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

[Flixy]

Yeah but I thought this was about a speech, not an interview and definitely not PM's questions. And if you don't think he prepares for what he's going to say before an interview, you're very naive. And politicians do take care of what they say, there's a reason they're so good at answering questions without actually answering or even saying anything - better to say nothing than to say something stupid. And if his advisors pushed this, that made it an actual policy of him (and his party as he is the leader) which is even more troubling.

[earthJoker]

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

The speech was in June, the election was in May.

[RandBlade]

Again it was not an actual policy Flixy. An actual policy is a bill (or at least even a white/green paper) what he has said so far has been rather vague generalities and not specific. He said some stuff that got interpreted online as meaning he was going to ban encryption. He never said he was going to ban Whatsapp etc.

As I said above (that seems to h ave been ignored) what he's been seeking is a way to maintain the status quo, not to make a change. For decades security service/the Police have been able with a warrant to tap communications. Seeking a way to continue that practice seems reasonable, though I always doubted it will be found. I never for one second thought all these programs would be banned.

[RandBlade]

Oh and I don't know if I've mentioned it here but I went to the Conservative Party Conference last year. I'm a party supporter and member and this was my first party Conference and I found it very interesting.

The Home Secretary gave a speech on this very subject and it was very reasonable and measured. Nothing like the extreme nonsense "they're going to ban encryption" that some of the wilder parts of the internet have either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreted it as. Perhaps one reason I was not bothered by this was because I'd listened to the entire speech and not one snippet that got misinterpreted. It was clear all along they were not ever talking about banning encryption - and they were fully aware how difficult a subject it was, but they viewed it as important to try and find a solution.

[Flixy]

The speech was in June, the election was in May.

First link was about January, my bad. So he said it twice.

Again it was not an actual policy Flixy. An actual policy is a bill (or at least even a white/green paper) what he has said so far has been rather vague generalities and not specific. He said some stuff that got interpreted online as meaning he was going to ban encryption. He never said he was going to ban Whatsapp etc.

Fair enough, but if you say it more than once people will logically assume you're working in that direction.

As I said above (that seems to h ave been ignored) what he's been seeking is a way to maintain the status quo, not to make a change. For decades security service/the Police have been able with a warrant to tap communications. Seeking a way to continue that practice seems reasonable, though I always doubted it will be found. I never for one second thought all these programs would be banned.

Or he's seeking a way to get headlines and look tough on terror. I mean, he made the comment before, got complaints and was rebuffed by the parliamentary science office it's infeasible, yet says pretty much the same later anyway.

[RandBlade]

The speech I saw was by the Home Secretary (not PM) but that was last year. But again the articles in the OP have misinterpreted what was being said - they never said encryption was being banned.

I don't know about you but I've never heard of either of those sites in the OP with the opening "articles". There's a reason the BBC and more mainstream articles haven't been talking about the government banning encryption - because its not true and never was.

EDIT: IIRC one suggestion made was that communication companies could be required to keep a log as to who communicated with whom which could be accessed with a warrant. So even if the communication was encrypted the fact it had happened could be used by the relevant authorities (as is already the case with phone calls). That's from memory.

[Flixy]

Same here wrt opening links (which were also not that well written if you ask me) but I have heard of business insider Wraith linked to.

[RandBlade]

The one saying the government isn't going to ban encryption? Yes that was a much better written article. Even going back to their own prior articles on this were far more qualified on the subject as to the government's intent.

[Steely Glint]

Again it was not an actual policy Flixy. An actual policy is a bill (or at least even a white/green paper) what he has said so far has been rather vague generalities and not specific. He said some stuff that got interpreted online as meaning he was going to ban encryption. He never said he was going to ban Whatsapp etc.

As others have pointed out, the policy Cameron seemed initially to have outlined was a de facto ban on cryptography and therefore on the applications that rely on it, because encryption with a backdoor is no encryption at all. If they've now rolled back on that, fine. It is well known that governments around the world are having a sort of informal competition to see who can come up with the stupidest laws about technology. I presumed this was simply David Cameron's entry, which is why I never got to het up about it.

But it's wrong to suggest that 'banning encryption' wasn't a reasonable interpretation of what the original proposals amounted to.

[RandBlade]

It is wrong when it wasn't what was said, which is why mainstream media never said it unequivocally and it was the weirdest parts of the internet (or commentators) that said it was what he was saying. As I said, I was there and listened to a full speech where this was discussed and it was far more wide ranging and measured than outrage-driven from out-of-context quotes implies. It was not simply "we're going to ban encryption".

