[Closed] Terrorism

but complex passwords

Enforcable in a heart beat, watch the chaos

Yes they are, but we need to retrain peopple about what complex means...

Complex (in terms of strength* of security) doesn't [i]have[/i] to mean difficult to remember, it just needs high entropy and to not be predictable, people have been conditioned into very poor password practises over the years, all via good intentions but poor implementation.

Enforcing a a complexity policy doesn't necessarily mean chaos, enforcing a poor policy will though 😉

* function of character set, length and 'randomness'

EDIT - I was in two minds about posting the XKCD strip as it's become a bit cliched over the years but it is still relevant!

@Cougar, your Roman example is still a form of recognisable key exchange encryption though, an observer may not be able to read the message, but could identify that there [i]is one[/i]. Although I agree with your point I was actually trying to highlight other forms of steganography, which still requires the sender and recipient to agree on a protocol to reveal the message, but allows communications to be sent over traditional mediums while NOT appearing to be encrypted, as the previous comments from other poster were about [i]identifying[/i] encrypted comms either in order to collar infringers, or for further scrutiny. But if the comms don't even look encrypted, and you can't prove they are encrypted without knowing how to decrypt them then your entire reason for banning it, however poorly justified, falls down immediately.

[img] [/img]

https://xkcd.com/936/

Your attempts to stop it will not work.
There are literally hundreds of ways around it.
It will only cause more problems for people doing nothing wrong.

Read the NHS Hack link, the NSA had a back door, they let that out/lost it. Then a load of other people have your information. Who cares if they want to read it or not they don't get access because some idiot politician wants to make a headline.

This.

Plus bear in mind - the NSA tool exploited an inherent vulnerability in SMB. Read that again, "vulnerability," the clue's in the name here. It's not only vulnerable to the NSA, or to anyone with a leaked copy or EternalBlue, it's vulnerable full stop. Even if the NSA software had never got out into the wild, someone totally unrelated could have later tripped over the vulnerability and done something similar.

And here's something for you to mull over, which I don't have the answer to. Did the NSA discover the vulnerability and not disclose it to Microsoft (which is what I'd guess happened), or were they instrumental in putting it there in the first place? And, which of those two scenarios is worse?

gmail is read / scanned by google in order to sell advertising. No one seems to be too worried about that. No end-to-end encryption "needed" there

jamby, doesn't mean people don't want a secured and encrypted means of communication for innocent and legal reasons.

Still no practical reasons or useful ways to implement this or how it will prevent terror attacks then?

Still no practical reasons or useful ways to implement this or how it will prevent terror attacks then?

nah its a great [img] [/img]
though

I can only claim to speak for myself.

I think this is half the problem. Is there value in [b]your[/b] data? Probably not, but surely you can see the issue if they have access to [b]everyone's[/b] data, no?

I'll have his data. String with the credit card number, passport, banking login etc etc...

gmail is read / scanned by google

It's a tad disingenuous to lump those two actions together there as if they were the same thing. Gmail is [i]scanned[/i] by Google, yes. But it is not [i]read [/i]by them.

In a typical email server deployment other people's mailboxes are not readable by anyone else, even the administrators. As I said before, best practice in the security world is what we call "least privilege" - you give people the bare minimum access to what they require to do their job.

This can of course be changed, but we're then back into the realms of "trust." Google say they don't read emails, they could be lying.

in order to sell advertising.

... unless you opt out.

No one seems to be too worried about that. No end-to-end encryption "needed" there

Because as we've been discussing, email isn't secure. Whether it's "needed" or even needed is another matter. I send emails day in, day out but none of it is secure or particularly needs to be. I doubt very much that finding out I'm restarting a non-critical FTP server at 4pm today or that a customer's pre-stage is ready to go out for delivery is going to be of national tactical advantage to a terrorist or valuable corporate data to a competitor.

That doesn't however mean that I don't occasionally need to send, say, a username and password to someone. If I wanted to send confidential data to someone I wouldn't use plain email; just because the bulk of my communications are innocuous doesn't mean that there isn't sometimes a requirement for secure communication.

In this brave new unencrypted world, cyber-terrorism will become very easy.

