Skip to main content

UK Prime Minister wants to ban encrypted messaging apps

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in France, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has come out in support of banning encrypted messaging apps. According to a new report, Cameron alluded that he would be for banning encrypted communication apps, which could include WhatsApp, Snapchat, and Apple's iMessage.

From The Independent:

The Prime Minister said today that he would stop the use of methods of communication that cannot be read by the security services even if they have a warrant. But that could include popular chat and social apps that encrypt their data, such as WhatsApp.

To justify such an action, Cameron was quoted by Ars Technica as saying the following:

"Are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn't possible to read?" Cameron said Monday while campaigning, in reference to apps such as WhatsApp, Snapchat, and other encrypted services. "My answer to that question is: 'No, we must not.'"

This is just the latest in a much larger privacy battle that has been ramping up as smartphones have become more and more ubiquitous. Late last year, the NSA was accused of spying on citizens through the use of fake towers. A few days later, a bill that would have curbed the extent of NSA spying just barely fell short of passing the senate.

However, keep in mind that there's no telling if such a ban would actually be possible, but it would stand to impact a large swath of popular messaging apps in the UK if instituted.

Sources: The Independent, Ars Technica

Dan Thorp-Lancaster is the Editor in Chief for Windows Central. He began working with Windows Central as a news writer in 2014 and is obsessed with tech of all sorts. You can follow Dan on Twitter @DthorpL and Instagram @heyitsdtl. Got a hot tip? Send it to daniel.thorp-lancaster@futurenet.com.

