David Cameron is going to try and ban encryption in Britain
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
They still cannot master those door handles, can they.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
I'm somewhat glad I use iMessage then! Companies need to get their acts together on users privacy not just governments.
paranoia is indeed such a horrible thing and the only reason they want to end encryption in Britain.I don't understand why so many people are so terrified that they're being monitored. I think it stems from a lack of understanding, which is sad - people seem to think that because bulk information is collected, this means someone is actively monitoring everything they're doing. Paranoia is such a horrible thing.
Who was the paranoid king or queen that had all the people spying on citizens in the past? wasn't there a name for that period?
cameron seems to be trying to attempt the modern day version
Last edited:
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
[TW]Fox;28307112 said:
people started sending more private information/pictures and they dint want a leak/hack ruing their reputation i guess, combined with processing power increasing so encrypting stuff was easy and didnt lag stuff out made it an easy choice.
[TW]Fox;28307112 said:
When Snowdon revealed that the security services were spying en masse on it's own citizens, including hacking companies to insert their own illegal spying mechanisms.
There have also been some hacking incidents, but the Snowdon leak was the big impetus.
[TW]Fox;28307112 said:
As arkor said, when companies realised (or it became known to the public) that governments were illegally/unlawfully bulk collecting data there was a general consensus that perhaps governments could not be trusted.
It's like leaving the kids at home for the weekend and coming back to a mess. It takes a while to get that trust back...
Yeah, very interesting. I don't think many people are against companies providing access to data when a legitimate warrant is sent, rather against the bulk access between the sender and receiver (which I assume encryption in transit solves). The problem for the governments and police departments is the fact many warrants aren't backed up by legitimate legal recourse or are way too broad, and as such refused by the companies they are sent to.
Clean up the warrant system (and remove warrant authorisation powers to the home secretary - as asked for in the recent review) and there wouldn't be as many issues.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
Sigh.
Like terrorists use whatsapp? This is as bad as US gov banning export of encryption software/hardware from the US to places like Iran.
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce GNU PG. Or if you simply can't stand Richard Stallman rigidly refusing to not allow you to use his software, any one of a number of other freely available OpenPGP packages...
You're one of those realise that metadata is as important as data? Send it through tor!
All this is going to do is open normal people to more vulnerabilities. I predict a wasteful game of whack-a-mole as we all hop from text app to text app.
Like terrorists use whatsapp? This is as bad as US gov banning export of encryption software/hardware from the US to places like Iran.
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce GNU PG. Or if you simply can't stand Richard Stallman rigidly refusing to not allow you to use his software, any one of a number of other freely available OpenPGP packages...
You're one of those realise that metadata is as important as data? Send it through tor!
All this is going to do is open normal people to more vulnerabilities. I predict a wasteful game of whack-a-mole as we all hop from text app to text app.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Indeed, a robust legal framework is all that is needed as existing laws allow for data to be collected under a warrant. Trouble is that encrypted data may not be able to be decrypted and this causes Governments to get into a flap; it is why we have that stupid law where, even if you forget your password, you can go to jail for not being able to decrypt something. Actually even if they think the file is encrypted, you have to prove it isn't and good luck with that.
Cameron in mouth before brain leading to massive U-Turn shocker.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
No such U-turn has been made.
Cameron has proposed to modify encryption in such a means as to make all communication readable by the government. This shows a lack of understanding of how encryption works, it will introduce us all to more risk, probably financial risk. In my opinion it shouldn't be done, mostly because it will NOT stop terrorists using freely available alternatives such as GNU PG.
Short-minded tech activists twisted this and loudly claimed that Cameron wants to "ban encryption", which is not true.
Cameron, in a shocking move, denies this un-truth and repeats the original proposal in its original wrongness. But now brands the technology our security relies on every day to use things like "https" as "strong encryption" to demonize it. People not realising they use strong encryption daily now imagine terrorists in caves plotting to blow us all up using strong encryption.
Cameron is an idiot, anyone who says "Cameron wants to ban encryption" is an idiot, we're all in for a pain in the neck over the next 12 months.
Cameron has proposed to modify encryption in such a means as to make all communication readable by the government. This shows a lack of understanding of how encryption works, it will introduce us all to more risk, probably financial risk. In my opinion it shouldn't be done, mostly because it will NOT stop terrorists using freely available alternatives such as GNU PG.
Short-minded tech activists twisted this and loudly claimed that Cameron wants to "ban encryption", which is not true.
Cameron, in a shocking move, denies this un-truth and repeats the original proposal in its original wrongness. But now brands the technology our security relies on every day to use things like "https" as "strong encryption" to demonize it. People not realising they use strong encryption daily now imagine terrorists in caves plotting to blow us all up using strong encryption.
Cameron is an idiot, anyone who says "Cameron wants to ban encryption" is an idiot, we're all in for a pain in the neck over the next 12 months.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 895
- Location
- Sydney
That is in effect a ban on encryption. Anything which can be read by somebody other than you and the intended recipient is not really encrypted.
Probably as much as anything to give people a degree of privacy when using stuff like facebook on public networks, educational or corp provided internet, etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
While I'm completely on your side, I don't agree. In the proposed (and stupid) setup, you're sending a message with the government and your recipient both as recipients. It's not going to be a secret that the government can read these messages.
The real issue is that it's really hard to detect if the government's key is compromised.
You also need to remember that nearly all encryption can be defeated with time and money, if you're a terrorist, consider your encrypted messages compromised after 3 months. The exception to this is a one time pad, which can truly never be decrypted without the pad.
The take-away is that saying Cameron is banning encryption only fuel's his marketing of the idea as it's easily refutable, because it's not a correct statement.