10 ms·

UK proposal to criminalize “sophisticated encrypted communication devices”

234 points by costco 4y ago

asdadsdad 4y ago
One more from the new, independent Britain =)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
vsviridov 4y ago
Do cellphones qualify? They are very sophisticated and full of encryption...
- varenc 4y ago
  No. They state this quite clearly. > "the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them" They say they're going after bespoke devices whose "user base is assessed to be almost certainly criminal". Of course, that's very open to interpretation. Also they go on to discuss how simply providing or possessing one of these devices should be crime in itself because of the "difficulty of identifying legitimate uses for such technology". It's the classic "If you're trying to hide something you must be a criminal" approach.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    The legitimate use for such technology is I want my communications to remain private. I get that that is inconvenient for those who might wish to surveil me, but their right to not be inconvenienced is less important than my right to private speech. (I'm speaking from a US perspective here, not a UK one.)
  - squarefoot 4y ago
    > "the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them" Which then implies that commercial devices can be eavesdropped at will by the government.
- Muromec 4y ago
  sophisticated as in "we tried to decipher or wiretap it and failed at both"
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    This presumably would criminalize E2E encryption apps like iMessage, FB, Whatsapp, Signal etc. All of these are popular enough on their own that I don't see how you can reasonably go this approach. We'll find out quickly though about which clients have backdoors based on the exception list.
    - jazzyjackson 4y ago
      do any of those services anonymize the social graph? law enforcement cares less about what people are saying, more about who is talking to who
      - vlovich123 4y ago
        Signal certainly does. That’s what they’re famous for.
- asow92 4y ago
  "the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them"
  - dilippkumar 4y ago
    So, all you have to do is make these devices be “mobile phones” and “commercially available”? Is selling a device on Ali Express enough to qualify?
    - splatzone 4y ago
      Nathan Fielder would be proud. This policy will be easily avoided by any serious manufacturer of devices like these.
    - asow92 4y ago
      That is a great question.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Almost enough to undermine your faith in commercially available mobile phone encryption, hm?
  - jacooper 4y ago
    GrapheneOS? Its not really commercial is it?
- splatzone 4y ago
  “ Sophisticated encrypted communication devices have been used extensively by criminals to facilitate organised crime. We’re targeting the modified and bespoke devices that enable access to platforms, similar to Encro Chat, where the software/ hardware has been developed to anonymise its users and their communications and its user base is assessed to be almost certainly criminal. Under Option 1 where articles will be specified, we will be targeting those that supply, modify, and possess these bespoke devices; the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them.” Seems to suggest that handsets explicitly made for anonymous encryption could be banned, but not messaging apps on normal phones.
  - tobr 4y ago
    How can it possibly matter that the “user base is assessed to be almost certainly criminal”? Like, if you criminalize using such a device, I suppose the whole user base is now criminal. But if they already were and you can prove it, why do you need to criminalize the device as well?
    - costco 4y ago
      Here is an example they give: >The case relates to an alleged conspiracy to transfer cash in excess of £10m out of the UK. >A number of defendants were charged with conspiracy to remove criminal property from England and Wales contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Mr A was a relative of one of the defendants (Mr B). They both lived at the same address. When Mr B was arrested, the officers recovered an encrypted EncroChat telephone which Mr A admitted was his. Another defendant (Mr C) stated that he had been instructed to call Mr A on the EncroChat telephone once he had safely boarded the flight with the cash. >Mr A denied any knowledge or involvement in any of the criminal activities. Mr A had no legitimate income that would have allowed him to own and maintain such an expensive mobile device. >Based on available intelligence, the investigating team strongly believed that Mr A had been supplied with the EncroChat telephone by an OCG for the purpose of carrying out conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, investigators were unable to access any data from the telephone due to the device’s security features which led to the data automatically deleting after a few days. It was assessed that there was not sufficient evidence to seek to prosecute Mr A under existing offences. It doesn't really make sense to me though. Presumably the penalty if he were to unlock the phone would have been way higher than the penalty they are going to create for possessing such a device.
- maznu 4y ago
  From the linked PDF: > "This option would require the drafting of precise definitions of the specific articles, for example a definition of sophisticated encrypted communication devices which does not include all mobile phones."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
unity1001 4y ago
Much democracy...
- unity1001 4y ago
  Man... I wonder why people will stop denying/ignoring such criticism like the one in my parent comment and start calling a spade a spade. Police bill, online censorship, and now banning encryption along with all the rest that is happening in the UK. Its going towards a hellhole. Denying reality wont change the reality. It didnt change it during and after the Brexit debacle. It wont change it now. Things will only change when people stop denying reality and take matters into their own hands.
  - bbg2401 4y ago
    The proposal does not seek to simply ban encryption. > Sophisticated encrypted communication devices have been used extensively by criminals to facilitate organised crime. We’re targeting the modified and bespoke devices that enable access to platforms, similar to Encro Chat, where the software/ hardware has been developed to anonymise its users and their communications and its user base is assessed to be almost certainly criminal. Under Option 1 where articles will be specified, we will be targeting those that supply, modify, and possess these bespoke devices; the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them. The proposed offences will seek to tackle those supplying and exploiting these devices in order to carry out serious crimes and will seek to reduce the supply of these devices to serious criminals
