No, I explicitly said the opposite - "Calling for privacy isn't calling for anarchy..." (hint: I wasn't being subtle there). Obtaining a legal warrant to intercept and decrypt targeted individual's, or groups of individual's communications isn't breaking anyone's privacy.
End to end encryption under threat
- Thread starter Mynight
- Start date
No, I explicitly said the opposite - "Calling for privacy isn't calling for anarchy..." (hint: I wasn't being subtle there). Obtaining a legal warrant to intercept and decrypt targeted individual's, or groups of individual's communications isn't breaking anyone's privacy.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,128
This won't be effective against any terror group.
They just want to spy on Joe Blow.
They just want to spy on Joe Blow.
Last edited:
The difference here is that any system that exists to intercept the encrypted communications of a target fundamentally undermines the effectiveness of that encryption for every single other person using it. It's not like being forced to open a safe deposit box or anything like that - it's a demand that if it is met with government back doors being put into encryption means that all trust in that service evaporates overnight. It would destroy the economy.
Thing is though anyone with mediocre programming knowledge can whip up some custom XOR algorithm, break it up into chunks that can be masqueraded as packets of an established protocol, throw in a few tweaks of their own and it would be incredibly hard to detect let alone break without extensive work and a lot of brute force crunching. Let alone someone who actually has the skills to create their own proper encryption. Whole thing is a waste of time (in terms of tackling real criminals especially those with resources like hardened terrorists or those deeply invested in illegal porn) by people who don't understand software and the internet.
Assuming they know what they are doing rather than hopelessly out of their depth the only thing these measures would really be useful for is big brother monitoring of ostensibly law abiding citizens and the odd criminal who is probably so hapless they'd be caught by other means anyhow.
Assuming they know what they are doing rather than hopelessly out of their depth the only thing these measures would really be useful for is big brother monitoring of ostensibly law abiding citizens and the odd criminal who is probably so hapless they'd be caught by other means anyhow.
Last edited:
Suspended
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 5,707
- Location
- Buckingamshire
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin
So everyone likely to conspire to commit a crime? That's basically paranoia.
While you may have to talk in front of people there is still an element of privacy with telephone calls, you don't expect to be recorded, same with normal speech and other forms of communication. Why should texting and instant messaging be the same? Encrypting essentially allows the same amount of privacy as verbal communication.
Lets not forget the reason the likes of Apple and Facebook started encrypting their messages. The governments (both US and UK) were illegally (not so much in the UK as we glossed over it... We just declared it "unlawful" and changed/are trying to change the law) collecting communications and using other underhand methods to access them. The unencryptable encryption is a self defence mechanism against the (shown) excesses of governments.
Much like a child that spread paint all over the house when the parents weren't looking, they can't be trusted until they show they have changed IMO.
I know we will never agree on this, you are willing to give up your privacy to help your paranoia of the terrorist bogeyman. I'm not however. The fact the government always bring up Terrorists and paedophiles just shows their true hand. They use emotive words like those to scare people, tacking on the end "common" criminality, knowing that most people would say no if it was just to catch "normal" criminals (which it would be used most for) so they use words they know will resonate with a portion of the country unfortunately.
Ok, I would be willing to sway a little bit on some of my points on one condition. It's not a big one, it is actually a recommendation from one of the government reports after the Snowdon leaks.
Remove the right of the home secretary to sign warrants.
The government ignored this recommendation (along with many of the other recommendations of the report) and the home secretary still signs a dozen or more warrants every day (apparently). Considering it takes hours for a judge to sign a warrant it's interesting May can properly read all these request and make an informed opinion...
No it wouldn't lol - see what I mean about hysterical over-reactions?
But everyone's communications aren't being decrypted.
Interesting that Facebook messaging isn't affected by this discussion because Facebook staff can read the messages you send. Interesting that the sky hasn't fallen in because of this.
Seems like a sensible idea.
Whilst "no it wouldn't lol" is a pretty convincing argument, could you please elaborate on how preventing secure communication from being able to take place would not result in any privacy-conscious CIOs moving services away from companies based in the UK or transiting data through here.
Because fundamentally communications would still be secure enough to do business. Companies aren't worried about the British security services monitoring their comms, they're worried about hackers gaining their customer's data, staff data or their IP etc, or the effects of a terror attack on their business. Having a strong, stable state where the rule of law is in place creates a good environment for business.
Exactly this.
Encryption was designed to be secure, the moment a "back-door" is introduced, we may as well all walk around with our bank PIN's stamped to our foreheads. As that's about how secure any payments online will now be.
Do you understand that you can't "sort of" break encryption - it's either fit for purpose, or it contains a built-in weakness to allow a state to intercept the data, and is therefore broken. Do you honestly believe people will still place their trust in systems which have been artificially weakened?
Quite simply - yes! Do companies not use email, facebook, messaging at the moment? Thanks for continuing to prove my point about hysterical overreactions though
None of which rely on encryption?
Quite simply - yes! Do companies not use email, facebook, messaging at the moment? Thanks for continuing to prove my point about hysterical overreactions though
Doesn't understand the issue, claims to have 'won'. Never change scorza.
In many cases already have a "back-door" which allows staff to read people's communications.
A judge requiring data stored by a company is not the same thing as a back door into an encryption scheme.
Either this bill is targeted at intercepting email and Facebook messenger like you said, and will therefore be useless at catching the terrorists and the paedophiles, or it wants to be able to intercept all encrypted traffic and then decrypt it, in which case I don't think anyone claiming a huge impact to UK businesses is overreacting.
Either this bill is targeted at intercepting email and Facebook messenger like you said, and will therefore be useless at catching the terrorists and the paedophiles, or it wants to be able to intercept all encrypted traffic and then decrypt it, in which case I don't think anyone claiming a huge impact to UK businesses is overreacting.