220 Comments
  • Ha.ha.ha.ha.ha
  • Yes, well freedom does not exist in the UK.
  • I don't believe the security services can't crack the encrypted messaging apps.
  • Nor does it in the States.
  • Indeed. A nation where you have cameras watching every step you take out in public, this doesn't surprise me. Oh well, I don't live in the UK and all my secret messages are sent through paper notes attached to homing pigeons and burned after reading..... The paper and the pigeon. Can't be too careful, those pigeons have shifty eyes and may have read my notes.
  • CCTV is there for a reason. I'm against NSA snooping and goverment over reach and I disagree with proposed bans on encrypted messaging apps, but CCTV is there as a result of criminal activity, including terrorist attacks. It's oversite over public domain, there is nothing wrong with that.  
  • CCTV is there as a result of criminal activity, including terrorist attacks. No, CCTV is here because we were told it will prevent crime. Can you produce any data that show how CCTV PREVENTED any terrorist activity? Don't forget, Blair tried to push though ID cards on the basis that they, too, would prevent terrorism. They wouldn't have. Likewise, banning encrypted messaging services won't prevent terrorism, the same way as requiring someone to reveal the passcode for encrypted data doesn't prevent terrorism. If bans were enacted, do you think a terrorist is going to care? This has nothing to do with national security, but everytig to do with controlling the lives of citizens. Since the net has burgeoned, the government find that it is no longer in control.
  • "Can you produce any data that show how CCTV PREVENTED any terrorist activity?" See: http://pdf-release.net/2545836/A-REVIEW-OF-CCTV-EVALUATIONS---Center-for......
  • I never said it's there to prevent crime, it's there as a result of criminal activity including terrorism.  The effectiveness of CCTV directly preventing crime has had mixed data, so your guess is as good as mine, however CCTV was used to identify the PIRA bombers after the Harrods bombing and it has been useful in investigation of  9/11 and July 2005 London attacks. Where CCTV has been effective is using post-event data to prevent future attacks by the same individual/group, case in point identificiation and capture of David Copeland.  So if you think post-event is not important then you should give your head a shake. I never brought up identificaiton cards, so you can argue with yourself on that one. And you have completely missed my point altogether. I am against bans on data encryption software and encrypted messengers, that is government overstepping and violationg your privacy. But to use CCTV as a justification of why such behavior is not a surprise as the OP has stated is completely wrong. One is government surveilance in public space and has proven to be effective after the fact and has had mixed success prior to the fact (so doesn't make you any more right than me), the other is a privacy violation. Completely two different things.
  • Hey, and burning the pigeons provides a tasty meal to boot! 
  • Oh no poor pigeon!
  • IN PUBLIC. Those are the key words. Reading your private messages is a completely different thing.
  • Exactly
  • Hahaha
  • You made my day :)
  • Ha!
  • Lol.
  • Ju suis WhatsApp
  • If the security service publicized everytime a plot was foiled alot more people would be in favour. It isn't a case of all our messages being read, it is software that looks for key words or code. MI5 knew about the terrorists, I'm certain their communications would have been monitored if they were unencrypted, and the attack would have been less likely. It is sad to have to resort to it, but it would be for the greater good.
  • UK is a surveillance state.
  • I was expecting a fucking WhatsApp update! Fuck you UK prime minister! -.-
  • Lol
  • You don't have the clearance to do that!! :D
  • The update is coming... once we remove the encryption and add in the government mandated subliminal user slave control code ensuring complete future user compliance
  • Did he misunderstand that march. Lol
  • Yup liberty..... Ow wait
  • Probably. Obama wasn't there to explain it to him.
  • Obama and the morons he has hired are an embarrassment.
  • You know, I'm confuse right now
    Why terrorist always attached to moslem
    Isn't Pearl Harbour incident is some kind of terrorism?
    Isn't Hirosima Nagasaki incident is some kind of terrorism?
    Isn't slaving people for hundred years and likely to killing them some kind of terrorism?
    Isn't killing palestinian is some kind of terrorism too?
  • Yes! Terrorism in every extend. But you see. When the government does this for their own political motives..it's not seen as terrorism, it's seen as acts of defence from the so called oppressers. You put a religious motive to the barbaric act done by a lunatic. (specially in the name of Islam)..then it's seen as terrorism. I don't see the difference. Political motive or so called holy motive..both are the same. Infact...govt kills 1000's of innocent in one drone strike. Add to that 10-20 terrorist organization within that number...the rest..dies for no one.
  • Yes, it is, they are just hypocrite money and power hungry monsters
  • Hmm I didn't see that, I think that government just want to make conflict, and with that national conflict will make every citizen united, so the country is still strong.
  • They just throw every act of terrorism at the Muslims.I once watched way back, an elaborate video documentary of the 9/11 incident with all the facts and figures and it shows that there's a High chance that it may have been an inside job.
  • Youre thinking iof Zeitgeist. I saw that too.
  • Actually, Hiroshima and Nagasaki incident is not terrorism, it is STOPPING TERRORISM. The evil Japanese invaded countries, killed millions, raped women, causing massive sufferings to the people. They needed to do these things to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to stop the evil Japanese.
  • Hmmmmm... Isn't that exactly what the US did in Vietnam later, though? :)
  • Haha....what a ridiculous assessment of Japanese involvement in WW2.
    Japan was a proud country....US sanctions on oil and raw materials were bringing it to its knees. Japanese diplomats and politicians implored the US to lift sanctions because it was killing their economy and giving rise to the militarists.
    The US ploughed on with its policy...the militarists in Japan seized their moment - Pearl Harbour was attacked....and Japan threw itself into a war that they knew it couldn't win.
    Fighting Hitler was unavoidable. Keeping Japan out of the war was totally avoidable.
    & using nuclear weapons on Japan was an abomination. No civilised country can use such a weapon on a civilian centre. The conventional bombing and naval blockade were already crippling the Japanese.
  • Sanctions were brought against Japan as they had spent the previous 3 years (1937-1940) invading and occupying parts of China and French Indochina (Vietnam). The Allies didn't just put sanctions on them for no reason - Japan was a brutal warmonger! Japan had already allied with the Axis powers long before they attacked Pearl Harbour in 1941. The Allies had to stop Japan as they had much broader invasion plans for most of SE Asia as well as Australia. Japan were given multiple opportunities to surrender over a 3 month period after the Axis powers had already fallen. The Postdam Declaration was issued as a final ultimatum, but the Japanese wanted to keep fighting. So the nukes were dropped to end a war they they should've surrended to long before.
     
  • And that includes the Japanese civillians? I think that was the intention of the posters above you - to point out that there is much collateral damage in terrorism and attacks against terrorism.
  • Read the books by Noam Chomsky :)
  • And the "evil" US looked the other way and forgave war criminals in Japan and Germany to use their knowledge and technology. So? That's basically how you put a man on the moon. It's not like it was ever going to happen without German scientists.
  • Guys, from what I see here, you guys seemed to be lacking in knowledge regarding what the Japanese soldiers did to Asians - China, Korea, Indonesia, Singapore, Taiwan, and all the other Asian countries occupied by Japan. During their invasion, they basically killed everyone they saw on the streets - no mercy even to the kids. They grabbed women and made them comfort women for their soldiers. Unit 731, they do human experimentation with no proper records, the point is just to torture the Chinese and Koreans, and probably more. It was just miserable. This is not a ridiculous assessment of the Japanese at all, this is understatement.
    The US did kill innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it was caused by the evil act of the Imperial Japanese Army. I am not justifying the bombings here, but something had to be done to stop them. I know the pain, Nanking China had 300,000 killed by the fucking Japanese. Innocent civilians should not be killed, US could find other methods to stop them, but nevertheless it is still stopping the terrorism of Imperial Japanese Army.
    Lastly, hint: I am not an American.
  • I've just told you that US pardoned the Unit 731 and other war criminals. It was like, a few hours ago. Do you even read? Or are you a robot?
  • Yeah US pardoned them, but I didn't. They still did the damage. Actually I was just trying to let you and a few guys above know what they did in Asia. I could have been more detailed, but it would make an article.
  • Yeah that's right. We have ISIS (or whatever they call themselves) who are Muslims Terrorists but the fact is that I know many decent and honest Muslims. Just like the IRA who are Christian Terrorists but there are many decent and honest Christians. There's also Israel who are a Jewish Terrorists but there are many decents and honest Jews. The point is, Terrorists use whatever they can (with religion being one of the best tools) to gain power/control just like the politicians who will promise what they can for their shot at power/control. Cameron most probably won't be elected next term, and therefore, he's using the recent events in Paris to capitalise on people's emotions, in return for votes.
  • No Pearl Harbor was a act of war.
    No the dropping of the 2 atomic bombs was a means of ending that war.
    Enslaving people is slavery. Posted via the Windows Central App for Android
  • Pearl Harbour was one country attacking another, they attacked militiary. Hiroshima and Nagasaki althought complete atrocities were done during an open war between two countries. Why do terrorists are often attached to Muslim? Maybe because a lot of terrorist activity is done whilst screaming Allahu Akbar and maybe cause of the groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram? Are those guys screaming "Praise Jesus"? are they screaming "in the name of the holy church and the pope"? No they aren't. The reason why terrorists are often associated with Islam because most happen to use Islam and Quaran and justification for their activity.  Killing Palestinians? There is a difference between collateral damage and actively targeting a civilian population. IDF targets Hamas which causes collateral damage, Hamas directly targets civilians and not the IDF. Your view is a bit one sided, instead of talking about Pearl Harbour and Hiroshima and Nagosaki maybe you should really think why terrorism and Islam are slowly becoming one word! The sooner moderate Muslims come out and speak out against extremist Islam the better things will be
  • I'm buying a shortwave radio
  • Spot-on
  • I did that. Only to dicover that many national no longer broadcast on shortwave due to cuts as a result of the world recession. Instead, they stream over the internet. If you're luck you might pick up China Radio International, but little else. Perhaps a few "gong stations"... Sad sad sad. (PS Tecsun make GREAT radios; I use a Tecsun PL660)
  • Wow, just wow. These politicians really have their head up their ass.
  • Old people use to be more incomprehensible about things. Dunno know why.
  • Depends on your point of view. I think humans should be unmasked, and open but yet accountable for what they type and comes out of their mouths. Dwellers of the Internet want to hide behind their keyboards and say exactly what they like whether its harmful, stupid but in extreme circumstances terrorist will plot amongst each other. On the other hand, who do you trust, government. Its an age old debate. I guess (unlike yourself) Mr Cameron sees output from security and law enforcement on a daily basis of the number of bad people in the world wanting to do widespread harm (under the name of religion mostly) and he is accountable for stopping it [It must make you lose sleep at night!]. Well guess what, any enforcement of law and particularly prevention relies on communications interception. Unless humand have invented telepathy since I last checked.
    I'd love to live in the little bubble of ignorance, I'd love to live in a world where governements don't have to do this, unfortauntely there is a minority of insance humans willing to give up their lives and do great harm to innocent people for the phony cause. Its a shame. I don't envy politicians and leaders and the weight of expectation on them.
