11 ms·

Petition UK government to not ban encryption

292 points by chrisdew 11y ago

samuellavoie90 11y ago
They should try to ban it, just so they can really see how much stuff depends on it and how vague 'Banned Encryption' is.
oneandoneis2 11y ago
I think it could be better worded as "Please stop being so bloody stupid"
arianvanp 11y ago
Honestly. I'd like to see them try to ban it. They'll see their entire internet economy crash and hell will break loose. People getting pissed why they can't login to gmail or facebook or paypal or do any online shopping. It's such an entirely ridiculous idea that i can't even describe it in words. Okay to be honest I haven't really read into the material. but is their actual plan to "ban" encryption? Or do they want to license it to certain parties? Or have a weakened "export" encryption scheme like the US government tried? What's the plan?
- Djehngo 11y ago
  I don't think anyone is dumb enough to actually prevent the electorate logging into facebook. I expect the language to be broad and the enforcement narrow.
  - chrisdew 11y ago
    > I expect the language to be broad and the enforcement narrow. That's the worst kind of law - you can be locked up at a prosecutors whim. In the UK, it's already illegal not to disclose the key to an encrypted file.
    - namos 11y ago
      Well, kinda. A RIPA s.49 notice can be defeated with s.53 defenses. Some people have failed to pass the test of "reasonable doubt" for s.53 (3) / (4) defenses e.g. ( http://www.alphr.com/news/361693/teenager-jailed-for-refusing-to-reveal-encryption-keys http://www.alphr.com/news/361693/teenager-jailed-for-refusin... ) but in other cases they have succeeded (e.g. Lauri Love had his hdd's taken and the NCA couldn't decrypt them but had to release him on bail; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-31544346 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-31544346 and subsequently returned some of the storage (before arresting him again)) There are also people out there working to help the reasonable doubt argument; https://brasshorncommunications.uk/projects/s53/ https://brasshorncommunications.uk/projects/s53/
      - lolnsh 11y ago
        NB: Lauri is now facing three parallel extradition request to the USA as an indirect consequence of failure to comply with a court order to facilitate decryption. This is not ideal, but will probably fail, hopefully with some precedent set. [http://theconversation.com/hactivists-arent-terrorists-but-us-prosecutors-make-little-distinction-45260 http://theconversation.com/hactivists-arent-terrorists-but-u...]
    - dr_zoidberg 11y ago
      It's fun, in Argentina we've had a case were a criminal releasing the key nullified the evidence, because the criminal's lawyer argued that (under Argentinian law): * He was forced ("tortured" was the word used) to disclose the key by the police. * You can't accuse yourself or direct relatives, and disclosing an encryption key that resulted in incriminating evidence was argued to be a form of "self incrimination". * "Best" thing about this was that the evidence led to finding a body, but as it was nullified, legally the status of the deceased person changed from "deceased" to "missing" -- because the evidence they had used to find the body had been nullified, then also the finding of the body had to be null (I'm not kidding, people went nuts over this "technicallity"). * Eventually a more reasonable judge turned the previous statement and accepted that the person was deceased indeed. Working in forensics (I do digital forensics) is weird some times...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- onion2k 11y ago
  They'll see their entire internet economy crash and hell will break loose. The point is that the government want to ban encryption that they can't can't view. That essentially means you'll only be able to run an encrypted service if you're happy to hand over the unencrypted data to the government. It might also mean that end-to-end encrypted services are blocked by ISPs. But the average internet user will still see the little padlock in their browser, so they'll believe it's all still fine, and will carry on as normal. What the government really seems to fail to understand[1] is the principle that if they can view the decrypted information then so can the bad guys. [1] Or, I suspect, they do understand but they arrogantly believe they're better at security.
elcct 11y ago
Not sure if that petition will be valid, because it is encrypted... ;)
ommunist 11y ago
Some people in Britain will always be more equal than the others.
reasonishy 11y ago
They're not going to ban encryption. Seriously. Stop wasting time on misquotes taken out of context blown up by The Guardian. There's more important things to worry about.
- tankenmate 11y ago
  The point of this petition, even though it looks at first blush to be taking down a straw man, is to send a shot across the bow.
  - andybak 11y ago
    Either: a) they ban all end-to-end encryption or b) this law is ridiculously easy to circumvent for even non-technical users An example of b) would be: piggyback messaging on an existing service that has a valid reason for being encrypted
- retube 11y ago
  exactly, guardian trolling at it's finest
- digital-rubber 11y ago
  As a non UK/third party, i laugh at both, you keep buying that paper, and you have elected cameron… :)
- nailer 11y ago
  Mandating back doors is banning effective encryption.