    - loup-vaillant 4y ago
      > The proposal does not seek to simply ban encryption. They're not that dumb. They'll chip away at our rights however they can, gradually, so we hardly even notice. In the US for instance, there's no way they'll be banning guns overnight. But it's clearly the end goal: they're hoping to reduce death count by making guns disappear, and sacrifice the second amendment in the process. Right now though they're content with an "assault weapons" ban that alone won't work, but is a step towards banning guns. Next time they'll limit ammunitions. Then the places you can carry your gun to. You get the idea. Conversely, I'm pretty sure the states who are banning abortion in the name of "saving babies" are sticking their head in the sand that such legislation tends to lead to later abortions (like, you know, when the foetus is closer to being an actual human being?), pregnancy related deaths, that kind of thing. But the end goal of some of those people is probably to outlaw any form of contraception, and maybe sex before marriage while we're at it. Like the "good Christians" they are, they are going to make abstinence work. It doesn't (hormone driven young people don't abstain for some reason), but they'll make it work, promise. Right now the French government is trying to pass a law to increase the legal retirement age. Won't do much, but it's yet a small step in a long series about making us work until we die. The end goal? As far as I can tell this is carrying the neo-liberalism ideology, turning everything into marketable goods. And among them there definitely are people who would love to increase unemployment rates (raising retirement age mechanically does that), so they can negotiate lower salaries and make higher profits (at least in the short term). That pendulum used to swing the other way: we were lowering the work-week, the retirement age… We were raising the minimum wage. The end goal was clearly to maximise the free time of everyone, and we'll automate everything to further that goal if we need to. Or the mandatory contributions to various nationalised services, like the hospital, unemployment insurance, or retirement: those are clearly a step towards Socialism with a big "S", where lucrative property (the stuff that give you money just because it's yours) is abolished, workers are in full possession of their own tools, and in the extreme you could go full Communism with guaranteed salary for everyone (though we still need incentives to make sure the necessary work is being done). --- Most proposed legislations aren't designed or proposed in a vacuum. They're almost part of a more or less coherent ideology, that some people want to push everyone towards. Slippery slope arguments are often valid because there are people out there actively waxing those slopes. Now it would be nice to have a compromise, meet in the middle… but in reality the middle is shifting too. So it's pretty important to identify the ideologies behind proposals, and know which you subscribe to and which you want to fight. Me, I'm fighting the ideology that says privacy is not such a big deal. Sorry folks, my ideology is that privacy is a human right. Talking to people and being sure no one is snooping is a human right. Doesn't matter if the other person is in the same room or halfway across the world, private conversations are a human right. This proposal here? It's a step towards encroaching that human right. I'm not British so I don't have a say, but if I did: no thanks.
nhchris 4y ago
> Similarly, when individuals are found in possession of such a device, it may not be possible to prove their knowledge or intent to the thresholds required to convict them, despite the difficulty of identifying legitimate uses for such technology. Privacy is illegitimate, apparently. Think before you post or you may receive a visit from us this weekend. Use the internet safely. -Glasgow Police, https://twitter.com/GreaterGlasgPol/status/715867273261662208 https://twitter.com/GreaterGlasgPol/status/71586727326166220...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
The title is “Two legislative measures to improve the law enforcement response to serious and organised crime” under the “government consultation” subheading. This is a request for comment. Not an act of Parliament.
belter 4y ago
Next step.... UK to criminalize possession of Number Theory, Combinatorics, Probability Theory, Statistical Analysis Math Books. Special temporary licenses will be granted by your local Met Office to be allowed to read on Galois Theory.
- convery 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_number
- gonzo41 4y ago
  Don't joke, Australian 'luminary' Malcom Turnbull passed a set of stupid laws and said unflinchingly and unironically that, “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia" Politicians are idiots and the security services will play them like a fiddle.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    Was he an idiot? It's pretty clear that what he indicated was these products/tools would be made illegal, not that he could literally change the laws of math.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  This reminds me of Charles Stross's "Laundry Files" series, which I frequently recommend to anyone at the intersection of enjoying computers, spy stories, and Lovecraftian horror. (The first conceit of the story is that there were two Church-Turing Theses, and the second one would be so disastrous as public knowledge that it was immediately suppressed by Her Majesty's Government, known only to a select few and the folks they monitor and handle).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bayindirh 4y ago
  Isn't this ironic? A proposal for criminalization of encryption devices in the country which broke the Enigma device... From where, to where...
jb1991 4y ago
Well, they didn’t want to be part of the European Union, and they’re very clearly demonstrating that they are indeed not part of the European Union.
- 0xy 4y ago
  The EU has repeatedly proposed to cripple E2E encryption with opaque client-side scanning technology. [1] This comment seems to be incredibly misguided, all of Europe wants to destroy privacy. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/war-upon-end-to-end-encryption-eu-wants-big-tech-to-scan-private-messages/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/war-upon-end-to-...
