Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Snoopers' Charter Could Mean Trouble For UK Users of Encryption-Capable Apps

Posted by timothy on from the for-the-likes-of-you dept.

An anonymous reader writes with a story at IB Times that speculates instant messaging apps which enable encrypted communications (including Snapchat, Facebook Messenger and iMessage) could be banned in the UK under the so-called Snooper's Charter now under consideration. The extent of the powers that the government would claim under the legislation is not yet clear, but as the linked article says, it "would allow security services like the Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, and MI5, or Military Intelligence Section 5, to access instant messages sent between people to and from the country," and evidently "would give the government right to ban instant messaging apps that use end-to-end encryption." That might sound outlandish, but reflects a popular and politically safe sentiment: "'In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read? My answer to that question is: "No, we must not,"' [Prime Minister] Cameron said earlier this year following the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris."

14 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. The Charlie H killers were roommates by sandbagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They planned their horrific act over a kitchen table. They had no need for instant messengers, e-mails of Skype to talk from one end of the apartment to another.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    1. Re:The Charlie H killers were roommates by s0litaire · · Score: 4, Funny

      Never underestimate the laziness of a person with a smartphone!

      --
      Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    2. Re:The Charlie H killers were roommates by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They also have no way of distinguishing codes used in furthering their goesl. For instance we could nickname components of a bomb recipe the same as foods. "I'm having a party, what can you bring that we can put on the grill" could be a code for lets bomb something, got any explosives. And the response "nothing but i have plenty of eggs and bacon if I can stay over" could mean I'm in- no explosives but lors of ammo and guns. Someone else could chime in with "i need to stay over too and i have plenty of beer and some beef for the BBQ" could mean I'm in and have these components of explosives.

      And all that can be determined over the kitchen table or in another country or whatever in advance. No amount of listening in will catch that before something happened and would be a shaky guess only pointing to a connection between people after the fact.

    3. Re:The Charlie H killers were roommates by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      See, we must have cameras and recorders in all homes to insure our safety. Freedom is just another word for less safe.

    4. Re:The Charlie H killers were roommates by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "'In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read? My answer to that question is: "No, we must not,"' [Prime Minister] Cameron said earlier this year following the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris."

      Cameron is asking the wrong (or a misleading) question.

      The choices are communications you (GCHQ/MI5/etc) may not be able to decrypt, or communications that anyone may be able decrypt.

      There is no 'secret sauce' method of making communications secure against common threats while simultaneously making them insecure to the government.

      If the government can read the communications, so can any other interested party including, terrorists, foreign intelligence agencies, rival/foreign businesses, journalists, etc etc.

      Including Cameron's own political enemies.

      He may not like it if he gets what he's advocating for.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  2. The end of on-line banking and shopping by paul_metcalfe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess if I can't encrypt communications between myself and my bank, because the government can't see that I'm not talking about terrorist plans, I should stop on-line banking altogether, and just go back to paper, as it's more secure that way.

    I sure as hell won't be giving any sites my credit card details if I can't encrypt them. No crypto, or easily defeated crypto means that ANYONE, not just the "good guys" can read my traffic.

    --
    Always read at -1, don't let others decide what you should and should not read.
    1. Re:The end of on-line banking and shopping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Someone ought to let manufacturers and vendors know that people will refuse to buy products shipped with holes in them.

      Considering the number of international partners that the U.K. has in ALEC, it's not the citizens communications that most need to be exposed.

  3. Lets turn this around... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since governments have historically killed more people than any group (terrorist or not), shouldn't the law be that governments shouldn't be allowed to hide any communications from the people?

    Exposing all the cases where government employees are "feathering their own nests" would be a nice side benefit.

  4. They have no intent to ban Whatsapp and others ... by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They know that a ban on Whatsapp would be immensely unpopular and would make millions of people realize how stupid their drive against encryption is.

    Instead, their intent is to force Whatsapp and others to voluntarily hand over the communications of their users, much like Blackberry (reportedly) agreed to do for countries with regressive regimes.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  5. What about medical records? by currently_awake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you are on vacation and you need to visit the hospital, they will likely want to talk with your doctor (in another country, using an incompatible medical records system). How are they going to manage that without violating government rules on transmition of medical records?

  6. Not a Call for Insurrection at all! by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (D)o we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read? My answer to that question is: "No, we must not,"

    Just ten or twenty years ago a sitting politician saying this in a "democracy" and expecting to keep his job would be unthinkable.

  7. What kind of phone does Cameron use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between politicians which we the citizens cannot read? My answer to that question is: No, we must not.

    1. Re:What kind of phone does Cameron use? by MacDork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's what I would ask him. "No secret messages? Then how do you feel about Manning leaking your secret messages then? And Snowden? You must be in favor of a full pardon for those guys, yes? How do you plan to explain the shutdown and/or hacking of every Internet web server in your entire country, because you've outlawed SSH? Also, were you born with brain damage or did you acquire that at some later point in life?" :)

  8. Call it what it is by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What the government want is the "Great Firewall of the UK". That's what we should call it, instead of the "Snooper's Charter".

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!