Wait, is anyone living in Great Britain concerned about losing encryption?

[agamemnus]

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/cam...ption-promise/:

Popular encrypted communications like WhatsApp may be banned or forced to drastically change in the United Kingdom by Prime Minister David Cameron.

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris, Cameron argued that authorities must be able access the content of communications in order to investigate crime and terrorism.

The proposal is part of a push by Cameron to pass legislation known as “the snoopers’ charter” in order to “modernize” British law and give police the ability to eavesdrop on all communications when they deem it necessary, the Independent reports.

Sounds ominous.


NEWER ONE:
http://www.coindesk.com/would-uk-enc...-kill-bitcoin/:

The possibility of a crackdown on encryption systems in the UK has risen again, ringing alarm bells in the bitcoin community.

A terrorist attack that killed 30 UK citizens in Tunisia last month led one MP to question prime minister David Cameron on whether popular social networks and internet services would have to abandon their claimed privacy policies.

Cameron and the UK government are on record as saying they do not approve of any communication medium that is 100% secret.

The question is: given bitcoin's cryptographic foundation, would bitcoin businesses find it impossible to function in the UK if such secrecy were banned outright? At least one company has threatened to leave, and others could follow.

Edit: on the other hand...:

Likening any attempt to block encryption to authorities' failure to block transmission of copyrighted material over the years, Fernandez said computer-illiterate lawmaking is "completely toothless and impotent".

[Timbuk2]

No.

[RandBlade]

No.

[agamemnus]

Doesn't it bother you that your elected leader wants to ban encryption?

[Steely Glint]

Enwhat?

[Wraith]

They're now saying they don't intend to ban encryption.

[agamemnus]

I suppose want is different from can.

[earthJoker]

They're now saying they don't intend to ban encryption.

I don't want to say "told you so", but I did say so.

[RandBlade]

So ... no.

[earthJoker]

So ... no.

I don't live in the UK so I am not bothered to answer the question. But the link of Wraith pretty much sums up my posts about this topic (I think it was in the WTF thread).

[RandBlade]

This is the sort of mis-represented thing where a politician says one thing and the internet interprets that and then explodes with "OMG they're going to ban encryption lolz!!!111"

No. The government never said that they were going to ban encryption. Even if they'd contemplated it, its a non-starter of an idea that is clearly never going to see the light of day and I'd eat my hat if it happened. A lot of ideas get suggested as to things the government could do but few actually happen and this was not going to be one of them.

[earthJoker]

I actually read the original speech of Cameron even though only parts, and it was rather stupid to begin with.

[GGT]

Hang on. "Encryption" isn't something only Brits should care about. Care to rephrase your question?

[agamemnus]

Hang on. "Encryption" isn't something only Brits should care about. Care to rephrase your question?

Well... I dunno.

It's just concerning when the Prime Minister is semi-clueless about the subject.

[earthJoker]

Which is understandable given the complexity of the field. What is not understandable is that he didn't get advice from an expert before giving a talk.

[RandBlade]

Which is understandable given the complexity of the field. What is not understandable is that he didn't get advice from an expert before giving a talk.

What wouldn't be understandable is taking action before getting advice. Politicians can and do talk before acting, bad ideas then get vetted out. If politicians committed to every dumb idea that comes out of their mouths then that would be bad.

We hadn't even reached a stage of having a White Paper published on this, let alone a bill.

[earthJoker]

He's not just a politician. If he wasn't the PM I would totally agree with you. If you are (de facto) representing your country you should take care of what you say.

[RandBlade]

The PM says a lot of stuff not all of which happens. He never said he was banning encryption (that I know of). What he said is that it should be possible (with a warrant) to read terrorist communications - a reasonable aspiration for a PM to have and makes a good change to have a PM that respects the requirement for a warrant. That got interpreted as "he's going to ban encryption".

It is reasonable for a PM to state an aspiration without a policy announcement and to then have expert feedback as to if it is possible or not. Especially in a highly technical area like this. If he proceeds to take a stupid action after feedback then that would be terrible.

[earthJoker]

That got interpreted as "he's going to ban encryption".

Because that's a direct implication of his demand. It's the whole point of encryption that know one else is able to read it.

[RandBlade]

And the Police/security services with a warrant can frequently over-ride such security protections. Its not possible here, but its not unreasonable for him to look into it being possible.

In a highly technical area if you refuse to even look at ideas or discuss them unless you know everything (and then commit to every utterance you make) you're either going to get some very bad policies or none at all. I'm OK with evidence-driven policies.

[Ominous Gamer]

Because that's a direct implication of his demand. It's the whole point of encryption that know one else is able to read it.

Not ban, just have the keys. Devices and services that don't weaken their service so that the government can peak would get banned. Making encryption so weak that its pointless is perhaps worse than banning encryption because people could still be stupid enough to trust it.

That train of thought is why companies are moving over to encryption that they themselves can't break, like what Apple claims to do with IOS 8 onward. You either have to ban the entire concept or understand that weakening encryption is an incredibly stupid thing to do. The fact that we're in 2015, after the snowden leaks, and suggestions such as weaking and removing encryption are still being pushed to the public from their officials is (again) incredibly stupid.

[RandBlade]

The major difference with what Snowden leaked to here is that what the NSA was doing was both (1) not in public and (2) did not (to my knowledge) require a warrant. I see a big difference between suggesting in public that there should be a way to decrypt communications with a warrant - versus in the dark doing so without one.

If its not do-able (and its not) then it shouldn't be done but I don't see what's "incredibly stupid" about making reasonable warrant-dependent suggestions and then trying to determine a way to do it.

[Ominous Gamer]

The major difference with what Snowden leaked to here is that what the NSA was doing was both (1) not in public and (2) did not (to my knowledge) require a warrant. I see a big difference between suggesting in public that there should be a way to decrypt communications with a warrant - versus in the dark doing so without one.

If its not do-able (and its not) then it shouldn't be done but I don't see what's "incredibly stupid" about making reasonable warrant-dependent suggestions and then trying to determine a way to do it.

Wrong connection. Snowden wouldn't have been able to do what he did, the way he did, without encryption. We lost both an encrypted email service and an encryption program in the process of shining a light on what he leaked. Should encryption in this manner scare governments with shit to hide? Maybe. Should the public be concerned that the government doesn't want that to happen again? yeah.

[RandBlade]

The government (with a warrant) has long been able to tap communications. Pre-internet phone communications could be tapped with a warrant.

For the government to suggest that with a warrant electronic communications should be able to be monitored is not an extreme or unique suggestion - it is what has happened for decades through other means. It is a controversial and important area, I'd rather these discussions happen in public.

[earthJoker]

In a highly technical area if you refuse to even look at ideas or discuss them unless you know everything (and then commit to every utterance you make) you're either going to get some very bad policies or none at all. I'm OK with evidence-driven policies.

Again, Cameron is not just any politician. He represents the UK government. I expect governments to filter out ideas that are impracticable. We have ministers that do the same, and I wouldn't defend them either.

[RandBlade]

Well lets agree to disagree. I don't think the PM should be passing the buck refusing to say anything until its already resolved and a fait accompli. As Reagan said "the buck stops here", the leader of a country should be setting a tone as to what he wants to do and its upto ministers, the civil service, public experts etc to then determine if its possible and implement it.

[Ominous Gamer]

One would think a politician at the top would do his research, or at least ask those who do, before opening his mouth publicly and looking like a moron Was this a leaked transcript from such a meeting? Or a hope to see if the public was beaten down enough to cave to his suggestion?

[RandBlade]

I suspect the Civil Service advisors were pushing him to be in favour (not against) being able to break encryption with a warrant. Sir Humphrey usually wants such powers.

[Flixy]

Well lets agree to disagree. I don't think the PM should be passing the buck refusing to say anything until its already resolved and a fait accompli. As Reagan said "the buck stops here", the leader of a country should be setting a tone as to what he wants to do and its upto ministers, the civil service, public experts etc to then determine if its possible and implement it.

There's of course an option between saying something you thought of five minutes ago and when it's a faît accompli, like checking whether the idea is feasible, or even possible, etc. first. And yes, he is speaking as the leader of the British government so he should be a little more careful with his words. Besides, aren't speeches generally written beforehand? Meaning it has to be discussed whether it should be in?

Edit: sorry, I checked the link and it's about a speech from his campaign? That means he was speaking for his party platform rather than the government I suppose. Which makes it just your general politician's crap position

[RandBlade]

No everything he says is not written beforehand. Part of our democracy and holding the PM to account includes Prime Minister's Questions for instance which is completely unscripted, let alone media interviews etc which means the PM has to think (and respond) on his feet. I don't think having the PM only speak in set pieces would improve our democracy.

Besides as I said I suspect the PM's advisors were in favour of this.