As for whether a backdoor is possible, its incorrect to say encryption with a backdoor is no encryption at all. It is weaker yes, but until recently a fair amount of encryption used has been used with a backdoor. If a secure and safe backdoor were possible then I do not think it would be unreasonable for a government to expect responsible companies to implement it or to hand over the keys with a warrant - and it is not unreasonable for a government to seek to see if that is possible, or discuss other options if its not as was said all along.

[Steely Glint]

It is wrong when it wasn't what was said, which is why mainstream media never said it unequivocally and it was the weirdest parts of the internet (or commentators) that said it was what he was saying

It's called a figure of speech.

It is weaker yes, but until recently a fair amount of encryption used has been used with a backdoor.

For storing passwords on some random bulletin board, maybe.

[Ominous Gamer]

until recently a fair amount of encryption used has been used with a backdoor.

citation needed. cause as I've already pointed out, the serious encryption guys went to great lengths to not compromise their product. Including handing over their key in 11 pages of size 4 font when the government came knocking.

[Steely Glint]

Well, I still come across code that uses MD5 for stuff and that was busted wide open in the zeros, I believe. It's not hard to believe that other broken algorithms are being used out there. Not sure if that's what Rand meant by 'backdoors', but whatever.

If it's just some rando's blog comment section who cares? Obviously, for uses such as online banking then any vulnerabilities, intention or otherwise, are completely unacceptable.

[RandBlade]

Well, I still come across code that uses MD5 for stuff and that was busted wide open in the zeros, I believe. It's not hard to believe that other broken algorithms are being used out there. Not sure if that's what Rand ment be 'backdoors', but whatever.

Well they're not going to stop GCHQ now are they!

If it's just some rando's blog comment section who cares? Obviously, for uses such as online banking then any vulnerabilities, intention or otherwise, are completely unacceptable.

Which is why this won't happen and why it was clearly (to you and me) never going to happen. And why it was never 100% committed to.

Politician makes vague non-specific security pledge to do what can be done shocker. Stop the front pages LOL.

[Steely Glint]

Well they're not going to stop GCHQ now are they!
Which is why this won't happen and why it was clearly (to you and me) never going to happen. And why it was never 100% committed to.

If GCHQ is spending millions cracking MD5 hashed passwords in order to infiltrate admin section of someone's Wordpress blog, I want my tax money back.

Politician makes vague non-specific security pledge to do what can be done shocker. Stop the front pages LOL.

Point is, it was still a dumb thing to say. That's where I'm disagreeing with you. I agree it will never actually be implemented, David Cameron doesn't want to be that one guy who murdered the entire digital economy of Britain - people are still mad about that bedroom tax thing and he'd never live it down.

[RandBlade]

All governments try and sound tough, the difference is that I still remember the dumb and damaging things the last Labour government said and did like detention without trial, trying to introduce ID cards etc

If the worst the Tories do in an election year is make vague but unspecific never-to-be-implemented security pledges (putting the worst case spin on this) then that's progress.

[Steely Glint]

The elections over, mate.

[RandBlade]

And the government has made it crystal clear they're not banning encryption as Wraith's article said so ... ???

[earthJoker]

You are afraid of ID cards but are OK with backdoors in encryption

I think Steely is right here. You aren't arguing with me over the actual topic all along, you where just defending your party. Just to make it clear, I don't give a damn if you are a tory or labor fan.

[RandBlade]

No I'm not OK if backdoors in encryption. I said if a safe and secure backdoor were possible [that could only be accessed with a warrant] then I'd be OK with that. But its not possible, so I'm not.

Why on Earth does that equate to opposing an ID Card system? The two are different things. ID cards are far worse than a safe and secure backdoor dependent upon the use of a warrant.

[earthJoker]

You brought ID cards into the game. We have ID cards since decades, it works perfectly. Well at least as long as it is used only for what it is supposed to do, proving your identity. I prefer them over a passport.

[RandBlade]

Good for you, you may be OK with a "papers please" attitude to civil liberties but I'm not. I only take my passport with me when I leave the country or need to do something unusual that requires proving identity (eg signing contracts) and not at all times. I am who I say I am and a free man has no need to prove his identity in general. If I get pulled over by the Police then they do not have the right or reason to demand I prove my identity.

