The Politics Thread 3.0

[Lotus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40627464

The winners of £6.6bn worth of contracts to build the first phase of HS2 between London and Birmingham have been announced by the government.

UK firms Carillion, Costain and Balfour Beatty are among the consortiums who will build tunnels, bridges and embankments on the first stretch of the new high speed rail line.

The contracts will support 16,000 jobs.

The final routes of the Manchester and Leeds branches of HS2 are due to be announced later.

It will include a decision over its path through Sheffield.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said: "As well as providing desperately needed new seats and better connecting our major cities, HS2 will help rebalance our economy."

This HS2 bollocks. I can think of so many better things that £56bn could be spent on.

[Alvin Flummux]

Or they could buy entirely new rolling stock for the north, which continues to suffer from loud, ancient trains with insufficient seating.

[That]

They should do both to be fair. High-speed links between London and other major cities are a good thing, but so would be modernising the rail infrastructure in less 'advantaged' areas. Plenty of other nations manage to have much better railways than ours on both counts.

[KK]

Australia looking at the UK to lead the way...

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has said the laws of mathematics come second to the law of the land in a row over privacy and encryption.

Under new legislation proposed by the Australian Government, messaging apps like WhatsApp and Apple’s iMessage would be forced to hand over the contents of encrypted messages.

When challenged by a technology journalist over whether it was possible to tackle the problem of criminals using encryption – given that platform providers claim they are currently unable to break into the messages even if required to do so by law – the Prime Minister raised eyebrows as he made his reply.

“Well the laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia," he said.

“I’m not a cryptographer, but what we are seeking to do is to secure their assistance. They have to face up to their responsibility. They can’t just wash their hands of it and say it’s got nothing to do with them.”

Some took to Twitter to express their disquiet with Mr Turnbull’s apparent dismissal of the laws of mathematics, with some accusing him of being “Orwellian”.

But Mr Turnbull stressed during the press conference that he was asking for the companies to work with the Government to change their current systems.

“I am not going to get into hypotheticals. The important thing is to recognise the challenge and call on the companies for assistance.

“I am sure they know morally they should. Morally they should.

“They have to face up to their responsibility. They can’t just wash their hands of it and say it’s got nothing to do with us.”

Critics of WhatsApp – owned by Facebook – and other encrypted platforms says they provide the perfect hiding place for criminals because only the sender and the recipient can see the contents of the messages.

But George Brandis, the Australian Attorney General, said the UK security agency GCHQ has assured him it was possible to unlock encrypted systems.

Facebook has argued that weakening encryption for the purposes of law enforcement effectively means weakening the system for everyone, and would risk making the messages available to hackers and others with malevolent intent.

In a statement, Facebook said: “We appreciate the important work law enforcement does, and we understand the need to carry out investigations. That’s why we already have a protocol in place to respond to any requests we can.

“At the same time, weakening encrypted systems for them would mean weakening it for everyone.”

Mr Turnbull said the proposed law was modelled on the UK’s controversial Investigatory Powers Act, which compels service providers to decrypt their supposedly private communications under certain circumstances.

The UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd is due to travel to the US in the next few weeks to hold talks with technology companies over the problem of how to tackle encryption and criminality.

Ms Rudd has previously called encryption “completely unacceptable”, while Prime Minister Theresa May has accused the internet giants of giving terrorists “safe spaces” to communicate.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/malc ... 42946.html

[Moggy]

It's a proud day for the UK now that we are the world leaders in destroying online privacy. strawberry float you China, strawberry float you North Korea, we are number 1!

[BID0]

Or they could buy entirely new rolling stock for the north, which continues to suffer from loud, ancient trains with insufficient seating.

It's not a problem limited to the north, even in Essex with a line running in to London we have trains and carriages that are from probably the 60s. While the second line in Essex that runs parallel about 5 miles away has brand new, AC, spacious carriages.

Privatisation

Ms Rudd has previously called encryption “completely unacceptable”

Mental

[captain red dog]

It is a difficult situation though. Before the Internet it was very, very difficult for citizens to send completely coded messages, there are functions within the law to intercept mail for example but it is authorised using warrants etc. I believe the police should probably be able to view encrypted messages where there is a reasonable suspicion and it has passed the usual tests of obtaining court authorisation.

But I'm guessing this refers to a more wholesale approach and mass monitoring, which should be absolutely rigorously opposed.

[Errkal]

It is a difficult situation though. Before the Internet it was very, very difficult for citizens to send completely coded messages, there are functions within the law to intercept mail for example but it is authorised using warrants etc. I believe the police should probably be able to view encrypted messages where there is a reasonable suspicion and it has passed the usual tests of obtaining court authorisation.

But I'm guessing this refers to a more wholesale approach and mass monitoring, which should be absolutely rigorously opposed.

It isn't complicated it is simple, you do not snoop on people, and people deserve privacy.

Encryption protects everything by putting in holes for law enforcement you are just adding holes for hackers to find and exploit, it is effectively building in security risk.
If people are going to be banana splits they will be, if you say all public IM gooseberry fool needs to be monitored they will do it themselves or find other ways.
This isn't about terrorists or catching bad guys, it is about furthering a right wing arsehole agenda to monitor everyone "just in case", it is about going "yeah we have have cut the police and inteligence services, but by monitoring everyone we can just "search" that for people and hope we find them.

This is the start of a dangerous slope, first it is "we will monitor and onyl pull data for the people we suspect", soon it will be "we have automated searches of all pull data to find people that are doing stuff wrong".

Very quickly everyone is monitored for everything and you live in a police state where you can't say or do anything in case "they" take offence to it.

It is wrong, and it shouldn't happen!

[Moggy]

It is a difficult situation though. Before the Internet it was very, very difficult for citizens to send completely coded messages,

It really wasn’t an issue though was it? I doubt many terrorists before the internet sent postcards that said “we are going to blow up the shopping centre next Thursday, are you in?”.

If the security services start being able to read all of our messages, the only people being caught will be those who are so stupid they would be caught anyway.

The only way to fully monitor everyone would be to have cameras and microphones in every building in the entire country. And even then the bad guys would just go to the park to chat.

[Eighthours]

Imagine how good they'd be if they received a bit of funding.

I have detected another sarcastic post...

As you know I'm dead serious about ending 'austerity' underfunding of public services; it's no laughing matter to the people who depend on those services.

As a Green voter, I am sure Eighthours fully agrees with you.

What is a laughing matter, though, was Karl's use of language. I completely agree with the term 'underfunded' when it comes to the NHS and other public services - however, Karl implied that they receive little or no funding. Which is silly.

[Moggy]

Imagine how good they'd be if they received a bit of funding.

I have detected another sarcastic post...

As you know I'm dead serious about ending 'austerity' underfunding of public services; it's no laughing matter to the people who depend on those services.

As a Green voter, I am sure Eighthours fully agrees with you.

What is a laughing matter, though, was Karl's use of language. I completely agree with the term 'underfunded' when it comes to the NHS and other public services - however, Karl implied that they receive little or no funding. Which is silly.

Looks like you missed another sarcastic post...

[Squinty]

It is a difficult situation though. Before the Internet it was very, very difficult for citizens to send completely coded messages, there are functions within the law to intercept mail for example but it is authorised using warrants etc. I believe the police should probably be able to view encrypted messages where there is a reasonable suspicion and it has passed the usual tests of obtaining court authorisation.

But I'm guessing this refers to a more wholesale approach and mass monitoring, which should be absolutely rigorously opposed.

It isn't complicated it is simple, you do not snoop on people, and people deserve privacy.

Encryption protects everything by putting in holes for law enforcement you are just adding holes for hackers to find and exploit, it is effectively building in security risk.
If people are going to be banana splits they will be, if you say all public IM gooseberry fool needs to be monitored they will do it themselves or find other ways.
This isn't about terrorists or catching bad guys, it is about furthering a right wing arsehole agenda to monitor everyone "just in case", it is about going "yeah we have have cut the police and inteligence services, but by monitoring everyone we can just "search" that for people and hope we find them.

