Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Wants Private Encryption Keys
An anonymous reader writes "Businesses and individuals in Britain may soon have to give their encryption keys to the police or face imprisonment. The UK government has said it will bring in the new powers to address a rise in the use of encryption by criminals and terrorists." From the article: "Some security experts are concerned that the plan could criminalise innocent people and drive businesses out of the UK. But the Home Office, which has just launched a consultation process, says the powers contained in Part 3 are needed to combat an increased use of encryption by criminals, paedophiles, and terrorists. 'The use of encryption is... proliferating,' Liam Byrne, Home Office minister of state told Parliament last week. 'Encryption products are more widely available and are integrated as security features in standard operating systems, so the Government has concluded that it is now right to implement the provisions of Part 3 of RIPA... which is not presently in force.'"
I believe we are in need of a new Slashdot section: Horrifying
Encryption keys don't kill people, people kill people.
If owning (not divulging) encryption keys is criminalized, only criminals will own encryption keys.
These "rules" will only push the envelope of how and what criminals (or terrorists, etc.) use to hide their activities. And at the same time, they will add one more burden to the general population to manage and ensure the government is informed of their encryption infrastructure. Nuts.
The most effective infiltration into terrorist infrastructure is still social engineering. I'd rather the money spent creating and managing something like this spent training and hiring translators, covert agents, etc.
A convincing point about the futility of this proposed rule comes from the article:
If this goes into effect it would make it a very dangerous thing to have files of random characters .... you'd have a lot of trouble explaining them.
Time for steganographic file systems where your private data can be hidden inside innocent looking files. They can't force you to disclose your key if they don't know and/or can't prove that you have one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography
I'll probably be modded down for this...
- cameras are used by criminals, paedophiles, and terrorists - we need access to your negatives/memory disks.
- houses are used by criminals, paedophiles, and terrorists - we need access to your house keys.
- cars are used by criminals, paedophiles, and terrorists - we need copies of your car keys.
- ATM machines are used by criminals, paedophiles, and terrorists - we need to know your PINs.
- Online email services are used by criminals, paedophiles, and terrorists - we need to know your username/passwords.
- Computers are used by criminals, paedophiles, and terrorists - we need to install a backdoor on your computer.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
There was no crime, because the secret police would carry you off and shoot you in the head if you were even suspected of a crime. Wiretaps were the norm and the government could do whatever it wanted. Privacy didn't exist. And they were safer from criminals for it. Well, safer if we define criminals as ones that weren't in the KGB.
Yeah, no "In Soviet Russia" Joke here.
This is frightening. It's like we're becoming the very thing we fought in the cold war. A totalitarian government.
But at least we have 37 types of cereal.
A criminal that rapes someone may have talked during the rape -- it is the rape that was evil.
A criminal that shoots someone in the head used a gun -- it is the shooting that is evil. He could have used a baseball bat.
A criminal that blows up a building might use a cell phone -- it is the building exploding that is evil. He could have used e-mail or writing a big X on a tree.
We have to stop government from criminalizing actions that are part of our right to speech. This right is not something Constitutional or created out of any government document -- it is a natural right that all humans share, no matter what the laws say.
I'll continue to encrypt, and I'll dare the government to try to restrict me. If I have to, I'll encrypt by using an encryption program that hides my real text to make it look like readable language. Let them try to stop that. Or I'll use my own spoken code. Will they find a way to criminalize it?
Don't criminalize tools, criminalize criminal actions.
People; don't say "This can't be done."
This is referred to as a "catch-all" type of law. Beware the wonders of selective enforcement.
The idea here is that if you find a suspected terrorist, and they use encryption, you don't even need to bust them for terrorism OR for not providing their encryption keys when demanded. You can just go to step A, look up their name in the government encryption key database, find out that no, they did not provide their encryption key to , and take them directly to jail.
Regardless of whether or not the are a terrorist, regardless of whether or not they are willing to turn over their encryption keys when asked, you can find them guilty.
This is not about collecting everyone's encryption keys (at least not at first). Initially, this will be used as a blunt stick to smack anyone the government doesn't like. Think of the way seat belt laws are enforced; cops won't stop you for not wearing your seat belt, but they'll sure as hell issue a ticket for it even if you aren't speed, have all your paperwork in order, and have done nothing else wrong. It's a sort of standby crime they can get you on.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Just an example of astoundingly ignorant politicians who don't realize they're effectively criminalizing the use of cellular phones, the constantly changing keys of which would amass petabytes of data within a year, in just the UK--and that's just the keys, not the data they encrypted...and that's just the cellphones.
What absolute morons.
...I know that's like asking to be lied to, but I would like to know how often criminal investigations are hampered or even prevented because communications or information had been encrypted.