  • But... Di you really think it's the right thing to do? There's like a million other ways for a certain kind of group to communicate, and doing ban will still unnecessarily damage the people (and of course the business itself) there're other ways to approach the matter and banning isn't the ideal path to take... People's going to resist if their freedom is going to be taken, even if it's a small one.
  • what is the use of freedom if it brings destruction on a person? After the paris incident I am in support of govt. taking stingent measures to curb terrorism. But the govt. again may use this for unneccessary means top harm innocent people! That's why there is a urgent need of a great king not good policies. When a great king rules , he will automatically bring out nice poicies. (king doesn't means absolute monarchy but monarchy + democracy other djust democracy will like demoncrazy which is current world situation(no Peace)  )
  • LOL. Sucker.
  • This whole debate reminds me of the classic Benjamin Franklin quote (which I heartily agree with): 'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.'
  • We all think that we are having lot of freedom. But we are not. It takes time to realize. "You are enslaved by your mind," Try to think about this statement. You already must be knowing how fickle our mind is. Whatever it wants, we will do without any control and later we repent. Just try to give it a thought.
  • I don't see what that has to do with my right to freedom of speech and private communication.
  • Yes I understand, it is like saying windows phones need help of linux to run it! But when you investigate little deep you will see most of the telecom carriers rely on linux servers to do their stuff. So, It has. You always have freedom to speak. There might be times when you have said something and it would have caued a great stir. For ex. Microsoft's Satya's comment on women. Money can be taken back but not words. Self restraining is better than police restraining us.  That is why a controlled mind is what we need. They might look tangent to the topic but think about it a bit ;) .
  • So we should restrain ourselves and not say things against authorities lest they see and reprimand us for it. You say that we don't live in a utopian world, so can you see how bad your advice would be anywhere the authorities are corrupt? It would be like North Korea where everyone toes in and lies through their teeth for fear of being thrown in jail.
  • I never said to restrain completely. Selective refraining is the need of the hour. North Korea is absolute monarchy. i first said it is bad. Yes we don't live in a utopian world. So , first we need to improve ourself and inspire others to follow a path of simplicity  and high thinking. 
  • North Korea is NOT monarchy by any stretch of the imagination. The British Empire is a monarchy. North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship masquerading as a democracy. It's a farce. It's a simple human right to be allowed to communicate and choose who can and cannot be privy to the communications. If a government can see everything then there's no avenue to express grievances about that government, which spells the downfall of democracy itself. You can keep on striving for the perfection of the human condition, or you can accept that there will always be the possibility of corruption and discord, and we as human beings have a right to do what it takes to share the message and bring about change.
  • You say you support the govt but yet later say that you fear this very govt will misuse the power where our privacy will come at stake. I don't get it.
  • Common people don't have the need to encrypt their messages they send to their friends or family. If banning encrypted messaging apps mean that there will be no more 9/11s or 26/11 then I'm all for it.
  • This. This is the comment that I have been looking for.
  • This might work in the context of the UK. But it brought this quote to my mind: Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. ~Thomas Macaulay
  • Well put I come from Northern Ireland and from the day I was born until my thirties all I ever seen and heard about were soldiers,policemen,and ordinary everyday people being murdered. When you live in this type of environment you have a totally different outlook on these things. I don't really care what my government has to do to stop terrorism be it Islamic,irish or anything else. If the government intercepts a message that's going to stop a lot of innocent people dying or being blown to bits what's the problem!!!. And don't moan about civil liberties or human rights the victim don't have these.
  • You can't export powerful computers and encryption to oppressive regimes so by banning it in the UK he is saying what exactly?
  • Cameron is a gluttonous ass, who chat's alot of crap to far up his own asshole, it isn't going too happen in the U.K. But we have to remember that, when these attacks happen the first thing that's said is these people were known to intelligence services. The world is a mess I think governments pick & choose what they call terror attacks, what about Israel on Palestine that was disgusting & wrong it was terrifying for innocent people, the majority of what is going on we will use Syria as an example where people got a voice & stood up & said NO MORE Dictating, women as well. It's all got out of hand & it can only get worse. Nobody is safe we can only hope for a miracle and that somewhere reason & understanding can be found sooner rather than later.
  • He wants it to be banned, but as long as corrupt governments exist, it won't happen.
