End to end encryption under threat

[Mynight]

And I hate the way there's a hysterical backlash if you want any sort of law that would actually help the authorities combat crime, including terrorism. People are unwittingly calling for anarchy where there are no laws, and the rule of law is one of the main things that separates us from the third world.

Touche. However is there any proof any of the extra surveillance has decreased said crimes? We only have their word to go on.

I'm all for laws but there's got to be a limit. I hate to bring up the slippery slope fallacy but we're quite literally experiencing it.

Was my post hysterical? Everything I said is plausible and based on history.

 

[Tefal]

I don't have a problem with it as long as there is a proper authority e.g. a judge, to authorise the use of the backdoor. It shouldn't be any different to a phone tap (used to catch fly-tippers) or a hidden camera in someone's home (used to catch Stephen Lawrence's killers).

and what happen s when someone who isn't the government finds out how to use it?

now everyone's screwed.

 

[scorza]

Touche. However is there any proof any of the extra surveillance has decreased said crimes? We only have their word to go on.

I'm all for laws but there's got to be a limit. I hate to bring up the slippery slope fallacy but we're quite literally experiencing it.

What sort of proof do you want? There have certainly been convictions obtained for conspiracy to commit crimes thanks to various forms of surveillance. The problem is that that innovations in crime have meant the authorities are playing catch up, quite often it's impossible for there to be any evidence of a justice initiative working because it's new, so if you're waiting for evidence then you're paralysed and can't do anything. As long a our human rights (and I mean real human rights, not the nonsense in the ECHR) aren't impinged then what's the problem.

You say we're on a slippery slope but imo we've never had as much liberty as we do now - less censorship in the media, social freedoms, cheap global travel, financial freedom e.g. access to credit, fast transactions. These are all generally good things but we need to make sure that people are protected from criminals who would exploit that liberty for their own gain.

 

[anything I don't mind]

They need to accept the reality that people use encryption and get on with it. They need to start doing some real work instead of getting everything on plate by turning everything in to a police state. People need encryption to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. The currents arguments assumes that the people with the backdoors are angels sent from heaven to be our heroes and protect us all from the evil out there. We know for a fact that these powers are and will be used to protect the interests of the state. Protesting against a new tax? No encryption for you. talking about corruption? No encryption for you. Only people allowed encryption are the angels sent form heaven to protect us.

 

[Mynight]

What sort of proof do you want? There have certainly been convictions obtained for conspiracy to commit crimes thanks to various forms of surveillance. The problem is that that innovations in crime have meant the authorities are playing catch up, quite often it's impossible for there to be any evidence of a justice initiative working because it's new, so if you're waiting for evidence then you're paralysed and can't do anything. As long a our human rights (and I mean real human rights, not the nonsense in the ECHR) aren't impinged then what's the problem.

You say we're on a slippery slope but imo we've never had as much liberty as we do now - less censorship in the media, social freedoms, cheap global travel, financial freedom e.g. access to credit, fast transactions. These are all generally good things but we need to make sure that people are protected from criminals who would exploit that liberty for their own gain.

Wont lie I dont have an counter against what you've just said. You're right annoyingly .

Guess my lack of rebuttal means I was basing my view on hysteria to an extent. I see reports like this and all I can think of is how less invasive powers have been abused in the past. Completely pessimistic I know.

 

[Amp34]

and what happen s when someone who isn't the government finds out how to use it?

now everyone's screwed.

Or other foreign governments.

If the UK forced Apple to create a Backdoor then there is no reason other countries that Apple operate in wouldn't go "me to". The UK is already getting antsy about having to follow due process to get information from the big tech companies (lawyers refusing improper warrants and requests for information) so there isn't much of a wall between this and nations like Russia and many other countries with dodgy intent...

 

[Amp34]

What sort of proof do you want? There have certainly been convictions obtained for conspiracy to commit crimes thanks to various forms of surveillance. The problem is that that innovations in crime have meant the authorities are playing catch up, quite often it's impossible for there to be any evidence of a justice initiative working because it's new, so if you're waiting for evidence then you're paralysed and can't do anything. As long a our human rights (and I mean real human rights, not the nonsense in the ECHR) aren't impinged then what's the problem.

