End to end encryption under threat

Mynight

Mynight

Mynight

Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2013
Posts
5,375
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...t-of-reach-communications-under-new-laws.html

Quality. They want to backdoor these services under the guise of stopping paedofiles and terrorists again.

What do you think should there be a limit to what encryption is offered to the public?

Personally I think people with something to hide wouldn't even be using these services in the first place and the ones that do would just be pushed further underground by creating such a law.
 
"It's not a safe space for them to communicate on a fixed line telephone or a mobile phone, we shouldn't allow the internet to be a safe space for them to communicate and do bad things."
Click to expand...

just made me laugh, sounds like a 5 yo telling his mum why something is not ok
 
MonkeyMan said:
How can they ban it?

What if the service is based outside the UK? Or will ISP's have to start blocking VPN services etc
Click to expand...

Well this is the issue that they dont realise. Its something that fundamentally cant be enforced, sure they can get the big players who want to trade in uk to subscribe to it like apple and google, but they wont be able to enforce it on foreign companies who publish to the app store, or individuals who just download and compile open source messaging apps. People who dont want to be spied on will simply move to a secure method and those who dont know/care will continue to use apple etc.

Again blocking VPNs wouldnt be something that is possible as an ISP has no knowledge of whether I am VPN'n to my office to work from home or to my azure VM which is running an end point overseas.

I really cant believe it has got this far the only people who will possibly be caught by this will surely be the lowly street dealers and such who we aren't supposed to be targeting with this.

Encryption is at a point now where its not unfeasible for a amateur computer programmer to use widely available tools to create an encrypted messaging app which a) cant be broken without decades of brute forcing b) destroys all evidence after its read and c) is operated and served from somewhere outside of goverments reach.
 
meandu229 said:
Encryption is at a point now where its not unfeasible for a amateur computer programmer to use widely available tools to create an encrypted messaging app which a) cant be broken without decades of brute forcing b) destroys all evidence after its read and c) is operated and served from somewhere outside of goverments reach.
Click to expand...

and these laws would put it at a point it would be easy to take that person and just throw them in prison.
 
Just make internet connections free and put all content behind pay-walls and be done with it.

Pulling the wool all the time gets boring.

It is obvious what they want, to chose the information we see, preferably have us pay for it and have our information on file showing we did so.

YAAAAAAWN.
 
Tefal said:
any, take your pick.
Click to expand...

Well the coder cant be touched as he isnt in a country the UK has power over and these laws wont stop the use of encryption as it is needed for banking shopping and such so it wont be illegal to use encrypted means of commuication as that would stop me from being able to send a message to an eBay buyer or Amazon seller etc.
 
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).
 
Funny how we're always told that we can't let terrorists change our way of life, and here's the government using them to justify an agenda.
 
The moment they ban end to end encryption the terrorists, drug smugglers and paedo's will just revert to the old ways of secret meetings whilst the theives have meetings to discuss how easy it is to take advantage of the legitimate users of end to end encryption.

I can see the validity of the whole 'back door' thing, but having a back door makes it easy for both the lawful and the lawless to break in.
 
The article seems to be mobile phone centric.

Now Apple can prevent an app with unbreakable encryption from being used on an Apple device (I think?), but the same thing can't be said about Android phones, where you can install any app you like from any source.

So a custom app with closed source created & installed by the "terrorists" - surely the police can't beat that in any way?

Unless all phone ecosystems of the future require allow you to only buy/install vetted apps from a centralised App Store (aka Apple)?

So surely this is unenforceable?
 
scorza said:
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).
Click to expand...

I agree. Although the powers that be have repeatedly overstepped their authority before. As such I don't trust it to be a warrant issue only.

I just hate the way it is recently if you stand against any recent Internet proposal from the UK it must be because you're a terrorist or paedofile. There's no allocation for the people that (maybe paranoid) but realise it's just another step into your private lives. The majority of the public probably don't understand nor care past the emotive tag line "omgz pedos and terroritz".

I'm sure everyone has done something questionable in their lives whether it's actually illegal or just something you wouldn't like being public doesn't matter as worst case scenario if the government can get in so can someone else. Let's be honest anyone who denies it is either a liar or deluding themselves.
 
Last edited:
Mynight said:
I agree. Although the powers that be have repeatedly overstepped their authority before. As such I don't trust it to be a warrant issue only.

I just hate the way it is recently if you stand against any recent Internet proposal from the UK it must be because you're a terrorist or paedofile. There's no allocation for the people that (maybe paranoid) but realise it's just another step into your private lives. The majority of the public probably don't understand nor care past the emotive tag line "omgz pedos and terroritz".

I'm sure everyone has done something questionable in their lives whether it's actually illegal or just something you wouldn't like being public doesn't matter as worst case scenario if the government can get in so can someone else. Let's be honest anyone who denies it is either a liar or deluding themselves.
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom