Talk:Encryption ban proposal in the United Kingdom
 | A fact from Encryption ban proposal in the United Kingdom appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 February 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Election promises
editPerhaps the promises in the conservative manifesto should be added.
One source: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.180.191.49 (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Untitled
editThis is not a very good article
This is the actual speech. He doesn't mention anything about snapchat, WhatsAp or iMessage. This is just speculation and possibly even strawmanning by his critics. And I could rewrite it from a more neutral POV, but this is a really an article on a fairly trivial news item about a general proposal from a British Prime Minister. Does it even merit an article? Luckykaa (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- 15 notable sources state that it is a notable article. It's title "encryption ban" because that's the term used in all the major newspapers: BBC and guardian.
- Please note that a you tube video is not notable and can't be used as a source.
- Regards.NetworkOP (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Why, exactly, is a YouTube video not consider a good source? Granted YouTube itself may have its issues, but a primary source video of a speech from YouTube should be considered reliable unless it has been edited in some way to skew the information. I'm beginning to think that wikipedia has started a vendetta against primary sources for some reason.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 03:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Why, exactly, is a YouTube video not consider a good source? Granted YouTube itself may have its issues, but a primary source video of a speech from YouTube should be considered reliable unless it has been edited in some way to skew the information. I'm beginning to think that wikipedia has started a vendetta against primary sources for some reason.
Move proposal
editI propose that the article should be moved to "United Kingdom encryption ban proposal" or "Encryption ban proposal in the United Kingdom" since the name should be written in full. See similar articles at: Internet censorship in the United Kingdom#See also. w.carter-Talk 23:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Just One Thing
editAre British politicians braindead? I mean, more than the typical politician? If terrorists don't shy away from using automatic weapons to carve new holes into people, though there is ample and well-established legislation against that, why would they care about laws prohibiting encryption? The point of end-to-end encryption is precisely that: You don't depend on anyone to make it work. Banning WhatsApp & such will only make terrorists turn to GnuPG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.133.49 (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
C class importance?
editJust wondering?--NetworkOP (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)