You say we're on a slippery slope but imo we've never had as much liberty as we do now - less censorship in the media, social freedoms, cheap global travel, financial freedom e.g. access to credit, fast transactions. These are all generally good things but we need to make sure that people are protected from criminals who would exploit that liberty for their own gain.

One major thing missing off that list, which is a far higher human right than the majority you listed... Privacy...

 

[sniffy]

I'm not convinced this would be effective enough to warrant further erosion of civil liberties. It may present a higher barrier to entry but ultimately if people want end-to-end encryption over TCP/IP it can be done without the help of Apple et al.

 

[Phantom Shadow]

It would be incredibly difficult for them to fully ban encryption, banking websites etc rely on it. As long as https is allowed I can use openvpn through port 443 to a foreign server and they can't tell the difference.

If I can do that then so can the criminals, so banning encryption gets us nowhere.

 

[FoxEye]

And I hate the way there's a hysterical backlash if you want any sort of law that would actually help the authorities combat crime, including terrorism. People are unwittingly calling for anarchy where there are no laws, and the rule of law is one of the main things that separates us from the third world.

Wait, what?

Privacy = anarchy? Privacy = no laws?

Come off it!

 

[OhEsEcks]

They tried to do the same with PGP back in the day in the US as encryption technology was considered a "munition" and not allowed to be exported or something. So the author, Zimmermann (who now works for silent circle) had the source made into a book and sold that instead because the sale of books is protected by the first amendment, or something along those lines (been a while since I looked at this).

Basically, companies can be banned all they want from offering unbreakable encryption, it's not going to stop end users who want to use it, from using it.

Like other government knee jerk reactions, such as the dangerous dogs act and the hand gun ban, the only people who're going to end up affected are the people who play by the rules.

 

[scorza]

One major thing missing off that list, which is a far higher human right than the majority you listed... Privacy...

My list wasn't intended to be exhaustive, and the right to privacy doesn't mean that you have the right to conspire to commit crimes imo. I'd argue that we've never had more privacy either - back when I was growing up we had one telephone, in the living room so if I wanted to talk to someone I had to wait for everyone to go out or walk a mile to the nearest phone box.

Wait, what?

Privacy = anarchy? Privacy = no laws?

Come off it!

LOL come off it that's not what I said at all.

 

[FoxEye]

LOL come off it that's not what I said at all.

You use this line of defence a lot, and it's grating now. Did you or did you not put the following two sentences together?

And I hate the way there's a hysterical backlash if you want any sort of law that would actually help the authorities combat crime, including terrorism. People are unwittingly calling for anarchy where there are no laws, and the rule of law is one of the main things that separates us from the third world.

You are saying that people are "calling for anarchy". Yes or no?

This is a thread about privacy vs encryption? Yes or no?

So you are linking our resistance at having our privacy eroded with a call for anarchy, yes or no?

I'm getting really tired of you saying you aren't saying something, when your posts STRONGLY imply that you are.

Seriously, do you know how language and communication works? If you don't want people to put 2+2 together you have to explicitly not make that link in their heads. Which you very much did.

 

[Caged]

Let's tank our services economy, the only thing we have, by ensuring it can't happen in a secure fashion. Excellent stuff.

 

[scorza]

You use this line of defence a lot, and it's grating now. Did you or did you not put the following two sentences together?

That's probably because the use of the strawman fallacy is rather common on this forum

You are saying that people are "calling for anarchy". Yes or no?

This is a thread about privacy vs encryption? Yes or no?

So you are linking our resistance at having our privacy eroded with a call for anarchy, yes or no?

I'm getting really tired of you saying you aren't saying something, when your posts STRONGLY imply that you are.

Seriously, do you know how language and communication works? If you don't want people to put 2+2 together you have to explicitly not make that link in their heads. Which you very much did.

I apologise if I was being too subtle for you.

