The Big Tech Show
00:15:08 · Barry Ward, Adrian Weckler
[00:15:08] S4: Well, again, it comes back to the balance. Is that a reasonable balancing of the rights of the privacy of the household to the rights of society to protect individuals from murder? And by the way, murders happen on camera all the time. It doesn't mean because you put cameras in a home that it'll stop domestic violence. [00:15:23] S5: Protect them. I mean, I remember when we were talking when we were talking about e scooters, and it's a completely different topic, but the the example we use there was with cars. You don't ban cars even though you know... We know that this year, there will be over a hundred deaths only because of cars. We know that over a hundred people will, yeah, will lose their lives. There'll be terrible bereavements. Cars are useful. And we make the very, very, I don't know, cold, brutal, but pragmatic assessment that it's worth having cars in our society even though we know [00:16:00] S4: I think it's worth people will kill. I think it's worse than that. That's not the choice we make. We make decision not just to have cars, but to have cars that are not speed limited. We make the decision to have cars that don't have monitors on them to see what speed they're doing, where they are, all that kind of thing. So there are other decisions that were made.
00:16:00 · Barry Ward, Adrian Weckler
[00:16:00] S4: I think it's worth people will kill. I think it's worse than that. That's not the choice we make. We make decision not just to have cars, but to have cars that are not speed limited. We make the decision to have cars that don't have monitors on them to see what speed they're doing, where they are, all that kind of thing. So there are other decisions that were made. [00:16:16] S5: I mean, you would... You... I think you would agree in general, that is what society has settled on. Yes. That's what we want. And so if you bring it back to something like my right to message you or your right to call me, the idea that that call or that text message channel could be open to the guards or the company for various reasons, even albeit to to fight crime, society so far has settled that it's not worth it. [00:16:45] S4: Well, I don't agree that that's what we're talking about. So for example, when I talk about the the looking behind the curtain as it were, it's got to be in a really strictly controlled limited circumstance. So there would have to be a really solid basis for them to be able to intercept the messages between you and me. That can't be just like, don't like Weckler, don't like Ward, whatever it is, or I wanna see what Ward has to say about something. That's not a basis. [00:17:09] S5: Well, do have some examples of the guards, you know, abusing their own processes for their own Yeah.
00:17:16 · Barry Ward
[00:17:16] S4: And no institution is perfect. No two ways about that, but you can put in place safeguards. So for example, one of the examples I often use is the pulse system. The the guard, IT system that records all the information about every interaction you have with the guards, includes intelligence, times you've been arrested, or anything like that. When that system was established, first of all, in the late nineteen nineties, it had no safeguards attached to it. And so, for example, you had a situation where individuals might check someone out, might check their daughter's boyfriend out, or might check a potential tenant out or something like that, totally in breach of what the system was originally put in place for. Now you have a situation where any guard who opens Adrian Weckler's profile on Pulse, there is a digital signature for that fact, and he or she must be able to account for why they did that. So the situation can evolve, and you can put safeguards in place to ensure that there is protection of your rights and that you don't have a situation where an individual guard is overstepping the mark. Usually, the way we do that is with the intervention of the judiciary. So for example, at the moment, if guard of Barry Ward wants to search, suspected offender Adrian Weckler's house, he goes to court, and he sets out for the judge. Here's why I think I need to have this search. And he has to satisfy that judge what his evidence is, where he got it from, why it's material, and why that is the only course of action that he should be taking to search your house. So that is the the check and balance that is there, and we can do that in relation to going through an encryption as well.
00:18:48 · Joe Molloy, S2, S3, Adrian Weckler, Barry Ward
[00:18:48] S1: Hey there. We are Indo Sport with me, Joe Aloy, and we have things like this. [00:18:52] S2: How do you support the IRA when they get [00:18:53] S3: this money? No. It's just I support the IRA's cause they end British rule in Ireland, and I still believe there shouldn't be British rule in Ireland as an Irish person. Yeah. What I don't support and will never support is the killing of innocent lives on no matter where. I just don't... I don't I don't agree with that. I will never agree with that. [00:19:21] S5: If we went along this path and decided that was the more pragmatic approach for the defense of society and to fight crime. And a year or two years or three year hence... Three years hence, we found that we had actually been under surveillance, all that time, or there were gangs in North Korea or Cambodia or China or Russia or America or The UK or Israel who had rifled through our stuff and were selling it on the dark web, would you feel differently about it? [00:19:54] S4: Would I feel differently insofar as do I... I mean, if you establish this as a necessity for something, that's one thing. [00:20:00] S5: But if if the warnings if the warnings that are coming... That are there now, that if you dilute encryption, you're going to have an irreparable security risk that will absolutely inevitably be exploited. If it does get exploited, how would we feel about doing this?
00:20:00 · Adrian Weckler, Barry Ward
[00:20:00] S5: But if if the warnings if the warnings that are coming... That are there now, that if you dilute encryption, you're going to have an irreparable security risk that will absolutely inevitably be exploited. If it does get exploited, how would we feel about doing this? [00:20:18] S4: I'm not talking about diluting or or removing encryption. What I'm saying is that there can be an instance where there are certain limited circumstances in which the state is entitled on a... An objectively, demonstrable basis to look behind that curtain and see what's happening. [00:20:34] S5: But would that would that include... I'm trying to just, in plain English, what we're talking about here. Let's say in a specific case that included the investigation into, let's say, a WhatsApp message. Would that include an order to WhatsApp to be responsible for what was sent between Barry Ward and Adrian Weckler? [00:20:55] S4: No. And I think we need to move away from a situation where we're putting that responsibility for this kind of thing. [00:20:59] S5: But in an order... In in a single judicial case, the one that that you're talking about now, it it it is on... There's no other way to find out from an evidentiary point of view other than to peek behind the curtain of that WhatsApp message. Now you can try and hack the phone. That's... The phone is destroyed, say Mhmm. For argument's sake. And the only way to do it is to issue WhatsApp with an order to break encryption. I mean, is it worth it? [00:21:25] S4: Is it worth it from the point of view of what WhatsApp's reaction might be?
00:21:25 · Barry Ward, Adrian Weckler
[00:21:25] S4: Is it worth it from the point of view of what WhatsApp's reaction might be? [00:21:28] S5: No. In terms of [00:21:29] S4: Of the of the crossing the line. Yeah. I think it's worth from the point of view of crossing the line, but it can't be on the basis that I wanna have a look here. You have to demonstrate that there is a need to cross that line and that there is a there is a security concern or a safety concern or a protection concern to do that. And that you you can put in place a very high bar for that. And the example I used earlier of the search warrant, you can place a higher bar. So for example, at the moment, it must be demonstrable and the judge must be convinced that there is a need for it. You can make that a higher bar. We have different bars for different tests, know, within the courts, for example, different things are assessed different ways. So you can build safeguards into it. But the question comes back to this. When you're balancing the rights of society over individuals, who wins and where is that balance? You can't have a situation where the rights will all go one way either for the individual or for the sacrifice sacrifice of the individual for the benefit of society either. It's about finding that sweet spot in between where you're balancing the two, and I do think you can do that. [00:22:30] S5: I would suggest you respectfully, it's never gonna happen. [00:22:35] S4: Well, that might well be true, Adrian. That doesn't mean that you