The Politics Thread 3.0

[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.

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.

Plus of course how do you stop people using encryption? If you compromise Whatsapp then there will always be another service that will offer the same encryption. Or bad people will use VPNs, the dark web etc. Even if you stop all of that, they will just meet in the park and avoid any government interference.

[Nanook]

What is a laughing matter, though...

Whilst we're on the subject, did you ever release your book?

( intended, obviously)

[BID0]

if you haven't got anything to hide

[Lagamorph]

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.

The difference there is that there's no real equivalent to a hacker when it comes to intercepting mail or wiretapping phones, and the equivalent to 'searching houses' would be breaking and entering.
With encryption though the second you open a hole for law enforcement, even if they needed warrants, you're opening holes for hackers the world over to access your data on a whim.

[That]

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.

This is truly bizarre mate. If you want to score points on me, I have more radical views than "the NHS should get more money", which you obviously well-know is the idea I was conveying. I tentatively support rail renationalisation (glorious Corbynrail!), so there, go ahead, eat your heart out.

I won't apologise for making a slightly glib post on an Internet forum, it's not the Oxford Union. If you're trying to make some pedantic point about STAR, the difference is that his underlying argument was also misinformed even if he were posting in an ironic or hyperbolic way.

[That]

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

It actually wasn't that difficult. One-time pads are one of the conceptually most simple forms of encryption, and they are unbreakable.

[Moggy]

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.

I tentatively support rail renationalisation (glorious Corbynrail!), so there, go ahead, eat your heart out.

Eighty voted Green, they support rail nationalisation and so I expect he agrees with you there.

[Rocsteady]

Moggy's MP's a don, nailing the drugs debate by all accounts

[Moggy]

Moggy's MP's a don, nailing the drugs debate by all accounts

No idea what she has said about drugs.

She pissed me off a few weeks ago though when she abstained from the "Chuka amendment". She's always been pro-Remain and has ignored Corbyn a few times, which is why she got my vote at the election. I guess abstaining isn't as bad as voting in line with Corbyn on Brexit, but I won't be voting for her again unless she continues to support the view of the majority of her constituents against her leader.

[Eighthours]

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.

I tentatively support rail renationalisation (glorious Corbynrail!), so there, go ahead, eat your heart out.

Eighty voted Green, they support rail nationalisation and so I expect he agrees with you there.

I keep the Green Party manifesto by my side just for policy discussions on GRcade.

[Lagamorph]

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.

I tentatively support rail renationalisation (glorious Corbynrail!), so there, go ahead, eat your heart out.

Eighty voted Green, they support rail nationalisation and so I expect he agrees with you there.

I keep the Green Party manifesto by my side just for policy discussions on GRcade.

Sounds like you've printed it out.
That's not very green.

[Preezy]

He stitched it into a hemp quilt.

[Moggy]

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.

I tentatively support rail renationalisation (glorious Corbynrail!), so there, go ahead, eat your heart out.

Eighty voted Green, they support rail nationalisation and so I expect he agrees with you there.

I keep the Green Party manifesto by my side just for policy discussions on GRcade.

Good man.

I just use Google.

[Eighthours]

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.

I tentatively support rail renationalisation (glorious Corbynrail!), so there, go ahead, eat your heart out.

Eighty voted Green, they support rail nationalisation and so I expect he agrees with you there.

I keep the Green Party manifesto by my side just for policy discussions on GRcade.

Sounds like you've printed it out.
That's not very green.

You'd be surprised at how much literature the Greens send out. All on 100% recycled paper, of course!

[Moggy]

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.

I tentatively support rail renationalisation (glorious Corbynrail!), so there, go ahead, eat your heart out.

Eighty voted Green, they support rail nationalisation and so I expect he agrees with you there.

I keep the Green Party manifesto by my side just for policy discussions on GRcade.

Sounds like you've printed it out.
That's not very green.

You'd be surprised at how much literature the Greens send out. All on 100% recycled paper, of course!

I'm not surprised, in the run up to the recent election I must have thrown out the equivalent of 3 Amazon rainforests in Green leaflets.

[Eighthours]

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.

I tentatively support rail renationalisation (glorious Corbynrail!), so there, go ahead, eat your heart out.

