I would probably argue that China is a little different to the UK, given that China is a one-party state.
Yeah maybe the UK government shouldn’t be able to spy on Apple messages sent anywhere in the world. But maybe UK agencies like GCHQ should be able to get the messages of specific individuals who threaten the UK, with a court warrant, like how law enforcement has been able to bug the phones of criminals with a court warrant.
I dunno. Maybe I should educate myself more on encryption and how it all works.
Couple of things: I am sure that the likes of GCHQ get the messages of specific individuals who threaten the UK without any court orders right now. This cartoon sums up the limits to encryption’s effectiveness in this sort of context: https://xkcd.com/538/
And it has been red Tory v. blue Tory, one party, since 1994. I assume you disagree on this my second point - I am always happy to agree to disagree.
Regarding encryption, surveillance, and snooper’s intrusion: I was brought up being told the stasi were the bad guys. The stasi would blush at the surveillance foreign corporations and the British government now engage in as a matter of course: it is beyond their wildest dreams.
But spying on all of the public all of the time comes at a cost to society I would rather not pay. It quells dissent in the short and maybe mid term, but that extreme intrusion, ultimately drives otherwise moderate people into the hands of extremists (on every side). The terrorists win when we sacrifice liberty for temporary security (or whatever that quote was).
But spying on all of the public all of the time comes at a cost to society I would rather not pay. It quells dissent in the short and maybe mid term, but that extreme intrusion, ultimately drives otherwise moderate people into the hands of extremists
I don’t think the public should be spied on all the time. But if there is some way that illegal communications (like planning murder) could be intercepted, without spying on others, that would be good.
The terrorists win when we sacrifice liberty for temporary security (or whatever that quote was)
I would probably argue that China is a little different to the UK, given that China is a one-party state.
Yeah maybe the UK government shouldn’t be able to spy on Apple messages sent anywhere in the world. But maybe UK agencies like GCHQ should be able to get the messages of specific individuals who threaten the UK, with a court warrant, like how law enforcement has been able to bug the phones of criminals with a court warrant.
I dunno. Maybe I should educate myself more on encryption and how it all works.
Couple of things: I am sure that the likes of GCHQ get the messages of specific individuals who threaten the UK without any court orders right now. This cartoon sums up the limits to encryption’s effectiveness in this sort of context: https://xkcd.com/538/ And it has been red Tory v. blue Tory, one party, since 1994. I assume you disagree on this my second point - I am always happy to agree to disagree.
Regarding encryption, surveillance, and snooper’s intrusion: I was brought up being told the stasi were the bad guys. The stasi would blush at the surveillance foreign corporations and the British government now engage in as a matter of course: it is beyond their wildest dreams.
But spying on all of the public all of the time comes at a cost to society I would rather not pay. It quells dissent in the short and maybe mid term, but that extreme intrusion, ultimately drives otherwise moderate people into the hands of extremists (on every side). The terrorists win when we sacrifice liberty for temporary security (or whatever that quote was).
My understanding is that the Stasi were very repressive - “using torture, intimidation and a vast network of informants to crush dissent”. I’m not aware of the UK government using torture to crush dissent.
I don’t think the public should be spied on all the time. But if there is some way that illegal communications (like planning murder) could be intercepted, without spying on others, that would be good.
There’s a quote by Benjamin Franklin which apparently is: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”. I always thought that quote was a bit weird though, because humans do give up some form of liberty in return for safety. E.g. we give up the freedom to murder other people without legal consequences, because in return we get some safety: protection from being murdered by others.