Shooting outside the House of Commons

[Damocles]

So, in the case of the guy on the bridge with the car, simply pressing 'delete' removes all potential evidence?

Yes, in the same way that burning a letter removes all potential evidence of a plot too.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Yes, in the same way that burning a letter removes all potential evidence of a plot too.

Conventional phone call records and even the content of some text messages can be retrieved though, of course. Whatsapp not so

 

[Damocles]

Conventional phone call records and even the content of some text messages can be retrieved though, of course. Whatsapp not so

Not if they use encrypted phones and phreaking techniques to route their connections.

The problem here as stated earlier is that the intelligence community want to have their cake and eat it. They want to be able to communicate with each other clandestinely but not allow others to communicate clandestinely. It can't happen. Any terrorist worth their salt will find their way around all of these restrictions.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Not if they use encrypted phones and phreaking techniques to route their connections.

The problem here as stated earlier is that the intelligence community want to have their cake and eat it. They want to be able to communicate with each other clandestinely but not allow others to communicate clandestinely. It can't happen. Any terrorist worth their salt will find their way around all of these restrictions.

Regrettably so

 

[Blue Hefner]

Yes, in the same way that burning a letter removes all potential evidence of a plot too.

But we have moved on from burning letters. Like we moved on from just relying on fingerprints, we now have DNA

Like I said, I do not want to be in a Police State but, if evidence is there and appropriate action is taken to retrieve it(i.e a warrant) I don't really have a problem. I suppose what your saying is, we can't do that as if someone can access 1 message, they cam access them all?

 

[Damocles]

But we have moved on from burning letters. Like we moved on from just relying on fingerprints, we now have DNA

Like I said, I do not want to be in a Police State but, if evidence is there and appropriate action is taken to retrieve it(i.e a warrant) I don't really have a problem. I suppose what your saying is, we can't do that as if someone can access 1 message, they cam access them all?

I'm saying two things:

1. Any loophole in technology can be exploited by terrorists and other undesirables just as easily as intelligence services. So you put a loophole in WhatsApp so that GCHQ can read terrorists messages. What you didn't foresee is that now "Russian hackers" or more than likely bored internet hackers looking for a laugh can now read the WhatsApp messages of you, me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Raheem Sterling, and everybody else.

2. This is the paedophile problem - you'll always catch the gullible single men sat alone in a dark room wanking types but you'll never catch the organised producers because they can also use technology. All you're doing is catching the worthless soldiers and then alerting their masters to the fact that you're on to them which forces them to hit a kill switch and burn any and all hard drives or incriminating evidence. So even if you did catch up to the masterminds that you really want to get, it doesn't matter because you've now got no evidence with which to convict them. You can't use technology to defeat a RICO/mafia type organisation because they also have access to the same technology due to the way that the internet works.

3. I know I said two but this one is sort of an addon. You're chasing down a dark alley investigatively and more to the point, you're creating the illusion of security which is much more dangerous than having no security. When you have no anti-virus you're very careful because you know that you're fucked. When you have a terrible anti-virus you aren't as cautious because you don't know your anti-virus is terrible. Terrorist cells can only be defeated by using human intelligence who are trained by our security services and placed inside the mosques and social groups that create these people. Overly relying on technology is not only the wrong path but in some cases it could take attention and funding away from the more valuable human intelligence. Probably an unfounded fear this, but worth mentioning.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I'm saying two things:

1. Any loophole in technology can be exploited by terrorists and other undesirables just as easily as intelligence services. So you put a loophole in WhatsApp so that GCHQ can read terrorists messages. What you didn't foresee is that now "Russian hackers" or more than likely bored internet hackers looking for a laugh can now read the WhatsApp messages of you, me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Raheem Sterling, and everybody else.

2. This is the paedophile problem - you'll always catch the gullible single men sat alone in a dark room wanking types but you'll never catch the organised producers because they can also use technology. All you're doing is catching the worthless soldiers and then alerting their masters to the fact that you're on to them which forces them to hit a kill switch and burn any and all hard drives or incriminating evidence. So even if you did catch up to the masterminds that you really want to get, it doesn't matter because you've now got no evidence with which to convict them. You can't use technology to defeat a RICO/mafia type organisation because they also have access to the same technology due to the way that the internet works.

3. I know I said two but this one is sort of an addon. You're chasing down a dark alley investigatively and more to the point, you're creating the illusion of security which is much more dangerous than having no security. When you have no anti-virus you're very careful because you know that you're fucked. When you have a terrible anti-virus you aren't as cautious because you don't know your anti-virus is terrible. Terrorist cells can only be defeated by using human intelligence who are trained by our security services and placed inside the mosques and social groups that create these people. Overly relying on technology is not only the wrong path but in some cases it could take attention and funding away from the more valuable human intelligence. Probably an unfounded fear this, but worth mentioning.

There are 3 main methods of obtaining human intel. Embedding an operative of your own, converting one of their operatives or tip off (from either a terrorist with a conscience, or a relative/friend/member of the community) . Embedding an operative can take years, as you have to provide them with a plausible back story and a credible history (network of friends/job history/prison record, etc). Turning one of their operative is equally difficult because while their back story is true you have to be 100% certain they are not acting as a double agent, or let you down in some other way. It may still take years to convert someone as you have to build up their trust to the point where they trust you with their life. Either way human intel is playing the long game, unless you get a tip off from a helpful member of the community (who are incidentally likely to be s**t scared of reprisals). It only takes a hint of suspicion and your operative is dead in the water (possibly literally).

Comm's intel is much more immediate and in many cases can be the difference between life and death.

 

[Damocles]

There are 3 main methods of obtaining human intel. Embedding an operative of your own, converting one of their operatives or tip off (from either a terrorist with a conscience, or a relative/friend/member of the community) . Embedding an operative can take years, as you have to provide them with a plausible back story and a credible history (network of friends/job history/prison record, etc). Turning one of their operative is equally difficult because while their back story is true you have to be 100% certain they are not acting as a double agent, or let you down in some other way. It may still take years to convert someone as you have to build up their trust to the point where they trust you with their life. Either way human intel is playing the long game, unless you get a tip off from a helpful member of the community (who are incidentally likely to be s**t scared of reprisals). It only takes a hint of suspicion and your operative is dead in the water (possibly literally).

Comm's intel is much more immediate and in many cases can be the difference between life and death.

Of course this is true, but comms intel also has the problem of opening up avenues into your own comms if done at the sort of widespread scales the Government are doing it. There's hundreds of examples of this but the Vault 7 leaks provide a good and recent one.

If you dig a hole in the ground, don't be surprised when other people come and shit in it

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Of course this is true, but comms intel also has the problem of opening up avenues into your own comms if done at the sort of widespread scales the Government are doing it. There's hundreds of examples of this but the Vault 7 leaks provide a good and recent one.

If you dig a hole in the ground, don't be surprised when other people come and shit in it

The civil liberty/security argument is one that will always divide opinion. Personally, I have nothing to hide, but I can see why some people get more than a bit flustered about someone sifting through their browser history; an number of MP's for a start.

 

[FantasyIreland]

Confirmation that the **** was driving at speeds 'up to 76mph' when he hit the pedestrians on the bridge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-394087...ng&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central