That's because you are technically illiterate as well.
Either you ban encryption well enough to actually stop terrorists using it, which will drive our entire finance and IT industry off shore, or you piss around banning things like Snapchat which will make no material difference to anything except pissing off a few teenagers.
What arrogant garbage. Like many people who comment on this, you obviously think that you know more about the internet, encryption, surveillance, and where the threats lie, than GCHQ does. That is, to put it mildly, rather unlikely.
In addition, the idea that any UK rules will drive software offshore is completely barmy. Anything the UK does will be done in very close collaboration with the other members of 'Five Eyes'. There won't be any substantial difference between the UK and the US in this respect. Are you suggesting that the US software industry is also at threat?
Mr. Flashman (deceased), Cameron wants the whole internet to be effectively saved for a year. Disregarding the security risk of that information being stolen, it necessitates that encryption can be unlocked by the state, which rather undermines the whole point of encryption and makes it dangerously less secure.
It's an incredibly stupid proposal, and it's astounding people close to him don't realise it.
My hope is that this becomes an 'ambition' rather than an actual policy, because it's bloody dense.
" The prime minister made comments widely interpreted as proposing a ban "
I stopped reading there. There is no ban nor any likelihood of one,,,
No encryption ban, not possible to stop people communicating across the internet in a way the police cannot read.
As a Conservative I find the level to which some PB Tories are prepared to argue that Black is White rather than admit that sometimes the government has stupid policies which is should reconsidered disappointing, not to say embarrassing.
For those wishing to bet on UKIP in Thanet South, the current best price is to bet with Coral at 8/13 that Nigel Farage will be an MP after the election.
Cheers for the link earlier re polls
This makes 4/5 target constituency polls Ukip lead in before weightings applied
Labour are going to get decimated (for once there is a possibility the literal definition of the word might come true!) in Scotland in May. The political dynamics have changed there post referendum and they've changed for good.
You think Labour are only going lose 1 in 10 of their Scottish MPs? Brave....
Storming performance by Rachel Reeves last night left Grant floundering.Interesting to see the audience's reaction.Labour's social media campaign going well, posters are so old school, even if they could afford them.Most interesting poll snippet from last week was the revalation that 60% of respondents in one poll wanted a change of government, doesn't bode well for Cameron.
Which poll?
And you do realise what happens if the remaining 40% all voted to keep David Cameron as Prime Minister?
Storming performance by Rachel Reeves last night left Grant floundering.Interesting to see the audience's reaction.Labour's social media campaign going well, posters are so old school, even if they could afford them.Most interesting poll snippet from last week was the revalation that 60% of respondents in one poll wanted a change of government, doesn't bode well for Cameron.
Which poll?
And you do realise what happens if the remaining 40% all voted to keep David Cameron as Prime Minister?
And if the 60% who wanted a change in Government were yearning for a majority Tory one rather than the current Coalition...
What has been leaked overnight is that in some way he will pay for the £2bn-or-so upfront costs with cuts to tax reliefs on pensions.
All of this, right now, begs a huge number of questions.
Here are a few for the Labour leader to answer when he gives the detail of the reform at midday.
Can he make sure that the fee cut doesn't disproportionately help future high earners?
The Institute of Fiscal Studies calculates that a cut in fees from £9000 to £6000 will give almost zero help to graduates who will be in the bottom 50% of earners, such as teachers - in that under the current system they would expect to have much of their student debt written off when they enter their 50s.
Why are Labour so intent on attacking those who save for their pensions?
Because we waste a disproportionate amount of money subsidising the retirement plans of the most well off. It's why all three major parties have each restricted tax relief on pension contributions for the highest earners.
Shall we talk public sector gold-plated pensions again?
Storming performance by Rachel Reeves last night left Grant floundering.Interesting to see the audience's reaction.Labour's social media campaign going well, posters are so old school, even if they could afford them.Most interesting poll snippet from last week was the revalation that 60% of respondents in one poll wanted a change of government, doesn't bode well for Cameron.
Which poll?
And you do realise what happens if the remaining 40% all voted to keep David Cameron as Prime Minister?
And if the 60% who wanted a change in Government were yearning for a majority Tory one rather than the current Coalition...
They probably weren't yearning for a Miliband puppet government with Nicola pulling the strings!
That's because you are technically illiterate as well.
Either you ban encryption well enough to actually stop terrorists using it, which will drive our entire finance and IT industry off shore, or you piss around banning things like Snapchat which will make no material difference to anything except pissing off a few teenagers.
What arrogant garbage. Like many people who comment on this, you obviously think that you know more about the internet, encryption, surveillance, and where the threats lie, than GCHQ does. That is, to put it mildly, rather unlikely.
