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.

Comments

the solution to their perceived problem

[ihtoit]

wouldn't be to ban strong encryption, it would be to make the assumption in Law that there mere *presence* of such an encryption system is enough indication of liability. Much like the assumption made that because something posesses a moving picture display that it is being used as a televisual broadcast receiver even if it isn't actually being used as such. It's easier to assume than it is to carry the burden of proof - with assumption comes the passing of that stick to the accused (who is on a loser because - and you've got to point this out or you're screwed - you can't prove a negative, it's a logical absurdity).

What this means to Granny is that if her computer is compromised with one of those cryptolocker things that encrypts her home folder and holds it ransom, she can't decrypt it because she doesn't have the key.

Strike 1 in English Law: possession being 9/10, if you have hold of a hard drive it is assumed that you have access to the data on it.

Strike 2: if there is an encryption it is also assumed that you have the key (see previous point about proving negatives).

Strike 3: Case that Granny is accused of having kiddie porn, the assumption can now be made that said kiddie porn is inside the encrypted container. Because the Law is now changed so that criminal liability now works on Balance of Probabilities (hence doesn't need a jury to decide Beyond Reasonable Doubt), Granny is going away for a while even if a: there is no kiddie porn - which she can't prove by unlocking the encrypted container, and b: she could prove it by breaking the encryption and opening the container - make the assumption that there are other containers containing the porn, which given the mental status of State prosecutors (and police), being utterly paranoid, she be fucked because the seed thought is there (that Granny is a bad person), and combined with the balance of probabilities, "No Smoke Without Fire" applies. NSWF CANNOT apply in Beyond Reasonable Doubt because BRD REQUIRES physical evidence! And encrypted container with no access to the data is NOT physical evidence. If it were we'd see prisons bursting with people jailed on the basis of unseen contents in sealed black boxes.

Lesson for all: if you're accused of causing harm or damage, DEMAND THAT JURY AND DO NOT BACK DOWN.

</run_on_rantish_rant>