  - jb1991 4y ago
    I was not aware of that particular CSAM proposal, similar to Apples proposal last year, it looks like.
    - 0xy 4y ago
      It's only a "CSAM proposal" as far as the Patriot Act is a "anti-terrorist law", even though it's routinely used against ordinary citizens and lower level crimes. CSAM is merely the trojan horse, it's not hard to see how this would be extended to ban wrongthink. After all, Germany and the UK already severely limit speech. For example, the UK charged and convicted a young woman for posting the lyrics to a rap song in honor of her recently deceased friend because it happened to have the soft N-word in it. [1] Europe has repeatedly and systematically attacked free speech and encryption on multiple fronts. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
- philwelch 4y ago
  EU Policy Paper Calls for “European Internet” that Can, “Like the Chinese Firewall”, Block Services: https://techmonitor.ai/policy/european-firewall-proposal https://techmonitor.ai/policy/european-firewall-proposal There are plenty of authoritarians and authoritarian proposals on either side of the English Channel.
alphanullmeric 4y ago
First they came for financial privacy, and I did not speak out - because I did respect care about financial privacy…
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
er4hn 4y ago
> We’re targeting the modified and bespoke devices that enable access to platforms, similar to Encro Chat, where the software/ hardware has been developed to anonymise its users and their communications and its user base is assessed to be almost certainly criminal. Under Option 1 where articles will be specified, we will be targeting those that supply, modify, and possess these bespoke devices; the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them. The proposed offences will seek to tackle those supplying and exploiting these devices in order to carry out serious crimes and will seek to reduce the supply of these devices to serious criminals. The paper makes it sound like the intent is to target services that are advertised as being used for crime. While that is a judgement call, I do appreciate that standard devices / standard apps are not being targeted. On it's surface it seems pretty straightforward. If you are advertising "Crime Talk as a Service", you'll probably be investigated and this gives a clear policy decision. If you are advertising "Anonymous chats away from nosy spouses" the police will have to do a _smidge_ more legwork to build a case.
- chipgap98 4y ago
  >that is a judgement call I think this is the critical point though. It leaves a lot of room to criminalize any type of encrypted communication device
- stuaxo 4y ago
  The laws are never written so that they only target specific things. Examples in the UK are many, you can go back 20-30 years when CCTV and surveillance started, powers aimed at "serious" things, resulting in local councils buying night vision goggles to make sure people are using the right bins.
- mthomasmw 4y ago
  Make me a hammer that only works on nails
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  >I do appreciate that standard devices / standard apps are not being targeted... ... yet. Slow boil principle.
dvh 4y ago
Is Vernam cypher sophisticated?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
shadowgovt 4y ago
Does that mean I can still use Pig Latin?
chatmasta 4y ago
It's a yearly tradition in the UK to propose some draconian law that will be the end of the internet. And yet the policies generally remain unimplemented. Is there some systemic pattern that explains this trend?
- splatzone 4y ago
  I reckon it’s the dire quality of our elected politicians. UK politicians don’t try to understand technology, and they feel entitled to dismiss expert opinion whenever it will win them public favour, hence the disaster with Covid lockdowns.
- stuaxo 4y ago
  People that understand the implications are still in some places and put the brakes on.
- kneebonian 4y ago
  Everytime there is an uproar to fight it again, so they wait and try again a year later. They aren't giving up, they are just waiting as they "only have to get lucky once" Meanwhile those who recognize the issue instead must live by the maximum "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"
  - JoshTriplett 4y ago
    The only way to stop having to constantly fight this issue is to manage to swing things back further back, to have backlash in the direction of "no and stop asking", or if necessary, "no, and your smoking crater will be a warning to the next person to try". We should be in a world where "I want to ban encryption" results in "Of course not, and your career in politics is now over". We should be in a world where "I want to ban encryption" results in "No, in fact here are a bunch of laws enshrining the right to encryption and privacy". We should be in a world where everyone building encryption technologies is building it in a fashion not just resistant to but actively hostile to any ability to control or backdoor it.
    - 4y ago
jjice 4y ago
I'm terrified that one of these many proposals that come up from time to time by ignorant politicians will get through because of other ignorant politicians and scare campaigns. These are all too common.
amatecha 4y ago
The suggestions appear to refer to some custom-tailored software made specifically for organized crime purposes, the example given being EncroChat[0]. Stuff like Signal, Telegram, Tor or whatever are not included in this proposal. > the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them That said, I'm never a fan of any outlawing of encryption of any kind, so I do hope people in the respective jurisdictions voice their disagreement. I also imagine that what starts as "just criminal-focused services" will quickly expand to more popular stuff. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat
- hanniabu 4y ago
  > Stuff like Signal, Telegram, Tor or whatever are not included in this proposal. Yet...
  - amatecha 4y ago
    Yeh, that's exactly what I was saying with: > I also imagine that what starts as "just criminal-focused services" will quickly expand to more popular stuff. :)
hsbauauvhabzb 4y ago
Mobile phones are an obviously difficult target to go after (due to the public perception) but what about tor, encrypted Linux systems, or specifically tails?
- hsbauauvhabzb 4y ago
  And to contradict my own point, australia has anti-association rules specifically to deal with known criminals associating to prevent organised crime, to my knowledge this hasn’t been abused to infringe on the rights of previously convicted but otherwise legitimate people from associating.