I said people were "unwittingly calling for anarchy", the word you left out is rather important. Anything that stops the authorities from enforcing laws means that its more likely those laws are going to get broken, if there are no laws that can be enforced then you have anarchy. Calling for privacy isn't calling for anarchy but then again I don't consider the authorities being given proper legal permission to break encryption as a breach of anyone's right to privacy.

 

[xdcx]

Reading this nonsense hurts my brain.... I think it is beyond all doubt now, but the Conservative government simply do not understand how encryption or the Internet actually works.

Ministers have no plans to ban encryption services because they have an important role in the protection of legitimate online activity such as banking and personal data.

Very true, ministers, you're very switched on.

But there is concern over some aspects of so-called end-to-end encryption where only the sender and recipient of messages can decipher them.

Well, yeah, I mean, that is the entire point of encrypting data so that it cannot be intercepted between sender and recipient....

Terrorists and criminals are increasingly using such technology to communicate beyond the reach of MI5 or the police.

So you don't want to ban encryption, just force companies to give you a way of decrypting the encrypted data. Therefore, completely breaking the entire concept and reason of using encryption in the first place.

They have completely lost the plot on this and have no idea what they are proposing. At least we had little Nick Clegg in there before with half a brain cell but tomorrow is going to be a not-so-pleasant day here in the UK. Lots of anger and outright laughter at how ridiculous this proposed charter is going to be..... Get the popcorn.

 

[FoxEye]

That's probably because the use of the strawman fallacy is rather common on this forum

I apologise if I was being too subtle for you.

I said people were "unwittingly calling for anarchy", the word you left out is rather important. Anything that stops the authorities from enforcing laws means that its more likely those laws are going to get broken, if there are no laws that can be enforced then you have anarchy. Calling for privacy isn't calling for anarchy but then again I don't consider the authorities being given proper legal permission to break encryption as a breach of anyone's right to privacy.

/le sigh

So you are saying after all, that a call to resist government invasion of privacy is a call for a more anarchic world.

You are, like it or not, equating defence of privacy as defence of anarchy. And you are associating "law and order" with whole-scale surveillance.

You aren't being subtle, you're being contrary.

 

[OhEsEcks]

They have completely lost the plot on this and have no idea what they are proposing.

They haven't. They know exactly what they're doing. It's the same old story too. Proposing ******** legislation from the point of moral authority pretending they're doing it to protect kids from paedophiles and people from terrorists.

Despite the fact that government ministers were involved in a huge paedophile network that still isn't being investigated properly and as for protecting us from terrorism.... in 2014 the majority of EU terrorism came from and was based in Northern Ireland. It wasn't Islamic terrorism. And they weren't calling for encryption and what not to be banned then. In fact, in November last year they arrested 12 people in a house in Newry suspected of Dissident activity. And that didn't require the banning of encryption, or infringing onto peoples civil liberties. It used old fashioned surveillance and bugging...

 

[dacads]

Exactly, I hate the fact they're using terrorists etc as a ploy to take away the innocent man's privacy.

 

[OhEsEcks]

Exactly, I hate the fact they're using terrorists etc as a ploy to take away the innocent man's privacy.

Any time someone claims to be doing something to protect us, or others from something or themselves, they should immediately be distrusted and their motives investigated thoroughly.

A.C Grayling writes...

A moraliser is someone who seeks to impose upon others his view of how they should live and behave. Everyone is entitled to a view as to what counts as acceptable behaviour and everyone is entitled to put it forward as eloquently and forcefully as he can. But moralisers go much further. They want others to conform to their views, and they seek to bring this about by coercion - employing means which range from social disapproval to legal control, this latter often being their preferred option. In forcing others to comply with their preferences they show at least several of the following: insensitivity, intolerance, unkindness, lack of imagination, failure of sympathy, absence of understanding, ignorance of alternative interests and needs in human experience and arrogance in believing that theirs is the only acceptable way. They defend their actions by saying that they are trying to defend others from harm, thereby claiming not only a monopoly on moral judgement, but the right to decide on others behalf what is good for them.