Good summary for the hard if understand (including Maybot- you'd think she of all android s would get it ). https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133644-theresa-mays-repeated-calls-to-ban-encryption-still-wont-work/

No end-to-end encryption "needed" there

Oh, and,

Just because it's not true end-to-end encryption, don't think there's no encryption. Email works by hopping from server to server as it gets to its destination, and it's likely that the bulk (if not all) of that message transfer is encrypted whilst it's in transit.

Certainly any data you send / receive between your email client (be that a phone app, a full-fat desktop client or webmail) and Gmail's servers will be encrypted. Whether the rest of it is encrypted depends on the other servers on the journey supporting / negotiating secure communications between themselves but in this day and age there's little reason for them not to.

Do we need it? Consider this. If you're reading your emails on a public Wi-Fi hotspot in a web cafe or a hotel somewhere, and you're using regular SMTP / POP3, then I could be reading them too. It is [i]trivially[/i] easy.

Still don't care? If I can read your emails, I can request a "forgot my password" reset from any services you have linked to that account. Amazon? Ebay? Paypal? Online banking?

Still don't care? I have your email address, here, have some malware. Spoofed to look like it's been sent by your partner (I can now copy her writing style, remember) and convincing SMTP to lie on my behalf is even more trivial, it's a protocol that's been around for well over 30 years. Boom, I now have full remote admin access to your laptop. all your saved website usernames and passwords (they should be encrypted of course but you want to do away with that), corporate secrets (they should be encr... you get the idea), your secret hentai collection (I wonder if your partner knows about that, possible blackmail material?), maybe install a keylogger so I can record what you type in the future, and then when I'm done I can fire a parting shot of Cryptolocker using actually unbreakable encryption because banning it doesn't stop it from ****ing existing.

FFS.

In this brave new unencrypted world, cyber-terrorism will become very easy.

Indeed. Lest we not forget: encryption may protect the criminals from the authorities, but it protects everyone from the criminals.

Problem: A terrorist has locked himself in his house where we can't get to him.
Solution: Ban locks.

So,

Problem: A terrorist has locked himself in his house where we can't get to him.
Solution: Ban locks.

Welll, no, we don't need to, because brute force works. Now, how well do brute force attacks work on encryption?

In other news - Knife and hammer wielding terrorist attack in Paris this afternoon... and look what happens when [b]all[/b] police are armed, instead of the first policeman on scene having to take him on armed just with a metal stick.

May cut numbers of armed police at a faster rate than normal police.

She's now doing another u-turn as she describes measures that are equivalent to the labour control orders she scrapped in 2010

Welll, no, we don't need to, because brute force works.

In other news - Knife and hammer wielding terrorist attack in Paris this afternoon... and look what happens when all police are armed

He gets shot rather than arrested? Note that he attacked several coppers. If he had launched an attack on a lone copper then the chances are instead of carrying a hammer he would then be carrying a pistol.

Welll, no, we don't need to, because brute force works. Now, how well do brute force attacks work on encryption?

Whether we "need to" or not isn't my point - my point is that that's the solution being proposed. Assuming for the sake of analogy that the terrorist has got hold of some sort of impenetrable lock on his door that cannot be brute forced. Is the best solution really "ban locks"?

And once you've banned them, what's to stop criminals from carrying on using the locks anyway (because, y'know, they're criminals) whilst the rest of us all have our front doors wide open for any passing munchkin to pop in and nab our telly?

And of course, it's common knowledge that since we banned the carrying of knives there hasn't been a single knife crime in the UK... oh.

equivalent to the labour control orders she scrapped in 2010

The same control orders that the lib dems gave a manifesto commitment to get rid of, and that Liberty said were a blot on the human rights record of the UK?

Assuming for the sake of analogy that the terrorist has got hold of some sort of impenetrable lock on his door that cannot be brute forced. Is the best solution really "ban locks"?

Rather than ban that specific type of impenetrable lock?

And once you've banned them, what's to stop criminals from carrying on using the locks anyway (because, y'know, they're criminals) whilst the rest of us all have our front doors wide open for any passing munchkin to pop in and nab our telly?

