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:

Did you know... that there is an ongoing proposal within the UK to restrict encryption?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/UK encryption ban proposal.

Wikipedia

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Election promises

Perhaps 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)[reply]

Untitled

This 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Move proposal

I 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)[reply]

Just One Thing

Are 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)[reply]

C class importance?

Just wondering?--NetworkOP (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]