jimworm 11y ago
I wish they would just go ahead and ban it outright today, and in my naive imagination the whole country would plunge into disaster. Airliner crashes, car crashes, market crashes, the whole lot. Unfortunately, selective enforcement of this ban will quickly turn it into a tool of tyranny, same as any other. (Yeah I have a site that doesn't display that stupid cookie notice, but it doesn't matter because I haven't pissed off anybody powerful yet.)
alkonaut 11y ago
Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption_ban_proposal_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption_ban_proposal_in_the...
dgmdoug 11y ago
It really worries me that the leader of our nation does not appear to have all the information required in order to make a decision on a topic as important as this. I would have thought that a domain expert within government would have be consulted before Cameron goes off half cocked in debates and discussions. With technology a key and growing industry within the UK, shouldn't we expect our leaders to at least attempt to understand the issues around governance?
- vidarh 11y ago
  What past experience would have given you the idea that a UK prime minister would let domain expects stop them from coming up with stupid proposals? (I was about to single out Cameron, but while I detest him, and while he seem to have a particular blind spot for technology, the problem is by no means unique to the Tories; e.g. consider when David Nutt was asked to go because his evidence-based advice on drugs didn't agree with the Labour governments policy)
  - walshemj 11y ago
    You mean had to go because it didn't agree with the Medias Agenda
p01926 11y ago
It's pretty staggering that the FBI and gov.uk should choose now — a time of daily, massive security breaches dominating the headlines — to have the "your security is too good" conversation with tech companies. And, compared to the last time we went through this idiocy, they now refuse to put any specific proposals on the table. The whole enterprise is an embarrassment, and not going to happen in a million years.
Jaepa 11y ago
For the record Cameron was not suggesting on banning everything that uses encryption. Primary seeking a ban on end-to-end encryption messaging applications (ie, textsecure/signal, whatsapp, snapchat) that does no provide the UK government with a backdoor. Its still a terrifying idea, and shouldn't be allowed to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption_ban_proposal_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption_ban_proposal_in_the...
- pslam 11y ago
  Seeking a mandatory backdoor is equivalent to banning encryption. This isn't just metaphorical - it is a practical, provable result of it. The various attempts throughout history have been abysmal failures of security. The other practical result is that the current UK government appears to believe that citizens are their subjects, whose freedom is a privilege and not a right.
untog 11y ago
Urgh. This should be better phrased. From the BoingBoing article: David Cameron says there should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" It's very specific to communication, and reading between the lines, messaging, as opposed to something like HTTP communication between a bank and a customer. Don't get me wrong, it's still incredibly stupid, but the government will be able to reply to this petition with "we do not intend to ban encryption" and close it.
- navait 11y ago
  Apparently our politicians should understand infosec to demand policy, but the people don't have to understand their goverment to demand policy.
  - LunaSea 11y ago
    How can you have a situation where the HTTPS used to secure communication between two peers is different than the HTTPS used between a bank and one of it's clients ? This just shows serious misinformation on your part.
    - Joeboy 11y ago
      The number of people that can implement secure communications without relying on third parties is close enough to zero that they basically don't count. ISIS recruitment would plummet to zero if people had to get TLS working before joining.
      - LunaSea 11y ago
        I don't think that you understand that the TLS technology used for online banking (which would still be legal) is the very same technology that lets you create a secure communication channel with other users.
        Joeboy 11y ago
        I don't know why you think that. Perhaps I was unclear. The average prospective terrorist / criminal etc isn't going to be able to set up TLS. If they encrypt their communications, the odds are it's going to be going via a third party. Next time you send an email, tell the recipient that from now on you're going to communicate directly by TLS, and they'll need to set up a server before you can talk to them again. I believe that most people will have considerable difficulty doing that. So, you're reliant on third parties who constitute single points of failure and potential targets of legal action. Individuals who can securely set up TLS (or PGP or whatever) for their own communications are sufficiently rare that they effectively don't matter.
mrbig4545 11y ago
Cameron doesn't want to ban encryption. he wants encrypted end to end messaging services to have backdoor keys for the security services use. which is stupid, but very different to banning encryption. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of this, but the distinction is clear and false misinformation isn't going to help prevent this.
sorokod 11y ago
Sir, the serfs are using HTTPS again!
spuz 11y ago
The government's story has been "we need a way to access people's data so we can catch pedophiles, drug dealers and terrorists" and it seems there is a widely held belief that in order to do this, they would need to either ban encryption or weaken it sufficiently to make it effectively useless. However, as far as I can tell, backdoors into your phone or your desktop PC already exist. All the government has to do is convince Apple, Google, MS or Ubuntu to provide an 'official' update to a target computer, wait for the user to accept (or the OS to accept it automatically) and they have full reign over your device. Many people say that opening our devices to a special chosen set of good guys is equivalent to opening them to all the bad guys as well. If that's the case, surely we're already vulnerable given most commonly used devices update automatically? The only purpose I can see for attacking encryption in general is to enable mass surveillance. The government have in fact not been specific about what they are actually asking for, but if they want selective ability to search digital devices, they already have it. If they want further powers, then we need to ask them what they need them for.
- IlPeach 11y ago
  Or simply start instilling the idea into ignorant people's minds that crypto is bad and just keep repeating that until it becomes a "truth", or gain votes or leverage on the right occasion when needed with "we told you so".
  - spuz 11y ago
    I'm not sure that's a wise strategy. Try telling the users of Ashley Madison that encryption is a bad thing. For each of the government's examples of where encryption enables criminals to do criminal things, the public are going to hear about the cases where lack of encryption enables criminals to do criminal things. There's just as equal a chance in my opinion that raising the issue in the consciousness of the public that they turn against the government and demand stronger encryption rather than less. The NSA and GCHQ were able to gain significant powers in the last decade primarily by staying under the radar of public awareness. That is why the leaks we heard in 2013 were so significant. Now the cat's out of the bag, it might be the government are left with no choice but to use propaganda to convince the public to give them what they want but there's no guarantee that it will work.
Joeboy 11y ago
Hopefully we can mostly agree that they're not really going to try to ban encryption. Would anybody like to speculate on what proposals we might see in reality? Are they going to ban me, as an individual, from using GPG? Are they going to ban companies from operating encrypted messaging services in the UK? Are they going to block traffic from non-compliant overseas providers? Are they going to just have a quiet word with the SnapChat people?
iamcurious 11y ago
I think we are fighting the wrong battle here. The power equation is already in favor of the government snooping everybody, making it law only puts things in the open. We should fight in that direction, making it so that everything is more transparent. Wanna have my data? Okay, but I want to have yours. I specially want to have all the data about what you do with my data. I want to be able to request all the data you got of me. I want to be able to erase some of it (or at the very least mark it as invalid). I want to be able to add directly to it. I want to know whenever it is used. I want a due process every time it is used for something that affects me. And I want people that make use of data for their own purposes or that don't follow protocol to be prosecuted or at the very least banned from public office.
- throwaway7767 11y ago
  Presumably the people fighting this battle value their privacy. How would their fight benefit from switching to fighting against privacy? I think your goals are completely orthogonal to the people who made and signed this petition, so your suggestion is unlikely to sway anyone.
andybak 11y ago
To all those saying "it's not about banning encryption - only encrypted messaging then surely either: a) they ban all end-to-end encryption or b) this law is ridiculously easy to circumvent for even non-technical users An example of b) would be: piggyback messaging on an existing service that has a valid reason for being encrypted
agd 11y ago
Cameron is not really trying to ban encryption (or even ban end to end encryption apps). This is misdirection in the run up to new surveillance legislation. The real issue is 'bulk collection'. The UK government is trying to frame the debate such that the concept of mass surveillance is not challenged.
- onion2k 11y ago
  Bulk collection is rendered entirely pointless by end-to-end encryption because the government would just end up with vast amounts of data they can't read. I would say the UK government is trying to ban encryption, and for exactly that reason - they want mass surveillance that is 'useful' (for the government's definition of useful, which is not the same as mine or yours).
  - agd 11y ago
    The GCHQ geeks are not stupid, they know banning end-to-end encryption is not really feasible. Yes, increased usage of it will harm "bulk collection" but not too much. Your whatsapp might be end-to-end encrypted, but companies such as facebook and google aren't going to change too much because it would harm their business models.
pjc50 11y ago
http://www.revk.uk/2015/07/crypto-wars.html http://www.revk.uk/2015/07/crypto-wars.html "If a British citizen with an iPhone purchased in France and roaming in Germany iMessages a Chinese citizen roaming in Sweden using an iPhone purchased in Denmark, which government's keys need to be inserted in the iMessage communications by an American company (Apple) legally based in Luxembourg using servers hosted in Eire?"
- robin_reala 11y ago
  The author of that blog post is the same person who started the petition.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
terefere 11y ago
No muli no terrorist no terrorist to ban encryption
terefere 11y ago
No muli no terrorist no terrorist to ban encryption
redblacktree 11y ago
What is the enforcement plan for this? Will people be taken to jail for sending encrypted communication? How will messaging be differentiated from banking? (if those who claim a more limited scope are correct) The whole plan just seems unworkable.
- redblacktree 11y ago
  Would the downvoter please explain? I am genuinely curious about how this could be enforced.
jackgavigan 11y ago
This is a pointless petition. "We don't want to ban encryption." - Ed Vaizey, Minister of State at the Department of Culture, Media & Sport, on 16 July 2015 - http://www.scmagazineuk.com/uk-minister-cyber-security-a-priority-for-government-but-no-ban-on-encryption/article/426726/ http://www.scmagazineuk.com/uk-minister-cyber-security-a-pri...
- wgx 11y ago
  They want to ban encryption which doesn't have a backdoor. It's semantics, but the end result is to make encryption ineffective. Which is practically the same as a ban.
- phaemon 11y ago
  I disagree. Politicians love to leave things vague so they can argue they didn't break their promises later on. Getting politicians to specifically state that they will not do something is always a win.
leni536 11y ago
But they don't want to ban encryption, they just want the keys.
jdimov9 11y ago
There shouldn't be a need for any petition. A government with the illusion that it can "ban encryption" has already lost all authority and credibility, so should not be governing anyone.
- u02sgb 11y ago
  Says somebody with a technical understanding of encryption. The problem is there's a lack of understanding in this area and the headlines play well to the media. I think this is important and have emailed two friends (a doctor and a lawyer) to ask them to sign it. I described it as: 'It may be similar to how you feel when you watch a B movie lawyer or doctor "making a professional decision". The only difference being I'm watching the people who are running this country.'
  - ocb 11y ago
    Ban modular arithmetic! Down with modulus!
    - totony 11y ago
      Mathematics are DANGEROUS!
tired_man 11y ago
How does anyone think that a petition to a government will cause that body to change their direction on any topic other than meaningless feel good areas? Serious policy isn't influenced by petitions. If you don't have a majority of legislators/MPs in your pocket, you're wasting both time and bandwidth.
sillygeese 11y ago
So let's see.. Governments are passing increasingly Orwellian laws, obviously against our wishes. They clearly don't want us to have any privacy whatsoever, and are basically just making that a legal reality too. Hello police state. In response, people ask governments to stop stripping away their privacy. How would you expect governments to respond, besides with some PR-bullshit to placate us or give us a false sense of security. "We would never read the contents of your messages, only the metadata! Honest!".. and people buy that as if they didn't know governments lie to us all the fucking time. Imagine a King telling his subjects he'll raise taxes until the economy implodes. The subjects ask him nicely to please not raise taxes quite that much. What does the King do? -Whatever the fuck he damn well pleases, as long as people aren't willing to risk their lives in de-throning him. Of course, after a revolution, a new King is throned, because THIS time it'll be different! This is so fucking insane.. When will people wake up?
kiddico 11y ago
I'm assuming that as a US citizen I cannot sign this. Correct?
- OJFord 11y ago
  Yes. (Unless you're resident here). The clue is the "I am a British citizen or UK resident" checkbox. ;)
sandworm101 11y ago
Just One. The US has the greatest control over apple. From the US is it shared with the five eyes. GCHQ's oldboys network then passes it on to basically any European who asks, while one of the thousands entry-level "analysts" at the many US intel agencies passes it on to the Chinese. Then the next snowden leaks it to the guardian and every other paper still alive, half of which are under surveillance by various police groups. So within a week the only people who cannot read this text are 50% of us who aren't government employees. One keyring to rule them all.
sft 11y ago
As if they could, even if they wanted to.
walshemj 11y ago
Nice but pious, It would be more useful to find an MP who was lucky in the ballot for private members bills - and try and get a law passed.
ccvannorman 11y ago
banning encryption today because "criminals use computers" is equivalent to banning locks 100 years ago because "criminals use doors"
totony 11y ago
Interesting idea. I could go to the UK and hijack all of their end-to-end communication easily? Sounds like a fair deal to me. EDIT: In fact, I wouldn't even need to go there

292 points by chrisdew 11y ago

They should try to ban it, just so they can really see how much stuff depends on it and how vague 'Banned Encryption' is.

oneandoneis2 11y ago

I think it could be better worded as "Please stop being so bloody stupid"

arianvanp 11y ago

Honestly. I'd like to see them try to ban it. They'll see their entire internet economy crash and hell will break loose. People getting pissed why they can't login to gmail or facebook or paypal or do any online shopping. It's such an entirely ridiculous idea that i can't even describe it in words. Okay to be honest I haven't really read into the material. but is their actual plan to "ban" encryption? Or do they want to license it to certain parties? Or have a weakened "export" encryption scheme like the US government tried? What's the plan?

Djehngo 11y ago
I don't think anyone is dumb enough to actually prevent the electorate logging into facebook. I expect the language to be broad and the enforcement narrow.
- chrisdew 11y ago
  > I expect the language to be broad and the enforcement narrow. That's the worst kind of law - you can be locked up at a prosecutors whim. In the UK, it's already illegal not to disclose the key to an encrypted file.
  - namos 11y ago
    Well, kinda. A RIPA s.49 notice can be defeated with s.53 defenses. Some people have failed to pass the test of "reasonable doubt" for s.53 (3) / (4) defenses e.g. ( http://www.alphr.com/news/361693/teenager-jailed-for-refusing-to-reveal-encryption-keys http://www.alphr.com/news/361693/teenager-jailed-for-refusin... ) but in other cases they have succeeded (e.g. Lauri Love had his hdd's taken and the NCA couldn't decrypt them but had to release him on bail; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-31544346 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-31544346 and subsequently returned some of the storage (before arresting him again)) There are also people out there working to help the reasonable doubt argument; https://brasshorncommunications.uk/projects/s53/ https://brasshorncommunications.uk/projects/s53/
    - lolnsh 11y ago
      NB: Lauri is now facing three parallel extradition request to the USA as an indirect consequence of failure to comply with a court order to facilitate decryption. This is not ideal, but will probably fail, hopefully with some precedent set. [http://theconversation.com/hactivists-arent-terrorists-but-us-prosecutors-make-little-distinction-45260 http://theconversation.com/hactivists-arent-terrorists-but-u...]
  - dr_zoidberg 11y ago
    It's fun, in Argentina we've had a case were a criminal releasing the key nullified the evidence, because the criminal's lawyer argued that (under Argentinian law): * He was forced ("tortured" was the word used) to disclose the key by the police. * You can't accuse yourself or direct relatives, and disclosing an encryption key that resulted in incriminating evidence was argued to be a form of "self incrimination". * "Best" thing about this was that the evidence led to finding a body, but as it was nullified, legally the status of the deceased person changed from "deceased" to "missing" -- because the evidence they had used to find the body had been nullified, then also the finding of the body had to be null (I'm not kidding, people went nuts over this "technicallity"). * Eventually a more reasonable judge turned the previous statement and accepted that the person was deceased indeed. Working in forensics (I do digital forensics) is weird some times...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
onion2k 11y ago
They'll see their entire internet economy crash and hell will break loose. The point is that the government want to ban encryption that they can't can't view. That essentially means you'll only be able to run an encrypted service if you're happy to hand over the unencrypted data to the government. It might also mean that end-to-end encrypted services are blocked by ISPs. But the average internet user will still see the little padlock in their browser, so they'll believe it's all still fine, and will carry on as normal. What the government really seems to fail to understand[1] is the principle that if they can view the decrypted information then so can the bad guys. [1] Or, I suspect, they do understand but they arrogantly believe they're better at security.

elcct 11y ago

Not sure if that petition will be valid, because it is encrypted... ;)

ommunist 11y ago

Some people in Britain will always be more equal than the others.

reasonishy 11y ago

They're not going to ban encryption. Seriously. Stop wasting time on misquotes taken out of context blown up by The Guardian. There's more important things to worry about.

tankenmate 11y ago
The point of this petition, even though it looks at first blush to be taking down a straw man, is to send a shot across the bow.
- andybak 11y ago
  Either: a) they ban all end-to-end encryption or b) this law is ridiculously easy to circumvent for even non-technical users An example of b) would be: piggyback messaging on an existing service that has a valid reason for being encrypted
retube 11y ago
exactly, guardian trolling at it's finest
digital-rubber 11y ago
As a non UK/third party, i laugh at both, you keep buying that paper, and you have elected cameron… :)
nailer 11y ago
Mandating back doors is banning effective encryption.

jimworm 11y ago

I wish they would just go ahead and ban it outright today, and in my naive imagination the whole country would plunge into disaster. Airliner crashes, car crashes, market crashes, the whole lot. Unfortunately, selective enforcement of this ban will quickly turn it into a tool of tyranny, same as any other. (Yeah I have a site that doesn't display that stupid cookie notice, but it doesn't matter because I haven't pissed off anybody powerful yet.)

alkonaut 11y ago

Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption_ban_proposal_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption_ban_proposal_in_the...

dgmdoug 11y ago

It really worries me that the leader of our nation does not appear to have all the information required in order to make a decision on a topic as important as this. I would have thought that a domain expert within government would have be consulted before Cameron goes off half cocked in debates and discussions. With technology a key and growing industry within the UK, shouldn't we expect our leaders to at least attempt to understand the issues around governance?

vidarh 11y ago
What past experience would have given you the idea that a UK prime minister would let domain expects stop them from coming up with stupid proposals? (I was about to single out Cameron, but while I detest him, and while he seem to have a particular blind spot for technology, the problem is by no means unique to the Tories; e.g. consider when David Nutt was asked to go because his evidence-based advice on drugs didn't agree with the Labour governments policy)
- walshemj 11y ago
  You mean had to go because it didn't agree with the Medias Agenda

p01926 11y ago

It's pretty staggering that the FBI and gov.uk should choose now — a time of daily, massive security breaches dominating the headlines — to have the "your security is too good" conversation with tech companies. And, compared to the last time we went through this idiocy, they now refuse to put any specific proposals on the table. The whole enterprise is an embarrassment, and not going to happen in a million years.

Jaepa 11y ago

For the record Cameron was not suggesting on banning everything that uses encryption. Primary seeking a ban on end-to-end encryption messaging applications (ie, textsecure/signal, whatsapp, snapchat) that does no provide the UK government with a backdoor. Its still a terrifying idea, and shouldn't be allowed to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption_ban_proposal_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption_ban_proposal_in_the...

pslam 11y ago
Seeking a mandatory backdoor is equivalent to banning encryption. This isn't just metaphorical - it is a practical, provable result of it. The various attempts throughout history have been abysmal failures of security. The other practical result is that the current UK government appears to believe that citizens are their subjects, whose freedom is a privilege and not a right.

untog 11y ago

Urgh. This should be better phrased. From the BoingBoing article: David Cameron says there should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" It's very specific to communication, and reading between the lines, messaging, as opposed to something like HTTP communication between a bank and a customer. Don't get me wrong, it's still incredibly stupid, but the government will be able to reply to this petition with "we do not intend to ban encryption" and close it.

navait 11y ago
Apparently our politicians should understand infosec to demand policy, but the people don't have to understand their goverment to demand policy.
- LunaSea 11y ago
  How can you have a situation where the HTTPS used to secure communication between two peers is different than the HTTPS used between a bank and one of it's clients ? This just shows serious misinformation on your part.
  - Joeboy 11y ago
    The number of people that can implement secure communications without relying on third parties is close enough to zero that they basically don't count. ISIS recruitment would plummet to zero if people had to get TLS working before joining.
    - LunaSea 11y ago
      I don't think that you understand that the TLS technology used for online banking (which would still be legal) is the very same technology that lets you create a secure communication channel with other users.
      - Joeboy 11y ago
        I don't know why you think that. Perhaps I was unclear. The average prospective terrorist / criminal etc isn't going to be able to set up TLS. If they encrypt their communications, the odds are it's going to be going via a third party. Next time you send an email, tell the recipient that from now on you're going to communicate directly by TLS, and they'll need to set up a server before you can talk to them again. I believe that most people will have considerable difficulty doing that. So, you're reliant on third parties who constitute single points of failure and potential targets of legal action. Individuals who can securely set up TLS (or PGP or whatever) for their own communications are sufficiently rare that they effectively don't matter.

mrbig4545 11y ago

Cameron doesn't want to ban encryption. he wants encrypted end to end messaging services to have backdoor keys for the security services use. which is stupid, but very different to banning encryption. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of this, but the distinction is clear and false misinformation isn't going to help prevent this.

sorokod 11y ago

Sir, the serfs are using HTTPS again!

spuz 11y ago

The government's story has been "we need a way to access people's data so we can catch pedophiles, drug dealers and terrorists" and it seems there is a widely held belief that in order to do this, they would need to either ban encryption or weaken it sufficiently to make it effectively useless. However, as far as I can tell, backdoors into your phone or your desktop PC already exist. All the government has to do is convince Apple, Google, MS or Ubuntu to provide an 'official' update to a target computer, wait for the user to accept (or the OS to accept it automatically) and they have full reign over your device. Many people say that opening our devices to a special chosen set of good guys is equivalent to opening them to all the bad guys as well. If that's the case, surely we're already vulnerable given most commonly used devices update automatically? The only purpose I can see for attacking encryption in general is to enable mass surveillance. The government have in fact not been specific about what they are actually asking for, but if they want selective ability to search digital devices, they already have it. If they want further powers, then we need to ask them what they need them for.

IlPeach 11y ago
Or simply start instilling the idea into ignorant people's minds that crypto is bad and just keep repeating that until it becomes a "truth", or gain votes or leverage on the right occasion when needed with "we told you so".
- spuz 11y ago
  I'm not sure that's a wise strategy. Try telling the users of Ashley Madison that encryption is a bad thing. For each of the government's examples of where encryption enables criminals to do criminal things, the public are going to hear about the cases where lack of encryption enables criminals to do criminal things. There's just as equal a chance in my opinion that raising the issue in the consciousness of the public that they turn against the government and demand stronger encryption rather than less. The NSA and GCHQ were able to gain significant powers in the last decade primarily by staying under the radar of public awareness. That is why the leaks we heard in 2013 were so significant. Now the cat's out of the bag, it might be the government are left with no choice but to use propaganda to convince the public to give them what they want but there's no guarantee that it will work.

Joeboy 11y ago

Hopefully we can mostly agree that they're not really going to try to ban encryption. Would anybody like to speculate on what proposals we might see in reality? Are they going to ban me, as an individual, from using GPG? Are they going to ban companies from operating encrypted messaging services in the UK? Are they going to block traffic from non-compliant overseas providers? Are they going to just have a quiet word with the SnapChat people?

iamcurious 11y ago

I think we are fighting the wrong battle here. The power equation is already in favor of the government snooping everybody, making it law only puts things in the open. We should fight in that direction, making it so that everything is more transparent. Wanna have my data? Okay, but I want to have yours. I specially want to have all the data about what you do with my data. I want to be able to request all the data you got of me. I want to be able to erase some of it (or at the very least mark it as invalid). I want to be able to add directly to it. I want to know whenever it is used. I want a due process every time it is used for something that affects me. And I want people that make use of data for their own purposes or that don't follow protocol to be prosecuted or at the very least banned from public office.

throwaway7767 11y ago
Presumably the people fighting this battle value their privacy. How would their fight benefit from switching to fighting against privacy? I think your goals are completely orthogonal to the people who made and signed this petition, so your suggestion is unlikely to sway anyone.

andybak 11y ago

To all those saying "it's not about banning encryption - only encrypted messaging then surely either: a) they ban all end-to-end encryption or b) this law is ridiculously easy to circumvent for even non-technical users An example of b) would be: piggyback messaging on an existing service that has a valid reason for being encrypted

agd 11y ago

Cameron is not really trying to ban encryption (or even ban end to end encryption apps). This is misdirection in the run up to new surveillance legislation. The real issue is 'bulk collection'. The UK government is trying to frame the debate such that the concept of mass surveillance is not challenged.

onion2k 11y ago
Bulk collection is rendered entirely pointless by end-to-end encryption because the government would just end up with vast amounts of data they can't read. I would say the UK government is trying to ban encryption, and for exactly that reason - they want mass surveillance that is 'useful' (for the government's definition of useful, which is not the same as mine or yours).
- agd 11y ago
  The GCHQ geeks are not stupid, they know banning end-to-end encryption is not really feasible. Yes, increased usage of it will harm "bulk collection" but not too much. Your whatsapp might be end-to-end encrypted, but companies such as facebook and google aren't going to change too much because it would harm their business models.

pjc50 11y ago

http://www.revk.uk/2015/07/crypto-wars.html http://www.revk.uk/2015/07/crypto-wars.html "If a British citizen with an iPhone purchased in France and roaming in Germany iMessages a Chinese citizen roaming in Sweden using an iPhone purchased in Denmark, which government's keys need to be inserted in the iMessage communications by an American company (Apple) legally based in Luxembourg using servers hosted in Eire?"

