4 ms·

If encrypted communications are illegal, then anyone using them is an automatic target for investigation and the encryption itself may be probable cause to open

If encrypted communications are illegal, then anyone using them is an automatic target for investigation and the encryption itself may be probable cause to open up their lives and property. It's considerably more difficult to conceal the fact of encryption on the wire than (say) a gun in your home.

tomjen3 10y ago
Ciphertext is supposed to be impossible to distinquis from random noise, so how are they going to prove I am not just sending random noise, with a PGP header? As for asking why I would do such a thing? I think the law is wrong and want to make the court waste their time.
- bitwize 10y ago
  No one would actually send random noise as a message, so the law would assume that comnunications which look like random noise are, prima facie, encrypted comms and something the police have a right to see in cleartext.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    The folks at https://www.random.org/ https://www.random.org/ and similar true-randomness providers would beg to differ. They do, in fact, have a paid service to deliver what appears to be random noise as a message, then store that noise in their archive for subsequent re-verification. I recall seeing videos of lava lamps and handfuls of d6 dice on a vibrating table, broadcast live over the internet, purely for their utility as potential sources for truly random numbers. I can easily see a case for sending randomness in a client-server game with protections against cheating and bandwidth restrictions. The randomness server sends the same chunk of noise to game client and game server, and the game client sends user commands to the game server. As long as the user isn't cheating, the official server copy of the game state and the client copy remain in sync.
    - adventured 10y ago
      Given the scenario in question, that only helps you at layer one of the surveillance process and only for a very brief time. You're now a suspect to be watched intricately. At layer two, they begin digging into your life, tapping everything they can, following you, and most likely eventually getting a warrant or equivalent to enter your home and seize your property. There's no scenario under which you don't break some arbitrary law, given enough time, at which point you're done.
      - logfromblammo 10y ago
        That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the state begins persecuting a citizen based on a suspicion of exercising free speech and security in their papers and effects, it is ethically correct for that person to rebel.
        bitwize 10y ago
        And once that person rebels, according to Presidential Decision Directive XXX, the government may consider that person an unlawful enemy combatant, apprehend them without a warrant, and incarcerate them at Secure Facility [REDACTED] for interrogation and/or neutralization by means of [REDACTED]. If they are ever heard about again, it will be because the government "found" ISIS materials, CP, or other bad stuff on their computer.
infinity0 10y ago
Encryption is not illegal, but even if it were then everyone should still use it, because not using it reveals much more information. In a society were encryption is illegal or even seriously treated as "probable cause", then the authorities are likely to pick out anything in your day-to-day activities to use against you in an offensive legal process. So "not using encryption" is a fool's defense that makes literally zero rational sense - except from the perspective of a government psyops agent trying to spread FUD about encryption and discouraging its widespread adoption amongst the population.
- confounded 10y ago
  In the UK encryption is not illegal, but possession of data believed to be encrypted, which you cannot or will not decrypt upon demand, is a crime of its own, punishable by two years imprisonment (no link to terrorism required -- 5 years maximum sentence of any link is suspected). It needn't be the security services, or even the police; cases can be brought by the taxman. This has been the case for the last 10 years or so, the new law will extend these powers. https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000/Part_III https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investig...
nine_k 10y ago
This depends on the amount of communication. Steganography can attach a noise-like information stream to another, innocent stream, like a stream from a webcam constantly scanning one's backyard "for security purposes". It's a whack-a-mole problem, and the moles always have a pretty fair chance. This, of course, keeps the encryption in the hands of the technically savvy and motivated few, while the majority will have to use security with backdoors, and possibly other holes, for the convenience of the snooping by the government and online thieves alike.

tomjen3 10y ago

Ciphertext is supposed to be impossible to distinquis from random noise, so how are they going to prove I am not just sending random noise, with a PGP header? As for asking why I would do such a thing? I think the law is wrong and want to make the court waste their time.

bitwize 10y ago
No one would actually send random noise as a message, so the law would assume that comnunications which look like random noise are, prima facie, encrypted comms and something the police have a right to see in cleartext.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  The folks at https://www.random.org/ https://www.random.org/ and similar true-randomness providers would beg to differ. They do, in fact, have a paid service to deliver what appears to be random noise as a message, then store that noise in their archive for subsequent re-verification. I recall seeing videos of lava lamps and handfuls of d6 dice on a vibrating table, broadcast live over the internet, purely for their utility as potential sources for truly random numbers. I can easily see a case for sending randomness in a client-server game with protections against cheating and bandwidth restrictions. The randomness server sends the same chunk of noise to game client and game server, and the game client sends user commands to the game server. As long as the user isn't cheating, the official server copy of the game state and the client copy remain in sync.
  - adventured 10y ago
    Given the scenario in question, that only helps you at layer one of the surveillance process and only for a very brief time. You're now a suspect to be watched intricately. At layer two, they begin digging into your life, tapping everything they can, following you, and most likely eventually getting a warrant or equivalent to enter your home and seize your property. There's no scenario under which you don't break some arbitrary law, given enough time, at which point you're done.
    - logfromblammo 10y ago
      That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the state begins persecuting a citizen based on a suspicion of exercising free speech and security in their papers and effects, it is ethically correct for that person to rebel.
      - bitwize 10y ago
        And once that person rebels, according to Presidential Decision Directive XXX, the government may consider that person an unlawful enemy combatant, apprehend them without a warrant, and incarcerate them at Secure Facility [REDACTED] for interrogation and/or neutralization by means of [REDACTED]. If they are ever heard about again, it will be because the government "found" ISIS materials, CP, or other bad stuff on their computer.

infinity0 10y ago

Encryption is not illegal, but even if it were then everyone should still use it, because not using it reveals much more information. In a society were encryption is illegal or even seriously treated as "probable cause", then the authorities are likely to pick out anything in your day-to-day activities to use against you in an offensive legal process. So "not using encryption" is a fool's defense that makes literally zero rational sense - except from the perspective of a government psyops agent trying to spread FUD about encryption and discouraging its widespread adoption amongst the population.

confounded 10y ago
In the UK encryption is not illegal, but possession of data believed to be encrypted, which you cannot or will not decrypt upon demand, is a crime of its own, punishable by two years imprisonment (no link to terrorism required -- 5 years maximum sentence of any link is suspected). It needn't be the security services, or even the police; cases can be brought by the taxman. This has been the case for the last 10 years or so, the new law will extend these powers. https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000/Part_III https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investig...

nine_k 10y ago

This depends on the amount of communication. Steganography can attach a noise-like information stream to another, innocent stream, like a stream from a webcam constantly scanning one's backyard "for security purposes". It's a whack-a-mole problem, and the moles always have a pretty fair chance. This, of course, keeps the encryption in the hands of the technically savvy and motivated few, while the majority will have to use security with backdoors, and possibly other holes, for the convenience of the snooping by the government and online thieves alike.