In addition, the idea that any UK rules will drive software offshore is completely barmy. Anything the UK does will be done in very close collaboration with the other members of 'Five Eyes'. There won't be any substantial difference between the UK and the US in this respect. Are you suggesting that the US software industry is also at threat?
No, but this guys is one of the world for most authorities on information security, and writes encryption algorithms for a living
In the wake of the Paris terrorist shootings, David Cameron has said that he wants to ban encryption in the UK. Here's the quote: "If I am prime minister I will make sure that it is a comprehensive piece of legislation that does not allow terrorists safe space to communicate with each other."
This is similar to FBI director James Comey's remarks from last year. And it's equally stupid.
What has been leaked overnight is that in some way he will pay for the £2bn-or-so upfront costs with cuts to tax reliefs on pensions.
All of this, right now, begs a huge number of questions.
Here are a few for the Labour leader to answer when he gives the detail of the reform at midday.
Can he make sure that the fee cut doesn't disproportionately help future high earners?
The Institute of Fiscal Studies calculates that a cut in fees from £9000 to £6000 will give almost zero help to graduates who will be in the bottom 50% of earners, such as teachers - in that under the current system they would expect to have much of their student debt written off when they enter their 50s.
Why are Labour so intent on attacking those who save for their pensions?
Because we waste a disproportionate amount of money subsidising the retirement plans of the most well off. It's why all three major parties have each restricted tax relief on pension contributions for the highest earners.
Shall we talk public sector gold-plated pensions again?
Tax relief is being restricted for high earning members of public sector schemes too.
I see the German Parliament has agreed to the Greek 4 month extension.
That largely neuters the EU as a major news item until after the UK election.I wonder where the 4 months came from, and whether it was just a co-incidence?
In case any of you were disappointed, I am pleased to confirm that, in accordance with established best practice, Labour's raid on pension tax relief has already been spent:
Storming performance by Rachel Reeves last night left Grant floundering.Interesting to see the audience's reaction.Labour's social media campaign going well, posters are so old school, even if they could afford them.Most interesting poll snippet from last week was the revalation that 60% of respondents in one poll wanted a change of government, doesn't bode well for Cameron.
Which poll?
And you do realise what happens if the remaining 40% all voted to keep David Cameron as Prime Minister?
And if the 60% who wanted a change in Government were yearning for a majority Tory one rather than the current Coalition...
They probably weren't yearning for a Miliband puppet government with Nicola pulling the strings!
I have to say this is why I treat satisfaction weightings with a degree of scepticism. If I was polled about Ed Miliband's performance as Labour leader, I would have to say I am extremely satisfied with the job he has been doing...but only in the context of keeping the Cons in with a shout in May!
What has been leaked overnight is that in some way he will pay for the £2bn-or-so upfront costs with cuts to tax reliefs on pensions.
All of this, right now, begs a huge number of questions.
Here are a few for the Labour leader to answer when he gives the detail of the reform at midday.
Can he make sure that the fee cut doesn't disproportionately help future high earners?
The Institute of Fiscal Studies calculates that a cut in fees from £9000 to £6000 will give almost zero help to graduates who will be in the bottom 50% of earners, such as teachers - in that under the current system they would expect to have much of their student debt written off when they enter their 50s.
Why are Labour so intent on attacking those who save for their pensions?
Because we waste a disproportionate amount of money subsidising the retirement plans of the most well off. It's why all three major parties have each restricted tax relief on pension contributions for the highest earners.
Shall we talk public sector gold-plated pensions again?
Tax relief is being restricted for high earning members of public sector schemes too.
A friend of my wife's who has a senior position in local government recently got a wage rise on a reorganisation/promotion. The consequences for her final salary pension entitlement were so significant for the Council that she had to organise the increase being paid over a number of tax years to avoid exceeding the current maximum contributions and finding the LA payment taxable in her hands.
It was an interesting insight into how 20% of our population live and are going to be living at the expense of the rest of us for the rest of their natural.
Has our MI5 become so PC that it has stopped hiring Jayne/James Bond's and instead employs relationship counsellors who try endlessly talking to suspects and are then accused of harrassment?
What has been leaked overnight is that in some way he will pay for the £2bn-or-so upfront costs with cuts to tax reliefs on pensions.
All of this, right now, begs a huge number of questions.
Here are a few for the Labour leader to answer when he gives the detail of the reform at midday.
Can he make sure that the fee cut doesn't disproportionately help future high earners?
The Institute of Fiscal Studies calculates that a cut in fees from £9000 to £6000 will give almost zero help to graduates who will be in the bottom 50% of earners, such as teachers - in that under the current system they would expect to have much of their student debt written off when they enter their 50s.
Why are Labour so intent on attacking those who save for their pensions?