Labour's proposals were far more than just identity too, we had a few discussions at the time about them (IIRC Steely and I were in complete agreement as to being against them).

[earthJoker]

Good for you, you may be OK with a "papers please" attitude to civil liberties but I'm not. I only take my passport with me when I leave the country or need to do something unusual that requires proving identity (eg signing contracts) and not at all times. I am who I say I am and a free man has no need to prove his identity in general. If I get pulled over by the Police then they do not have the right or reason to demand I prove my identity.

Same for me, I still like my ID. Just used to receive my passport from the post office. They are not allowed to give registered mail without me proving my identity and I prefer it.

Labour's proposals were far more than just identity too, we had a few discussions at the time about them (IIRC Steely and I were in complete agreement as to being against them).

So am I. I also voted against the bio-metric passport, unfortunately I was in the minority (it passed very slim though).

[Flixy]

Good for you, you may be OK with a "papers please" attitude to civil liberties but I'm not. I only take my passport with me when I leave the country or need to do something unusual that requires proving identity (eg signing contracts) and not at all times. I am who I say I am and a free man has no need to prove his identity in general. If I get pulled over by the Police then they do not have the right or reason to demand I prove my identity.

Yeah, I'm not a fan that we are required to always carry it. That said, driver's license also counts which most people carry anyway, and the police still needs a reason to ask for it (they can't just ask you out of the blue). The threshold is pretty low though. And on the upside, if everyone has to have an ID card, that means it's also asked for a lot of things like bank business, basically anywhere you need to identify yourself, which is safer. Also, like EJ, not a fan of the biometric passport, especially since the biometrics will be stored somewhere, and I a) don't trust the government claiming they won't use it for other stuff, once they have an option like that they'll likely (try to) create new laws to use that information (like with traffic cameras); and b) I don't particularly trust government IT security.

Labour's proposals were far more than just identity too, we had a few discussions at the time about them (IIRC Steely and I were in complete agreement as to being against them).

IIRC big database with loads of information on anyone, including biometrics? Yeah, I can understand being against that. And keep in mind that this database is also protected by the same IT that they try to weaken - if the police can get in, so can others, usually.

BTW, what is your view on a general databse with stuff like your name, address, DOB? We have that here (have had for ages), which also means no need for census (you know how many people live here), no need to register to vote (everybody just gets a voting card sent to their address), etc., which I think is all pretty useful. And everyone who has ever had a job is already registered like that for social security or your equivalent of it, which is from what I understand used for the same thing in the USA, except much more fraud sensitive.

[earthJoker]

Yeah, I'm not a fan that we are required to always carry it. That said, driver's license also counts which most people carry anyway, and the police still needs a reason to ask for it (they can't just ask you out of the blue). The threshold is pretty low though.

That kind of sucks. There is no requirement to carry or even posses an ID in Switzerland. You can happily live here without ID or passport, but you need to be registered in your hometown.

[RandBlade]

Yeah, I'm not a fan that we are required to always carry it. That said, driver's license also counts which most people carry anyway, and the police still needs a reason to ask for it

I don't carry anything other than my credit card (plus phone and keys obv.) on me when I go out (literally I have replaced my wallet with a phone case with one card slot). The Police have never asked me for ID whenever I've had to stop for any reason and I don't carry my drivers licence when I drive as I don't need to.

IIRC big database with loads of information on anyone, including biometrics? Yeah, I can understand being against that. And keep in mind that this database is also protected by the same IT that they try to weaken - if the police can get in, so can others, usually.

Exactly. Massive, intrusive, compulsory, insecure, biometric database that doesn't require a warrant to access is obviously worse to me than a hypothetical (but non-existent) safe and secure backdoor which requires a warrant if it could exist. I don't see anything odd with that.

BTW, what is your view on a general databse with stuff like your name, address, DOB? We have that here (have had for ages), which also means no need for census (you know how many people live here), no need to register to vote (everybody just gets a voting card sent to their address), etc., which I think is all pretty useful. And everyone who has ever had a job is already registered like that for social security or your equivalent of it, which is from what I understand used for the same thing in the USA, except much more fraud sensitive.

It depends how far it goes but I'm somewhat skeptical. We have a National Insurance number which you get at 16 for tax and pension etc purposes which is becoming a sort of quasi-ID number.

I'd oppose removing any form of people registering to vote. Registering to vote is important.