Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Berners-Lee Says No To Internet Snooping

Posted by timothy on from the and-what-does-this-guy-know? dept.

Jack Spine writes "The inventor of the World Wide Web has pointed out some of the dangers of deep packet inspection. Sir Tim said that ISPs 'snooping' on data was similar to the interception of mail. 'This is very important to me, as what is at stake is the integrity of the internet as a communications medium,' Berners-Lee said on Wednesday. TBL's comments come as the UK government is gearing up to intercept all web communications in the UK through the Intercept Modernisation Programme, and echo comments he made last year about Phorm."

6 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. The dream of encryption by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember 10 years ago that every nerd had a PGP key and Schneier's Applied Cryptography was a standard text for our crowd. Now, the majority of even the hard-core geeks no longer have much interest in encryption. Somewhere along the way we forgot that every step forward on the net demands a way to guarantee privacy. Berners-Lee might regret the lack of privacy now, but he and other luminaries weren't vocal enough about the need for encryption and lots of it.

    1. Re:The dream of encryption by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because most of us came to this realization: http://xkcd.com/538/ or the fact that 90% of it doesn't matter.

      All of my Tax documents and other financial stuff is on a 256-bit encrypted disk image. But why the hell do I need to encrypt the message to my mom about my Easter plans? Furthermore, how do I explain to someone that just learned to use a computer that Obama wants to know if it's going to be Ham or Turkey.

      And the last time I planned something big and illegal we sure as hell didn't EMAIL each other about it, we met in person. (3 friends of mine all worked at Taco Bell through High School. Summer before college we planned a heist of the flags off the top. I still have a flag I fly on Rugby trips with the Taco Bell Dog.)

    2. Re:The dream of encryption by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because most of us came to this realization: http://xkcd.com/538/ or the fact that 90% of it doesn't matter.

      The problem with the xkcd cartoon is that it only applies if whoever wants your information knows that you have it.

      The point of general encryption is that fishing expeditions are impossible... so the "juicy" stuff that would warrant attention from the powers that be is hidden in the morass of all the other encrypted data.

      Yes, a ten-dollar hammer can be used to get my keys from me... but how do you know I've got the goods if you've never been able to read anyone's data?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:The dream of encryption by TrekkieGod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because most of us came to this realization: http://xkcd.com/538/ or the fact that 90% of it doesn't matter.

      All of my Tax documents and other financial stuff is on a 256-bit encrypted disk image. But why the hell do I need to encrypt the message to my mom about my Easter plans?

      Because if somebody's watching you send all those messages to your mom about Easter plans and then suddenly see encrypted traffic, they're going to know that the encrypted traffic must have been special and then come after you with the wrench?

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  2. This is good by damburger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People like Sir Tim need to speak out on such issues, because their contributions to science and technology are touted by our leaders as 'proof' of Britain being a modern, forward thinking society - rather than the withered, reactionary, largely technophobic old empire we in fact are.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  3. Privacy for the rest of us by schwaang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Encryption gives a sometimes false sense of security, and the technology is a hassle. It's better to reinforce societal expectations for privacy where it is due, and let social mechanisms (like laws and market reputation) do the job.

    Consider e.g. that if you use https from your workplace and see the happy little lock icon in FF or IE, you probably feel safe.

    But some workplaces insert a proxy in between you and gmail (or what have you), having stuffed the proxy's certificate on your (their) work machine through local policy. Unbeknownst to you, your employer then sees the communication which you thought was totally private. Now imagine if an ISP could do that and get away with it.

    The point is that even if you do *care*, the technology is hard to keep track of, and there is an arms-race ladder of one-upmanship that makes this a never-ending game, which some nerds can win, and most of us will lose.

    What will really keep you safe is to stand up for a reasonable expectation of privacy where it should exist, and create norms and laws that protect this. Saying "NO" to Phorm or other invasions by ISPs is part of that approach, and creates legal and commercial consequences that are more effective than asking every grandma to mess with PGP.