinking goes back to Defence of the Realm Act 1914 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
      Breaking Enigma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . The Uk looking at all other nations 1910 to 2017 embassy codes.
      Every call in the Soviet Union, East/West Germany, France, Japan been looked at for things of any interest to the UK.
      Crypto was great for the UK in the Falklands War too. The UK could read everything in real time. Except some South African hardware, but that was solved too.
      That was all hidden away from the wider public and interesting people kept chatting away thinking that call could never be detected.
      The first changes to that was a policy shift between the UK and USA.
      The USA wanted to share results within the USA, to allow police, mil, contractors to use raw collection results and get results.
      More people looking, more results.
      The UK knew results would leak to lawyers, police, human rights groups, spies, criminals and bad people would just understand not use phone/internet again.
      The US policy finally won and now collect it all and using the results in public.
      Courts, police, mil, gov can share results and the public soon knows its been collected on 24/7.
      So who is right? The US with collect it all, sort it all, study it all, police it all?

      Or the UK method of the 1970-80's? No courts, no police, no lawyers, no human rights groups, no media, no political groups working out methods.
      Just groups like the UK mil, GCHQ and RUC Special Branch worked with raw material. Action was then taken and nobody knew anything or could request any details.
      Was it an informant? A phone call? A copied paper file? A computer file? Something in the funding from the USA to Irish groups? The UK police was kept away from any and all raw information, the UK press did not know who to ask, UK lawyers did not see anything in any type of courts. Telco workers did not see changes to the amount of police/court requests.

      Its a generational change between a US view of more contractors, the private sector, courts, police, lawyers, telcos been fully trusted. Collect it all, use it all.
      Or the older UK view of only trust the UK mil, GCHQ and RUC Special Branch.
      Breaking encryption only works if nobody ever knows and the UK mil, GCHQ and RUC Special Branch could then go get results.
    • Wouldn't banning encryption be to the detriment of the government as well as their own citizens' personal data that any terrorist would now be able to exploit to say, fake their ID or steal government clearance info and intel?

      Well, the NSA believes that abolishing strong encryption is overall bad for the national security of the USA. That is without taking things like privacy into account, which the NSA doesn't care about (not saying it's a negative that they don't care about privacy, it's not their job).

  • Silly, just silly. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) * on Saturday June 10, 2017 @10:58AM (#54591689)

    Two things about this...

    A) This will not stop terrorism or terrorists, and it will not make it harder for them to communicate in any meaningful way. They were able to "get it done" before encryption, and they are motivated to the extent that they will get it done without.

    B) It's irrelevant anyway because there is simply no way to ban encryption or even require "back doors" because there are too many absolute requirements for encryption in numerous systems and situations, and people will not stand for back doors. More than that, if encryption was banned, people would do it anyway.

    Remember in the early days of PGP? To download and install the software you had to "certify" you were an American on American soil? And of course anyone on American soil or with a VPN could do all that, or download it in the US and burn it to a CD and send it off to whoever, as many did. You just can't "ban" something that is already out in the wild, it doesn't work that way.

    • That's right, it works this way [xkcd.com]

    • You most certainly can! It simply becomes criminalized. That means if you ever have a problem with the government and they CAN'T simply read all your communications they'll simply jail you for making it difficult for them to pin something else on you.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      Remember in the early days of PGP? To download and install the software you had to "certify" you were an American on American soil? And of course anyone on American soil or with a VPN could do all that, or download it in the US and burn it to a CD and send it off to whoever, as many did. You just can't "ban" something that is already out in the wild, it doesn't work that way.

      That's a terrible analogy, because those export control laws were null and void outside the US. Just because you can smoke pot in Amsterdam doesn't make it trivial to import and use somewhere else. Encryption is not steganography, most cryptographic protocols are like waving a red flag. If that will get you into trouble on its own, there will be trouble. If the vast majority of the population is willing to go along and not protest as the minority is rounded up and fined/jailed, you lose. It's not even hard,

      • "Encryption is not steganography."

        If encryption is illegal, it soon will be. There are a lot of people on the internet who are up to No Good in a some small way and would like to remain hidden - mostly just sillyness like making insulting jokes, downloading films or plotting which forum to invade and troll.

  • "British Prime Minister Theresa May has used last Saturday's terrorist attack to again push for a ban on encryption,"

    Yes, that will undoubtedly stop all the terrorists cold. Fer sure. I mean, it's a proven fact that one could commit an act of terrorism without encryption. It's impossible.

    Maybe she could ask that they make adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing illegal while they're at it, because that makes just as much sense. And of course she'll make it illegal for government officials and securit

  • by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Saturday June 10, 2017 @11:20AM (#54591793)

    To quote another famous British character:

    "Something must be done.
    This is something.
    Ergo, this must be done."

    The public are afraid. They demand action to stop the terrorists. Politicians are obliged to provide action, if they value their careers - even if there is no good action they can take within available resource constraints, that just means they need to come up with a bad idea. At least if they put into force a bad idea, they will be seen trying - a better option then to be seen as uncaring or dismissive.