tptacek 4y ago
HN is trying to derive axiomatically what this is about, but there's an empirical backstory you want to know about this. Start with this grugq conversation on Twitter from a few months ago: https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/1610169123388141568 https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/1610169123388141568 What this appears to be about is not encrypted messengers but rather particular brands of modded Android phones that are used exclusively for organized crime. That doesn't mean you should support the proposal, but if you're reading it as "the UK is trying to ban encryption outright", that's not the whole story.
- walrus01 4y ago
  If anyone wants to start reading on the shady world of organized crime, smuggling, gangsters and such that can be found in Vancouver, BC, google "phantom secure Vancouver". The well known "phantom secure" custom firmware phones sold years ago for organized crime type people. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=phantom+secure+vancouver https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=phantom+s... Then google "Vancouver Canada casino money laundering". I would think that any sufficiently sophisticated organized crime group in 2023 would consider any "special" secure phone sold with such software to be a honeypot, and either DIY it or come up with some other method. This sort of thing would be purchased by clueless/gullible mid and low level people only now.
  - realce 4y ago
    > This sort of thing would be purchased by clueless/gullible mid and low level people only now. And therefor should actually be subsidized immediately.
    - salawat 4y ago
      Yes... Waste your time and resources on the mitifable or manageable agents, and leave the high-threat, throughput multiplying organizers to just continue the churn. Low-hanging fruit collection, while looking good on a poster, will never be as effective as neutralizing high-level actors. This is the same logic that makes it a jailable offence to steal a loaf of bread, but stealing someone's life savings and disappearing it through fraud or malfeasance gets you a shot on getting on a Board someday.
jchw 4y ago
So basically... computers. That have been either modified, or created, in such a way that they are illegal. They do not actually specify how. The phrasing is "modified and bespoke devices that enable access to platforms [...] where the software/hardware has been developed to anonymise its users and their communications". Now... of course, we can always trust the good intentions of government bodies and agencies wink but it sounds like by this definition, installing Tor and a couple of apps that use it onto a phone could qualify as a "sophisticated encrypted communication device." It seems that in a race to the bottom, the UK government is always a few steps further ahead of their peers.
- facorreia 4y ago
  So... computers running firewall software? Perhaps browsers with TLS support and anonymous mode as well?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rom-antics 4y ago
HTTPS is pretty sophisticated. Are we going to outlaw Google Chrome next?
- reeckoh 4y ago
  You joke, but until the year 2000, open-source asymmetric encryption such as TLS was export-controlled as a munition under ITAR in the United States. Apparently the government didn't see much of a problem with that classification until online merchants started wanting to encrypt credit card transactions in the mid-'90s, and the ball was slowly rolled uphill from there.
dirigeant 4y ago
Years ago, Turkish government made a law to force companies which develop crypto communication devices to share a copy of keys with government. Few years later, a group leaked call recordings of president and ministers. The same government complained about corruption in the system and power of bad guys. They couldn't accept they were hit by their own gun. in UK, as conservatives screw everything up even with crypto devices, they may not be worried about these kind of leaks.
- raybb 4y ago
  Are there news articles about this? I did a quick search and I see more about cryptocurrency legislation in Turkey but not so much about communication cryptography.
vorpalhex 4y ago
> Digital files or templates for 3D-printed firearms components Since freedom of speech is no longer a value of the UK, the population can now be arrested for having files that the government doesn't care for. Mirroring thingiverse? That's a crime now.
sys32768 4y ago
Can't they just criminalize crime and put away the bad guys so that good people can enjoy society?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
lifeplusplus 4y ago
I always felt US was most authoritative govt amongst the democratic countries, now I feel that spot is being taken either by UK or Australian govts.
- costco 4y ago
  The US put the operator of a service called PhantomSecure in jail after he expressed willingness to sell phones to an undercover pretending to represent a drug cartel. A Canadian who started a similar service after PhantomSecure was shut down is also currently wanted by the US https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.701970/gov.uscourts.casd.701970.1.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.70... despite there seemingly being very limited evidence he was aware of criminal activity on his platform.
cm2187 4y ago
> An offence of making, modifying, supplying, offering to supply a specified article where a person has reasonable grounds to suspect that it will be used in any serious crime. Looks broad enough to cover any object. I have reasonable ground to suspect that of all the hammers sold in the UK, some will be used to break a window. It would certainly catch exploit toolkits, even if their primary intended use is pen testing. How can you not suspect someone will use it to break in into some system? And VPNs, ISPs, etc.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rlpb 4y ago
I think it's important to note that the linked document does say this: "...the prosecution would need to show that the accused had reasonable grounds to suspect that the article they are making, modifying, supplying, offering to supply or possessing will be used in serious crime." In other words, they're not proposing to criminalize "sophisticated encryption devices" except when associated with crime. I think the HN headline is misleading by omitting this distinction.
- costco 4y ago
