10 ms·

Decrypting Amber Rudd

159 points by tolien 9y ago

DanLM 9y ago
Unfortunately, since there are more people who don't have a grasp on the ramifications of what she's proposing that those that do, there'll be more people that buy into this dangerous spin, than those that don't. She'll pull it off, just like the Snooper's Charter.
- JBReefer 9y ago
  I honestly don't think so, the UK isn't important enough globally for WhatsApp to risk losing everything - look at what happened with them in Brazil, which is a larger WhatsApp market by a good bit. A lot of this stuff feels like a vindication of how Indians make fun of Brits: foot stamping, bureaucratic, and out of touch with a world that has largely passed them by.
  - rapsey 9y ago
    > I honestly don't think so, the UK isn't important enough globally for WhatsApp to risk losing everything You are assuming there is no collusion between states. A big assumption in my opinion considering the UK is a part of the Five Eyes.
  - tolien 9y ago
    I guess the concern is that other Western countries will get in on the act — TFA refers to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron saying similar things so, given their level of influence within the bloc, it wouldn’t be hard to see a standard becoming EU-wide; we’ve already seen the FBI talk about compromising encryption (e.g. the San Bernardino iPhone).
  - DanLM 9y ago
    That's a great point, actually. I suppose, rather ignorantly, I was talking with regard to the public as opposed to the corporations. Most Brits, at least, don't grasp the true implications of this sort of shit, and will buy into the spin about 'increased' security and terrorism prevention.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mmjaa 9y ago
    >the UK isn't important enough globally for WhatsApp to risk losing everything But, it can be argued: this is WHY this is such a hot issue in UK politics at the moment. Total surveillance paired with The City's financial machinations = Britain can project its power again.
  - rapsey 9y ago
    > A lot of this stuff feels like a vindication of how Indians make fun of Brits: foot stamping, bureaucratic, and out of touch with a world that has largely passed them by. If there ever was bigger case of people in glass houses should not throw stones, I've yet to see it.
john12121 9y ago
I find it hard to decipher if her intentions are malicious or if she is just incredibly stupid and unwilling to learn.
james1071 9y ago
So, is she threatening or bribing the tech companies? Otherwise, I can't see why they would take any notice.
- nicktelford 9y ago
  My guess is threatening, since they'd be in violation of UK law. Each of those companies have a significant presence in the UK, which I doubt they'd want to abandon over this.
- richmarr 9y ago
  My guess is that she's arse-covering. She wants to be seen 'doing something' and so that if there's an incident she can then point and say "I told them but they didn't listen"
- bengillies 9y ago
  It's hard to know what's actually going on behind closed doors, but it sounds like the tech companies want to do something about it and are quite prepared to work with the government on a solution. Of course, what that solution turns out to be is a separate issue. I trust Google et al to know what they're talking about wrt encryption far more than the UK government though, so actively working with tech companies is a huge step up from the previous position (though obviously a long way still to go).
sspiff 9y ago
> Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube (Google/Alphabet, Inc) have formed the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism and Amber Rudd is asking them to quietly drop end-to-end encryption from their products. You should not believe a single word any of those companies tells you about end-to-end encryption or privacy on their platforms ever again. and > she reveals that she has created the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism with Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube (Google/Alphabet, Inc.) and asked them to remove end-to-end encryption from their products (remember that Facebook makes WhatsApp) without telling anyone. This wording implies that these big tech companies would silently, without anyone noticing, drop or compromise their E2E encryption. Is this something they could do? I'd expect such a change to be noticeable in both the clients they distribute and the network traffic they generate by people in the infosec industry. Can anyone with a deeper understanding of the matter chime in?
- lmm 9y ago
  > This wording implies that these big tech companies would silently, without anyone noticing, drop or compromise their E2E encryption. Is this something they could do? I'd expect such a change to be noticeable in both the clients they distribute and the network traffic they generate by people in the infosec industry. The apps are closed-source, and cryptographic libraries already generate keystreams that look like random data. All they'd have to do is replace the random nonces etc. with data generated deterministically from their own key and some suitable factors (device ID, time), similar to how stateless password managers work; that would be virtually undetectable.
- JohnStrange 9y ago
  Yes, they could do that, and in order to detect it security professionals would need access to their servers and/or reverse engineer their binary software distributions where this is applicable. Whether they do it, I don't know, but I'd like to point out that Google used RC4 for SSL for a suspiciously long time after it was considered broken (all in the name of compatibility, of course). A change in public policy only occurred after the Snowden revelations. However, to make this clear, this is all speculation, they could do it but whether they do it I can't tell and no one else can without insider knowledge.
bengillies 9y ago
While I agree that what the UK government is trying to do is dangerous, wrong and ultimately won't help all that much anyway, this article is so full of hyperbole, bluster and FUD that, even though I know and understand most of the issues, it's honestly hard to take much of it seriously. I expect exaggeration from Rudd and I expect her to misunderstand how certain things (i.e. encryption and the internet) really work because a) she's a politician b) she's not an encryption expert (that's what advisors are for). I don't really expect the same thing from people should be trying to counter her arguments with facts, explanation and alternative ideas though.
