On 20/01/16 21:18, Neil J. McRae wrote: >> And of course, the age-old argument; criminals. The minute the >>> Government realise that they can't see 'into' VPNs terminating >>> in $other_country, is the minute they'll want to mitigate their >>> use. "We're not breaking encryption, we're just blocking >>> criminals from using it. There will be no safe spaces for >>> criminals and terrorists! The IP Bill 2016 says we can interfere >>> with whatever we like, so suck it up." > Unfortunately that’s the path we are on, irrespective of this bill.
Ah come on. Don't tell me you've given up? >>> Steady-on Spiderman. I sincerely hope you weren't this >>> enthusiastic about mass surveillance* when the HO came and asked >>> BT what was possible to implement. The ramifications of what BT >>> say (and the big four, in general) could seal the fate for the >>> rest of us real quickly**. > Holy mis-representation Batman! I’m absolutely not enthusiastic about > mass surveillance, I am enthusiastic about engineering challenges. See, I know you do care really. But I'm very perplexed as to how excited you could be over something that will have such a negative effect. I agree that it might be fun in a vacuum, as an exercise, but actually *doing* this to a country of >60M people should remain prohibitively abhorrent to anyone with a conscience. Besides, China have done it already (see Marek's link) and the world is generally aghast as a result. There really is very little Engineering 'achievement' to be had here. >>> * Because even if you were gravely mortified on purpose, it's >>> quite perturbing to see how excited about it you are here. >>> Despite being Engineers, history teaches us that we all need a >>> sense of morality above all. > I strongly don’t agree. > > History teaches us to fight the arguments on the right front rather > than some BS about it not being able to be done or that it will be > too expensive - because there are smart engineers all over the world > that can and will make it happen and happily take government or other > money. If you want to live in the “lala" world of its impossible > knock yourself out :-) I make no apologies for taking on tough > engineering challenges! Silicon can be respun and optimised, software > re-written. If it wasn’t for our engineering drive we’d still live in > caves. I don't think it's impossible, far from it. It's expensive because we're bloody paying for it, and it's diabolical because it will be ineffective and unduly invasive. There really is nothing to be jovial about (again, see above; it's been done). >>> ** I still haven't forgiven anyone for backing-down to the >>> 'default-on porn filter' demands. That set a shocking precedent. > Actually it didn’t set any precedent - feh - its a 2 second job to > turn it off? And I think if you look at the other filtering that has > been imposed, I think you’ll find the big four have fought it, at > significant cost, more than any other organisations. Well there's been no law passed - not even a court order - and yet it still happened. That didn't seem like much of a fight to me. Perhaps someone was too eager to take on the Engineering challenge? ;) -- Tom
