Looking good for the UK bill of "rights" then.
Poll: Investigatory Powers Bill or "Snoopers' Charter" has been approved
- Thread starter thebennyboy
- Start date
Looking good for the UK bill of "rights" then.
There's a new (and completely unsurprising) development being quietly shuffled through as function creep to avoid anything more than a vague pretence of scrutiny. The current government will be extending the law to make it illegal for communication companies (including but not limited to ISPs) to use encryption. They can (and probably will) pretend to use encryption for advertising and compatibility purposes but they will not be allowed to actually use encryption.
The draft is available here:
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/our...owers-(technical-capability)-regulations-2017
The most obviously relevant bit is schedule 1 part 1 section 8. It makes it mandatory for encryption to be easily broken, i.e. not encryption.
That would, of course, break key parts of the net. All HTTPS pages (these forums, for example) would have to be covertly turned into HTTP pages because HTTPS is encrypted and therefore would be illegal under these rules. All financial transactions would be broken for the same reason, since they too use encryption.
The UK government might pretend that encryption would be broken only when they want it to be, but that's a silly lie from the people who claimed that using hashtags would make it impossible to post anything to any social media if they didn't approve of it. If encryption is broken, it's broken. It's just a matter of how broken. Other sections spell out that UK comms companies must be able to decrypt thousands of users simultaneously in realtime. The encryption would have to be very badly broken to make that possible. Broken enough to make to broken for pretty much anyone who cares to break it, even if the many thousands of people who would have access to the "skeleton key" kept it secret (wildly implausible) and no computer containing it was ever compromised (wildly implausible).
If I ran a business outside the UK, I wouldn't do business with the UK under those conditions. It's foolish to trade with somewhere that has such ludicrously inadequate security. It would probably be illegal in some places, since you'd probably end up exposing your customers outside the UK
The draft is available here:
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/our...owers-(technical-capability)-regulations-2017
The most obviously relevant bit is schedule 1 part 1 section 8. It makes it mandatory for encryption to be easily broken, i.e. not encryption.
That would, of course, break key parts of the net. All HTTPS pages (these forums, for example) would have to be covertly turned into HTTP pages because HTTPS is encrypted and therefore would be illegal under these rules. All financial transactions would be broken for the same reason, since they too use encryption.
The UK government might pretend that encryption would be broken only when they want it to be, but that's a silly lie from the people who claimed that using hashtags would make it impossible to post anything to any social media if they didn't approve of it. If encryption is broken, it's broken. It's just a matter of how broken. Other sections spell out that UK comms companies must be able to decrypt thousands of users simultaneously in realtime. The encryption would have to be very badly broken to make that possible. Broken enough to make to broken for pretty much anyone who cares to break it, even if the many thousands of people who would have access to the "skeleton key" kept it secret (wildly implausible) and no computer containing it was ever compromised (wildly implausible).
If I ran a business outside the UK, I wouldn't do business with the UK under those conditions. It's foolish to trade with somewhere that has such ludicrously inadequate security. It would probably be illegal in some places, since you'd probably end up exposing your customers outside the UK
Where you going if you don't mind me asking?
Why am I not surprised? Sad sad day and exactly why she won't be getting my vote.
Yet when I talk to people about this I just get the old if you have nothing to hide argument back and it's worth losing our freedom to keep the girl raping ragheads under check.
I even got called a pedo defender for trying to argue against this.
Yet when I talk to people about this I just get the old if you have nothing to hide argument back and it's worth losing our freedom to keep the girl raping ragheads under check.
I even got called a pedo defender for trying to argue against this.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 2,014
- Location
- Warwickshire
In spite of this ridiculous legislation I will still be voting for the Conservatives.
It's easy for a dept with (clearly) little /no technical understanding to state what they desire in an ambiguous 9 page draft, but I live in hope that the cold reality of the practicalities of implementation will win through.
I noticed the words where practicable featured in section 8
Pt1 Sct9 is also a bit random:
To provide and maintain the capability to simultaneously intercept, or obtain secondary data from, communications relating to up to 1 in 10,000 of the persons to whom the telecommunications operator provides the telecommunications service to which the communications relate
It's easy for a dept with (clearly) little /no technical understanding to state what they desire in an ambiguous 9 page draft, but I live in hope that the cold reality of the practicalities of implementation will win through.
I noticed the words where practicable featured in section 8
Pt1 Sct9 is also a bit random:
To provide and maintain the capability to simultaneously intercept, or obtain secondary data from, communications relating to up to 1 in 10,000 of the persons to whom the telecommunications operator provides the telecommunications service to which the communications relate
Because the sheeple don't realise what's happening.
Because you would not vote Labour / Lib Dem based on this single issue and reap the whirlwind with all their other policies.
My irony meter just exploded...
Based on the fact people are voting for the Tories based on one issue (Brexit) and will reap the whirlwind of all their other policies
It is very vague, what constitutes as a telecommunications operator.
Skype, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger? Is a VPN provider classed as one?
Essentially though they are demanding a way into end-to-end encryption for communications, which will no doubt be exploited by less savoury people than the fine people of Her Majesties Government.
Skype, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger? Is a VPN provider classed as one?
Essentially though they are demanding a way into end-to-end encryption for communications, which will no doubt be exploited by less savoury people than the fine people of Her Majesties Government.
I did grin. you are right, we are in single issue policies at the moment. Brexit is the most influential policy to get right and as we are there, we do need the maximum effort to achieve a solution. The IBP is concerning but not one to shred my personal voting intentions over. I have written to my MP (Conservative) on several occasions on this subject, so have made my opinions clear, he still has my support as a good parliamentary politician though.
I doubt your letters are going to do much good if you're unwilling to change your vote.
Once we're going of the EU, Thesera May - no doubt with a large majority - will have free reign to extend this legislation.
That's as may be, but the bill will need to push against international privacy agreements, business and banking confidentiality requirements as well as individuals actions using VPN etc. Not an easy shout IMO.
I haven't seen any updates but I know Liberty have told the government they'll see them in court over this so there are a few angles of attack on this right now. Even if it does go through then there are plenty of ways of making this an absolute headache for the authorities.
It reads that they want end user to end user communications (Whatsapp) to be end user to server and logged and accessible to authorities with the relevant paperwork.