5 ms·

Then it seems that MPs might need to start deploying and using crypto in their everyday work - in a similar way to some mainstream journalists [1][2]. Which is

Then it seems that MPs might need to start deploying and using crypto in their everyday work - in a similar way to some mainstream journalists [1][2]. Which is a real shame and a serious distraction. Also, the Prime Minister and most members of the cabinet are MPs. I wonder if this disclosure affects them too? [1] http://www.tcij.org/resources/handbooks/infosec http://www.tcij.org/resources/handbooks/infosec [2] http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/hacks_hackers_security_for_jou.php http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/hacks_hackers_security_fo...

SturgeonsLaw 11y ago
Some politicians already are: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/consumer-security/minister-for-encryption-metadata-avoidance-app-wickr-shoots-to-top-of-charts-after-malcolm-turnbull-revealed-as-a-fan-20150303-13tgxy.html http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/consumer-security/ministe...
Fuxy 11y ago
I find it kind of funny since most MP's have been in favor of the spying on regular citizens under the assumption that they are immune. Now that they are in the same basket as everyone else I wonder if they will change their tune. It's always funny when someone who thinks they are a above the law they are creating end up subject to it.
7952 11y ago
Actually I think that MPs should be using encryption and if they adopted it as a result of this situation then that would be one positive outcome. Otherwise we quickly get to a point when the only possibility of privacy is if the communication is classified as secret by the government.
onion2k 11y ago
Then it seems that MPs might need to start deploying and using crypto in their everyday work All MPs official business should be a matter of open, transparent public record. Nothing they do as part of their every day work should be encrypted or private. The singular exception should be matters of national security, and even then their communications should be recorded in a secure manner with full accountability under the law if there's any suspicion of wrongdoing (e.g. lying to parliament about another countries WMDs). Public office should be public.
- rmc 11y ago
  Imagine you are a whistleblower and want to leak data to the public. UK Libel and defamation law doesn't apply to things MPs say in the House, and MPs can much easier get press attention than some random blogger. Hence it makes sense to work with a sympatheic MP to get the information into the public sphere. In this sense, the MP is acting more like a journalist with a source. The source should be protected.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
  Why the convention is that constituents have the same privacy they would with their lawyer / doctor. Would you raise issues with your representative if the tabloid press could harvest it and selectively quote you to monster you.
  - onion2k 11y ago
    You're suggesting that MPs should be able to conduct business in secret in case the tabloid press lie about someone. Have you ever heard the phrase '2 wrongs don't make a right'?
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      No she's stating that there is a long-standing convention that constituents are able to contact their MP in confidence and that this communication should be kept private to protect the constituent rather than the MP.
    - rwmj 11y ago
      There's a big difference between the power of a newspaper and the power of a constituent.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      No, he's suggesting that MPs should be able to conduct business in secret because portions of the public have concerns that they have good reason to raise with an MP yet where even the mere knowledge of the basics of the conversation might negatively affect their lives. E.g. lets say a drug addict who has successfully managed hid their addiction wants to offer their perspective of new drug legislation to their MP. Or a paedophile who wants to gather support for promising treatment option. Or someone with family or community ties to extremists of some shade or the other wants to propose ways of reducing their influence. There are a multitude of situations where there might be bad fallout from public knowledge about what a persons raises with their MP even if what they raised is positive for the wider community. Yes, secrecy also allows for negative effects, but it's not nearly as simple as just writing off the benefits of being able to guarantee privacy.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Then it seems that MPs might need to start deploying and using crypto in their everyday work They should probably do that, especially for anything sensitive, whether or not GCHQ monitoring them is legal, both because the GCHQ might do illegal things and because the GCHQ might not be the only entity surveilling them. OTOH, given Parliamentary sovereignty, its fairly trivial for Parliament to deal with the problem that GCHQ monitoring of their communications is currently legal, and this doesn't seem to be something where just the opposition is unhappy (while the government has been positive on the ruling so far, at least some Conservative MPs have been quoted as concerned about the ruling in some of the published reports.)
gcb0 11y ago
hell no. I'm actually fine with that. in fact, public officials should probably use open communication. it's the save rule that allows my employer to read my work email as they wish.

SturgeonsLaw 11y ago

Some politicians already are: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/consumer-security/minister-for-encryption-metadata-avoidance-app-wickr-shoots-to-top-of-charts-after-malcolm-turnbull-revealed-as-a-fan-20150303-13tgxy.html http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/consumer-security/ministe...

Fuxy 11y ago

I find it kind of funny since most MP's have been in favor of the spying on regular citizens under the assumption that they are immune. Now that they are in the same basket as everyone else I wonder if they will change their tune. It's always funny when someone who thinks they are a above the law they are creating end up subject to it.

7952 11y ago

Actually I think that MPs should be using encryption and if they adopted it as a result of this situation then that would be one positive outcome. Otherwise we quickly get to a point when the only possibility of privacy is if the communication is classified as secret by the government.

onion2k 11y ago

Then it seems that MPs might need to start deploying and using crypto in their everyday work All MPs official business should be a matter of open, transparent public record. Nothing they do as part of their every day work should be encrypted or private. The singular exception should be matters of national security, and even then their communications should be recorded in a secure manner with full accountability under the law if there's any suspicion of wrongdoing (e.g. lying to parliament about another countries WMDs). Public office should be public.

rmc 11y ago
Imagine you are a whistleblower and want to leak data to the public. UK Libel and defamation law doesn't apply to things MPs say in the House, and MPs can much easier get press attention than some random blogger. Hence it makes sense to work with a sympatheic MP to get the information into the public sphere. In this sense, the MP is acting more like a journalist with a source. The source should be protected.
spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
Why the convention is that constituents have the same privacy they would with their lawyer / doctor. Would you raise issues with your representative if the tabloid press could harvest it and selectively quote you to monster you.
- onion2k 11y ago
  You're suggesting that MPs should be able to conduct business in secret in case the tabloid press lie about someone. Have you ever heard the phrase '2 wrongs don't make a right'?
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    No she's stating that there is a long-standing convention that constituents are able to contact their MP in confidence and that this communication should be kept private to protect the constituent rather than the MP.
  - rwmj 11y ago
    There's a big difference between the power of a newspaper and the power of a constituent.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    No, he's suggesting that MPs should be able to conduct business in secret because portions of the public have concerns that they have good reason to raise with an MP yet where even the mere knowledge of the basics of the conversation might negatively affect their lives. E.g. lets say a drug addict who has successfully managed hid their addiction wants to offer their perspective of new drug legislation to their MP. Or a paedophile who wants to gather support for promising treatment option. Or someone with family or community ties to extremists of some shade or the other wants to propose ways of reducing their influence. There are a multitude of situations where there might be bad fallout from public knowledge about what a persons raises with their MP even if what they raised is positive for the wider community. Yes, secrecy also allows for negative effects, but it's not nearly as simple as just writing off the benefits of being able to guarantee privacy.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Then it seems that MPs might need to start deploying and using crypto in their everyday work They should probably do that, especially for anything sensitive, whether or not GCHQ monitoring them is legal, both because the GCHQ might do illegal things and because the GCHQ might not be the only entity surveilling them. OTOH, given Parliamentary sovereignty, its fairly trivial for Parliament to deal with the problem that GCHQ monitoring of their communications is currently legal, and this doesn't seem to be something where just the opposition is unhappy (while the government has been positive on the ruling so far, at least some Conservative MPs have been quoted as concerned about the ruling in some of the published reports.)

gcb0 11y ago

hell no. I'm actually fine with that. in fact, public officials should probably use open communication. it's the save rule that allows my employer to read my work email as they wish.