David Cameron suggest banning message encryption

[sim667]

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tain-online-shopping-banking-messaging-terror

On Monday David Cameron managed a rare political treble: he proposed a policy that is draconian, stupid and economically destructive.

The prime minister made comments widely interpreted as proposing a ban on end-to-end encryption in messages – the technology that protects online communications, shopping, banking, personal data and more.

“n our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?”, the prime minister asked rhetorically.

To most people in a supposed liberal democracy, the answer would surely be “yes”: the right to privacy runs right in parallel to our right for free expression. If you can’t say something to a friend or family member without the fear the government, your neighbour or your boss will overhear, your free expression is deeply curtailed.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Who has "widely interpreted" this? There have always been restrictions on encryption technology, and back door access to secure transactions for spooks. The battleground is over retention of data, and who pays for it, especially with services which don't save any information.

 

[2hats]

Perhaps with his extensive knowledge he can become a commentator on Fox?

 

[sim667]

Who has "widely interpreted" this? There have always been restrictions on encryption technology, and back door access to secure transactions for spooks. The battleground is over retention of data, and who pays for it, especially with services which don't save any information.

Doesn't sound like thats the battle ground he's referring to here

“n our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?”

My guess is that he doesn't actually understand what encryption means properly.

 

[Crispy]

http://boingboing.net/2015/01/13/what-david-cameron-just-propos.html

What David Cameron thinks he's saying is, "We will command all the software creators we can reach to introduce back-doors into their tools for us." There are enormous problems with this: there's no back door that only lets good guys go through it. If your Whatsapp or Google Hangouts has a deliberately introduced flaw in it, then foreign spies, criminals, crooked police (like those who fed sensitive information to the tabloids who were implicated in the hacking scandal -- and like the high-level police who secretly worked for organised crime for years), and criminals will eventually discover this vulnerability. They -- and not just the security services -- will be able to use it to intercept all of our communications. That includes things like the pictures of your kids in your bath that you send to your parents to the trade secrets you send to your co-workers.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Doesn't sound like thats the battle ground he's referring to here.

I think the problem is services which have almost no metadata, like Snapchat. You can use existing legal powers to get providers to hand over stuff they have, but not stuff that they don't.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

They just don't understand how computers and the Internet work, do they?

 

[Lurdan]

Entirely unclear what he means. The Register asks some questions :

Exactly how the UK government could practically thwart encryption in Blighty is unclear: must software include backdoors for spies – and hackers – to exploit to eavesdrop on citizens? Would it be unlawful to possess code, source or executable, that performs a cryptographic algorithm? What counts as cryptographic – even random number generation?

Will ISPs be ordered to drop all packets that match a given encryption protocol, even VPNs or SSL? Will specific ciphers, key lengths and protocols be banned; what if new or tweaked versions appear? Will it be as much as an embarrassing mess as the anti-porn web filtering?

The thought of Cameron’s crew taking on Silicon Valley over crypto is laughable. The top technology firms are in active conflict with the US government on the issue, so the idea that they would roll over and heed the wishes of America’s former ruler is optimistic to say the least.

Are these measures just supposed to apply to private communications or also to secure financial and business transactions ? If as I suspect he only means the former (since even creating the impression that the latter were insecure would have a fairly dramatic impact in an economy in which the financial services sector plays a large part) how exactly does he imagine that it will be possible to tell the difference in practice ?

 

[sim667]

Even in the smallest area, I find the idea that it would be illegal to seek to keep private messages private absolutely disgusting.

 

[2hats]

since even creating the impression that the latter were insecure would have a fairly dramatic impact in an economy in which the financial services sector plays a large part

Not to mention attracting the attention of the ICO.

 

[8ball]

Even in the smallest area, I find the idea that it would be illegal to seek to keep private messages private absolutely disgusting.

I wouldn't worry about it too much - it's just going to be fun watching Cameron trying to dig himself out.

 

[sim667]

I wouldn't worry about it too much - it's just going to be fun watching Cameron trying to dig himself out.

Im not particularly..... but thinking they can even suggest it to the public..... Politicians need bringing down a peg or two imho.

 

[Orang Utan]

To quote a friend on Facebook: stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid arseholes

 

[weltweit]

Is there any evidence greater Internet snooping could have prevented the Charlie Hebdo attack?

Surely if there were greater snooping, would be perpetrators would just switch to another medium or none.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Surely if there were greater snooping, would be perpetrators would just switch to another medium .

That's rather Cameron's point w/r/t unsnoopable services.

 

[weltweit]

It is ironic, the response to the murderous actions of three extremists is to try to clamp down on the freedoms of the rest of the population. It is almost as if the extremists won.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

It is ironic, the response to the murderous actions of three extremists is to try to clamp down on the freedoms of the rest of the population. It is almost as if the extremists won.

Freedom is not the same thing as privacy.

 

[Pickman's model]

It is ironic, the response to the murderous actions of three extremists is to try to clamp down on the freedoms of the rest of the population. It is almost as if the extremists won.

haven't you been paying attention since 11/9/2001?

 

[weltweit]

Freedom is not the same thing as privacy.

Indeed, but one could argue the right to (relatively) private communications is one of our freedoms.

Though government would not permit us a mode of communications which they could not listen in to.

 

[cesare]

Indeed, but one could argue the right to (relatively) private communications is one of our freedoms.

Though government would not permit us a mode of communications which they could not listen in to.

https://www.liberty-human-rights.or...s-act/article-8-right-private-and-family-life

Although it's not an unfettered right. None of them are tbf.

 

[weltweit]

Interesting though that while some are bleating about message privacy, millions are sharing private information unfettered on facebook.

 

[Pickman's model]

https://www.liberty-human-rights.or...s-act/article-8-right-private-and-family-life

Although it's not an unfettered right. None of them are tbf.

although i'd be wary of families with fetters.

 

[8ball]

..... Politicians need bringing down a peg or two imho.

It's looking like the next General Election results might deliver exactly that.

 

[sim667]

It's looking like the next General Election results might deliver exactly that.

Im a bit worried about kippers.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's looking like the next General Election results might deliver exactly that.

 

[8ball]

Im a bit worried about kippers.

As in getting a big protest vote and joining up with the broken remains of the Tories?

Can't see it making it up to a majority.

 

[Pickman's model]

Im a bit worried about kippers.

if i were you i'd eat any kippers you have now well before the general election, although they're ok the freezer for a week or two.

 

[sim667]

As in getting a big protest vote and joining up with the broken remains of the Tories?

Can't see it making it up to a majority.

Im just worried that anyone will vote for them at all.....

#creepingkippers

 

[8ball]

Im just worried that anyone will vote for them at all.....

#creepingkippers

I think they'll get a lot of votes overall but not much in the way of seats.

 

[SpookyFrank]

“In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?”

What a stupid man he is. If the public could read David Cameron's emails I have little doubt he'd be hanging by his balls from a lamppost in a matter of minutes.