House of Commons shooting?

[turbobloke]

Dr Jekyll said:

Einion Yrth said:

Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies programme at the University of Buckingham,


don't want to come over as a snob, but it's not Oxbridge, or even Russell redbrick, is it.

Incidentally if it's the professor Glees I'm thinking of, he got his doctorate from Oxford.

Yes DPhil from Oxford apparently. Possibly MA (Oxon) as well.

[just me]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I want to watch so that:
1. I can bear witness and keep my resolve strong to fight this ideology in every way I can
2. I don't want to be told what I can and cannot watch by someone whose ideals and standards I don't feel like subscribing to
3. I don't need others to restrict my freedoms any more than necessary
4. If the people in security services/government say this is why they are doing something like bombing somewhere, on my behalf, I can confirm it for myself that they are being truthful about the video at least.

There are a host of other reasons, too. If things bother you, don't watch it. I am all for a warning being pasted beforehand. Comparing it to kiddy porn is beyond stupid.

Yes, that video bothers me to this day, but I am not proposing that anyone be prevented from watching it. Transparency and freedom, that's what I respect and want. For myself and for everyone else.

[Jonesy23]

Classic dancing around pushing pre-existing pet ideas for new powers or restrictions or just outright stupidity.

None of which would have been any help in this or any other publicised case.

But much easier than admitting failings or any inconvenient facts.

[swisstoni]

just me said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I want to watch so that:
1. I can bear witness and keep my resolve strong to fight this ideology in every way I can
2. I don't want to be told what I can and cannot watch by someone whose ideals and standards I don't feel like subscribing to
3. I don't need others to restrict my freedoms any more than necessary
4. If the people in security services/government say this is why they are doing something like bombing somewhere, on my behalf, I can confirm it for myself that they are being truthful about the video at least.

There are a host of other reasons, too. If things bother you, don't watch it. I am all for a warning being pasted beforehand. Comparing it to kiddy porn is beyond stupid.

Yes, that video bothers me to this day, but I am not proposing that anyone be prevented from watching it. Transparency and freedom, that's what I respect and want. For myself and for everyone else.

I was going to reply 'but it's not just about you though is it?' and then I read your profile name.

[craigjm]

People should be asked to give a purpose when hiring a car should they?

I have hired quite a few recently all from Enterprise or Avis and on all occasions their "chit chat" at the desk has included asking where I'm heading / what I'm doing in the time period I have the car and on more than one occasion I have been asked who I work for. I questioned that once and the guy said it was to check if I could have it cheaper if my employer had a deal with them. If you were a terrorist you would never stand there and say you were hiring it to mow people down and use it to try and get into the HoP though would you

[rscott]

Jonesy23 said:

Classic dancing around pushing pre-existing pet ideas for new powers or restrictions or just outright stupidity.

None of which would have been any help in this or any other publicised case.

But much easier than admitting failings or any inconvenient facts.

So what should they do differently and what inconvenient facts are they avoiding?

[fatboy18]

Im sure there are many meetings between Security Services trying to work out the best way to deal with these bds. We at Trivial Towers can debate this forever but I dont think peoples views will change whatever side of the fence you sit on.

[turbobloke]

rscott said:

Jonesy23 said:

Classic dancing around pushing pre-existing pet ideas for new powers or restrictions or just outright stupidity.

None of which would have been any help in this or any other publicised case.

But much easier than admitting failings or any inconvenient facts.

So what should they do differently and what inconvenient facts are they avoiding?

Can't speak for Jonesy 23 but the idea of being able to prevent all loner-loser attacks such as this latest atrocity is baseless, they won't all be prevented.

There was a counter-terrorism ex-bigwig doing the rounds on the news yesterday discussing recent acts of terrorism who said 'it's not inevitable'. That's a bit vague but another similar singleton acting in the manner of Masood is a matter of when not if, and even though the precise details may vary it wouldn't be possible to guarantee prevention even if we did what just about everyone says we mustn't do in terms of our response - namely turn away from being a free and open society and stop carrying on carrying on.

[glazbagun]

rscott said:

Jonesy23 said:

Classic dancing around pushing pre-existing pet ideas for new powers or restrictions or just outright stupidity.

None of which would have been any help in this or any other publicised case.

But much easier than admitting failings or any inconvenient facts.

So what should they do differently and what inconvenient facts are they avoiding?

Armed guards at parliament entrance? The entrance was identified as a weakness in 2005, but they decided it would be to inconvenient to make the entrance more secure.

Instead we got the Snoopers Charter, which the Tories have wanted since the coalition.

[techguyone]

just me said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I want to watch so that:
1. I can bear witness and keep my resolve strong to fight this ideology in every way I can
2. I don't want to be told what I can and cannot watch by someone whose ideals and standards I don't feel like subscribing to
3. I don't need others to restrict my freedoms any more than necessary
4. If the people in security services/government say this is why they are doing something like bombing somewhere, on my behalf, I can confirm it for myself that they are being truthful about the video at least.