  But it also says: > It could in some cases criminalise those who did not suspect the articles would be used for serious crime. The justification for criminalising such people, who lack actual suspicion, is that the articles named in legislation are so closely associated with serious crime that it is appropriate to expect that those who are involved in making, modifying, supplying or offering to supply, or who are found in possession of such articles have at least a reasonable standard of awareness of the signs of criminal activity. And then they say (in bold): > Both options intend to better equip law enforcement agencies to target people supplying the tools of organised crime and people found in possession of those tools. And in the EncroChat example they provided to justify their proposal, they say they lacked "sufficient evidence to seek to prosecute Mr A under existing offences" so they let him go. Presumably under the proposed law they would still be able to get him for possessing the EncroChat device.
- t-writescode 4y ago
  > " that the article they are making, modifying, supplying, offering to supply or possessing will be used in serious crime." Every single employee at Intel knows that terrorists probably have a Windows computer; and statistics say that half of those terrorists will be running an Intel-created chip.
- nhchris 4y ago
  > I think the HN headline is misleading by omitting this distinction. You make a secure messaging service/protocol/app. It takes off, getting 100k+ users. The police send you a letter (gag order included) informing you 10 of those users are under investigation for "serious crime". Now that you have reasonable grounds to suspect your service is used in "serious crime", you can either immediately shut it down and stop distribution and support of the code, or take the police's generous offer to stay prosecution against you if you sabotage your code and help them take down the bad guys. They pinky swear they won't use the vulnerabilities against anyone but "serious criminals". There is no distinction.
sublinear 4y ago
These may be incredibly dumb questions, but... Can someone explain to me how making something illegal actually prevents crime? Is it really so difficult to prove crimes are being committed without making something illegal? Why would anyone vote in favor of measures like this?
- loup-vaillant 4y ago
  Something must be done, we are doing something, something has been done. That's one bias: legislator wielding law to solve every and all problems like they would the proverbial hammer. Reinforced by the fact that they're public figures, surely they can't be caught doing nothing? A second, more pernicious possibility, is to make illegal stuff that is highly correlated with actual crimes, such that law enforcement can now arrest people for innocuous as a substitute for punishing them for the real thing. Think Al Capone being done for because of taxes of all things. A third, positively alarming possibility, is to facilitate arbitrary arrests. Probably wasn't the intent (it rarely is), but it does give ammunition to future governments or law enforcement, should they need to stifle, silence, or discourage political opposition.
  - costco 4y ago
    > A second, more pernicious possibility, is to make illegal stuff that is highly correlated with actual crimes, such that law enforcement can now arrest people for innocuous as a substitute for punishing them for the real thing. Think Al Capone being done for because of taxes of all things. I think it's mostly this. If you read their example they're basically mad that they couldn't prove that the guy ("Mr A") had a bunch of illegal money.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  It doesn't. It makes prosecution of crime easier by adjusting the threshold of criminality. It's not about crime being difficult to prove, so much as multiplying the reasons you could be charged with one, thereby raising the cost of doing business for criminals. People vote for it because there is plenty of cash to be made out of conditioning the public to feel as if they are under siege and danger lurks around every corner.
FpUser 4y ago
>"Home Office" Is that you Xi?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Havoc 4y ago
I can sorta get the where they're going with this on the Encro example given, but that line seems impossible to define. "Sophisticated encrypted communication devices" is a complete and utter joke in a world where even the memes are https encrypted
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
raspyberr 4y ago
I wonder if this applies to GrapheneOS. It's not far off the Encro phone that this is clearly targetting.
anonymousiam 4y ago
Always be wary of government proposals to criminalize things that the government itself does. It can never be good for the citizens.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rolenthedeep 4y ago
Surely it'd be easier to just make crime illegal? Because we all know that declaring something illegal just makes it go away. Stop interfering with unrelated fields like encryption to stop criminals and just make criminal activity illegal!
andrewstuart 4y ago
It's the "brexit of technology" - the UK doing something stupid that shoots itself in the foot. I think we should just leave them to it......
- corobo 4y ago
  Techie Brits exist too :(
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  Giving up Europe to "return to monke"?
varispeed 4y ago
Tory party seems to be under great influence of Russian oligarchs and they seem to be enchanted by the stories of Soviet Union how Stalin has managed to keep the nation under his boot. They want to have at least the same amount of power. The laws they propose are vague, open to interpretation and it means anyone could go to prison for anything if they do something the party doesn't like. Nasty party.
vmoore 4y ago
I understand some criminals want encrypted comms without having to learn anything new or do technical deep dives (maybe they're just not technically savvy enough?). Personally I use a Nitrophone[0] for encrypted comms with friends, and GrapheneOS is stellar and I've configured it heavily and locked down many things. Not affiliated, just love that phone. [0] https://www.nitrokey.com/news/2021/nitrophone-most-secure-android-planet https://www.nitrokey.com/news/2021/nitrophone-most-secure-an...
corobo 4y ago
Criminalise something used by criminals for crime? I'm sure that'll stop them. Good work chaps.
windex 4y ago
As part of rule making, MPs should be forced to make their own info available twelve months prior to this rule being applicable to the public. A lot of useless laws would stop being proposed almost immediately. Increasingly, rule makers are a cabal.
fooker 4y ago
So, phones?
stjohnswarts 4y ago
so they want to ban cell phones now? ouch. Not a good look UK