And guess what happens when you walk round looking randomly at people's doors, and spot one with that (fairly obvious) banned lock? you've just found someone who you want to look [i]really[/i] carefully at, haven't you? You know, a bit like when the police do DNA tests after a murder, that are completely voluntary, but if you, completely innocently, refuse or avoid it, then you know what the police are going to do, don't you?

And of course, it's common knowledge that since we banned the carrying of knives there hasn't been a single knife crime in the UK... oh.

Well, you lot are pretty keen on jumping up and down saying that gun control is so vital aren't you? By your logic we shouldn't restrict guns from all those perfectly innocent happy shooters, we should just ban them from potential murderers and bank robbers

If he had launched an attack on a lone copper then the chances are instead of carrying a hammer he would then be carrying a pistol.

If he had launched an attack on a lone copper then the chances are that the copper would be dead long before he'd have chance to shout "arretez," let alone get a firearm ready to be used.

Yes those are the ones. I don't agree with them. But clearly if you are desperately clutching for voters, saying you'll opt out of human rights to enact them will boost your standing among some demographics

If he had launched an attack on a lone copper then the chances are that the copper would be dead long before he'd have chance to shout "arretez," let alone get a firearm ready to be used.

Unlike in Britain, where when you've got seconds to save someone's life, the armed police are only minutes away

Unlike in Britain, where when you've got seconds to save someone's life, the armed police are only minutes away

I don't want to live in a country where the police are routinely armed. (neither do the police for that matter) I'm therefore content to compromise in the rare event when all other responses have been exhausted, armed cops are the last resort, not the first. If it takes 8 minutes, it takes 8 minutes. I see the headlines are all about how we should not change our way of life; not OMG, the cops have to have guns all the time from now on.

Anyway, if the cops went round carrying guns, you'd have a semi all the time, and that would be embarrassing for everyone If, however you want to live in a country where the cops carry all the time, feel free to **** off...

Another point about encryption; most posters here believe they live in a country where the government has (to varying degrees) good intentions to its people. In dictatorships, banana republics, theocracies etc where people who campaign for democracy, free speech, gay rights, womens equality use encrypted messages to communicate with each other, exchange ideas, organise gatherings and protests or communicate with people in the "free world". It's not all nefarious.

If you remove one end of the end to end encryption you are potentially jeopardizing people's lives.

And guess what happens when you walk round looking randomly at people's doors, and spot one with that (fairly obvious) banned lock? you've just found someone who you want to look really carefully at, haven't you?

Missed my comments about steganography then?

If naughty people really want to keep something hidden then you won't spot it by randomly wandering around looking for it on the off chance, all you'll do is intrude on everyone else needlessly, while pissing them off in the process and also removing a load of legitimate and positive uses.

Also, for the last time, even if everyone agreed tomorrow to only allow [i]secure[/i] but state [i]backdoorable[/i] encryption, you can't, those two elements are mutually exclusive. You can't make maths obey your will, you can try, but you'll fail.

By your logic we shouldn't restrict guns from all those perfectly innocent happy shooters, we should just ban them from potential murderers and bank robbers

That's not the same, you know it's not, and I know you know it's not no matter how pro-gun you are, so stop pretending you're stupid to try and make a bad point.

I don't want to live in a country where the police are routinely armed.

If you arm the police, you arm the criminals. Most criminals don't carry guns because a) it's more difficult and b) they don't need to. Remove the latter and they'll concentrate harder on the former.

Another point about encryption; most posters here believe they live in a country where the government has (to varying degrees) good intentions to its people. In dictatorships, banana republics, theocracies etc where people who campaign for democracy, free speech, gay rights, womens equality use encrypted messages to communicate with each other, exchange ideas, organise gatherings and protests or communicate with people in the "free world". It's not all nefarious.

Moreover, we're slowly creeping ever closer to being the latter rather than the former. Anyone who isn't both concerned and terrified by this is either in a position of power or a blithering idiot.

The criminals are already armed, hadn't you noticed? How did Dixon of Dock Green die?

