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.
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>
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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.
Client randomly chooses 3 nodes to be "entry guards". They are always used as the first node in the circuit.
For each request* the client randomly chooses 3 nodes (the entry guard and 2 others). The third of these nodes needs to be configured as an exit node (unless you are accessing a .onion site).
The Entry node knows who you are (i.e. your IP), but not what you are connecting to.
The middle node knows who the entry node and exit node are, but nothing else.
The exit node knows what ip you are visiting (and can see the traffic to it unless you are using https) but not who you are.
You entry middle exit site
Each can see only the ones directly connected.
* A circuit is reused for multiple requests, the exact details of which are too complex to try to explain in this simple summery.