234 points by costco 4y ago

asdadsdad 4y ago

One more from the new, independent Britain =)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

vsviridov 4y ago

Do cellphones qualify? They are very sophisticated and full of encryption...

varenc 4y ago
No. They state this quite clearly. > "the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them" They say they're going after bespoke devices whose "user base is assessed to be almost certainly criminal". Of course, that's very open to interpretation. Also they go on to discuss how simply providing or possessing one of these devices should be crime in itself because of the "difficulty of identifying legitimate uses for such technology". It's the classic "If you're trying to hide something you must be a criminal" approach.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  The legitimate use for such technology is I want my communications to remain private. I get that that is inconvenient for those who might wish to surveil me, but their right to not be inconvenienced is less important than my right to private speech. (I'm speaking from a US perspective here, not a UK one.)
- squarefoot 4y ago
  > "the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them" Which then implies that commercial devices can be eavesdropped at will by the government.
Muromec 4y ago
sophisticated as in "we tried to decipher or wiretap it and failed at both"
- vlovich123 4y ago
  This presumably would criminalize E2E encryption apps like iMessage, FB, Whatsapp, Signal etc. All of these are popular enough on their own that I don't see how you can reasonably go this approach. We'll find out quickly though about which clients have backdoors based on the exception list.
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    do any of those services anonymize the social graph? law enforcement cares less about what people are saying, more about who is talking to who
    - vlovich123 4y ago
      Signal certainly does. That’s what they’re famous for.
asow92 4y ago
"the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them"
- dilippkumar 4y ago
  So, all you have to do is make these devices be “mobile phones” and “commercially available”? Is selling a device on Ali Express enough to qualify?
  - splatzone 4y ago
    Nathan Fielder would be proud. This policy will be easily avoided by any serious manufacturer of devices like these.
  - asow92 4y ago
    That is a great question.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Almost enough to undermine your faith in commercially available mobile phone encryption, hm?
- jacooper 4y ago
  GrapheneOS? Its not really commercial is it?
splatzone 4y ago
“ Sophisticated encrypted communication devices have been used extensively by criminals to facilitate organised crime. We’re targeting the modified and bespoke devices that enable access to platforms, similar to Encro Chat, where the software/ hardware has been developed to anonymise its users and their communications and its user base is assessed to be almost certainly criminal. Under Option 1 where articles will be specified, we will be targeting those that supply, modify, and possess these bespoke devices; the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them.” Seems to suggest that handsets explicitly made for anonymous encryption could be banned, but not messaging apps on normal phones.
- tobr 4y ago
  How can it possibly matter that the “user base is assessed to be almost certainly criminal”? Like, if you criminalize using such a device, I suppose the whole user base is now criminal. But if they already were and you can prove it, why do you need to criminalize the device as well?
  - costco 4y ago
    Here is an example they give: >The case relates to an alleged conspiracy to transfer cash in excess of £10m out of the UK. >A number of defendants were charged with conspiracy to remove criminal property from England and Wales contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Mr A was a relative of one of the defendants (Mr B). They both lived at the same address. When Mr B was arrested, the officers recovered an encrypted EncroChat telephone which Mr A admitted was his. Another defendant (Mr C) stated that he had been instructed to call Mr A on the EncroChat telephone once he had safely boarded the flight with the cash. >Mr A denied any knowledge or involvement in any of the criminal activities. Mr A had no legitimate income that would have allowed him to own and maintain such an expensive mobile device. >Based on available intelligence, the investigating team strongly believed that Mr A had been supplied with the EncroChat telephone by an OCG for the purpose of carrying out conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, investigators were unable to access any data from the telephone due to the device’s security features which led to the data automatically deleting after a few days. It was assessed that there was not sufficient evidence to seek to prosecute Mr A under existing offences. It doesn't really make sense to me though. Presumably the penalty if he were to unlock the phone would have been way higher than the penalty they are going to create for possessing such a device.