That's not the same, you know it's not,

only because it hurts your brain when you realise you are now arguing that it's OK to ban one thing that you don't like, because bad people abuse them, and at the same time argue that it's unfair to ban something you do like because bad people abuse them

If it takes 8 minutes, it takes 8 minutes.

I'll bet you wouldn't be saying that if it was one of your loved ones stabbed to death [i]after[/i] the first policeman got on scene, but couldn't do anything because all he had was a metal stick

Cougar

Moreover, we're slowly creeping ever closer to being the latter rather than the former. Anyone who isn't both concerned and terrified by this is either in a position of power or a blithering idiot.

Agree 100% and the thing is, most people won't even see it coming. Or if it's here, we didn't see it coming.

I reckon Ninfan's walls are plastered with Dirty Harry posters and Death Wish is on a permanent loop on his TV

Ah, as usual - lefties see they are losing the argument so resort to personal abuse and character attacks 🙄

3 of the last 4 recent terrorist attacks have now been stopped not by the first policeman to arrive on scene, but the first policeman to arrive on scene with with a gun,

We learned from the best.

I'll bet you wouldn't be saying that if it was one of your loved ones stabbed to death after...blah blah blah ...

Today's logical fallacy is...appeal to emotion.

only because it hurts your brain when you realise you are now arguing that it's OK to ban one thing that you don't like, because bad people abuse them, and at the same time argue that it's unfair to ban something you do like because bad people abuse them

My brain is fine thanks, and that's not what's going on at all, the two things under discussion are so very very different that you can't make that comparison.

It's not even like comparing apples and oranges, I was going to say it's like comparing cheese and poetry, but actually the reality is even more ridiculous, it's comparing guns and maths!

so ninfan did you support May cutting armed police at a greater rate than other police?

is pointing out that you are obsessed with guns an insult? - possibly, but its worth noting

Edit, waaay too slow

only because it hurts your brain when you realise you are now arguing that it's OK to ban one thing that you don't like, because bad people abuse them, and at the same time argue that it's unfair to ban something you do like because bad people abuse them

It's not a case of what anyone "likes."

Guns have a primary purpose. To kill people.
Encryption has a primary purpose. To protect people.

And yes, you could argue that guns are for "protection," but as someone else said you're in the wrong country for that. Look how well the Second Amendment is preventing people from being killed in the US.

so ninfan did you support May cutting armed police at a greater rate than other police?

How does arming all police result In cutting the number of armed police?

Second amendment

Straw man, I am calling for armed police (the same as we already have in NI, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy etc.), not a right to bear arms.

The last one was stopped by eight officers firing 46 shots, should the police go round in groups of eight from now on then? What other quotidian policing requires carrying firearms?

@ninfan I don't why you are bothering, we warned what would happen. It's happening and now things will change as we said they would need to.

FWIW, having spent 20+ years in Northern Ireland I really feel like a lot of the arguments against armed police are complete distortions or fallacies.

Jamba and gunboy, Do you do lottery numbers as well? Jim jam I find the arguments for arming the police in London similar

I am calling for armed police (the same as we already have in NI, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy etc.)

aye, because that has prevented terrorism in all those countries.

kilo

Jim jam I find the arguments for arming the police in London similar

Errrrr. Right.

Which one of us has spent the last 25 year on covert law enforcement ops against tier one OCGs in London? 😉

I don't know what your acronyms mean but they sound fancy, and I still think NI disproves any argument against armed police you want to put forward.

Which one of us has spent the last 25 year on covert law enforcement ops against tier one OCGs in London?

Pff, we've had enough with experts remember.

I've spent 25 years working in and around IT and a further 10 years prior to that dealing with computers either academically or as a hobbyist and that didn't stop someone calling me naive about the subject a couple of pages back.

High level Organise crime groups if that helps. Policing in London and the rest of GB is completely different to policing in NI back in the troubles and to a fair degree today, it does not require regular access to firearms and the police are not targeted the same way they are / were targeted by PIRA et al. Criminals in the U.K. do not have the same access to firearms, the supply of firearms is quite poor for criminals nor are GB police in constant pervasive threat from terrorists.

Soz Cougar, I forgot the new reality. 🙂

Oh, and whilst we're credentials-dropping; I'm not a "security expert," but I was asked yesterday if I was interested in moving into an InfoSec role at work.

