Slashdot Mirror
UK Parliament: Banning Tor Is Unacceptable and Technologically Impossible
An anonymous reader writes: Months after UK prime minister David Cameron sought to ban strong encryption, a new parliamentary briefing contradicts that, at least when it comes to Tor. The briefing says, "there is widespread agreement that banning online anonymity systems altogether is not seen as an acceptable policy option in the UK. Even if it were, there would be technical challenges." The briefing cites Tor's ability to circumvent such censorship in countries like China as well as looking at both legal and illegal uses of Tor.
The problem is that for Cameron to change his mind on trying to ban strong encryption, would imply that he was somehow wrong to try and ban it in the first place. This of course will not happen. Politicians HATE it when they are shown to be wrong.
A bit of heated rhetoric mentioning Paedophiles, Terrorists and Tor will put paid to this report, and GCHQ will continue on their merry way treating the entire population as enemies/criminals.
Trying to associate Microsoft with "fun" is like trying to associate Satan with aromatherapy. -Tycho
Tor falls into the same category as many other items which can be used for both good and bad.
A knife can be used to cut bread, but also throats. Morphine is be best pain killer there is,
but is also a killer when abused. Bitcoin (& co) can revolutionize the monetary system,
but also be used for non-tracable financing for all sorts of illegal activities.
"Non-tracable financing for all sorts of illegal activities" is also a a well-known property of... cash!
Cash is not really under political questioning (a bit more so from banking): it's common,
under relative control, and it's not new.
This leads me to believe that the banning things which can have adverse side effects
is not primarily motivated by care for the public best, but rather fear of the new/unknown and
fear of loosing control.
Well, to be honest, all it probably means is that they know how to get around tor, and they don't want people to switch to anything else.
But I'm cynical that way.
Consider also that Cameron appeals primarily to the Daily Mail reading baby boomer crowd, because they tend to vote for and he's hoping he can get them all onside. As such he's bound to spout technophobic rhetoric because much of that generation and the Daily Mail crowd find technology and change scary as shit.
It was only a week or two back Cameron stood and said that benefits for the elderly should be protected regardless of wealth (i.e. free bus passes, TV licenses, and money for heating for millionaire retirees are acceptable). His argument was that these people have lived through recessions and fought wars for us. I couldn't watch it with a straight face, I mean, he is aware the last 10 - 15 years happened right? he surely can't have missed the whole Afghanistan and Iraq thing coupled with the worst financial crisis in living memory all of which were fought by and impacted non-pensioners the most?
His pro-pensioner, pro-Daily Mail rhetoric has reached farcical levels in his desperation to keep the pensioners onside because as well as his recent anti-technology views he's also got the gall to tell entire generations that those wars they fought, that financial crisis they've been suffering and dealing with cuts and job losses through? well those just don't matter and it's tough shit. It's not like the vast majority of pensioners alive today even saw, let alone fought in the war - on the contrary most enjoyed a period of unprecedented wealth growth and relative peace.
At this point anything Cameron says is beyond nonsense and UKIP panic induced Daily Mail pandering.