British Prime Minister Suggests Banning Some Online Messaging Apps
bits.blogs.nytimes.comHonestly, why do people think that a terrorist attack like this requires any dramatic changes to society? The fact is that some guys got guns and shot up a building, in the name of a currently popular, violent ideology. When will we ever be able to completely eradicate this? The number of people killed per year in the Western world due to terrorist attacks is incredibly low. Perhaps we don't need a routing of our security apparatus and freedoms to prevent what, without the inclusion of radical Islam, would be seen as an violent crime.
We got two wars in the wake of 9/11, and I don't think there was any actual increased terrorist threat.
Because people are absolutely terrible at rationally evaluating risk. Consider people who are terrified of flying, but think nothing of texting while driving. That's (if slightly exaggerated) a pretty representative example of the general human calculus of risk.
The big, scary, but terrifically unlikely event factors more significantly into our fears than the prosaic, equally deadly, but vastly more likely one.
In general, people correctly evaluate risk. The only situations that are completely modeled with a naive expected value are ones that are too simple to occur in real life. That's why things like the St Petersburg lottery are considered "paradoxes" but are easy to humans to understand using intuition.
Because shocking attacks get the public's attention. With all eyes on the TV screen, it's the perfect time to introduce public policy changes that strip people of their rights.
All the better if I can defend my statements by inciting a sense of nationalism or publicly shared responsibility for preventing future heinous crimes.
This is the raw video of the shooting of the French policeman: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668
Here it is in slow motion, zoomed in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_c4IUO6h7w
We are told this is footage of a 7.62mm round fired into a target at point blank range.
With no recoil exhibited by the rifle, no blood present anywhere on the scene, and no violent head or body movement on part of the person "shot" at point blank range, it's very possible that blanks were fired and that this is yet another deep event meant to mislead the public into accepting a hidden agenda.
Are you for reals calling false-flag on the Charlie Hebdo attack?
Quoting Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:
> Among these purposes is bringing France back into Washington’s orbit. The French president had recently said that the sanctions against Russia should be terminated.
> Hollande was allying himself with French economic interests instead of with Washington’s hegemonic foreign policy.
> Another purpose is to stifle the growing European sympathy for the Palestinians and to realign Europe with Israel.
> Another purpose is to counter the rising opposition in Europe to more Middle Eastern wars. The American neoconservatives have not completed their agenda. Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Saudi Arabia are still standing.
> And there can be other purposes not apparent to me.
> My recommendation is that you not believe the print and TV media, but think. The failure of Americans to think is why they are 13 years into war and live in a police state.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/11/suspicions-growin...
Let's be honest with ourselves - there is not one shred of evidence in there. Yes, for the reasons you state, America could have staged a false flag attack. But that's just a list assembled after the fact to suit the narrative the author has already created.
"And there can be other purposes not apparent to me."
Oh, well, why didn't you say? Wrap this one up as a one and done case, then!
It goes without saying that he is also a 9/11 Truther:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts#September_11...
Paul was presenting the information in a politically correct format. The US would never carry out such a cowardly act of state sponsored terror.
Wait, your saying this is a false flag attack by the US to fool the French government. And the US 'pretend' to kill a French policeman and don't expect the French to ever realise a real policeman never died....all this illusion after gunning down a bunch of journalists.... you need some lessons in logical reasoning.
Nowhere did I state the US did this. Nowhere did I state real people didn't die. I unequivocally stated and continue to insist this police officer did not die since was he wasn't so much as grazed by a single bullet.
Show me _any_ video of a loaded AK-47 being fired, even from a _prone position_, wherein zero recoil is exhibited by the weapon. It is simply not credible to claim AK-47s can be fired with zero recoil. That is a patent impossibility unless blanks are fired. At a minimum, if the muzzle of the weapon doesn't rise, then the energy should be transferred into the shoulder of the shooter. The energy from the gunpowder being ignited has to transfer somewhere, unless there was no gunpowder to begin with. It's even more unbelievable to see a Kalashnikov exhibit no recoil while being fired by a running person _mid-stride_.
Think for yourself. Who benefits most from animosity towards radical Muslims.
Watch the raw, uncut video of the supposed police shooting for yourself, right now: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668
You will see:
- No blood, anywhere on the scene. Zero blood from the policeman "shot" with a 7.62mm round at point blank range.
- No flinching of the policeman "shot" at point blank range.
- Zero recoil exhibited by the Kalashnikov
Cross check this video with any other AK-47 video on Youtube.
View it in slow motion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_c4IUO6h7w
Your theory doesn't make any sense. If this was indeed a false flag, then why would they go through the extra effort to fake the killing of a person?
Minimize casualties, maximize theatrical effect, is the norm for deep events.
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil."
...
You don't seem to be a troll based on your profile, so I'm not sure what would cause you to focus on details like the fact that it was a 7.62mm rifle and that you would know what the recoil looks like for various types of rifles.
I'm assuming you got fed this idea somewhere else, and went with it. Either way I'd urge you to really try and re-evaluate from a neutral standpoint and see if it genuinely seems probable.
Allowing your mind to go down this road unchecked seems like a path to Fischer-esque paranoia and self delusion.
Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War. He is a disabled veteran and has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades [1].
> In a video published on Liveleak, a close range “execution style” shows no blast effect or blood, from a weapon capable of devastating effect. (See YouTube demonstration of AK47 effect [2])
> Ballistics experts consulted today describe videos of the French attack as “staged theatrical events.” Other than the suspicious HD video, experts have already noted that, without coming close to “conspiracy theory” dot-connecting, the weapons eject no shell casings, bullets supposedly hit concrete with no effect whatsoever, even from “point blank” range.
> You see, the AK47 round, 7.62×39 is not only very powerful but typically has a steel core for penetrating body armour. When hitting concrete, an AK round throws up large chunks of debris, unseen in this event.
> Preliminary analysis of the audio as well demonstrates a frequency indicating the subsonic report of a blank round. In an “urban canyon,” a supersonic round from an assault rifle creates a noticeable high frequency “crack” with a secondary “report” or echo, generally described as “crack-pop.”
> It has taken only a few hours for press outlets to question perfectly timed HD video from a seemingly fearless bystander who is witnessing actors firing blanks incapable of operating the ejection system of a weapon, imaginary bullets that leave concrete pristine and blood free.
1. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/15/neo-paris-terror-the...
Were you at the scene? Were you there as a witness? Are you a ballistics expert? How much do you know about spatter patterns? Can you tell the exact angle the victim's head was at when he was shot?
Ya know, don't even bother answering.
Usually, it's the nutballs who are Just Asking Questions. /s
Oh jeez.
Ok, pretend for a moment that you're the terrible neocon type, who would stop at nothing to get France back into Washington's orbit or whatever. Which one of two options would you chose?
1. Pretend that there is some shooting, but don't shoot actual bullets. Make an elaborate show, and be sure not to screw it up - it's all recorded.
2. Pay a couple of disgruntled guys a small stack of cash to go and shoot up a journal office. Actual guys, actual rifles, actual bullets, legit videos.
Seriously. You have to assume those "neocons" are drooling idiots to believe any of this "look at the video!1!!" stuff.
I may not be active duty military and a ballistics expert but I implore you to watch this quick video of the shooting: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668
Here it is again in slow motion, zoomed in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_c4IUO6h7w
Kalashnikov rifles chambered at 7.62mm exhibit greater than zero recoil under the best of circumstances.
It simply isn't credible to state that a Kalashnikov rifle will not exhibit _any_ recoil.
And to pretend as if a 7.62mm round fired at point blank range into a human target would cause _no_ amount of blood splatter or blowback in the target is highly suspect.
There is no visual of a bullet hitting this police officer and I will not apologize for my statements inciting controversy. Watch the video. In less than a minute you will see I am accurately describing the events as they unfold on video.