How will 'tooling up the coppers' prevent terrorists who are [i]actively seeking death?[/i]

Is this meant to deter them in some way?

Oh, and Coogs, do yourself a favour and get your CISSP and make loads of money- you'd be a shoo-in.

There are loads of graphical ways to communicate, over the internet, in games like minecraft & gtav.

So May is just on a power trip and knows it

Kilo > question for you. Say hypothetically the decision was made right now to arm all of the police. How long do you think it would take to train all the officers to the standard required to ensure the were safe and competent, and how many officers do you think we'd lose because they either lacked the skills or lacked the desire to carry firearms? (Ok, two questions.)

kilo

High level Organise crime groups if that helps. Policing in London and the rest of GB is completely different to policing in NI back in the troubles and to a fair degree today, it does not require regular access to firearms and the police are not targeted the same way they are / were targeted by PIRA et al. Criminals in the U.K. do not have the same access to firearms, the supply of firearms is quite poor for criminals nor are GB police in constant pervasive threat from terrorists.

We've essentially had 20 years of peace, to varying degrees and the police are still armed. Paramilitaries didn't target psni/ruc officers in the way that Islamists are doing in the UK and France, they used car bombs and ambushes. A glock 17 is little use against a bomb or heavy machine gun 50 yards away. But the police have glock 17s.

NI is ten times the size of London, with a fifth of the population spread out mainly over small villages and rural areas. There is no terrorist threat here day to day, but constables still carry guns.

Whenever the police actively go looking for bad guys they bring in heavy weaponry. I don't have a dog in this fight by the way, but I think most people who've never lived in Northern Ireland have a completely distorted view of it.

Oh, and Coogs, do yourself a favour and get your CISSP and make loads of money- you'd be a shoo-in.

I'm flattered, but (my understanding is that) CISSP is bastard hard. I could probably get my CEH, that's the one they give away free with Tiger Tokens. I quite fancy that actually, reckon it'd be a giggle.

I've no idea how long it takes to train a firearms officer I've never been drawn to that side, but iirc for us it's quite a long course and you have to have other skills before they'll train you (advanced driving, surveillance trained). The course goes through a variety of weapons and scenarios which may not be considered necessary for a low level self defence arming but then what's the point if the officers can't use a weapon in all scenarios. I' couldn't say how many officers would bin or be binned. Also the idea of allowing off duty officers to carry is fairly mad. I remember an officer in the MPS firearms team, about twenty years ago telling me it was a lot better after they got rid of all the gun nuts 🙂

it was a lot better after they got rid of all the gun nuts

Did all the guns fall apart then or something?

Jimjam I don't have any argument with regular arming in NI but to some degree your stating the weapons the police had were no use against the threat they faced. I would say the assassination threat to police in NI was vastly different in scale and methodology to that being faced inGB now and in NI the issue of firearms would / is still a valid deterrent to up close attacks. I still believe that NI policing does not extrapolate to GB

A boom tish for cougar:)

Poor choice of words there perhaps... (-:

kilo

Jimjam I don't have any argument with regular arming in NI but to some degree your stating the weapons the police had were no use against the threat they faced.

Historically it might have been but as I've pointed out we've had 20ish years of relative peace wherein PSNI officers haven't demonstrated any unusual tendencies to kill people either accidentally or in dubious circumstances, nor have they turned violent struggles into deadly struggles because of their ever present guns.

Obviously Northern Irish news is much more inclined to report on NI news and incidents and there have been times when police have been outnumbered or caught up in riots - even then, still no Dirty Harry behavior. And when they've lost their guns, guess what, they get turned in. Even in Republican areas.

I would say the assassination threat to police in NI [i][b]was[/b][/i] vastly different in scale and methodology to that being faced inGB now and in NI the issue of firearms [b]would / is[/b] still a valid deterrent to up close attacks.

It's pretty obvious that police in major English cities are in much more imminent threat of up close attacks than those in NI.

How are you defining "up close" here?