maznu 4y ago
From the linked PDF: > "This option would require the drafting of precise definitions of the specific articles, for example a definition of sophisticated encrypted communication devices which does not include all mobile phones."
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

unity1001 4y ago

Much democracy...

unity1001 4y ago
Man... I wonder why people will stop denying/ignoring such criticism like the one in my parent comment and start calling a spade a spade. Police bill, online censorship, and now banning encryption along with all the rest that is happening in the UK. Its going towards a hellhole. Denying reality wont change the reality. It didnt change it during and after the Brexit debacle. It wont change it now. Things will only change when people stop denying reality and take matters into their own hands.
- bbg2401 4y ago
  The proposal does not seek to simply ban encryption. > Sophisticated encrypted communication devices have been used extensively by criminals to facilitate organised crime. We’re targeting the modified and bespoke devices that enable access to platforms, similar to Encro Chat, where the software/ hardware has been developed to anonymise its users and their communications and its user base is assessed to be almost certainly criminal. Under Option 1 where articles will be specified, we will be targeting those that supply, modify, and possess these bespoke devices; the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them. The proposed offences will seek to tackle those supplying and exploiting these devices in order to carry out serious crimes and will seek to reduce the supply of these devices to serious criminals
  - loup-vaillant 4y ago
    > The proposal does not seek to simply ban encryption. They're not that dumb. They'll chip away at our rights however they can, gradually, so we hardly even notice. In the US for instance, there's no way they'll be banning guns overnight. But it's clearly the end goal: they're hoping to reduce death count by making guns disappear, and sacrifice the second amendment in the process. Right now though they're content with an "assault weapons" ban that alone won't work, but is a step towards banning guns. Next time they'll limit ammunitions. Then the places you can carry your gun to. You get the idea. Conversely, I'm pretty sure the states who are banning abortion in the name of "saving babies" are sticking their head in the sand that such legislation tends to lead to later abortions (like, you know, when the foetus is closer to being an actual human being?), pregnancy related deaths, that kind of thing. But the end goal of some of those people is probably to outlaw any form of contraception, and maybe sex before marriage while we're at it. Like the "good Christians" they are, they are going to make abstinence work. It doesn't (hormone driven young people don't abstain for some reason), but they'll make it work, promise. Right now the French government is trying to pass a law to increase the legal retirement age. Won't do much, but it's yet a small step in a long series about making us work until we die. The end goal? As far as I can tell this is carrying the neo-liberalism ideology, turning everything into marketable goods. And among them there definitely are people who would love to increase unemployment rates (raising retirement age mechanically does that), so they can negotiate lower salaries and make higher profits (at least in the short term). That pendulum used to swing the other way: we were lowering the work-week, the retirement age… We were raising the minimum wage. The end goal was clearly to maximise the free time of everyone, and we'll automate everything to further that goal if we need to. Or the mandatory contributions to various nationalised services, like the hospital, unemployment insurance, or retirement: those are clearly a step towards Socialism with a big "S", where lucrative property (the stuff that give you money just because it's yours) is abolished, workers are in full possession of their own tools, and in the extreme you could go full Communism with guaranteed salary for everyone (though we still need incentives to make sure the necessary work is being done). --- Most proposed legislations aren't designed or proposed in a vacuum. They're almost part of a more or less coherent ideology, that some people want to push everyone towards. Slippery slope arguments are often valid because there are people out there actively waxing those slopes. Now it would be nice to have a compromise, meet in the middle… but in reality the middle is shifting too. So it's pretty important to identify the ideologies behind proposals, and know which you subscribe to and which you want to fight. Me, I'm fighting the ideology that says privacy is not such a big deal. Sorry folks, my ideology is that privacy is a human right. Talking to people and being sure no one is snooping is a human right. Doesn't matter if the other person is in the same room or halfway across the world, private conversations are a human right. This proposal here? It's a step towards encroaching that human right. I'm not British so I don't have a say, but if I did: no thanks.

