davieG Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 WhatsApp and Snapchat could be set for UK ban By Leicester Mercury | Posted: July 10, 2015 WhatsApp and Snapchat could be set for UK ban Comments (2)The popular messaging services WhatsApp and Snapchat could be banned in the UK. The apps, which allow users to send messages and videos to friends using Wi-Fi, are facing a UK ban if the controversial 'Snooper's Charter' legislation is passed. WhatsApp, iMessage and Snapchat scramble communications between their users and Prime MinisterDavid Cameron is planning to introduce a bill which would stop people from sending any form of encrypted messages. Earlier this year, Mr Cameron said: "In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read? "My answer to that question is: 'No, we must not'. "If I am Prime Minister, I will make sure it is a comprehensive piece of legislation that makes sure we do not allow terrorist safe spaces to communicate with each other." The government wants to quickly push the legislation through parliament after the terrorist atrocities in France and Tunisia. The attack in Sousse left 38 people dead, including 30 Britons. If the new laws get through parliament, it would mean WhatsApp, Google, Facebook and Apple would have to hand over messages sent by users to government agencies including MI5. Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/WhatsApp-Snapchat-set-UK-ban/story-26876931-detail/story.html#ixzz3fUnhwZR5 Follow us: @Leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank to be Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 Do we want to allow private conversations? And his answer is no?!?? Incredible. Tell you what dave, you give us access to all of your emails and let us read or listen in to every single one of your private conversations and I'll think about letting you invade my privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry_LCFC Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 Hands up if you would be locked up if they could read your drunken Friday night whatsapp conversations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 "If the new laws get through parliament, it would mean WhatsApp, Google, Facebook and Apple would have to hand over messages sent by users to government agencies including MI5." "Banned" Still pretty shit news (and I'm a Tory) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 They do anything if they see it as a terrorist threat. I don't get it though because people can still meet up and actually talk about planning something, government cannot prevent that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lgfualol Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 Doesn't matter, there are tons of smaller messaging services everyone will go to instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 Tough one this... similar issues going on in the States reading messages and intercepting phone calls has foiled alot of terrorism cells and the plots they were making.... yet Cameron has chosen his words very badly and has done himself and the cause he is on no favors at all. He truly has foot in mouth disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christoph Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 This is massively retarded but I don't expect anything less from the delusional Mr Cameron. The only thing that will change is terrorists will find a different method of messaging. Technology almost always beats any kind of attempt to squash privacy. At least GCHQ can see everyone's cock and tit photos on snapchat now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKCJ Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 Can't see why people are getting worked up about it. Plenty of other ways to use social media to send photos or messages to each other. The only ones who should be getting worked up about it are those who are sending dodgy stuff who need to be caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangecity23 Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 I wonder if this is going to affect encrypted VPN connections. We use these at work to log into customer automation systems to do service work, fault fixing, customer requests etc. If we have to get rid of encryption, then we can't do the work. Thanks Dave. Also, will Cameron be wanting to break into encryption used for online shopping and banking? Does he want a security back door that is going to put everyone massively at risk from cyber criminals? Strong, secure encryption is a key part of online business infrastructure, and any attempts to stick back doors into it will put us at risk of cyber attacks which could fundamentally damage our country and cause billions of pounds of damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety". This is a horrific intrusion into our private lifes, and saying "turruristz be using it" doesn't change that... Not to mention that this will present a lovely open door for cyber crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike the Metal Ed Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 http://www.writetothem.com I'm just going to leave this here, should anyone feel moved to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMX11 Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 Truely the heir to Blair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoareyaaa Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 This is ridiculous how can Cameron even say such a thing the idiot! ****ing hate how they try to trap and brainwash everyone so they can have us all under there control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nnfox Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 This is not about terrorism. It's about everything. The times that conversations and messages are intercepted are minimal. This is all about the meta-data and government being able to access the data that the companies keep anyway. People are all like "no way will I let the feds use this for my safety but meh, if ee want to use it to push adverts on me and sell me stuff, that's OK" This legislation is needed. WhatsApp, Facebook and the rest won't leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 I say we ban oxygen as terrorists use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 This is not about terrorism. It's about everything. The times that conversations and messages are intercepted are minimal. This is all about the meta-data and government being able to access the data that the companies keep anyway. People are all like "no way will I let the feds use this for my safety but meh, if ee want to use it to push adverts on me and sell me stuff, that's OK" This legislation is needed. WhatsApp, Facebook and the rest won't leave. Well it's not remotely like that. People are fine with targeted ads from browsing history, yknow if I've spent the day reading reviews of the new terminator film, send me some action film adverts. Fine, but that's a world away from reading through my personal conversations to push ads, something I wouldn't accept and I doubt any others would. This legislation isn't needed, it's an attack on civil liberties and is the mark of a government saying to its people that it doesn't trust them. It's disturbingly similar to what some pretty shitty regimes