You just admitted you are not a ballistics expert.
- How do you know how much recoil that rifle will generate?
- How much blood splatter should you expect? Where do you get this information from?
- How fast or slow does a bullet have to be going to be visible on a phone camera video?
Given the statements you are making, I assume you already have all this information.
video games /sarcasm
I'm surprised to find that this story has hit me pretty hard emotionally. The stuff Cameron and Theresa May are saying these days is really quite extreme. I feel totally abandoned by politics and genuinely, deeply frightened about the direction our legislature is headed. Is this a part of growing up? The mainstream is so far away from my own views that I don't have any voice. I'm really starting to see why a lot of libertarians in the US are so hyperbolic and full of panic.
Is this a part of growing up?
A bit off topic: Ive asked myself this question in general for the past couple of months. People dying from wars and incidents that happened a couple of days ago makes me anxious, miserable, lost and helpless.Maybe its media amplifying everything, I don't know but its truly unpleasant.
I completely relate to what you're saying, and I'm sure a lot of us here are burdened by the painful feelings you've expressed. Thank you for sharing. I think the primary cause is the 24/7 news cycle bombarding us incessantly with negative and depressing information. It's extremely unpleasant to bear, particularly when you're sensitive or vulnerable to the sufferings of humanity. I've found it's best to take vacations from it all--to tune it out completely for intervals--and focus entirely on work or the things you love. If you perchance have trouble avoiding news sites or social networks, as I have in the past, I've found an extension like StayFocusd to be really helpful (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/stayfocusd/laankej...)
Thanks for the reply, I do agree its the negativity everywhere being thrown at us, it really takes a toll on people who really care about these things.
I already do avoid news sites and news papers when possible, thanks for the advice and the extension recommendation
Couldn't have put it better. I was among the millions participating in one of history's largest pre-emptive protests—against the Iraq War¹—and I really felt that the people had spoken. Our message was loud and clear and they would have to listen. Well, we know how that turned out. I suspect disenfranchisement (what is having a vote if that vote is ignored?) is a general feeling everybody has, but that also the complete dismissal of our views at the time was quite shocking and has perhaps made a generation of cynics, when probably a generation of outrage is needed.
Local politics can be quite satisfying with real results. The people are there, contactable, accountable and they listen. But at the national level I don't have any feeling of connection whatsoever.
No, you just feel abandoned in general, and attribute it to politics because human brains are prone to seeing patterns and causation even where none exist. Get a dog. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Don't stay cooped up reading online news forums all day.
Anxiety is more about mental health than it's about circumstances. If it gets in the way of living, you should get it checked out. You can still fight for the right thing, as you see it, when you're not anxious anymore.
David Cameron wasn't just arguing against encrypted messaging apps; he would like to ban secret online communication in general. It will be interesting to see how he squares this with bolstering cybersecurity, which he'll be discussing with Barak Obama later this week.
How can we explain to politicians the extent to which modernity is built upon tools like encryption? How can we explain the brute fact of the possibility of secret communication, whether they approve or not? And can we guess how much damage they'll inflict in these Canutian escapades?
It will be interesting to see how he squares this with bolstering cybersecurity
With a lie to placate the people, if he tries at all. Government (like the snooping corporations before them) only want "nobody but us" levels of security. Some countries have already manged to get it from some services (off the top of my head BBM and India).
Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This after attending the march in France for liberty and freedom of speech. Hypocrite.
It's also worth mentioning the Mayor of London's thoughts on this:
"I'm not particularly interested in this civil liberties stuff when it comes to these people's emails and mobile phone conversations. If they are a threat to our society then I want them properly listened to."
One only needs to watch Boris Johnson (mayor of London) in his top gear appearance several years ago (just the driving part is enough) to understand how utterly stupid this man is.
He is a trained seal that performs for treats.
I used to think that but I read somewhere an ex-employee said that it's all an act. If it is clearly it works because he's liked by too many people. The worry of course is that it's likely he'll end up running for Prime Minister someday soon.