If the attackers don't even make the top 20,000 never mind the 3,000 under some form of surveillance it makes you wonder how radicalised and dangerous the people on the active list are if the star of "the Jihadi next door" doesn't make the cut

Cougar - Moderator

How are you defining "up close" here?

Not sure who you are asking but I am assuming Kilo meant stabbing, or perhaps shooting with handguns.

That was kind of my point. The range for stabbing someone and the range for shooting someone differ somewhat. If I was in a fight with someone a couple yards away I'd rather have a knife than a gun. I'm no expert but anywhere inside of, what, 10-20 yards maybe, someone with a knife in their hand is going to beat someone with a holstered gun most of the time I'd have thought.

Okay I see your point. But then why the hell were police in Northern Ireland ever armed? Or why didn't Republicans surprise stab a lot more of them?

Edit: Perhaps we shouldn't go down that rabbit hole, and that's not my point. I wanted to point out that 20 years of peace in NI with armed police hasn't revealed any of the negative consequences suggested when people discuss arming police in Britain, and while I know this thread is about terrorism more generally it has gone on this tangent and I think it has to be addressed in order to have an honest discussion about armed police.

Really I was just requesting clarification as I didn't really understand. It's a world apart from my sphere of knowledge. I know that a gun isn't really a close-quarters weapon, I know that it takes an amount of time to unclip and unholster a gun and ready it for firing, and I know how quickly I can cover ten yards and I would expect that's faster. Beyond that I'm flying blind, the only projectile weaponry I know squat about is a bow.

Can we talk about computers again? (-:

Cougar

Can we talk about computers again? (-:

Well I think the threat from computers and social media is actually scarier and potentially much more devastating than conventional terrorism but it's probably for another thread, another day.

In other news,

https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/872181737933217794

[i]@theresa_may

I'm clear: if human rights laws get in the way of tackling extremism and terrorism, we will change those laws to keep British people safe.[/i]

Theresa May is officially against human rights.

Well I think the threat from computers and social media is actually scarier and potentially much more devastating than conventional terrorism but it's probably for another thread, another day.

I think the power from computers and social media is actually one of our biggest assets, if we all learn to leverage it well. We all have voices and it makes it harder to sweep controversy under the carpet.

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=news&q=ThingsThatLeaveBritainReeling

The NI example shows clearly that things done out of fear or necessity are never rolled back. A stark warning to those asking for special powers to deal with the current threats - what is the condition for rolling them back?

Anything contained here is just my personal opinion...

I believe it is time for society to start asking the difficult questions of our governments, both past and present and our western security services. Difficult questions that we, the people, deserve frank and honest answers to.

We have been treated like fools for far too long with regards to the actions that have been carried out in our name. We have foreign policies that any sane person can see have done nothing but make the world a more dangerous place.

We have been taken into conflicts based on lies. Conflicts that have causes the deaths of millions of innocent people and destroyed nations. Conflicts that have taken the lives of sons, daughters, mothers and fathers. Conflicts that have bred resentment and hate, caused division and suffering and now radicalise young men and women to the point where they are willing to kill indiscriminately and kill themselves.

This isn’t something that just pops up overnight but festers over decades. Mistakes have been made and continue to be made but yet it is not the people making these mistakes who reap the consequences. It is innocent people of all creed, colour, nationality and faith.

We have armed groups to fight western proxy wars that it would be politically dangerous for us to fight ourselves. Wars that we, the people, would not want to accept if it were our soldiers going to fight.
When we have sent our brave young men and women to fight, we learn later that the reasons we have given them to lay down their lives were fabricated.

It didn’t matter that millions of citizens took to the streets across Britain and Europe to protest. It didn’t matter that they were warned of the consequences. It didn’t matter one bit, a few men and women decided it would be done. A few men and women who still represent us and continue to shape the world we live in today.

But yet have any of the people who created these lies, created the suffering, created the situations we find ourselves in today been brought to book for them? Well, we all know the answer to that.

We now find out that the men who have carried out the recent atrocities have been known to our security services long before they carried out their heinous actions. Why were they not stopped? Why?
Were they allowed to continue in the hope that they would lead to someone further up the chain? Were they managed by our security services in an attempt to gain further Intelligence?