robin_reala 11y ago
The author of that blog post is the same person who started the petition.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

terefere 11y ago

No muli no terrorist no terrorist to ban encryption

terefere 11y ago

No muli no terrorist no terrorist to ban encryption

redblacktree 11y ago

What is the enforcement plan for this? Will people be taken to jail for sending encrypted communication? How will messaging be differentiated from banking? (if those who claim a more limited scope are correct) The whole plan just seems unworkable.

redblacktree 11y ago
Would the downvoter please explain? I am genuinely curious about how this could be enforced.

jackgavigan 11y ago

This is a pointless petition. "We don't want to ban encryption." - Ed Vaizey, Minister of State at the Department of Culture, Media & Sport, on 16 July 2015 - http://www.scmagazineuk.com/uk-minister-cyber-security-a-priority-for-government-but-no-ban-on-encryption/article/426726/ http://www.scmagazineuk.com/uk-minister-cyber-security-a-pri...

wgx 11y ago
They want to ban encryption which doesn't have a backdoor. It's semantics, but the end result is to make encryption ineffective. Which is practically the same as a ban.
phaemon 11y ago
I disagree. Politicians love to leave things vague so they can argue they didn't break their promises later on. Getting politicians to specifically state that they will not do something is always a win.

leni536 11y ago

But they don't want to ban encryption, they just want the keys.

jdimov9 11y ago

There shouldn't be a need for any petition. A government with the illusion that it can "ban encryption" has already lost all authority and credibility, so should not be governing anyone.

u02sgb 11y ago
Says somebody with a technical understanding of encryption. The problem is there's a lack of understanding in this area and the headlines play well to the media. I think this is important and have emailed two friends (a doctor and a lawyer) to ask them to sign it. I described it as: 'It may be similar to how you feel when you watch a B movie lawyer or doctor "making a professional decision". The only difference being I'm watching the people who are running this country.'
- ocb 11y ago
  Ban modular arithmetic! Down with modulus!
  - totony 11y ago
    Mathematics are DANGEROUS!

tired_man 11y ago

How does anyone think that a petition to a government will cause that body to change their direction on any topic other than meaningless feel good areas? Serious policy isn't influenced by petitions. If you don't have a majority of legislators/MPs in your pocket, you're wasting both time and bandwidth.

sillygeese 11y ago

So let's see.. Governments are passing increasingly Orwellian laws, obviously against our wishes. They clearly don't want us to have any privacy whatsoever, and are basically just making that a legal reality too. Hello police state. In response, people ask governments to stop stripping away their privacy. How would you expect governments to respond, besides with some PR-bullshit to placate us or give us a false sense of security. "We would never read the contents of your messages, only the metadata! Honest!".. and people buy that as if they didn't know governments lie to us all the fucking time. Imagine a King telling his subjects he'll raise taxes until the economy implodes. The subjects ask him nicely to please not raise taxes quite that much. What does the King do? -Whatever the fuck he damn well pleases, as long as people aren't willing to risk their lives in de-throning him. Of course, after a revolution, a new King is throned, because THIS time it'll be different! This is so fucking insane.. When will people wake up?

kiddico 11y ago

I'm assuming that as a US citizen I cannot sign this. Correct?

OJFord 11y ago
Yes. (Unless you're resident here). The clue is the "I am a British citizen or UK resident" checkbox. ;)

sandworm101 11y ago

Just One. The US has the greatest control over apple. From the US is it shared with the five eyes. GCHQ's oldboys network then passes it on to basically any European who asks, while one of the thousands entry-level "analysts" at the many US intel agencies passes it on to the Chinese. Then the next snowden leaks it to the guardian and every other paper still alive, half of which are under surveillance by various police groups. So within a week the only people who cannot read this text are 50% of us who aren't government employees. One keyring to rule them all.

sft 11y ago

As if they could, even if they wanted to.

walshemj 11y ago

Nice but pious, It would be more useful to find an MP who was lucky in the ballot for private members bills - and try and get a law passed.

ccvannorman 11y ago

banning encryption today because "criminals use computers" is equivalent to banning locks 100 years ago because "criminals use doors"

totony 11y ago

Interesting idea. I could go to the UK and hijack all of their end-to-end communication easily? Sounds like a fair deal to me. EDIT: In fact, I wouldn't even need to go there