There are a host of other reasons, too. If things bother you, don't watch it. I am all for a warning being pasted beforehand. Comparing it to kiddy porn is beyond stupid.

Yes, that video bothers me to this day, but I am not proposing that anyone be prevented from watching it. Transparency and freedom, that's what I respect and want. For myself and for everyone else.

It is banned. I forget what law, but 'extreme' something or other videos are banned and are as illegal as illegal potrn ones are now.

[RedTrident]

glazbagun said:

rscott said:

Jonesy23 said:

Classic dancing around pushing pre-existing pet ideas for new powers or restrictions or just outright stupidity.

None of which would have been any help in this or any other publicised case.

But much easier than admitting failings or any inconvenient facts.

So what should they do differently and what inconvenient facts are they avoiding?

Armed guards at parliament entrance? The entrance was identified as a weakness in 2005, but they decided it would be to inconvenient to make the entrance more secure.

Instead we got the Snoopers Charter, which the Tories have wanted since the coalition.

I see the government can't help themselves with trying to make the most of this. The WhatsApp message might have been relevant, it might not. At least wait to find out.

Was he not on the MI5 watch list anyway? If there's an argument to be made its for more resources to target people that they are aware of, not more blanket snoop on the entire population.

And yes. You'd think that armed guards at the entrance to parliament might be the obvious and immediate response rather than let's push for more snooping powers.

[rscott]

glazbagun said:

Armed guards at parliament entrance? The entrance was identified as a weakness in 2005, but they decided it would be to inconvenient to make the entrance more secure.

Instead we got the Snoopers Charter, which the Tories have wanted since the coalition.

I thought armed guards were rejected on the grounds that it didn't look very friendly or welcoming?

Snoopers charter is a bit of a joke anyway - if captures masses of data, but of very little use. It certainly can't even show the basics, like which website i actually viewed, let alone tracking the pages I visit.

[jjlynn27]

turbobloke said:

... the idea of being able to prevent all loner-loser attacks such as this latest atrocity is baseless, they won't all be prevented.

There was a counter-terrorism ex-bigwig doing the rounds on the news yesterday discussing recent acts of terrorism who said 'it's not inevitable'. That's a bit vague but another similar singleton acting in the manner of Masood is a matter of when not if, and even though the precise details may vary it wouldn't be possible to guarantee prevention even if we did what just about everyone says we mustn't do in terms of our response - namely turn away from being a free and open society and stop carrying on carrying on.

Absolutely this.

[Evanivitch]

Who are these Yes-men and/or idiots that consistently surround the home secretary and tell them that they can successfully intercept encrypted messages on services like Watsapp?

And to draw a parallel to steaming open envelopes really does show how little she understands about anything.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Recording of the shooting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4350402/Te...


I'm surprised at the three police officers running away from the attacker though.

[catso]

RedTrident said:

If there's an argument to be made its for more resources to target people that they are aware of, not more blanket snoop on the entire population.

Agreed, unfortunately I fear we'll get the latter...

[jjlynn27]

Evanivitch said:

Who are these Yes-men and/or idiots that consistently surround the home secretary and tell them that they can successfully intercept encrypted messages on services like Watsapp?

And to draw a parallel to steaming open envelopes really does show how little she understands about anything.

When I first read this, I thought you over exaggerating for comedy effect. She actually used that analogy. So out of depth that it's not even funny. I liked the part where it'll be only targeted to, you know, the baddies. 'Ordinary' people have nothing to worry about.

[davepoth]

jjlynn27 said:

When I first read this, I thought you over exaggerating for comedy effect. She actually used that analogy. So out of depth that it's not even funny. I liked the part where it'll be only targeted to, you know, the baddies. 'Ordinary' people have nothing to worry about.

It's an analogy that makes it seem reasonable to the general population. If you take a single encrypted message, the analogy holds. The problem is of course that mass surveillance is very easy with electronic communications, and by opening one message you are effectively opening all of them.

[Evanivitch]

davepoth said:

jjlynn27 said:

When I first read this, I thought you over exaggerating for comedy effect. She actually used that analogy. So out of depth that it's not even funny. I liked the part where it'll be only targeted to, you know, the baddies. 'Ordinary' people have nothing to worry about.

It's an analogy that makes it seem reasonable to the general population. If you take a single encrypted message, the analogy holds. The problem is of course that mass surveillance is very easy with electronic communications, and by opening one message you are effectively opening all of them.

Personally, I don't think it holds water at all. I suspect the government can already read data packets, but without the encryption key it's largely useless information.

In the past you could have written a letter in code, but they were far easier to crack. At this point in time, the ability to encrypt a message exceeds the ability to crack in. That may not always be the case, but right now it is.

[craigjm]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Recording of the shooting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4350402/Te...


I'm surprised at the three police officers running away from the attacker though.

You dont have the context of what is happening behind the camera. The armed officer has the target, maybe the others are running to assist on the bridge? What makes you think they are just running away? police officers run towards danger when normal people run away. What would you have done?