David Cameron suggest banning message encryption

[SpookyFrank]

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

That's not remotely rare from where I'm standing. Rare are the weeks when it doesn't happen.

 

[bemused]

“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.

When I read that quote I was getting grumpy and cross with him, but the Guardian isn't quoting him, in that video they link the article he never says that sentence.

What he actually said is do we want to live in a country where communications even with a warrant signed by a judge cannot be read. That's an entirely different context than a blanket ban on encryption.

The Guardian must be very keen to get Daily Mail click volumes.

 

[DotCommunist]

hows he proposing people crack encryptions based on one time pads then

 

[SpookyFrank]

What he actually said is do we want to live in a country where communications even with a warrant signed by a judge cannot be read. That's an entirely different context than a blanket ban on encryption.

But we know from the Snowden stuff that they don't give two shits about whether they have a warrant or not.

 

[2hats]

The EU Agency for Network and Information Security has just published a report calling for wider adoptions of "privacy-friendly systems and services" to promote privacy and data protection, create "clear incentives to apply privacy by design methods and offer privacy-friendly and legally compliant products and services ... but also to establish effective penalties for those who do not care or even obstruct privacy-friendly solutions" and which states that privacy and security are both complimentary and necessary.

 

[bemused]

hows he proposing people crack encryptions based on one time pads then

It think they are going to ask and if you don't give them the key they'll put you in celebrity big brother until you crumble.

 

[quiquaquo]

gvgVDgJl3mu7cJTqgSUx8ZpDUAZ2UtchMTEhITEzIe4U6u7XeAQ=

Password = 1*1kOjy*cfQutrBW

http://textmechanic.com/Encryption-Generator.html

 

[Dogsauce]

Here's a bit of encryption I hope Dave can read:

Kcuf ffo ouy mah-decaf tnuc

 

[quiquaquo]

hows he proposing people crack encryptions based on one time pads then

He's a Tory...

 

[Pickman's model]

Here's a bit of encryption I hope Dave can read:

Kcuf ffo ouy mah-decaf tnuc

i understand he employs a dyslexick person solely to decode such messages

 

[Lazy Llama]

It's back.

Internet firms to be banned from offering unbreakable encryption under new laws

 

[xenon]

So, how they gonna do this. e.g. Force Apple to implement a backdoor or they can't sell stuff in the UK any more.


Yeah. O...K...

 

[joustmaster]

the people who are committing crimes will just encrypt the data themselves. its not a complicated thing to do.

 

[SpookyFrank]

This will really ruin my hobby of encrypting total gibberish and sending it to my activist mates just to piss of GCHQ.

 

[xenon]

the people who are committing crimes will just encrypt the data themselves. its not a complicated thing to do.

Yeah but they can be leaned on if they're actually arrested. Give up the key / password or jail.

Can't do that to Apple / Whatsap etc.

 

[joustmaster]

Yeah but they can be leaned on if they're actually arrested. Give up the key / password or jail.

Can't do that to Apple / Whatsap etc.

The data (and encryption) belongs to them, now. So that already applies today.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Once again the people who make laws show they don't understand how the Internet actually works

 

[The Pale King]

Its defended with (of course) reference to terrorists and paedophiles. So we are all to be treated as potential terrorists and paedophiles. That'll show 'em!

 

[xenon]

The data (and encryption) belongs to them, now. So that already applies today.

You've lost me a bit TBH.

Mr Dodgey encrypts all his emails etc, gets nicked for #badstuff. Police obtain copies of them, demand the password from him on pain of imprisonment.

If he uses Imessages instead, has deleted them off his phone. Apple dont' apparently have a method to decrypt any that might have been obtained. This law is partly about addressing the latter. (Though fuck nows how.)

 

[existentialist]

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

That's a silly broad-brush reductio ad absurdum argument. People can choose to share private information on Facebook. They can choose to send personal emails unencrypted, against the comparatively small possibility that anyone is interested enough to trawl the oceans of data sloshing across the 'net to look at them. They should be able to choose to send such communications privately and securely, too. If they choose not to, that's their own decision, but they should always have the choice.

 

[existentialist]

When I read that quote I was getting grumpy and cross with him, but the Guardian isn't quoting him, in that video they link the article he never says that sentence.

What he actually said is do we want to live in a country where communications even with a warrant signed by a judge cannot be read. That's an entirely different context than a blanket ban on encryption.

The Guardian must be very keen to get Daily Mail click volumes.

It might look different to the world at large.

But, in practical terms, it's the same thing: he's wishing for something he can't hope to have without impossibly draconian laws and the uninventing of 25 years of cryptographic knowledge.

 

[weltweit]

What I think was recently proposed by a politico was that Internet browsing histories be retained and be available to the police. And it was counter proposed that this should be available only on the order of a judge not a politician. I would post a link but it was a few days ago.

eta: Oh and of course there was this: Theresa May says 'contentious' parts of web surveillance plan dropped - BBC News

 

[existentialist]

This will really ruin my hobby of encrypting total gibberish and sending it to my activist mates just to piss of GCHQ.

That's an important part of countersurveillance. A lot of the German Enigma code stuff was broken via traffic analysis, so the more people sending random junk around the 'net, the better. Perhaps we can get the Viagra spammers to start sticking PGP message block lines into their stuff, too...

 

[joustmaster]

You've lost me a bit TBH.

Mr Dodgey encrypts all his emails etc, gets nicked for #badstuff. Police obtain copies of them, demand the password from him on pain of imprisonment.

If he uses Imessages instead, has deleted them off his phone. Apple dont' apparently have a method to decrypt any that might have been obtained. This law is partly about addressing the latter. (Though fuck nows how.)

Using your example -
Even if Apple couldn't decrypt them, they could still force the password out of the guy (using the that you mentioned), and pull the encrypted messages from Apple's server.

 

[SpookyFrank]

That's an important part of countersurveillance. A lot of the German Enigma code stuff was broken via traffic analysis, so the more people sending random junk around the 'net, the better. Perhaps we can get the Viagra spammers to start sticking PGP message block lines into their stuff, too...

It's why the US military handed TOR over to everyone and his mum, to generate a load of extra traffic that would make it harder to track military stuff.

 

[mwgdrwg]

I have some questions!

1. Who is opposing this, what does the boy Corbyn say?

2. I currently use GMail, how can I encrypt my email?

3. How can I keep my web history private, a colleague mentioned VPN?

 

[weltweit]

I have some questions!

1. Who is opposing this, what does the boy Corbyn say?

2. I currently use GMail, how can I encrypt my email?

3. How can I keep my web history private, a colleague mentioned VPN?

Is it really critical that no one know the contents of your email or your browsing history?
Who are you, Mr Big / Dr No?

 

[existentialist]

Is it really critical that no one know the contents of your email or your browsing history?
Who are you, Mr Big / Dr No?

Not a helpful question.

 

[mauvais]

It might look different to the world at large.

But, in practical terms, it's the same thing: he's wishing for something he can't hope to have without impossibly draconian laws and the uninventing of 25 years of cryptographic knowledge.

Or they're well aware of this, and would like the ability to lock people up for possessing the means anyway.

 

[mauvais]

Is it really critical that no one know the contents of your email or your browsing history?
Who are you, Mr Big / Dr No?

Post up your email and password then. More 'nothing to hide' bollocks.