- blub 9y ago
  Well, I can't say that there's anything obviously wrong with the article. You should be fearful, uncertain and full of doubt about privacy and democracy if you live in the UK. And those companies really are farming people's data and doing whatever the heck they want with it. And removing the people's access to private communication in the digital age is both stupid and evil. There's no bluster and hyperbole, just the sad reality.
  - CJefferson 9y ago
    Obviously wrong with the article: " You should not believe a single word any of those companies tells you about end-to-end encryption or privacy on their platforms ever again. " Well, that's going to make it hard to have any discussion about privacy on the internet. "If you’re still not convinced and feel that the UK government should have the right to spy on everyone, you can stop worrying. Because they already do." Well in that case, what are we talking about? The main reason there is nothing obviously wrong is because it doesn't really say anything, just keeps repeating "Amber says X, other online news source says not X. Amber is evil".
  - bengillies 9y ago
    From the article: > Given the gravity of what’s at stake – which is nothing less than the integrity of personhood in the digital age and the future of democracy in Europe So banning encryption in online chat programs (she obviously can't and won't be banning _all_ forms of encryption) is the same as destroying democracy and will effectively stop people from existing as people on the internet? > Translation: We want to ban encryption and if we do we will be better equipped to catch terrorists. in response to a direct quote saying "we don't want to ban encryption" is a bold and unsubstantiated opinion at best. > Does it matter that you’re more at risk dying from falling out of bed than you are from terrorism All analogies are bad, but this one is especially so. Nobody worries about dying falling out of bed. And if it really did happen, then it would be "merely" a tragic accident. Should the government only act to prevent types of murder if it happens more than people falling out of bed? A lot of people die of heart disease every year. Does that mean the government shouldn't do anything to try and prevent traffic accidents? > Translation: We want to scapegoat the Internet as the root of the problem with terrorism. This again is clearly not what's being said. They're aiming their guns at the internet, but nowhere is it implied that the root cause of terrorism is internet encryption. > It is not the role of multinational corporations to police the world’s citizenry. This is true, but those corporations cannot also place themselves above the law so they do have at least some duty, moral or otherwise to do something if the government wants them to (setting aside the specifics of the laws involved). > Rudd pivots from the government’s successful battle against the spread of public propaganda by terrorist organisations to their belief that they need to eavesdrop on the private communications of every citizen in order to keep us safe. I assume I missed something somewhere because afaict Rudd wants to be able to listen in on and extract evidence from private communications of suspects, much like they already do with telephone systems. I can't see anywhere she claims to want to actively listen to the entire population (though I fully get that it may end up that way on the basis that they've up to this point proven that they don't understand the technology well enough). > You should take note of the companies that are part of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism and never trust another word they say to you about the encryption and privacy features of their products. Feel free to stop using everything that most tech companies produce but if if this is intended to be actual advice I don't think it's realistic. > What it will do is make all of less safe and lead to chilling effects that will destroy what little democracy we have left. It will result in a surveillance state and a global panopticon the likes of which humanity has never seen. Having just gone through a general election that resulted in a rare minority government and, potentially as a result, a fundamental change to brexit ambitions, I don't buy this at all. We have just as much democracy as we had before. It's a very very long way from where we are now to the UK government locking up leaders of the opposition for example.
saimiam 9y ago
I fucking hate everything about the way the world is trending. We need a proper grassroots revolution which throws these idiot ministers in prison for crimes against humanity.
- satori99 9y ago
  As depressing as it may be, I don't really see a way out. The genie is out of the bottle now and any successful revolutionaries will also have an overwhelming urge to use this technology to cement their power. Benevolent AIs may be an outside possibility. Otherwise, short of nuking ourselves back to the stone age, I think total surveillance societies are here to stay.
  - saimiam 9y ago
    The revolution could be to get off the internet or to use it only for cat videos, go back to using cash, reconnect with local friends only etc etc
    - satori99 9y ago
      I don't see any trends in that direction right now. The institutions of both western democracies and most other societies have proven themselves wholly ineffectual at curbing any of the vast overreach by both intelligence agencies and police. So it will just happen again. (Meet the new boss, same as the old... Animal farm etc) without all of them being dismantled too. And revolutions of that scale rarely work out well for anyone in the short term.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      CCTV coverage is already high in London, and increasing everywhere. Recognition software (not just facial) is getting quite good. Cash can mostly be tracked unless you just trade with black/grey market sellers. Adding RFID to notes and mandating readers on cash registers would already be feasible. Home devices (TVs, DVRs, even fridges[1]) increasingly have microphones and other sensors, so it'll be hard to be sure you're not being recorded even when talking to friends in their living room. [1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a24616/samsung-family-hub-2-voice-controlled-fridge/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a24616/sa...
andy_ppp 9y ago
Does anyone ever wonder which school these people go to to be trained in such a duplicitous way of thinking or do they really believe they are protecting everyone from the terrorists? As the article clearly demonstrates, Amber Rudd conflates the need to monitor and remove public information with the need to monitor everyone's private information. This sort of "tough love" probably plays well politically with most of the population, who can't really think of a reason they'd like their privacy protected. I really can't get my head around why all politicians (across the world right now really) converge on the same draconian policies.
- thecopy 9y ago
  They don't care about catching terrorists. They care about power.
- majortennis 9y ago
  Eaton?
  - OJFord 9y ago
    > Eaton? [sic] Assuming you mean 'Eton', I don't know if you were even trying to contribute something helpful or meaningful, but Amber Rudd certainly didn't attend a boys' public school.
- garaetjjte 9y ago
  chapter 5 might be interesting: (whole book is interesting, but it is mainly focused on followers, not leaders) http://theauthoritarians.org/Downloads/TheAuthoritarians.pdf http://theauthoritarians.org/Downloads/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
  - andy_ppp 9y ago
    Really interesting read, thanks!
throwawaymanbot 9y ago
Its yet another Home Secretary being (to put it very very politely) extremely disingenuous with the UK public. It would be laughable if it wasnt so sad.
azurelogic 9y ago
I'm by no means going to support government attempts to ban encryption, but assuming 100% virtuous purposes (e.g.: counter-terrorism efforts), I can understand why they think this will work. I mean, they think that passing laws on guns and drugs will stop those things. The fundamental problem is that the government and the public do not understand that powerful encryption will exist forever now. The cat is out of the bag, and the bag has disintegrated. You can't ban the ideas, and you can't stop them from being implemented in the shadows. Even worse for them, there's nothing physical to find. You can't train a dog to sniff out encrypted data. Banning it now only hurts honest uses, like protecting financial transactions and medical records.
- jahnu 9y ago
  > passing laws on guns and drugs will stop those things. Problematic comparison. Politics aside, gun laws can definitely achieve publicly desired outcomes. E.g. handgun ban in Australia. Drug laws mean your paracetamol won't poison you. Encryption laws where you want to have your cake and eat it are a very different matter.
  - azurelogic 9y ago
    Gun regulations and drug bans do not stop the worst of the worst from getting their hands on those things. They will literally manufacture their own guns and drugs if they have to (see marijuana grow ops and this Vice article on cartel gun makers https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/78xa99/the-cartel-gunsmiths https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/78xa99/the-cartel...). Banning encryption will not stop the underbelly of society from using it either. They'll just hire some black hats to build it for them.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- QAPereo 9y ago
  History would seem to suggest that it will be trivial for people with bad intentions to sway public opinion against encryption as they did in the past against things like cannabis, or the many books which have been banned. All it will take his associating encryption strongly with the despised group and that will be that for decades. I want to believe otherwise but it's happened with issues much simpler and much easier to understand than encrypted data.
rajadigopula 9y ago
Decryption of common people's ideas/thoughts is only the first step of moderating them by the govt. in future! Terrorism is an easy & irrefutable excuse.
iamthepieman 9y ago
How do I "stock up" on strong encryption in anticipation of it being banned eventually? Should I buy routers and hardware with strong hardware level encryption in them? Should I acquire and backup the software (vpn, public key toolchains etc)?
vixen99 9y ago
"You’re more at risk dying from falling out of bed than you are from terrorism?". I have no argument with the rest of the piece but this (true) statistic is an irrelevance given that there are terrorists who had they possession of nuclear options (literal or otherwise) would not hesitate to use them (planned with or without electronic communication). In this context, assessing risks like this is fatuous given the absence of required information. That doesn't mean that an insurance company might not perform the calculation for an individual but they have different goals from government.
- tolien 9y ago
  While it's a relevant point, the risk (in a probability * cost sense, to address your point about terrorists using a nuclear/radiological weapon were one available) of terrorism has to be addressed somehow or you're cherry picking one from a number of extremely rare but potentially catastrophic events to worry about. We're not spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on a War on Giant Asteroids, for example.
  - nobodyorother 9y ago
    The War on Giant Asteroids is unwinnable. That's why we should instead fund the War on Giant Asteroids Piloted by Dinosaurs. We kicked their asses 6,000 years ago, we can do it again!
throwawaymanbot 9y ago
I agree with the articles author. Things conveniently "slip through the net" always, even when the perpetrator was "known to the authorities" and they think the answer to this is not fixing whats wrong with the Brit Security Services but increasing surveillance on EVERYBODY? Something stinks, it does not make proportionate sense. As an example, Drunk Drivers kill more people per year than terrorism, But no one in the UK talks about surveilling everyone to prevent drink driving.

159 points by tolien 9y ago

Unfortunately, since there are more people who don't have a grasp on the ramifications of what she's proposing that those that do, there'll be more people that buy into this dangerous spin, than those that don't. She'll pull it off, just like the Snooper's Charter.

JBReefer 9y ago
I honestly don't think so, the UK isn't important enough globally for WhatsApp to risk losing everything - look at what happened with them in Brazil, which is a larger WhatsApp market by a good bit. A lot of this stuff feels like a vindication of how Indians make fun of Brits: foot stamping, bureaucratic, and out of touch with a world that has largely passed them by.
- rapsey 9y ago
  > I honestly don't think so, the UK isn't important enough globally for WhatsApp to risk losing everything You are assuming there is no collusion between states. A big assumption in my opinion considering the UK is a part of the Five Eyes.
- tolien 9y ago
  I guess the concern is that other Western countries will get in on the act — TFA refers to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron saying similar things so, given their level of influence within the bloc, it wouldn’t be hard to see a standard becoming EU-wide; we’ve already seen the FBI talk about compromising encryption (e.g. the San Bernardino iPhone).
- DanLM 9y ago
  That's a great point, actually. I suppose, rather ignorantly, I was talking with regard to the public as opposed to the corporations. Most Brits, at least, don't grasp the true implications of this sort of shit, and will buy into the spin about 'increased' security and terrorism prevention.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mmjaa 9y ago
  >the UK isn't important enough globally for WhatsApp to risk losing everything But, it can be argued: this is WHY this is such a hot issue in UK politics at the moment. Total surveillance paired with The City's financial machinations = Britain can project its power again.
- rapsey 9y ago
  > A lot of this stuff feels like a vindication of how Indians make fun of Brits: foot stamping, bureaucratic, and out of touch with a world that has largely passed them by. If there ever was bigger case of people in glass houses should not throw stones, I've yet to see it.

john12121 9y ago

I find it hard to decipher if her intentions are malicious or if she is just incredibly stupid and unwilling to learn.

james1071 9y ago

So, is she threatening or bribing the tech companies? Otherwise, I can't see why they would take any notice.

nicktelford 9y ago
My guess is threatening, since they'd be in violation of UK law. Each of those companies have a significant presence in the UK, which I doubt they'd want to abandon over this.
richmarr 9y ago
My guess is that she's arse-covering. She wants to be seen 'doing something' and so that if there's an incident she can then point and say "I told them but they didn't listen"
bengillies 9y ago
It's hard to know what's actually going on behind closed doors, but it sounds like the tech companies want to do something about it and are quite prepared to work with the government on a solution. Of course, what that solution turns out to be is a separate issue. I trust Google et al to know what they're talking about wrt encryption far more than the UK government though, so actively working with tech companies is a huge step up from the previous position (though obviously a long way still to go).

sspiff 9y ago

> Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube (Google/Alphabet, Inc) have formed the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism and Amber Rudd is asking them to quietly drop end-to-end encryption from their products. You should not believe a single word any of those companies tells you about end-to-end encryption or privacy on their platforms ever again. and > she reveals that she has created the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism with Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube (Google/Alphabet, Inc.) and asked them to remove end-to-end encryption from their products (remember that Facebook makes WhatsApp) without telling anyone. This wording implies that these big tech companies would silently, without anyone noticing, drop or compromise their E2E encryption. Is this something they could do? I'd expect such a change to be noticeable in both the clients they distribute and the network traffic they generate by people in the infosec industry. Can anyone with a deeper understanding of the matter chime in?

lmm 9y ago
> This wording implies that these big tech companies would silently, without anyone noticing, drop or compromise their E2E encryption. Is this something they could do? I'd expect such a change to be noticeable in both the clients they distribute and the network traffic they generate by people in the infosec industry. The apps are closed-source, and cryptographic libraries already generate keystreams that look like random data. All they'd have to do is replace the random nonces etc. with data generated deterministically from their own key and some suitable factors (device ID, time), similar to how stateless password managers work; that would be virtually undetectable.
JohnStrange 9y ago
Yes, they could do that, and in order to detect it security professionals would need access to their servers and/or reverse engineer their binary software distributions where this is applicable. Whether they do it, I don't know, but I'd like to point out that Google used RC4 for SSL for a suspiciously long time after it was considered broken (all in the name of compatibility, of course). A change in public policy only occurred after the Snowden revelations. However, to make this clear, this is all speculation, they could do it but whether they do it I can't tell and no one else can without insider knowledge.

bengillies 9y ago

While I agree that what the UK government is trying to do is dangerous, wrong and ultimately won't help all that much anyway, this article is so full of hyperbole, bluster and FUD that, even though I know and understand most of the issues, it's honestly hard to take much of it seriously. I expect exaggeration from Rudd and I expect her to misunderstand how certain things (i.e. encryption and the internet) really work because a) she's a politician b) she's not an encryption expert (that's what advisors are for). I don't really expect the same thing from people should be trying to counter her arguments with facts, explanation and alternative ideas though.

blub 9y ago
Well, I can't say that there's anything obviously wrong with the article. You should be fearful, uncertain and full of doubt about privacy and democracy if you live in the UK. And those companies really are farming people's data and doing whatever the heck they want with it. And removing the people's access to private communication in the digital age is both stupid and evil. There's no bluster and hyperbole, just the sad reality.
- CJefferson 9y ago
  Obviously wrong with the article: " You should not believe a single word any of those companies tells you about end-to-end encryption or privacy on their platforms ever again. " Well, that's going to make it hard to have any discussion about privacy on the internet. "If you’re still not convinced and feel that the UK government should have the right to spy on everyone, you can stop worrying. Because they already do." Well in that case, what are we talking about? The main reason there is nothing obviously wrong is because it doesn't really say anything, just keeps repeating "Amber says X, other online news source says not X. Amber is evil".
- bengillies 9y ago
  From the article: > Given the gravity of what’s at stake – which is nothing less than the integrity of personhood in the digital age and the future of democracy in Europe So banning encryption in online chat programs (she obviously can't and won't be banning _all_ forms of encryption) is the same as destroying democracy and will effectively stop people from existing as people on the internet? > Translation: We want to ban encryption and if we do we will be better equipped to catch terrorists. in response to a direct quote saying "we don't want to ban encryption" is a bold and unsubstantiated opinion at best. > Does it matter that you’re more at risk dying from falling out of bed than you are from terrorism All analogies are bad, but this one is especially so. Nobody worries about dying falling out of bed. And if it really did happen, then it would be "merely" a tragic accident. Should the government only act to prevent types of murder if it happens more than people falling out of bed? A lot of people die of heart disease every year. Does that mean the government shouldn't do anything to try and prevent traffic accidents? > Translation: We want to scapegoat the Internet as the root of the problem with terrorism. This again is clearly not what's being said. They're aiming their guns at the internet, but nowhere is it implied that the root cause of terrorism is internet encryption. > It is not the role of multinational corporations to police the world’s citizenry. This is true, but those corporations cannot also place themselves above the law so they do have at least some duty, moral or otherwise to do something if the government wants them to (setting aside the specifics of the laws involved). > Rudd pivots from the government’s successful battle against the spread of public propaganda by terrorist organisations to their belief that they need to eavesdrop on the private communications of every citizen in order to keep us safe. I assume I missed something somewhere because afaict Rudd wants to be able to listen in on and extract evidence from private communications of suspects, much like they already do with telephone systems. I can't see anywhere she claims to want to actively listen to the entire population (though I fully get that it may end up that way on the basis that they've up to this point proven that they don't understand the technology well enough). > You should take note of the companies that are part of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism and never trust another word they say to you about the encryption and privacy features of their products. Feel free to stop using everything that most tech companies produce but if if this is intended to be actual advice I don't think it's realistic. > What it will do is make all of less safe and lead to chilling effects that will destroy what little democracy we have left. It will result in a surveillance state and a global panopticon the likes of which humanity has never seen. Having just gone through a general election that resulted in a rare minority government and, potentially as a result, a fundamental change to brexit ambitions, I don't buy this at all. We have just as much democracy as we had before. It's a very very long way from where we are now to the UK government locking up leaders of the opposition for example.

saimiam 9y ago

I fucking hate everything about the way the world is trending. We need a proper grassroots revolution which throws these idiot ministers in prison for crimes against humanity.

satori99 9y ago
As depressing as it may be, I don't really see a way out. The genie is out of the bottle now and any successful revolutionaries will also have an overwhelming urge to use this technology to cement their power. Benevolent AIs may be an outside possibility. Otherwise, short of nuking ourselves back to the stone age, I think total surveillance societies are here to stay.
- saimiam 9y ago
  The revolution could be to get off the internet or to use it only for cat videos, go back to using cash, reconnect with local friends only etc etc
  - satori99 9y ago
    I don't see any trends in that direction right now. The institutions of both western democracies and most other societies have proven themselves wholly ineffectual at curbing any of the vast overreach by both intelligence agencies and police. So it will just happen again. (Meet the new boss, same as the old... Animal farm etc) without all of them being dismantled too. And revolutions of that scale rarely work out well for anyone in the short term.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    CCTV coverage is already high in London, and increasing everywhere. Recognition software (not just facial) is getting quite good. Cash can mostly be tracked unless you just trade with black/grey market sellers. Adding RFID to notes and mandating readers on cash registers would already be feasible. Home devices (TVs, DVRs, even fridges[1]) increasingly have microphones and other sensors, so it'll be hard to be sure you're not being recorded even when talking to friends in their living room. [1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a24616/samsung-family-hub-2-voice-controlled-fridge/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a24616/sa...

andy_ppp 9y ago

Does anyone ever wonder which school these people go to to be trained in such a duplicitous way of thinking or do they really believe they are protecting everyone from the terrorists? As the article clearly demonstrates, Amber Rudd conflates the need to monitor and remove public information with the need to monitor everyone's private information. This sort of "tough love" probably plays well politically with most of the population, who can't really think of a reason they'd like their privacy protected. I really can't get my head around why all politicians (across the world right now really) converge on the same draconian policies.

thecopy 9y ago
They don't care about catching terrorists. They care about power.
majortennis 9y ago
Eaton?
- OJFord 9y ago
  > Eaton? [sic] Assuming you mean 'Eton', I don't know if you were even trying to contribute something helpful or meaningful, but Amber Rudd certainly didn't attend a boys' public school.
garaetjjte 9y ago
chapter 5 might be interesting: (whole book is interesting, but it is mainly focused on followers, not leaders) http://theauthoritarians.org/Downloads/TheAuthoritarians.pdf http://theauthoritarians.org/Downloads/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
- andy_ppp 9y ago
  Really interesting read, thanks!

throwawaymanbot 9y ago

Its yet another Home Secretary being (to put it very very politely) extremely disingenuous with the UK public. It would be laughable if it wasnt so sad.

azurelogic 9y ago

I'm by no means going to support government attempts to ban encryption, but assuming 100% virtuous purposes (e.g.: counter-terrorism efforts), I can understand why they think this will work. I mean, they think that passing laws on guns and drugs will stop those things. The fundamental problem is that the government and the public do not understand that powerful encryption will exist forever now. The cat is out of the bag, and the bag has disintegrated. You can't ban the ideas, and you can't stop them from being implemented in the shadows. Even worse for them, there's nothing physical to find. You can't train a dog to sniff out encrypted data. Banning it now only hurts honest uses, like protecting financial transactions and medical records.

jahnu 9y ago
> passing laws on guns and drugs will stop those things. Problematic comparison. Politics aside, gun laws can definitely achieve publicly desired outcomes. E.g. handgun ban in Australia. Drug laws mean your paracetamol won't poison you. Encryption laws where you want to have your cake and eat it are a very different matter.
- azurelogic 9y ago
  Gun regulations and drug bans do not stop the worst of the worst from getting their hands on those things. They will literally manufacture their own guns and drugs if they have to (see marijuana grow ops and this Vice article on cartel gun makers https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/78xa99/the-cartel-gunsmiths https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/78xa99/the-cartel...). Banning encryption will not stop the underbelly of society from using it either. They'll just hire some black hats to build it for them.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
QAPereo 9y ago
History would seem to suggest that it will be trivial for people with bad intentions to sway public opinion against encryption as they did in the past against things like cannabis, or the many books which have been banned. All it will take his associating encryption strongly with the despised group and that will be that for decades. I want to believe otherwise but it's happened with issues much simpler and much easier to understand than encrypted data.

rajadigopula 9y ago

Decryption of common people's ideas/thoughts is only the first step of moderating them by the govt. in future! Terrorism is an easy & irrefutable excuse.

iamthepieman 9y ago

How do I "stock up" on strong encryption in anticipation of it being banned eventually? Should I buy routers and hardware with strong hardware level encryption in them? Should I acquire and backup the software (vpn, public key toolchains etc)?

vixen99 9y ago

"You’re more at risk dying from falling out of bed than you are from terrorism?". I have no argument with the rest of the piece but this (true) statistic is an irrelevance given that there are terrorists who had they possession of nuclear options (literal or otherwise) would not hesitate to use them (planned with or without electronic communication). In this context, assessing risks like this is fatuous given the absence of required information. That doesn't mean that an insurance company might not perform the calculation for an individual but they have different goals from government.

tolien 9y ago
While it's a relevant point, the risk (in a probability * cost sense, to address your point about terrorists using a nuclear/radiological weapon were one available) of terrorism has to be addressed somehow or you're cherry picking one from a number of extremely rare but potentially catastrophic events to worry about. We're not spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on a War on Giant Asteroids, for example.
- nobodyorother 9y ago
  The War on Giant Asteroids is unwinnable. That's why we should instead fund the War on Giant Asteroids Piloted by Dinosaurs. We kicked their asses 6,000 years ago, we can do it again!

throwawaymanbot 9y ago

I agree with the articles author. Things conveniently "slip through the net" always, even when the perpetrator was "known to the authorities" and they think the answer to this is not fixing whats wrong with the Brit Security Services but increasing surveillance on EVERYBODY? Something stinks, it does not make proportionate sense. As an example, Drunk Drivers kill more people per year than terrorism, But no one in the UK talks about surveilling everyone to prevent drink driving.