Slashdot Mirror
UK Prime Minister Says Gov't Should Be Capable of Reading Any Communications
Dr_Barnowl writes: The BBC reports that UK Prime Minister David Cameron has vowed to introduce a "comprehensive piece of legislation" aimed at there being no "means of communication ... we cannot read," in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris. While he didn't mention encryption specifically, the only logical means by which this could occur would be by the introduction of compulsory key escrow, and the banning of forms of encryption which do not use it. While the UK already essentially has a legal means to demand your encryption keys (and imprison you indefinitely if you don't comply), this would fall short if you have a credible reason for not having the key any more (such as using an OTR plugin for your chosen chat program).
The U.S. tried a similar tack with Clipper in the 90s. As we all know, terrorists with any technical chops are unlikely to be affected, given the vast amount of freely available, military-grade crypto now available, and the use of boring old cold war tradecraft. Ironically, France used to ban the use of strong cryptography but has largely liberalized its regime since 2011.
The U.S. tried a similar tack with Clipper in the 90s. As we all know, terrorists with any technical chops are unlikely to be affected, given the vast amount of freely available, military-grade crypto now available, and the use of boring old cold war tradecraft. Ironically, France used to ban the use of strong cryptography but has largely liberalized its regime since 2011.
The word is tyranny, or despotism, not terrorism. However, I'm not sure that even the former words apply (I'm an American).
In the UK and in the US, the basic principle is "government by consent of the governed". This philosophy probably originated by the Athenians in ancient Greece and was further developed by a series of philosophers in England, France, and Germany between 200 and 450 years ago. Unlike the democracy in ancient Greece, its usage in the West does *not* mean that the governed are to be consulted for approval of every individual act done by the government, e.g. reading your email. It *does* mean that the electorate can vote out the politicians at the head of the government, and in the legislatures, if they aren't pleased with their policies in general.
This is why it will fail. Not because it would destroy everyone's privacy but because it will destroy the privacy of large, international companies. They will threaten to move out of the UK, the tories will panic and the bill will disappear until the idiot in charge forgets again and attempts to resurrect it for a third time in a couple of years from now (assuming he survives the general election).
I notice UKIP, a competing party to the conservatives, have had their private phone calls leaked.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30467897
How exactly can it be that old phone calls are recorded then leaked just as a person stands for an elected seat. Let me guess... GCHQ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
Prime Minister David Cameron told the House of Commons, "[...] we stand squarely for free speech and democracy. [...]"
This is the same country that:
* Arrests people for saying "offensive" things on Facebook/Twitter
* Prosecutes people for having "offensive" Japanese manga featuring lolicon, yet defends cartoon images of the Prophet Muhammed which some members of the Islamic community finds "offensive."
* Sends GCHQ thugs around to a newspaper to smash their hard drives and other perphierals into a gazillion pieces
* Has secret trials
* Forces people to disclose their passwords for encryption volumes or other things such as websites and jails those who fail to do so
Need I go on?
The fact that these scum choose to use the Charlie Hebdo attack to justify it particularly stinks. I'm sure the Charlie Hebdo victims weren't doing the cartoons in order to get the government to outlaw free speech, but that's the impact such action would have.
Encryption insures you can speak freely without the chilling effect of knowing your government may be listening. To ban it is clearly to eliminate freedom of speech.