Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[renluop]

An interesting and thought provoking article in today's Daily Telegraph.

May be capitalist democracy has the seeds of its own destruction coming to fruition in that business is unwilling to either accept control or control its self?

[loonylion]

that's an extremely one sided article.

[roseway]

That article was worthy of the Daily Mail. I didn't read it all, but it seemed to be supporting the idea that strong encryption shouldn't be available to ordinary people, a proposal which I consider outrageous. Terrorists (and other criminals) will always find ways to communicate in secret, and witholding strong encryption won't hinder them. But it will damage the ability of ordinary people to keep their personal information secure.

[AArdvark]

@roseway, Totally agree.

It is a perfect example of the expected articles that will appear to 'highlight' the way we are 'supporting' the Terrorists by allowing encryption to be used in apps etc
The right leaning spin goes off the dial. !!

This is part of the push to get popular support for removing encryption because 'only' Terrorists would need it.
To anyone who may be tempted to think this is a good idea, remember that the loss of security will impact everyone, as we have seen hacks still happen and I would bet that the MP's /PM will still use encryption because they need it !! 

No doubt yet more ill-thoughtout ideas to come as all govts around the world react to the Paris events (and other events that get less media coverage).

[Dray]

This begs the question: Is the state using the threat as a convenient excuse to get rid of encryption, or is the state actually responsible for the terrorist threat to terrify their own citizens into submission?

[sevenlayermuddle]

Obviously, those who are going to use online banking, or similar, may occasionally benefit from strong encryption.  I don't think that's what's causing a problem.   But for messaging apps, email and phone calls and the likes, I struggle to see why ordinary people think they need strong encryption at all?

Until a couple of decades ago, we all communicated with handwritten letters and phone calls.   These were not encrypted, and were easily intercepted.  They could be intercepted by the security services or nosey neighbours.  In the case of phone calls, they could be accidentally 'intercepted' by common line faults, crossed lines.   Early cordless phones could be intercepted by de-tuning the trimming caps on any AM radio.  And  if occasionally we heard that a terrorist attack had been thwarted using phone taps or intercepted post, we would all cheer and applaud, rather than panic about Orwellian societies.

So why is that that so many of us (as in 'not me') feel such a needs for such paranoid levels of secrecy now, but not then?

[Dray]

Why does the state think they need to get round it? It's already been shown that any terrorist can use unbreakable encryption.

[AArdvark]

Because to take advantage of the new world of the 'Internet' we live more and more on-line.
This means that more and more of your important data is accessible on-line.
We know that data is valuable as more and more attempts are made to get it.
Hence you need to protect it, not only when stored but in transit.
What do you use to meet these aims?
Ans: Encryption or go back in time and use pen & paper then force the world to follow suit !!

All advances have a downside and misuse is the first one.

Tackle the misuse not try to roll back the clock.

Banning is not a means to do this.
It will still be used in spite of any ban.



Sent from my LG G3 via Tapatalk (Typos & bad formatting are free)

[sevenlayermuddle]

It will still be used in spite of any ban

Of course it will.   But if those who use it after a ban can be easily identified then by doing so they would highlight themselves as potentially a problem and maybe be investigated further?

I won't speculate on how they might be identified.

[Dray]

So it's easier to identify criminals who break the encryption law? 

Can you explain how such a law would have helped here? http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/22/france-shooting-opportunities-idUSL8N13G05Y20151122

[AArdvark]

It will still be used in spite of any ban

Of course it will.   But if those who use it after a ban can be easily identified then by doing so they would highlight themselves as potentially a problem and maybe be investigated further?

I won't speculate on how they might be identified.

I hate to say it but it will be used by Many Millions of people who will continue as before. (Remember the 'few' people who are outside the UK)
To continue communicating with the rest of the world encryption will continue to be used.
If the UK makes a loud noise to say encryption is not needed or allowed, it will encourage business to move elsewhere where their information is safer.
The public (you or I) may not count but Business has a big voice and Corporate secrecy WILL be deemed important.
Just ill conceived and non-sense thinking all round.
This is not a reasonable way to identify possible Terrorists, it is a good way to waste time and resources which could be doing something else.

[Bowdon]

An interesting thread and question.

The only time I've actually seen proper encryption used was during my political time. I remember they encrypted the membership database and other communications with PGP.

A lot of people don't realise that when you start asking serious questions of the government you WILL come under scrutiny. Monitoring people is much more widely done than people think. I know in from my experiences that some people are monitored around election times only. There was never any threat or anything like that. It was just 'big brother' gathering intelligence. There is no 'fair play' in that area of life by any side.

I doubt all this will go ahead anyways, as the cost to the ISP's will be too high. This snoopers charter seems to come around every few years and the same issue comes up.. Who's going to pay for all this?

[sevenlayermuddle]

So far as I understand what's being proposed is not a ban on encryption, it is a ban on use of specific Apps, or famillies of Apps, that might allow criminals to thwart the efforts of security services to investigate their activities.

I'd be surprised if that was a problem to industry, their use of encryption will be very different.  If however it is a problem to Industry, that would be a factor that I hope the government would take into consideration.   Outside the scope of this thread, though.

But as regards the paranoia that has sprung up among ordinary people, that would be a complete irrelevance IMHO.  I say again, assuming I'm like most people... why the heck should I demand strong encryption when I just want to, say, contact some old pals to meet for a beer?   

[Dray]

Say the jihadists decided their next target was going to be some old pals meeting for a beer, without encryption you could be toast.

[AArdvark]

An interesting thread and question.

The only time I've actually seen proper encryption used was during my political time. I remember they encrypted the membership database and other communications with PGP.

A lot of people don't realise that when you start asking serious questions of the government you WILL come under scrutiny. Monitoring people is much more widely done than people think. I know in from my experiences that some people are monitored around election times only. There was never any threat or anything like that. It was just 'big brother' gathering intelligence. There is no 'fair play' in that area of life by any side.

All you say is obvious if you have been paying attention to the news of the last 10 years or so.
Mainly as a consequence of revelations regarding previous operations for previous govts it is apparent that what has happened before is still being repeated on a large scale as the 'threats' increase.
The technology exists because it is being used somewhere.
Many of the practices that we used against our 'enemies' abroad, in terms of 'Intelligence Gathering' are actually used at home as well, against anyone who is seen as a potential threat.
This was not exactly a secret but WAS not publicised greatly.
It is now the norm.

I doubt all this will go ahead anyways, as the cost to the ISP's will be too high. This snoopers charter seems to come around every few years and the same issue comes up.. Who's going to pay for all this?

I fear that the point may be reached where the Govt of the day agrees to foot some/all of the cost in the short term to get what they want.
Once it is up an running it will be very difficult to roll back to a time when privacy was possible.

[Moderator edited to fix the quotations.]