Eighty voted Green, they support rail nationalisation and so I expect he agrees with you there.

I keep the Green Party manifesto by my side just for policy discussions on GRcade.

Sounds like you've printed it out.
That's not very green.

You'd be surprised at how much literature the Greens send out. All on 100% recycled paper, of course!

I'm not surprised, in the run up to the recent election I must have thrown out the equivalent of 3 Amazon rainforests in Green leaflets.

It was all well worth it.

[Moggy]

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.

I tentatively support rail renationalisation (glorious Corbynrail!), so there, go ahead, eat your heart out.

Eighty voted Green, they support rail nationalisation and so I expect he agrees with you there.

I keep the Green Party manifesto by my side just for policy discussions on GRcade.

Sounds like you've printed it out.
That's not very green.

You'd be surprised at how much literature the Greens send out. All on 100% recycled paper, of course!

I'm not surprised, in the run up to the recent election I must have thrown out the equivalent of 3 Amazon rainforests in Green leaflets.

It was all well worth it.

It was, they only lost by 36,000 votes and finished behind the Tories.

[KK]

The government has refused to deny that Rupert Murdoch asked Theresa May to reappoint Michael Gove to the cabinet or face a bad press in his newspaper titles, insisting that cabinet roles are selected on “merit and experience”.

Tom Watson, the deputy Labour leader, wrote to May last month to inquire whether Murdoch had sought any influence over cabinet appointments and Gove’s future.

In the government’s response, Damian Green, the first secretary of state, did not address Watson’s questions about Murdoch directly but said that decisions about cabinet and ministerial roles were taken by the prime minister alone.

Green said in a letter: “All those appointed by Her Majesty the Queen to cabinet and ministerial roles are selected by the prime minister based on their merit and experience, drawing on each member’s best talent. The decision is the prime minister’s alone. Your email raised the important issue of transparency about meetings with senior media executives.

“Government ministers are fully transparent about such meetings, but I observe that the Labour party has still failed to publish any information about shadow cabinet members’ meetings with senior media executives since Jeremy Corbyn became leader - including your own meetings.”

Labour insiders insist the delay in publishing details of meetings with media executives is due to an administrative issue and that it will be resolved soon.

Watson said people would draw their own conclusions about the lack of a denial regarding Murdoch asking for Gove to be reappointed. The deputy Labour leader said he enquired about Murdoch’s influence because it had been suggested to him that the media mogul asked for Gove to return to the cabinet.

“I asked Theresa May to deny a deeply worrying allegation that had been made to me about her and she refused to do so,” Watson said. “It’s such an easy thing to deny - unless it’s true. People will draw their own conclusions.

“With 21st Century Fox’s bid for Sky being considered by the government right now, questions about Rupert Murdoch’s influence over Theresa May were already being asked. This makes them all the more relevant.”

Gove returned to the cabinet as environment secretary in June following the general election, which led to the Conservative’s majority disappearing. This was less than a year after May fired Gove as justice secretary on the back of his ill-fated attempt to lead the Conservative party.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... net-return

The Conservatives could have (should have?) easily told Murdoch to do one because they're hardly going to want Corbyn in power.

[Eighthours]

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.

I tentatively support rail renationalisation (glorious Corbynrail!), so there, go ahead, eat your heart out.

Eighty voted Green, they support rail nationalisation and so I expect he agrees with you there.

I keep the Green Party manifesto by my side just for policy discussions on GRcade.

Sounds like you've printed it out.
That's not very green.

You'd be surprised at how much literature the Greens send out. All on 100% recycled paper, of course!

I'm not surprised, in the run up to the recent election I must have thrown out the equivalent of 3 Amazon rainforests in Green leaflets.

It was all well worth it.

It was, they only lost by 36,000 votes and finished behind the Tories.

Losses feel even worse when you're used to backing the winners.

[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 actually wasn't that difficult. One-time pads are one of the conceptually most simple forms of encryption, and they are unbreakable.

Doesn't appear to have been used widespread by citizens, certainly not by the likes of the IRA or other domestic terrorist cells from what I can see. Whatsapp is a game changer in that respect.