Encryption

[garethEds]

Not sure I like this or what it suggests.

 

https://gigaom.com/2015/01/12/uks-cameron-wont-allow-strong-encryption-of-communications/

[MrKJLS]

Either do I!

[CAM]

Did you think the unity rallies were because they cared?

 

Now they have the ultimate ammunition to use to continue eroding privacy in the UK. We are already the most monitored population offline, they want to do the same online. I predicted this would kick off after seeing the Paris attacks unfold and it has. Now all the Conservatives have to do is say #JeSuisCharlie backed up by a media agenda and they justify the proposed intrusions.

[Pyroman]

Did you think the unity rallies were because they cared?

 

Now they have the ultimate ammunition to use to continue eroding privacy in the UK. We are already the most monitored population offline, they want to do the same online. I predicted this would kick off after seeing the Paris attacks unfold and it has. Now all the Conservatives have to do is say #JeSuisCharlie backed up by a media agenda and they justify the proposed intrusions.

 

Where's the evidence that the Paris shooters used encrypted communications?

[Garacesh]

Did you think the unity rallies were because they cared?

 

Now they have the ultimate ammunition to use to continue eroding privacy in the UK. We are already the most monitored population offline, they want to do the same online. I predicted this would kick off after seeing the Paris attacks unfold and it has. Now all the Conservatives have to do is say #JeSuisCharlie backed up by a media agenda and they justify the proposed intrusions.

I thought exactly the same.. Unfortunately I'm fairly certain that a bill to this nature is going to be passed regardless of who we vote for.. And I'll bet you a pound to a pinch of.. (never understood that phrase.. My grandmother used to use it..) that it'll be passed without much publicity, very hush-hush.

 

Where's the evidence that the Paris shooters used encrypted communications?

Who cares? ERMAGERD SERKURITAAHH!

[jinnantonnixx]

Where's the evidence that the Paris shooters used encrypted communications?

 

None at all. Not yet, anyway. The correct response would have been an expert analysis of the Paris attack and a considered response based on the findings. This is nothing of the sort. They didn't need these laws before last Wednesday and now they do?

[jamesb]

I thought exactly the same.. Unfortunately I'm fairly certain that a bill to this nature is going to be passed regardless of who we vote for.. And I'll bet you a pound to a pinch of.. (never understood that phrase.. My grandmother used to use it..) that it'll be passed without much publicity, very hush-hush.

 

It'll need quite a bit of publicity to make sure people know that they can no longer use Skype, iMessage, WhatsApp, any site with an SSL certificate and TLS...in fact let's just say the internet as a whole without breaking the law.

 

Naturally government communications will be exempt.

[Garacesh]

Not until after it's passed, it won't.

[jamesb]

Not until after it's passed, it won't.

 

Fair point.

 

This is not in the slightest bit relevant (but at least they properly value privacy): https://www.ch.ch/en/working-switzerland-eu-efta/

[halbaradkenafin]

It'll need quite a bit of publicity to make sure people know that they can no longer use Skype, iMessage, WhatsApp, any site with an SSL certificate and TLS...in fact let's just say the internet as a whole without breaking the law.

 

Naturally government communications will be exempt.

 

Someone on twitter noted that you can't get to the non-https version of the tory website. Maybe they should fix that first.

 

I'm also not sure what he thinks this will do, if a terrorist is willing to kill people or blow something up then why would they worry about breaking some other law that says they can't communicate with encryption.

[jamesb]

I'm also not sure what he thinks this will do, if a terrorist is willing to kill people or blow something up then why would they worry about breaking some other law that says they can't communicate with encryption.

 

Your mistake is assuming he's thought about it, or even knows anything about the topic.

 

Obviously you know the gun control argument in America (if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns). That's not a particularly valid argument, as has been shown time and again. However in this particular case something similar would seem to apply: "If you outlaw privacy, everyone will be an outlaw."

[jinnantonnixx]

I'm no objectivist, and Atlas Shrugged was an awful book, but I do like this Ayn Rand quote.

 

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

[jamesb]

I'm no objectivist, and Atlas Shrugged was an awful book, but I do like this Ayn Rand quote.

 

Given what it would mean for DPA compliance I think Catch-22 may be a better choice.

 

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

 

[halbaradkenafin]

Your mistake is assuming he's thought about it, or even knows anything about the topic.

 

Obviously you know the gun control argument in America (if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns). That's not a particularly valid argument, as has been shown time and again. However in this particular case something similar would seem to apply: "If you outlaw privacy, everyone will be an outlaw."

 

I assume he hasn't thought about it and, as with all things technology that politicians talk about, has no idea what sort of impact such a law would have. I'm expecting back peddling and lots of spin on what he "actually" meant to say when he's told by various people how stupid an idea this is.

 

Of course GCHQ might tell him to do it anyway and help them out a bit with all that internet traffic they are storing but DPI has never really been a problem for them anyway.