Because we waste a disproportionate amount of money subsidising the retirement plans of the most well off. It's why all three major parties have each restricted tax relief on pension contributions for the highest earners.
Shall we talk public sector gold-plated pensions again?
Tax relief is being restricted for high earning members of public sector schemes too.
A friend of my wife's who has a senior position in local government recently got a wage rise on a reorganisation/promotion. The consequences for her final salary pension entitlement were so significant for the Council that she had to organise the increase being paid over a number of tax years to avoid exceeding the current maximum contributions and finding the LA payment taxable in her hands.
It was an interesting insight into how 20% of our population live and are going to be living at the expense of the rest of us for the rest of their natural.
A tax dodge as devious as any engineered by a Swiss Private Bank, but since it's the Public Sector, it's OK, acceptable and passes largely without comment.
Must be going on, here, there and everywhere.
This is the kind of fiddle that any newspaper worth it's salt would pick up on, and investigate further.
What has been leaked overnight is that in some way he will pay for the £2bn-or-so upfront costs with cuts to tax reliefs on pensions.
All of this, right now, begs a huge number of questions.
Here are a few for the Labour leader to answer when he gives the detail of the reform at midday.
Can he make sure that the fee cut doesn't disproportionately help future high earners?
The Institute of Fiscal Studies calculates that a cut in fees from £9000 to £6000 will give almost zero help to graduates who will be in the bottom 50% of earners, such as teachers - in that under the current system they would expect to have much of their student debt written off when they enter their 50s.
Why are Labour so intent on attacking those who save for their pensions?
Because we waste a disproportionate amount of money subsidising the retirement plans of the most well off. It's why all three major parties have each restricted tax relief on pension contributions for the highest earners.
Shall we talk public sector gold-plated pensions again?
Public sector final salary pensions that are on average worth less than private sector final salary pensions? Lets talk.
Cos you know, Highlanders are all about living without electricity and snaffling down bottles of Scotch.
When I saw the title, I threw up a little in my mouth.
Not good times for SNP Scottish haters like yourself. You realised yet that they are actually popular.
Malc,
Out of interest, how do you see Scotland changing politically in the coming years? My own view is that the Sindy NO was more a battle won than the war as far as the unionist cause is concerned (and a very Pyrrhic victory at that). I think a massive block of Nat MPs in Westminster will eventually create a rupture with England and you'll get what you want in the end. Sadly I believe Scotland now sees England more as a foreign country / culture than as another limb of the same body. If the demos is split the democracy will go the same way in the end.
Patrick, hello , hope you saw my post yesterday. I agree that unless they really give some meaningful powers to Holyrood it will fester quickly and end result I think is certain , only a case of when.
Patrick MalcolmG Do not forget that in 1993 the Quebec nationalists won 49% and over 50 seats at the Canadian general election, yet the second independence referendum in 1995 was defeated by 51-49%
Comments
In addition, the idea that any UK rules will drive software offshore is completely barmy. Anything the UK does will be done in very close collaboration with the other members of 'Five Eyes'. There won't be any substantial difference between the UK and the US in this respect. Are you suggesting that the US software industry is also at threat?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_kqM0gn63M
No encryption ban, not possible to stop people communicating across the internet in a way the police cannot read.
As a Conservative I find the level to which some PB Tories are prepared to argue that Black is White rather than admit that sometimes the government has stupid policies which is should reconsidered disappointing, not to say embarrassing.
This makes 4/5 target constituency polls Ukip lead in before weightings applied
And you do realise what happens if the remaining 40% all voted to keep David Cameron as Prime Minister?
rewards of a few hundred Euros available for hacking into various IS twitter/facebook/website accounts available.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/01/david_camerons_.html It was proposed in America and fortunately died, anyone remember the monumentally stupid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
That largely neuters the EU as a major news item until after the UK election.I wonder where the 4 months came from, and whether it was just a co-incidence?
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2257038/Highest-earners-face-10-000-pension-tax-grab-Labour-plan-guarantee-jobs-long-term-unemployed.html
http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/2333146/labour-confirms-pension-tax-relief-cut-to-fund-jobs-will-be-in-2015-manifesto
It was agreed by the communist EU lizards in Brussels, and the timing is deliberate.
It was an interesting insight into how 20% of our population live and are going to be living at the expense of the rest of us for the rest of their natural.
A strange world.
Must be going on, here, there and everywhere.
This is the kind of fiddle that any newspaper worth it's salt would pick up on, and investigate further.
'Public sector final salary pensions that are on average worth less than private sector final salary pensions? Lets talk.'
Thanks to Browne & Balls are there any private sector final salary pensions left?
How many public sector pensions have been switched from final salary ?