About now some of you will be thinking this isn’t possible, our security services wouldn’t do that. Well, that is exactly what they do. In fact, they have been caught doing it many times whether it in Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan or even here at home. This is part and parcel of the M.O. of the security services.

We have eaten up the propaganda that has been thrown at us for decades and now many are willing to give up the last shred of privacy they have because they are being told it will make them safe. We are being told this by the very people who have created the problem in the first place. Problem, Reaction, Solution.

Yesterday our Prime Minister stood in front of the nation and told us all, “Enough is Enough”. Well I also believe “Enough is Enough” but not in the way our government want us to think. It’s time for our governments to be held accountable for their failings. It’s time for our security services to be held accountable for their failings.

We have enquires and recommendations time and time again but is anyone ever held to account? No, they get gold plated pensions, Knighthoods and slaps on the back as they put their expenses claim in whilst drinking champagne in a subsidised bar.

Meanwhile our Police officers put there lives on the line. Our doctors and nurses work themselves to the bone and then volunteer to go back to work to help those who are injured. All the time they do this for poor pay, in poor conditions and in some instances whilst at home they can’t even pay their bills.

I don’t have all the answers and I’m sure you don’t either but we should be asking the questions. We should be demanding the people we pay a vast amount of money to represent us are held accountable for their failings in the same way you and I would be.

Criminal and negligent acts have, are and will be continue to be committed in our name and “Enough is Enough”

This isn’t the type of country I wish to live in and I don’t believe you do either.

Theresa May is officially against human rights.

By that measure, the European Convention on Human Rights is officially against human rights

It cites times of war or threat to nation emergency, are we actually there yet? By any measurable statistic we are not. It also states the words temporary.... How many temporary measures are removed?

Oh, and whilst we're credentials-dropping; I'm not a "security expert," but I was asked yesterday if I was interested in moving into an InfoSec role at work.

Well if that's the game...

I often manage and complete forensic infosec investigations and support organisations in developing and implementing enhanced controls. 😉

Sorry, it's not often I have an excuse to large up my governance and assurance role!

are we actually there yet? By any measurable statistic we are not. It also states the words temporary.... How many temporary measures are removed?

I suggest you carry on reading down the page as it gives myriad worked case examples of exactly that, and shows very clearly that appropriate states of emergency have applied, repeatedly, within both the UK, Ireland and several other countries, justifying derogation from the ECHR

[i]The Court accepted that there had been a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. Before the domestic courts, the Secretary of State had provided evidence to show the existence of a threat of serious terrorist attacks planned against the United Kingdom. Additional closed evidence had been provided before SIAC. All the national judges except one had accepted that danger to have been credible. Although no al- Qaeda attack had taken place in the United Kingdom at the time when the derogation had been made, the Court did not consider that the national authorities could be criticised for having feared such an attack to be imminent. [b]A State could not be expected to wait for disaster to strike before taking measures to deal with it.[/b][/i]

Afraid you've shot yourselves in the foot by relying on the human rights argument chaps 😆

By that measure, the European Convention on Human Rights is officially against human rights

Thanks for that. It looks like an interesting read and it's 12:45 so I'll go through it tomorrow.

Ah, Ninfan doesn't understand the difference between derogation within the law, and changing the law

Afraid you've shot yourselves in the foot by relying on the human rights argument chaps

I think a bit of perspective is required, ffs, aye there's been a few attacks recently, but come on they are generally few and far between and you're more likely to get killed crossing the road or riding your bike.

Actually now ye mention, we should ban bikes and roads. 😐

bashing on about encryption and detention with no idea how it will help or hinder

And all I've heard from you so far is that having more police to 'monitor' people (as long as you don't read their emails though) who we [u]already[/u] knew were a threat, will magically solve everything

Which one of us has spent the last 25 year on covert law enforcement ops against tier one OCGs in London?

Is that a Walter Mitty way of saying you are a store detective or CCTV operator?

French Police are armed (Nationals have rifles and automatic weapons, local police handguns). They seem to be able to manage training that volume. Spanish witness who's friend was killed to the London attack said the police who where at the scene could have ended it in seconds had they been armed.