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.
Let's see you decrypt the following:
Do kindly fuck off at your earliest convenience. Not a terrorist but like Charlie Hedbo, refuse to live on my knees.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
If we could hook Orwell's corpse up to a turbine, we'd have the energy problem solved.
I ran away from China some decades ago because the Communist government of China was more or less acting like a terroristic entity
I ran away from China and ended up in the West, and I thought I am safe ... apparently, I was wrong!
Now the Western nations are trying to become more China than China !
Oooooh, my !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Sure, you should be capable of reading anything, provided you've got the encryption key, provided you've got a warrant to request it, provided that the warrant is based on certifiable facts and a meaningful threat/need.
Otherwise, fuck off.
I imagine that the Prime Minister thinks that he can force Google and other emails providers to hand over emails to GCHQ and, crucially, the Prime Minister cannot comprehend the idea that people can set up their own email server.
The same argument goes for other protocols.
Probably, no one, other than politicians and Dail Mail readers, takes this seriously. It will be forgotten about after the next election.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
We should start by banning use of https
Let's hope he means "the authorities" and not "the government" since the government consists of MPs and if they have to be able to read it they will probably need to outlaw words with more than 3 syllables and writing something in a language other than English will count as use of advanced encryption.
In other news, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has vowed to put the genie back in the bottle. On the way to do that, he's going to shut the barn door and go looking for his horse.
The terrorists have no problem with breaking the law to kill and murder people on kamikaze missions... but I'm sure they're nice reasonable people who will stop using encryption if we make it illegal.
My encryption key is the full text of a copyrighted book that was never licensed to me nor anyone in my country.
If I told you it or wrote it down, it would be public performance or copyright infringement.
Yours,
Trollface Q.C.
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).
If you ban encryption, then only criminals will have encryption.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
And the criminals will have the same access as the governments wreaking havoc among bank transactions and identity thefts as well as trade in company secrets.
It will really be opening Pandora's Box to restrict encryption.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I don't wish any member of the US government to be put to death, what I do wish is for these bastards to be stripped of all their wealth and privileges and forced to live in a roach infested studio apartment in the bad section of town. Then I would force them to work as an assistant night fry cook at Walley's Wonderful World of Burgers in Festering Boil, Oklahoma. These people have forgotten, if they ever knew, what the rest of us put up with in order to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table. We need to have these people learn what real work looks like.
Another day closer to redwood heaven
All 3 Charlie Hebdo terrorists were known extremists and were under surveillance. The French authorities simply dropped the ball and fucked up - for lack of resources or for negligence.
They could convincingly make a case for vastly increased means of putting known terrorists under 24/7 surveillance, but the Charlie Hebdo attacks are a really poor argument for enhanced decryption powers, because the FUCKING TERRORISTS HAD BEEN CLEARLY IDENTIFIED ALREADY!
Clearly this is yet another exploitation of people's fear-du-jour to bring the world closer to a panopticon society. Me, I'm more scared of the government than muslim terrorists. 1984 anyone?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
A "conservative" by dictionary definition does not advocate radical changes, such as removal of the right to communicate privately with banks, business associates, relatives, lovers etc.
Keep that in mind next time one of these authoritarians tell you how conservative they are.
UK Prime Minister Says Gov't Should Be Capable of Reading Any Communications
Yes, literacy level in the government is appalling, something really should be done about it,
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?
Just as Satan is God's Most Valuable Employee (doing exactly what he needs done), Terrorists are the same for Dictators (and those that dream of being a Dictator): a perfect - some might say purpose-built* - excuse to destroy what they fear the most: the freedom of true privacy.
* - As some one pointed out on Twitter: ask yourself why Al-Queda has never even once tried to attack Israel.