Yep. They're playing political games with trigger words and phrases to try to convince a slow-witted and gullible public to do what they want based on their emotions instead of any kind of logic.

"... playing political games..."

Or internet games, maybe these politicians want their names in some hits/clicks today. Hate is a wonderful advertising tool, facebook exists from it.

Yep. They're playing political games with trigger words and phrases to try to convince a slow-witted and gullible public to do what they want based on their emotions instead of any kind of logic.

Now where have we come across that before? Wasn't there some kind of vote, or something?

Play the same game back at them.

"If you don't have E2EE then perverts will be able to see your children via the babysitting/security cameras in your house and start grooming them for sexual abuse via your smart devices."

" a specifically broken-out category of warrants granted for child abuse image offences made up just 0.2 per cent of surveillance applications for 2019 – having remained at that insignificant level for 10 years "

And for those 0.2% we get government mouthpieces actively trying to subvert our civil rights because think of the children .

Well I'm a normal guy. I don't think about the children, I think about women.

And I want my privacy back.

"I don't think about the children"

I do. I used to think about my children. Now I think about my grandchildren. And I think it's wrong of the government to deny them the legal use of secure forms of communication which criminals will continue to use.

Criminals will continue to use them. One thing my experience has taught me is that if a criminal is setting out to commit some offence, say a robbery, which needs some other law to be broken, say stealing a vehicle to use as a getaway car, in support of the main objective, that secondary offence will not inhibit them in the least.

But if we increase the tax on cars and made the licence more expensive that would prevent cars being used in robberies

This is entirely true, but only if taken to the correct end point.

We should make vehicle ownership and operation so expensive that only the ruling classes can afford them. This way all the plebs, as in everyone who is not a member of the ruling classes , won't be able to afford them to commit robberies.

It will also make a large reduction in traffic, saving carbon emissions, reducing pollution and avoiding the need to spend more taxpayers money on building new roads. What's not to like? !

The plan to end roberries is more elaborate. The agenda "you'll own nothing and be happy" actually means that in the future, there will be no point to rob anyone, because nobody will own anything.

You still will be able to take something from someone, but that will automatically take credit from your digital wallet and some social credit points, and the victim will get same day replacement.

Uh, huh. Sure they will. Right after the bureaucracy processes it. So never.

The government and police really want to cripple EE2E because it means they can just trawl through everything which means they really don't have to do real police work.

Indeed, the current situation seems to [1]back that up .

So rather than use tried and true methods (aka gathering real evidence) they think this [2]wondrous AI [amazon.co.uk] will magically make their lives so much easier.

Then there is the control freakery angle (which seems to infect a lot of people but our government appears to be a super spreader).

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51221054

[2] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Myth-Artificial-Intelligence-Computers-Think/dp/0674983513

Without E2EE, everyone will be able to trawl through police records and change communications about ongoing investigations.

Surely that is what the police want.

If E2EE is so bad & should be outlawed, then let us try an experiment by stripping *all* forms of E2EE from the politician/police communications for a month or two to see how it would affect their lives. If it does no harm then perhaps we'll consider extending it to a wider test group, but if as we suspect it causes serious harmful repercussions, then perhaps a serious rethink of the attempts to ban it should be made.

If they refuse such an experiment, use that fact (refusing to eat their own dog food) as all the reason you need to tell them to STFU & FOAD.

We keep getting comments like "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" from the powers that be.

Why then are MP's not using official (on the record) means to discuss everything. Yes I am talking about WhatApp and the like.

Currently along these lines, the Sue Grey. If the met felt there was nothing to investigate before then why should it delay or cause redactions in the report now. It seems a very bad attempt at either covering things up, or smoothing the curve so we get a string of small revelations which are survivable rather than all at once which would be more problematic.

We keep getting comments like "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" from the powers that be.

If anyone trots that out near me I reply by saying in that case you won't mind me putting streaming web cams in your bedroom and bathroom then, because you're an upright citizen with nothing to hide.

I did that once. I was told "that's what privacy is for."

Those who say that they have nothing to hide believe that they have hidden everything already.

How can they protect you if all they want is encrypted?

Illegal Brain-machine interface ( AI ) is just a human rights fiasco.

You are confused about AI and BMI.

I wouldn't mind being able to connect to the internet with my mind. I would mind if that connection wasn't encrypted.

AI is just a different way of programming. Instead of writing a function that maps the input to the output, use a function that finds a heuristic from example input-output pairs.

BMIs may require AIs to work, but they are not the same thing or in the same category.

And neither endanger human rights, they may even help protect them. People might use technology for nefarious purposes, like drunk driving, but they would get drunk even without technology.

The entire argument is flawed.

It is not overly complicated to create your own E2EE comms app. Criminal gangs will do this. The tools are already available online. So what exactly does banning it for the law abiding citizens of the country do to prevent crime?

I'd go further.

Without E2EE, criminals will have access to all of the files that the police and MI have compiled on everyone.

G7 governments are run by WEF puppets that are on various levels of Great Reset implementation. One of the pillars of the great new world is total control of the communication, so anything can be censored and any cells of dissent swiftly neutralised.

I thought we had a right to privacy. To select the services we trust based on the privacy they provide.

what happens if we all decide to encrypt are own data, how will they stop us?

A new business will emerge like the old PGP approach. Oh wait thats what the bad guys do anyway, no requirement for service/app providers to do it.

Or are they to check every file transmitted, block any encrypted and send you a notice of prosecution for securing your own data.

Or are they to check every file transmitted, block any encrypted

That's not encrypted! I'm just sending my mate a file of the finest white noise known to man.

The Online Safety Bill may end up unenforceable like the UK age verification law that was delayed over and over again until it was scraped because they just could not find a way to get it up and running. its also easy to see that the new bill could also collapse and not work at all.

Little reason indeed, although what they all share is that they're not really democracies at all. They're periodically re-elected bureaucratic dictatorships. As G. K. Chesterton pointed out (in, I think, 1909) we won't have real democracy until the populace sets the agenda that is to be voted on. At present, all we really have is to rely on our representatives (who have a potentially conflicting party loyalty) to vote on our behalf on issues we haven't chosen.

This argument about encryption is typical of the 'state' that emerges from the above mind set - the authorities expect to be trusted in relying on encryption to conceal their activities 'for the benefit of the public', but the populace is not to be trusted and must expose every communication to scrutiny.

Recently reported events at No. 10 would appear to cast some doubt on that principle.