Whether he's an idiot who acts like an idiot or a genius who acts like an idiot so people like him, he's still acting like an idiot.
Just further evidence that politicians are inherently crazy, by their nature of wanting to be politicians
> "I'm not particularly interested in this civil liberties stuff when it comes to these people's emails and mobile phone conversations. If they are a threat to our society then I want them properly listened to."
Yeah, because that worked so well with perpetrators of the attacks in Paris. These people were actually well-known to authorities as were some of the people who committed the 9/11 attacks. If anything we need to make government and administrative processes both much more transparent and efficient.
I don't think inundating authorities with yet another stream of data they can't possibly make sense of particularly helps the cause.
I don't anticipate Brits will be hitting the streets in the name of right to privacy and net neutrality as the French have done for right to free speech, though. We are a cowardly, dull bunch, with little regard for our liberty, I'm afraid. We are matched in this only by our leaders' outmoded worldviews.
I want so very much to disagree with you here, but I can't find the words to do so.
This probably means you're right. I suggest we start a mass exodus to another country with equally melancholy weather and the guarantee of a Waitrose nearby.
Don't bother with the typical UK-expat landing zones: Australia, New Zealand, Santa Monica. These spots are already usurped by the fascists alas...
> Yet in a sign that tech companies are coming under increased scrutiny, British lawmakers blamed Facebook in November for failing to tell the country’s authorities about specific online threats made by two men, who later killed a soldier in London in 2013.
That seems misleading. From what I remember they were accusing Facebook not of "refusing to give them the info", but for "not warning them" about those guys' communications. So they essentially wanted Facebook to do the policing for them, because they failed to do the policing themselves.
According to Snowden and subsequent whistleblowers considerable resources are tasked to obsessing over political opponents , groups such as Occupy , anti-fracking and even competing business interests are targeted.
In Britain the Security Forces have long been seen as a bit too obsessed with lefties.
There is inneffective Security Theatre at airports - a political sop. What else is inneffective? Are there innefective secret things ?
I would like to see any journalist ask : Are the security services watching radical Islam enough or wasting their resources on what the electorate would consider the wrong targets ?
Will the Security Services having decryption keys to my communications make them more insecure to non-government agents ?
Will how secure the keys are be secret ?
What other governments , agencies and contractors will the keys to our communications be shared with ?
What oversight will there be ?
I wonder if I were to locally encrypt a message using AES and then send it via email to a friend, using a pre-shared key, whether I would be breaking the law or not, in Cameron's Brave New World?
If the answer is yes, then how about the Vigenere cipher? The Caesar Cipher? 1337 speak? Writing my message backwards? Making spelling mistakes?
Heaven forbid you use a one-time pad...
You just need to give GCHQ a copy of the key.
Yes, because of his intent for the changed law.
Already discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8874624 although I think that one is being negatively scored for the high number of (low upvote) comments.
That's a fine whitelist of messaging systems to use if there ever was one!
Snapchat at least is already known to be vulnerable to simple attacks, so I wouldn't put too much weight behind this list.
He is likely just using common examples that people recognize, and the law will be applied broadly to apps like RedPhone and SilentText.
This sort of thing seems a bit like banning Napster. Eliminating the products doesn't eliminate the technology - although I expect the bigger players like Facebook to push back on this so as not to be out competed by smaller companies that care less about adhering to such 'blunt force' laws.
It'll never get any traction, the porn filters got through because pretty much no voting adults were bothered by it.
Very different scenario when it's something that people actually use, especially with elections coming up.
This is good news!
By watching which messaging tools are banned in the UK, we will have a canonical list of which messaging tools GCHQ cannot breach.
Thanks David!
It's more likely that it would be a blanket ban even covering applications that are not particularly hardened simply because they don't have any official wiretapping capability.
Far more likely case: Cameron wants to ban "scary" communications, and hasn't talked to GHCQ at all.
If most of the UK didn't already think Cameron was an arse this could really damage his reputation.