  • Knee Jerk (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Saturday June 10, 2017 @11:22AM (#54591807)

    What leads May or her advisers to believe that this attack might have been thwarted if they had the powers that they ask for? This is just another tick-mark on the Five Eyes agenda. Conceivably any event could be used to support their argument, no mater how weakly related.

  • Outlaw encryption and only outlaws will have encryption.

    A guy I went to college with implemented a split-key encryption type system as his senior project. What's to stop terrorists from rolling their own encryption?

    Surely a bunch of guys who can make a remote detonated IED can write some software.

  • by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Saturday June 10, 2017 @11:28AM (#54591853)
    The attack was horrible yes, but we are talking about a couple of deaths per year in a country of 50 million. Automobile safety, antibiotic resistant bacteria/viruses, air pollution, and many more kill several orders of magnitude more people and are a far bigger real threat to human safety and well being - not even mentioning long term issues like the environment. This obviously about easily hyping up a tragedy so the government can stick its spyglass wayyyyyy up where the sun dosent shine.

    But why, one might say, is this so important if it won't help terrorism? The answer is simple - when you have full access to every humans detail in your entire country, you can far more accurately hold snap elections at key times to grab PM seats, you can shut down activist groups by getting or planting dirt on them or creating an effective smear campaign targeted to the right people. You can do just about anything with that much information, no oversight, enough computational power and resources, and enough time. It's happening in the USA and Europe right now.
  • Criminals are no less likely to use encryption if it's made illegal as they are to commit murder, which is already illegal.
  • I say we let them do it. Politicians have been banging this drum pretty consistently for a while now, independent of any common sense or...you know...intelligence. I say we give them what they presume they want. Give them precisely what they want, then rub their noses in it and smack them with a newspaper when it's shown to be impossible.

  • Look, PGP source, uncompromised, is out there. Anyone that is too stupid to compile it and run presumed secure encryption is simply too stupid to live anyway.

    As long as we keep electing mouth breathing idiots to our government, we should expect ass hat policy. All we can do is be smarter than a worm and take our security into our own hands, and avoid "security" that is "supervised".

    The root of this issue is the voters that think this is a good idea. As I like to say "Just the tip, and only for a minute." If

    • A vote without considering party is pointless.

      For example, I like the policies of the Lib Dems more than either Conservative or Labour. And it doesn't matter, because my constituency was, based on past elections, almost certain to go Conservative. There was a very small chance it would go Labour.

      So who to support? I could vote Lib Dem, but that's a wasted vote: There's no way they are going to win. I could vote knowing it was wasted, because then I am at least helping tip the numbers towards the point when

  • If I lived in the UK, which I don't, I would have this to say to PM May:


    -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2

    owE7rZ7EEGkjP8EpPycnPzm7WKEkX6Eyv1TBNzElMVdHIQkqrMcFAA==
    =VEDs
    -----END PGP MESSAGE-----

  • by Gavagai80 ( 1275204 ) on Saturday June 10, 2017 @12:43PM (#54592279) Homepage

    If you took all the money and time spent on ineffectively fighting terrorism's tiny blip in the homicide rate and directed it to really saving lives, how many additional people would be alive today? Even if you focus it strictly on preventing homicides, those billions could've achieved significant crime reduction through detective/beat work alone and certainly through better mental health care.

    • I didn't look up the figures for the UK, but a while ago I did a few rough ten-year calculations for deaths by terrorism verses other causes for the US.

      Lightning beat terrorists, but terrorists beat sharks.

      In Australia, sharks beat terrorists.

      Obviously all pale into insignificance besides heart disease, cancer, road traffic accidents, non-terrorism murders, and most other causes.

  • Goodbye online banking and eCommerce.

  • Gun, ban the truck, ban the knife, ban the bomb, you can even ban the message, whether encrypted or not.

    But you will never achieve your goal until you ban the gun user, ban the truck driver, ban the knife welder, ban the bomber, and ultimately since all of these heinous terrorists acts are "messages" you must ban the messenger.

    Until then you are wasting your time.

  • ... is that people are not allowed to talk in a language that the powers that be don't know, and talking in such a language is criminally punishable.
  • is banning math and math education. You know, math underlies all encryption algorithms.
  • You know, the comment pretty much is just the title
  • "Hey, let's put cameras everywhere to stop the TERRORISTS!!!"

    *doesn't work*

    "Hey, let's ban encryption to stop the TERRORISTS!!!"

    *doesn't work*

    "Hey, let's arrest people for things we think they might do in the future!!!"

    *doesn't work*

    Lather, rinse, repeat. The only thing that this kind of stuff will ever accomplish will be getting citizens of the world so pissed off they will revolt and cause a revolution.

    • by Falos ( 2905315 )

      If you hear a change is "because terrorism" the goal of the change isn't to affect terrorism.

      "Never let a catastrophe go to waste" doesn't even need a catastrophe.

"The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones." -- Nathaniel Howe

Working...