Like so many others, I see this as nothing more than an attack on privacy and not as an aid to criminal investigations. Criminals are not going to turn over their keys. People who turn over their keys aren't likely engaged in criminal acts. "honest" people who believe in the right to privacy will become criminals, however.
I'm not sure "police state" is the right word, but we're certainly talking about criminalizing the general population to the point that only people "in office" can have the right to privacy under the guise of "national security." And a funny thing happens to your rights when you become "a criminal." You lose them along with your ability to run for public office and all manner of other things.
The use of illegal government spying on innocent citizens is proliferating.
Your move now.
...(and no, you may not have my encryption keys).
Why not get right to the root of the matter, then, and simply criminalize any attempt to engage in a private conversation? After all, speaking to someone face-to-face in a secure setting is functionally the same as using encryption in a remote communication. No more walks in the woods, unless you immediately file a synopsis of everything you talked about with the proper authorities...
Catching up? That's so unfair. Its not like the British are newcomers at this -- if they hadn't done it first, there likely wouldn't be a US.
In america we have whats called the 5th amendment. Which should mean that I have protection under the law to not be forced to answer questions that incriminate myself. What is your password? and what is your encryption key? should be similiar to Where were you the night the victim was shot? I don't have to answer if i believe that in answering the question it will incriminate me in a crime.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Under pure anarchy, people would naturally take care of each other and no-one would go without care, or
Under pure anarchy, people COULD take care of each other and no-one would go without care. How successful they are is up in the air - Most anarchists or minarchists are not utopians, so just because we have anarchy doesn't mean our problems are all solved. In the same way that we support science, but we don't expect science to solve all our problems.
Here are some examples of ways everyone could have universal and equal health care without being provided by the state:
1. We could have such a wealthy society that healthcare would be so cheap and plentiful as to be essentially free and universal. Take, for example, television. Go to the poorest neighborhoods in the U.S., and all homes will have a television set. The vast majority will even have cable or satalite. In fact, people living in poverty are more likely to see a television as an "essential" item than rich people (who can afford other types of entertainment). There is no government run television program that provides it to everyone... it is just that our society is so wealthy that TV has become so cheap that it is universal. It is possible that we could have such a thriving economy that paying for health care is just not an issue.
2. We could have private, self-organized, voluntary organizations that provide health care to everyone. Churches aren't funded by the government, they rely totally on voluntary participation and funding, and yet churches exist everywhere. There is no reason why any service couldn't be provided equally to all people, based on voluntary contribution.
3. There could be some sort of technological advancement that renders conventional medicine irrelevant.
4. Labor could form unions, and demand health care as a standard part of all employment. Employeers would be forced to pay for medical care, or face a highly organized nationwide strike.
4. There could be any combination of the above. Or any number of other possible situations that I cannot even begin to list. Use your imagination.
Universal health care is impossible and there's no point in striving for it?
Universal Health care seems to be a failure as it has currently been implemented by governments. One could argue that by relying on the state to give universal health care, that we have given up on health care.
I'm just not sure what you'd call any entity that provided universal health care other than "the state".
The state is enforced on all who exist in a geographic location based on the threat of violence through the police and military. Any entity that does not use violence, and does not force participation in the system, would not be a state system. You may thing "the present system is not violent", but it is. The violence may be hidden under layers of beurocracy, but try refusing to pay your tax, or try opening a health clinic without government permission, and the government is going to send some armed individuals to deal with you pretty quickly.
But on a deeper level, the fact that you have to ask me how we could provide universal health care without a state, is a symptom of the bias and indoctrination. You should be able to think up a few methods for solving the problem without the use of the state yourself. Even if you think the state is still the best way to solve the problem, the fact that the average person cannot even comprehend there could be other solutions besides the government... the fact that virtually no-one gives the other solutions any thought should be warning signs that there is a serious problem. The fact that to be anti-government in our society means to be anti-equality, or anti-prosperity, means that any non-government solutions are going to be supressed. After all, who wants to be anti-equality or anti-prosperity.
Statist indoctrination trumps. There may be disagreement about how a state is run, but my guess is that everyplace you were educated, the absolute nessicity of a strong central state was a given. One country might justify the need for a state in order to protect itself from foriegn enemies, another might justify the state in order to provide social services, another might justify the state for other reasons. But they all agree on the supremecy of the modern centralized state. They disagree on the way a state should be run, the principles the state should abide by... but they all see the state as an institution that is intrinsicly "good". I very highly doubt that anywhere in the world, you were taught to question the government itself as an institution (and I don't mean to question the current political regime, or the current party in power... but I mean to question the state in itself).