[Garacesh]

@jamesb similar thing happened in the war, I believe? (I have no sources, just high school history).. People were able to be signed out of the military if they were declared mentally unstable.. But you could only declare it yourself, rather than be referred.. The 'theory' was that an insane person would not be able to declare themselves as such as they would not have the mental capability to recognise their insanity. To declare you were insane was to prove you weren't, as only a sane person would recognise their own mental unbalance.

 

I assume he hasn't thought about it and, as with all things technology that politicians talk about, has no idea what sort of impact such a law would have. I'm expecting back peddling and lots of spin on what he "actually" meant to say when he's told by various people how stupid an idea this is.

 

Of course GCHQ might tell him to do it anyway and help them out a bit with all that internet traffic they are storing but DPI has never really been a problem for them anyway.

I very much doubt that the government wants to ban encryption, though.

The British prime minister David Cameron has suggested that if his Conservative Party wins the upcoming general election, it will not allow encrypted communications that cannot be read by the security services.

They want a backdoor into everything.

[Sdrawkcab]

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to feahahahahahaha

 

Sorry I can't finish that sentence with a straight face.

[jamesb]

Let's be honest, if encryption can be read other than by the intended parties it isn't encryption any more. A backdoor for the government will very quickly become a backdoor for everyone.

[Pyroman]

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to feahahahahahaha

 

Sorry I can't finish that sentence with a straight face.

 

Haha! I was waiting for that. It's the Godwins law of privacy debates

[flyinghaggis]

David Cameron :-

“I have a very simple principle which will be the heart of the new legislation that will be necessary. In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which even in extremis, with a signed warrant from the home secretary personally, that we cannot read? “Up until now, governments have said: ‘No, we must not’.

“That is why in extremis it has been possible to read someone’s letter, to listen to someone's telephone, to mobile communications.

“But the question remains: are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read. My answer to that question is: ‘No we must not’."

 

This is starting to go in a worrying direction.......

[Garacesh]

Let's be honest, if encryption can be read other than by the intended parties it isn't encryption any more. A backdoor for the government will very quickly become a backdoor for everyone.

 

Of course it is, which is one of the many, many reasons that it's a stupid idea. But when has the government ever stopped because it's a stupid idea? They want power. Maybe in Cameron's mind, this is required and they need to be able to better intercept communications.. If you look at this situation completely objectively and in a 'perfect world' scenario, this works. The dragnet approach.. Monitor everything automatically, flag up anything suspicious for manual review. People that aren't planning to join the Jihad still have their communications monitored, sure, but it's passive and nobody ever checks them as the auto checker doesn't flag them. Therefore it's true, if you're not hiding anything there's no need to be afraid as nobody will pay any attention to you.

 

Problem is we don't live in a perfect world. Dragnet systems are rife for abuse and have been abused on plenty of occasions. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Plus they're unreliable at best. With OpenSSL and other freeware encryption it isn't exactly difficult to set up your own encrypted messenger, buy an android phone, sideload it on so it never has to hit the Google Play store (so the general public don't get wind of it and raise its popularity, bringing it into the governments view) and you're golden. And as such, dragnet laws like this are such a ridiculous waste of time and money.

[Grey-gear]

I'm guessing no matter who is in power after the coming elections we will see something similar if not the same idea with all major parts, because hey what do we have to hide Edited January 13, 2015 by Grey-gear

[mikecain]

Its thing like this that maybe, just maybe David icke could be right. i know his views are that just about everything is a conspiracy, but he was bang on with the Jimmy Saville, and the High ranking Paedofiles in power. We do seem to be signing away our rights as citizens away very easy.

[jamesb]

Another rather appropriate one from Catch-22, and one of my favourites when reacting to this sort of thing.

 

Morale was deteriorating and it was all Yossarian's fault. The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.

 

It does rather scare me when I find myself sympathising with conspiracy theorists. However I'm fairly sure there's no lizards involved.

[Sdrawkcab]

I reckon this is going to be a bait and switch job:

 

1. Government suggests proposal which is absolutely unreasonable and seems poorly thought out

2. Public outrage over said proposal

3. Proposal doesn't go through the house of commons because everyone votes against it

4. Government suggests proposal which is still unreasonable but slightly less mad than the one in #1

5. Everyone votes it in happily

 

It happened with the snoopers charter before and it'll happen with this now. Though I guess this is just an extension of the snoopers charter really.

[halbaradkenafin]

Its thing like this that maybe, just maybe David icke could be right. i know his views are that just about everything is a conspiracy, but he was bang on with the Jimmy Saville, and the High ranking Paedofiles in power. We do seem to be signing away our rights as citizens away very easy.

 

I'm not sure we have much choice in this at the moment (till the election) and it looks more like a small group of people (politicians) are signing away our rights with little thought beyond "it will help stop all those terrorists".