  • Learnt that even your country has corrupt govt
  • All governments are corrupt,one way or another, FIFA Proved that.
  • Ow damn troublesome and disturbing. In theory it may sound well but the step from terrorist to civilian isn't that big I'm afraid.
  • I think the real reason is because he doesn't have any mates on whatsapp
  • Likely!
  • As things stand, 'tis unlikely that he has any mates at all...outside the Bullingdon club, that is! These politicians are a bunch of idiots...they have no understanding of how technology works...especially information and communication technologies!
  • You do realise how stupid it sounds when you massively stereotype in this way? "Us and them" is for the small of thinking, the little people, the idiots. I have known members of parliment in my time who've been very normal, very well intentioned people. They have a large amount of work and stress for not very much money (only cabinet members really get the half decent money, and even then its not great compared to the private sector) Staying late debate boring topics up at Westminster doesn't sound like my idea of a fun  job. Escpecailly when you consider it doesn't matter how much you try to make a diffrerence, a large section of morons will just hate on you, think you are a default liar, richer than Bill Gates and the devil. Honestly, think a bit for yourself of go be an MP or councillor and see how green the grass is. You might be surprised just how hard the whole gig is.
  • You know what they say about good intentions. The good politician does only the minimum amount of work possible. For the most part they should leave people the fuck alone.
  • Yeah well...making assumptions based on a few lines of comment on an internet forum.does not seem too bright either. In your post, there are a dew markers, for example, where you say 'in my time'. I dont know what was this time period, but it is true Tha politicians of bygone days were a lot more intellectually and ethically robust. That said, today's pack of politicians - on an average - are not really well up on the needs and dictates of the technological societies that they are at the helm of. Various reasons for this of course and not all of the reasons are because politicians are idiots, but ignorance of science and technology is rampant I their ranks. How do I know this? Through personal experience since I brief a lot of them from time to time on, among other things, S&T matters.
  • While I don't necessarily agree that politicians are idiots. They are in a job they chose to do and stress and working hours is a poor relation to pay. Some of the lowest paid people have the longest hours and the largest amount of stress. Stress is also comes from the person not the job they do. Largely relating to how much they care. Some could argue that an elected politician has a low stress job because their elected for a period of time, whereas a person who has dependants and works in a job where they can be easily replaced has the stress of loosing their job for things outside their control. 1 mistake could be mean loosing everything compared to a mistake meaning an awkward few weeks in the press.
  • Four day week, excessively long holidays, all expenses paid (but little interrogated), taxpayer funded home (that they can keep, rather than handing back to the taxpayer), absolutely unrivalled generous pension scheme (two terms = FULL pension that anyone else would have to work a lifetime for), not compulsion to attend parliament, expectation to do what the party whip instructs rather than representing the constituents who elected them. Hmm, if I could work for 8 years and have myself a bloody good pension like that, and have eery expense paid for, I wouldn't mind being an MP, stress or not.
  • I think you have lost it somewhere, Members of Parliament & Local M.Ps, are very well paid £5k+ a month plus Expenses and that's from a local MPs mouth, His words were he had to say as its public spending.
  • You don't have to hear it, its on the Internet. Its on the government website. There is a suprising amount of good information to inform people. 5k per month might seem a lot to you, but its not really that high. Compared to the private sector. The average salary in Guildford for example is 38k. People will type all sorts of stuff about MPs and believe what they like, but they do have long working hours, stress and have to stay away from home in London many times per month. Its not a lifestyle I would want, it would be a headache, and it doesn't pay enough. I wouldn't take a job on that salary for that amount of grief. 
  • LOL..
  • Steps to the NWO...
  • The End is near
  • Terrorism always exist, with or without the encrypted communications. Banning those apps will solve nothing
  • How about banning the internet? LOL
  • If carries make SMS and calls free, then I will quit messaging apps.
  • Even I ....
  • that seems impossible in india
  • I've got nothing to hide.
  • Yes, you have something to hide, your naked body
  • Jason....!
  • To be honest, I don't really understand why people care so much about encrypted messaging. I mean, if you have nothing to hide, then why do you care? People always say they don't want to have the government spying on them, but then they also don't want to be shot by a crazy terrorist. You can't have both, either you allow the government to spy on you, or you are fine with innocent people being killed by terrorists. Simple as that.
  • You are so so spot on. Thats my point too
  • Lol 10/10 would read again!