This is the start of a dangerous slope, first it is "we will monitor and onyl pull data for the people we suspect", soon it will be "we have automated searches of all pull data to find people that are doing stuff wrong".

Very quickly everyone is monitored for everything and you live in a police state where you can't say or do anything in case "they" take offence to it.

It is wrong, and it shouldn't happen!

Yeah, but it doesn't affect me because I'm doing nothing wrong

[Return_of_the_STAR]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40641382

Not sure if this is the best place for this but they have announced the new £10 note in the style of the polymer £5 note for release in September. For the record I hate the new £5, they don't fold well and the slip and slide all over the place. I've just sort my wallet out and had five of them, I tried to put them together in a bundle and it was nigh on impossible.

[Preezy]

Hopefully they'll still be made out delicious animal fats

[Moggy]

Hopefully they'll still be made out delicious animal fats

We sure showed him.

[Return_of_the_STAR]

It suggests in the article that they will still be made from animal fats as the announcement was that they will be the same as the £5 note, but whether that's the article writer making that assumption I'm not sure.

A polymer £20 will follow in 2020.

[Moggy]

A polymer £20 will follow in 2020.

ISWTDT

[captain red dog]

It is a difficult situation though. Before the Internet it was very, very difficult for citizens to send completely coded messages,

It really wasn’t an issue though was it? I doubt many terrorists before the internet sent postcards that said “we are going to blow up the shopping centre next Thursday, are you in?”.

If the security services start being able to read all of our messages, the only people being caught will be those who are so stupid they would be caught anyway.

The only way to fully monitor everyone would be to have cameras and microphones in every building in the entire country. And even then the bad guys would just go to the park to chat.

No but they were allowed to intercept shipments, search vans and houses, intercept mail, and they have the powers to wiretap as long as they have certain court approvals. If the concept is to be able to intercept and read whatsapp messages for suspects of serious crimes, under similar restrictions in terms of obtaining a warrant then I don't see an issue with that.

If it's about bulk collection of everybody's data and mass deencryption then of course that's wrong.

[Errkal]

It is a difficult situation though. Before the Internet it was very, very difficult for citizens to send completely coded messages,

It really wasn’t an issue though was it? I doubt many terrorists before the internet sent postcards that said “we are going to blow up the shopping centre next Thursday, are you in?”.

If the security services start being able to read all of our messages, the only people being caught will be those who are so stupid they would be caught anyway.

The only way to fully monitor everyone would be to have cameras and microphones in every building in the entire country. And even then the bad guys would just go to the park to chat.

No but they were allowed to intercept shipments, search vans and houses, intercept mail, and they have the powers to wiretap as long as they have certain court approvals. If the concept is to be able to intercept and read whatsapp messages for suspects of serious crimes, under similar restrictions in terms of obtaining a warrant then I don't see an issue with that.

If it's about bulk collection of everybody's data and mass deencryption then of course that's wrong.

Yes but the issue is with whatsapp, etc. that isn't possible.

The encryption is end to end, only the 2 devices can read the messages, by making it so the government can get in they have to make the system less secure and introduce security flaws that hackers will exploit.

It isn't the same concept as a wire tap or reading mail because what is being asked is to make system less secure and make the changes of hackers taking your data considerably more, a door added into any form of security is a door for the person that requested it and for a hacker who finds it you can't do it "just" for the governemt.

[Moggy]

No but they were allowed to intercept shipments, search vans and houses, intercept mail, and they have the powers to wiretap as long as they have certain court approvals. If the concept is to be able to intercept and read whatsapp messages for suspects of serious crimes, under similar restrictions in terms of obtaining a warrant then I don't see an issue with that.

That's how it starts.

If it's about bulk collection of everybody's data and mass deencryption then of course that's wrong.

That's how it ends.