Slashdot Mirror
Jimmy Wales Threatens To Obstruct UK Government Snooping
judgecorp writes "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has threatened to encrypt communications between Wikipedia and UK users in order to frustrate the proposed Communications Bill, known as the Snooper's Charter, which would give the UK government the right to routinely track citizens' web and phone use. Wales was addressing the committee which is scrutinising the Bill before it is considered by Parliament."
Nice to see someone has a pair of balls. Not very common on an adult named 'Jimmy'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Done.
Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
I understand that wikipedia is a non-profit and has limited resources, but why not just do it? This doesn't seem like a radical stance at all. This should be on their roadmap. Given wikipedia history of taking sides on issues like this, they should be pioneers in doing this sort of thing.
Plain text HTTP is on its way to becoming a legacy protocol.
From what I read of TFA, it doesn't look like Jimbo is actually making a threat. He's just saying "Your idea sucks because I, and any competent server operator, could bypass it in 30 seconds."
It is interesting to refer to this as a "threat" -- what exactly is being threatened here? There is nothing illegal about using cryptography in the UK, and the UK has a key disclosure law. It is only logical for people to use cryptography when they have good reason to suspect that untrusted third parties might be reading their traffic, and frankly, we should have been encrypting our communications from the start.
Palm trees and 8
How does a bill like this even get proposed in this day and age? What ever happened to privacy?
I'd hate to make the ridiculous V for Vendetta reference.. but yikes. The UK really isn't supposed to be going that way.
Video: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=11355 [Windows silverlight warning!]
To highlight what we are up against - the chairman wasn't aware that 'kids' these days are able to chat to each other in games using their Xbox - 'Good Lord' was his reaction.
The committee really do not have a clue, and have no real chance of getting it if the goverment machine gets their way - the witnesses here showed this.
The 25% arguement is laughable [That being it is claimed that 25% of internet data is not available to collect thorugh current legislation]
Because *threats* get more publicity than *action*. Especially when the action is this simple (force HTTPS), but the threat is phrased as something more complex (defeat the government's system).
Shouldn't Jimmy Wales be more concerned with how he's going to keep scamming users for more money with his stupid "pledge drives"? Seems like Wales is trying to be another boneheaded Assange-like figure and make up wild accusations just to try and get a media spotlight.
You know most of the time I disagree with down-modding people. I prefer to call them out instead, tell them why they're wrong and why their reason is faulty. I think that's more useful for the rest of the readers even if the asshat in question is too stubborn to admit obvious fault. Obvious fault like "it's a voluntary donation, why shouldn't people be free to make a gift when they want to", etc.
But you, sir, are making me reconsider that point of view. There's no reasoning with people like you. You don't like Wikipedia, its administration, or anything about it, that's fine, don't use it. No one is going to force you to access the site. But that's not good enough, no not for you. You can't stand that other people derive value from it and want to see it prosper, and some of those people are willing to back that up by putting their money where their mouth is. You call this a "scam".
Naturally everyone who disagrees with you is "stupid". If I like a beer you don't like then clearly I have substandard taste. If I like a song you don't like then obviously I know nothing about music. If I use an OS you don't use then of course I am a brainwashed fanboy. Yeah, I know how you think. There's lots of people like you. I wish there were other habitable planets our technology could reach, so then the rest of us can leave all of you to your own devices instead of having to partake of the taint you promote on this planet.
He lives in Britain (in London), so perhaps he chooses to get more involved in politics here than anywhere else.
A personal appeal by Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales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You're missing the point. Action is undesirable. Threat of action means that people scratch their heads and wonder what it means, what the fallout could be, if their political careers might be impacted. Possibly unrealistic worst cases are made. If not, an ultimatum ("next friday") is delivered. Stirs things up, gets people wondering and talking (like this!).
Action, on the other hand, leads only to the question "is there a major outcry, and how long will it last?" Most people don't notice unless they can't access the site. Doesn't actually accomplish much, unless outcry can be sustained for a considerable period of time, which would require a lot more than "we're going SSL-only" ... like UK-wide wikipedia blackout. And that hurts more than it helps.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Also, his last name is Wales, so it's not surprising he enjoys sticking it to the English.
people with more knowledge please correct me...
from my understanding your ISP can use a transparent proxy (so without your knowledge, or actually make you use a web proxy) and be able to see your data even in SSL. This is how websense gateway product works. they actually use it as a selling point to be able to scan ssl based web email that may include confidential documents as attachments.
A SSL/HTTPS (transparent) proxy can only do a man-in-the-middle attack if you install the proxy-server's private CA (certificate authority) certificate in your browser. At your work place, IT may have installed one of those CA certificates for their own proxy in the browser on every computer they manage.
Basically for every website you try to access, the proxy becomes the end-point for the website, and then the proxy make its own fake-certificate for the website signed with its CA certificate. The browser checks the fake-certificate with the fake-CA-certificate and thinks everything is fine.
Governments can also transparent proxy specific websites which they have a fake-certificate for which was signed by a hacked real CA. Like what happened with a dutch CA diginotar.nl, which was used to create certificates for google.com and Facebook.com by hackers from Iran, if I remember correctly.
I think we're missing the point here. Wales is threatening to make a statement, one that will demonstrate the stupidity of the bill. The simple measure he proposes will immediately mask the content of all traffic between wikipedia servers and their users. Yes, there's still a record that a user visited this or that IP address, but the point being made is that technology should, can, and will easily bypass ill-conceived government moves like this.