get up to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nnfox Posted 11 July 2015 Share Posted 11 July 2015 I say we ban oxygen as terrorists use it. That wins the arguement. Well done. Well it's not remotely like that. People are fine with targeted ads from browsing history, yknow if I've spent the day reading reviews of the new terminator film, send me some action film adverts. Fine, but that's a world away from reading through my personal conversations to push ads, something I wouldn't accept and I doubt any others would. This legislation isn't needed, it's an attack on civil liberties and is the mark of a government saying to its people that it doesn't trust them. It's disturbingly similar to what some pretty shitty regimes get up to. It's the complete opposite. It is a government taking steps to proactively protect its people - the number one priority for any government. It isn't a trust issue at all. You'll find that some shitty regimes like Syria, North Korea and so on just don't let their citizens communicate full stop - they have trust issues. Apple, Google, WhatsApp, Facebook, O2, EE etc etc etc collect masses of data on all of us and use it to extract money from us. They know what our interests are as you point out. They also know who all your friends are and what their phone numbers are. They know where you live, where you work, the route you take to work. They know everywhere you have been for the last month, they know who you speak to. They know all your banking details and how much money you spend and where. That's fine, we agree to this when we purchase/register with their products. But the issue here is that all that data has a MASSIVE impact on catching criminals and terrorists so why is it OK for these companies to sit on this data and profit from it whilst they protect paedophiles and terrorists? I say it's not OK. It is important to realise that this is nothing new. The ability for law enforcement and the wider government to access this data has been around for years and years. This legislation is about modernising existing powers to be relevant to advances in technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozleicester Posted 11 July 2015 Share Posted 11 July 2015 I say we ban oxygen as terrorists use it. Absurd overreaction! We just need to ban the "Halal certified" oxygen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 11 July 2015 Author Share Posted 11 July 2015 I smile when governments come out with words like we will not let these people change our way of life, etc but isn't this doing exactly that. As for all the current stuff companies get about us that is, whether it is given reluctantly or whether we like it or not is given knowingly well unless you're pretty stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 11 July 2015 Share Posted 11 July 2015 That wins the arguement. Well done. It's the complete opposite. It is a government taking steps to proactively protect its people - the number one priority for any government. It isn't a trust issue at all. You'll find that some shitty regimes like Syria, North Korea and so on just don't let their citizens communicate full stop - they have trust issues. It's treating every citizen with suspicion, declaring that we've should have nothing to hide - well no, you want to know why I have private conversations on social media? Because they're private, for my eyes and the eyes for those receiving them only. Just because I'm not doing anything illegal doesn't mean I've got nothing to worry about - this is an invasion of privacy, which everyone blew their gaskets over when the NSA did it, and the government has no right to your private life (the right to which is guaranteed under several human rights conventions). Apple, Google, WhatsApp, Facebook, O2, EE etc etc etc collect masses of data on all of us and use it to extract money from us. They know what our interests are as you point out. They also know who all your friends are and what their phone numbers are. They know where you live, where you work, the route you take to work. They know everywhere you have been for the last month, they know who you speak to. They know all your banking details and how much money you spend and where. Geolocation and purchasing and browsing histories are massively different to spying on people's private conversations, I'm struggling to see how you can't understand that... That's fine, we agree to this when we purchase/register with their products. But the issue here is that all that data has a MASSIVE impact on catching criminals and terrorists so why is it OK for these companies to sit on this data and profit from it whilst they protect paedophiles and terrorists? I say it's not OK. Does it really? You think anyone buys child porn through Amazon or gets their bomb making guides from iTunes videos? Where I work, what music I buy, whether I go down the A45 or M1 to work is not useful in anyway for establishing claims of paedophilia or terrorism, those people aren't idiots, they work through things like TOR and massively anonymised, traditional currency free websites. The data companies have (which does not include our private conversations) does not include that. It is important to realise that this is nothing new. The ability for law enforcement and the wider government to access this data has been around for years and years. This legislation is about modernising existing powers to be relevant to advances in technology. It's about an invasion of privacy, it treats all people as probable criminals who need to be observed for their own protection, it's horrifically illiberal and arguably a breach of human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzell Posted 11 July 2015 Share Posted 11 July 2015 This is ridiculous how can Cameron even say such a thing the idiot! ****ing hate how they try to trap and brainwash everyone so they can have us all under there control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nnfox Posted 11 July 2015 Share Posted 11 July 2015 I don't blame people for being a bit concerned about this legislation, it is very complex and confusing and the way the media report it is designed to sell papers but for those of you that are interested and have the time for some light bedtime reading here is the actual Draft Bill. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228824/8359.pdf and a report presented to Parliament in 2012, the first time this was all brought up: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201213/jtselect/jtdraftcomuni/79/79.pdf They are a bit more evidence based and less Daily Express sensationalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMX11 Posted 11 July 2015 Share Posted 11 July 2015 The problem is once we lose these liberties they never get reinstated. We are heading for a totalitarian state with these sorts of measures being introduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nnfox Posted 12 July 2015 Share Posted 12 July 2015 We've never had them. People just didn't realise before Snowden told everyone. Look at the privacy policies for some of the companies, when you buy their product you acknowledge the policy which tells you what data they share with government. Problem is that nobody reads the policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.