[Gllug] Editors

[Xander D Harkness]

Tom Gilbert wrote:

>>
> 
> I know all about that stuff. All this is saying is that we need to
> police the police. Fine, I don't argue with that. What it has to do with
> encrypted data is beyond me.

You are asking us to comply with a law that states the authorities have 
rights to our data when we are only under suspicion; however you appear 
to agree that the authorities cannot be trusted by your statement above.

Which is one of the points you are arguing against.

In order to put the bill in place our privacy should first be protected, 
  (Police the Police is the way that you put it) and then introduce the law.

Tom - it appears it is you who are the Troll :-) You lead us round in 
circles.

I would suggest that if you built a web server you would secure it 
before putting it on the net.  What you suggest with the law is 
equivalent to putting the server on the net without a firewall and then 
download the security patch.

If you would not do it with a server why agree to it with all of our 
privacy?

> 
> 
>>What happens if a police officer comes in following a laptop theft. In 
>>the lift, you make a joke that he thinks takes the piss. He
>>asks you to examine all files on all backups. (This is unreasonable, but
>>in the context of the police suggesting that everyone make 7 years'
>>logs available, not impossible.) Kiddie Porn is found in /usr/local. Is
>>this what you want?
>>
> 
> Do you think I'm stupid? I don't give accounts to anyone who would do
> such a thing, ever.
>  
How do you know they will not do that?  All those files on the accounts 
marked win14.dll or crk4fbi.dll are they not renamed jpgs?

> 
>>Have you or any of your friends ever bought illegal drugs? If you have
>>nothing to hide, please make available details of every financial
>>transaction over UKP1 in value for the last ten years.
>>
>>Do you have any pirate software on your boxes? BSA need to audit you.
>>And they'd like to install daemons (which are probably insecure) to 
>>log which files are copied to your hard disk.
>>
>>Remember, anyone who objects must have something to hide...
>>
>>If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear...
>>
> 
> I don't think every financial transaction over UKP1 I have made is any
> use to anyone, and frankly, with loyalty cards and customer tracking
> most of it's out there anyway. What the hell do I care?
> 
> Of course I don't have pirated software on my boxes. I run linux.
> 
> I'm not advocating big brother here. As I've been saying throughout this
> whole thread - I simply believe that the authorities must have the
> ability to see the contents of encrypted partitions when there is
> suspicion (and some body of proof) that someone has been involved in
> illegal activity, because otherwise that encrypted partition lets you
> literally get away with murder.
> 
> I have also said that the RIP act is slightly ambiguous and needs to be
> cleaned up, but I do strongly feel that it or something like it is
> required.
> 
> The idea that the police can (with a warrant) search your pockets,
> search your house, run forensic tests on the boot of your car, but not
> see what's on your hard disk is stupid and indefensible and that has
> been my point all along. Of course, as usual, out come the total freedom
> nuts and it all goes to pot =D

Thanks for that - anyone who does not agree with you is a nut!

The RIP bill will lock people up for being forgetful and because a 
proportion of the Police are corrupt.  (Slightly ambiguous is a 
delightfully rosey picture :-)


> 
> Tom.
> 



-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug