NLBS #33: David Cameron Vows to Outlaw Encryption Technologies, in Exchange for Security

Today we deconstruct the deranged BS coming out of the UK, in the form of David Cameron's response to the attacks in France. He has vowed to outlaw the public use of all encryption technologies; if he is reelected in the coming general election, of course. The proposal is mind-bogglingly broad and far reaching; outlawing secure communications and potentially even restricting encrypted passwords! To make matters worse, we conclusively show how this will have no effect on the ability thwart international or domestic terrorism. It's clearly just a pretext to legalize additional monitoring on law abiding citizens. And as we know, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and others are pushing for similar measures in the US.




Watch in HD on www.TheNLBS.com


Share this video. Tell your friends. Spread the Next Level BS!


Follow Next Level BS on Twitter @theNLBS

Subscribe to our YouTube channel

And get NLBS t-shirts and swag thenlbs.spreadshirt.com

morons.

Yeah..... Good luck with that dude. Will brits here go along with that one?

a reply to: theNLBS

When we hear todays "elite" refer to "terrorism" and pay attention to the laws they are implementing to "keep us all safe"?

I think it becomes quite obvious that our leaders are not so much scared of the "evil boogey man" they use to scare us, but the fear that those they have so wrongly stolen from and murdered in the name of a "free utopian society", are waking up in such a manner that soon, the "people" might be coming for "them"!

Odd isn't it, that those who demand freedom in this day and age are so easily called "domestic terrorists" or "Homegrown Extremists"???

Wait...you mean David Cameron isn't part of Monty Python?

Are you reallllllyyy sure???


JK

a reply to: theNLBS

So "https" would be eliminated?
Secure banking websites.

Its Election Year.

Anything a politician in the UK comes out with - especially this year - will be a fairly large lie to either get themselves re-elected or newly elected.

And after the election 95% of the promises made before hand will simply never happen, or get so watered down by the time they have passed back and to through the commons and the lords that they will be toothless, or completely vetoed by the European Court of Human Rights.

Yeah we all love a controling funt of an idea

He never said any such thing - glad you can get the truth on ATS without all the spin....

/sarcasm.....

Interesting article from the Guardian on this issue...

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: theNLBS

OMG we need to outlaw thinking already and freedom to move wherever they tell you your aloud to move.

Just get it overwith and put us all in cells peddling bicycles to create electricity for the wealthy elite families by candlelight.

originally posted by: Granite
So "https" would be eliminated?
Secure banking websites.

Under the currently broad interpretation -- yes.

Or, under a recent proposed refinement to the anti-encryption proposal; the banks would need to retain all information and actions you take, for future review of some undermined type. Seems like a nice treasure-trove for hackers.

To outlaw encryption, you would need to ban the transmission of binary format files across the Internet - everything from image files (steganography) to Linux distro's (binary blobs). But even then, binary files can be transferred across by Email if they are converted to ASCII text files using the uuencode/uudecode utilities.

Data encryption is simply a mathematical formula based on the XOR function combined with suitably large blocks of binary bits and particular combination/permutation algorithms. That's where the 128-bit / 1024-bit encryption comes from. Then there is https (secure http) built on top of the Linux libssl, libssl-dev (secure-socket-layer library) and libcrypto (library cryptography).

Given that the Internet is built upon TCP/IP which in turn was designed solely for the purpose of allowing datagrams (small messages like instant messaging) and synchronous communication (infinitely large blocks of data being transferred both ways), it's just not possible.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: Granite
So "https" would be eliminated?
Secure banking websites.

Under the currently broad interpretation -- yes.

Or, under a recent proposed refinement to the anti-encryption proposal; the banks would need to retain all information and actions you take, for future review of some undermined type. Seems like a nice treasure-trove for hackers.

Well, they will be the ones to hack in and take all our money just to give it back to their mates in the Banking sector.

It will open us up to hackers, just as the banks have persuaded people to use online banking. You couldn't make it up, seriously.

It will force a lot of people to close accounts and set up new ones ensuring they go nowhere near online banking or purchases for that matter.

a reply to: theNLBS

You know what? This is GREAT news!

I mean, lets face it, with Cameron saying "If we win the next election, we are banning encrypted communications", he is basically saying that a vote for the Conservative party automatically means that terrorism has won, that we, the people of Britain, will have lost our part of the much advertised, and critically acclaimed War On Terror.

This means that we might not end up having Tory bastards in power next time around! I think that would be a good outcome. Now, if we can just find someone else to vote for, other than UKIP, the Labour Party, the Liberal Backstabbing Bast-I mean the Liberal Democrats, and the Green Party.... Oh... wait... that is pretty much all we have to work with.

DAMN YOU TO HELL WESTMINSTER, DAMN YOU!

I told you guys the British are hardcore when it comes to defending the power elite. They would rather take their own eyes out with a grapefruit spoon than have a free society, don't forget they still have a monarchy. Just imagine the manipulation, shady deals, and secret powers needed for a monarchy to remain in Western Europe?

a reply to: deloprator20000

Oh jeebus....

Did you know that 7 of the 27 member nations in the EU are monarchies, with a further 3 non-Eu member nations on top of that?

As for the UK, it is a Constitutional Monarchy, which you really should read up on.

a reply to: theNLBS

What does this have to do with masked men gunning people down in the streets?...not making the connection.

Lets go back to the Cold War and what was happening during that time. During the Cold War Russia and the US tried to implement socialism and Democracy all over the world to get an upper hand over each other. The US ended up winning this "war" because Socialism was to unstable of a government because the people under this kind of government lost a lot of their civil rights. Unfortunately Socialism is still eminent and people are still trying to integrate it into democratic gov's. This guy is clearly trying to have a tighter control over Britain. It will never work.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin