Slashdot Mirror
Omand Warns of "Ethically Worse" Spying If Unbreakable Encryption Is Allowed
Press2ToContinue writes In their attempts to kill off strong encryption once and for all, top officials of the intelligence services are coming out with increasingly hyperbolic statements about why this should be done. Now, a former head of GCHQ, Sir David Omand has said: "One of the results of Snowden is that companies are now heavily encrypting [communications] end to end. Intelligence agencies are not going to give up trying to get the bad guys. They will have to get closer to the bad guys. I predict we will see more close access work."
According to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which reported his words from a talk he gave earlier this week, by this he meant things like physical observation, bugging rooms, and breaking into phones or computers.
"You can say that will be more targeted but in terms of intrusion into personal privacy — collateral intrusion into privacy — we are likely to end up in an ethically worse position than we were before."
That's remarkable for its implied threat: if you don't let us ban or backdoor strong encryption, we're going to start breaking into your homes.
shame if something was to happen to it.
We're self entitled assholes, with nor regard for the law, and if we don't get back doors to encryption, we're going to become even more ethically challenged, self entitled assholes with nor regard for the law.
I sincerely hope one or more of their people get shot breaking into some place and not identifying themselves as agents.
Fuck, but governments are willing to slide into fascism and tyranny.
I you can't operate in the law, you should be subject to it ... and tried for criminal activities.
Papers please, comrade. You have nothing to frar if you have nothing to hide.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Gaining covert physical access to a targets home/phone/computer is going to cost a lot more than just typing some commands into a terminal window. That would mean that ubiquitous surveillance goes out the window, and thus less collateral surveillance.
In addition it would also mean that covert physical seals could be better used to detect if your privacy has been invaded (Has the dust bunny on the back of my computer moved?), which is actually a step forward compared with electronic invasions.
I can't see anything wrong with all that (unless of course you take Omand's point of view that you have to watch all of your populace all of the time)
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Targeted surveillance is exactly what *should* be used, because it can self-regulate. There is a cost associated with each target, so there must also be a benefit otherwise it won't be done. So widespread strong crypto sounds perfect: it takes surveillance/intelligence ops back to the physical world where you pay per target and not per system of mass surveillance. And think of all the emissions saved at the datacenters!
we are likely to end up in an ethically worse position than we were before.
Actually, no. In order to do the more involved things, "physical observation, bugging rooms, and breaking into phones or computers", they have to get a warrant. This ups the ante and they must present a convincing argument to the judge for the need to surveil the people in question. This increases oversight, expense, and the human resources required. That means less shotgun approach and more focused surveillance only where needed.
With digital communication they felt entitled to capture any information they wanted, since there wasn't an obvious physical intrusion. Obviously they could not handle this in a responsible manner, and thus our free society is making the necessary adjustments. So that's just too bad for the spies. Sorry.
Better known as 318230.
People in the South tend to have guns within reach at all times; what could possibly go wrong? :)
Apparently quite a lot if the rest of your education is as weak as your grasp of geopolitics and aristocracy. Sir David Omand and the GCHQ happen to reside on the other side of the pond.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Me too. It's a hell of a lot harder to bug every man, woman, and child in the west than it is to intercept and crawl their communications. Having them have to actually spend time, effort, and money and risk discovery to obtain information makes it far far less likely that they will collect it just because they are able to. It's a check on their power that's sorely needed.
Well, that's because your sense of ethics is screwed up, not surprising given your line of work. The rest of us actually prefer that it cause you significant trouble to perform espionage and surveillance so that you actually have to target your limited resources to cases that matter, instead of going on fishing expeditions.
And from a purely practical point of view, banning strong encryption isn't going to help anyway because the only criminals and terrorists you are going to catch from relying on mandated weak encryption are fools. If you don't understand that, you are a fool yourself; if you do understand it, you are just a liar.
As much as I'm deeply displeased that the attitude would be 'give us what we want or we'll take it, Stasi-style'; I'd see a situation where the spooks are forced to resort to physical intrusion as a vast improvement.
Implicit in the GCHQ flack's 'threat' is the idea that totally invisible 'no touch' surveillance is somehow better and nicer. In the sense that it has better PR, and is easier to maintain (and on a massive scale) without public outcry or logistically overwhelming amounts of black-bag work, this is true. In terms of the relationship between the clandestine agencies and even the pretense of democratic government, though, I'd say that it's exactly the opposite.
If team spook has the advantage of technology for scale and efficiency, and is capable of invisibly watching more or less everything without any visible signs of having done so, you have about as imbalanced a situation as one could reasonably imagine. A perfect panopticon; but so subtle that you sound like some sort of schizo nutjob for suggesting that it is happening. If they actually have to break and bug, this will mean more physical intrusion; but it also creates a de-facto limit on how broadly they can pursue fishing expeditions, and how reasonably they can make the assumption that they will never be caught.
If what he says about more encryption is true; bring it on.
Let's think about this for a moment. The chief complaint of the Snowden revelations is that it presents a broad swath domestic surveillance that violates everyone's privacy and 4th amendment rights (presumptively). So when we see statements about how the intelligence agencies will start engaging in more close access operations versus blanket monitoring, why do we presume this is a bad thing? Certainly no one thinks that attacks on Charley Hebdo or Sony, or other similar terrorist attacks is good? Why would we think that "less ethical" methods to employ "close access work" would be a bad thing if we can stop terrorist networks from attacking innocent civilians? Where do we strike that balance?
Sir David Omand and the GCHQ happen to reside on the other side of the pond.
And you think that's going to stop them?! Just let them Redcoats come back and try that shit in Alabama and we'll kick their asses again, just like we did in dubya-dubya-tew.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.