  • History repeats itself. It's only time until we have another mass murdering dictator. May nit be in our lifetime, who knows. I'd rather have this type of thing, just in case. Lol. (I know people will say that's stupid, but they also apparently ignore history. There's nothing special about our "era" preventing it again)
  • False dilemma. But nice try there.
  • "People who trade freedom for security deserve neither." But you have nothing to hide so you won't mind the camera in every room of your home.
  • This. ^^^
  • In the US, we've proven our government is not responsible enough to be trusted with this power. Both Republican and Democrat administrations in the past decade have abused these rights and led to massive snooping. I believe the same is true of any government, considering previous war efforts through history.
  • If you want to live in the watch dogs universe that's fine. I don't want to be spy all day. I don't even like keeping the GPS turn on. It's not about hiding. It's about privacy. Imaging having a guy following everywhere, at all times. It's not something to be excited.
  • What if you legitimately have something that needs to be sent encrypted? The PM may have been talking about easily available apps but for any law to be effective it doesn't take long to realise it would be a disaster. What about messaging in a website? Then if a law covers websites then does that also mean your bank? How do companies send passwords to staff if you can encrypt the message? Then there's the knock on effect of who else it means can access the data. I.e. The companies running the apps. Its basically giving them a good excuse to keep data in a way that's good for them to analyze. Lastly what's to stop any terrorist encrypting a message before they send it? Even if an app doesn't exist in the app store. Its not like they cant just download example code and roll there own.
  • Usually I would say something educational to make you understand how dangerous that is, but I'm tired and off to bed soon. So I'll keep it short and simple. Fucking dumbass.
  • Go make love to your wife/girlfriend in front of the government, because you don't have anything to hide.
  • You aren't getting the point. The whole encrypted message thing is different. Making love and things we do at home is real privacy, the encrypted message thing is not so necessary. We don't make love through WhatsApp. Just saying.
  • I mean, if you have nothing to hide, then why do you care?
    I was going to write a lengthy argument about why that statement is horrifying and concerning but then I realised if that's your current stance there's probably no point in doing so. Fact is: Banning encrypted messaging is not going to stop or prevent terrorism. It's wrong to assume that terrorist would care about such a ban, after all they're criminals. They are not going to be like "oooh, better plan my next attack using unencrypted messaging, or I'll face the law" - if encrypted messengers are banned, terrorists are going to use unencrypted messengers to send messages they encrypt themselves. All this ban would do is undermine the privacy of the people. We had a similar situation in Germany (the GDR to be more precise) where there was the Stasi (Staatssicherheit), a wide ranged network of people spying on the citizens and a lot of people were detained under the premise of protecting the state/government. I do not trust any goverment on the world to enforce a similar approach (by banning encrypted messages and therefore privacy) and not see the system abused in the long run. It doesn't have to be the people implementing the system but you never know what follows after.
  • Agree!
  • These so called terrorists are as they say, known too the intelligence services way before things take effect. So why not act then
  • Fair enough. I really don't know what we are hiding. Worst case my friend gets hurt cos I'm chatting his sister up if he can see my msgs.... Big deal? But if for the sake of me getting encrypted msgs my friend gets hurt from a terrorist attack..... I'll wish I never had the encrypted msgs. I'm up for decrypted msgs
  • You going to stop people from gathering in public places too? Read every message sent through a pigeon? You can't ban communication, repressing it would only make people adapt. If you have nothing to hide, please do state for us all here your password and pin digits on your credit card.
  • I wont share those things via a chat client either. I see where you're coming from tho. If we consider the case of the people who abuse their position and ability to get private info ... I.e the phone hackers.
  • Perfectly said, EasyOn.
  • Hope this doesn't happen. It would make me mad, and I don't even live there.
  • Fucking bastard just ban Apple products..
  • Yeah, at least be useful, lol.
  • Haha
  • Terrorist are winning, apparently... Sigh.
  • "Are we really going to allow a means of wardrobe storage that allows you to keep your undies private?" He's looking at YOU, Liz Hurley.
  • Link please
  • Wow.
  • This guy is a technological idiot. I hope he's smarter in other areas, because this ain't it, and neither is politics, if he's making these kinds of decisions.
  • Bingo!
  • Oppressing the general populace in response to terrorism is allowing terrorism to succeed..
  • "People who trade freedom for security deserve neither." Changing who you are means the terrorists did win.
  • Get the entire quote
  • Kiss your freedom good bye
  • What a C..t !
  • 100% agree with you there, he is an utter wrinkly ball sack
  • Hey what's wrong with wrinkly ball sacks?
  • They keep getting elected.
  • He wasn't elected though was he? We got a government nobody voted for.
    The real reason for the ban is he wants to know if Cleggy is sending risky pics to other politicians.