nhchris 4y ago

> Similarly, when individuals are found in possession of such a device, it may not be possible to prove their knowledge or intent to the thresholds required to convict them, despite the difficulty of identifying legitimate uses for such technology. Privacy is illegitimate, apparently. Think before you post or you may receive a visit from us this weekend. Use the internet safely. -Glasgow Police, https://twitter.com/GreaterGlasgPol/status/715867273261662208 https://twitter.com/GreaterGlasgPol/status/71586727326166220...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

The title is “Two legislative measures to improve the law enforcement response to serious and organised crime” under the “government consultation” subheading. This is a request for comment. Not an act of Parliament.

belter 4y ago

Next step.... UK to criminalize possession of Number Theory, Combinatorics, Probability Theory, Statistical Analysis Math Books. Special temporary licenses will be granted by your local Met Office to be allowed to read on Galois Theory.

convery 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_number
gonzo41 4y ago
Don't joke, Australian 'luminary' Malcom Turnbull passed a set of stupid laws and said unflinchingly and unironically that, “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia" Politicians are idiots and the security services will play them like a fiddle.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Was he an idiot? It's pretty clear that what he indicated was these products/tools would be made illegal, not that he could literally change the laws of math.
shadowgovt 4y ago
This reminds me of Charles Stross's "Laundry Files" series, which I frequently recommend to anyone at the intersection of enjoying computers, spy stories, and Lovecraftian horror. (The first conceit of the story is that there were two Church-Turing Theses, and the second one would be so disastrous as public knowledge that it was immediately suppressed by Her Majesty's Government, known only to a select few and the folks they monitor and handle).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bayindirh 4y ago
Isn't this ironic? A proposal for criminalization of encryption devices in the country which broke the Enigma device... From where, to where...

jb1991 4y ago

Well, they didn’t want to be part of the European Union, and they’re very clearly demonstrating that they are indeed not part of the European Union.

0xy 4y ago
The EU has repeatedly proposed to cripple E2E encryption with opaque client-side scanning technology. [1] This comment seems to be incredibly misguided, all of Europe wants to destroy privacy. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/war-upon-end-to-end-encryption-eu-wants-big-tech-to-scan-private-messages/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/war-upon-end-to-...
- jb1991 4y ago
  I was not aware of that particular CSAM proposal, similar to Apples proposal last year, it looks like.
  - 0xy 4y ago
    It's only a "CSAM proposal" as far as the Patriot Act is a "anti-terrorist law", even though it's routinely used against ordinary citizens and lower level crimes. CSAM is merely the trojan horse, it's not hard to see how this would be extended to ban wrongthink. After all, Germany and the UK already severely limit speech. For example, the UK charged and convicted a young woman for posting the lyrics to a rap song in honor of her recently deceased friend because it happened to have the soft N-word in it. [1] Europe has repeatedly and systematically attacked free speech and encryption on multiple fronts. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
philwelch 4y ago
EU Policy Paper Calls for “European Internet” that Can, “Like the Chinese Firewall”, Block Services: https://techmonitor.ai/policy/european-firewall-proposal https://techmonitor.ai/policy/european-firewall-proposal There are plenty of authoritarians and authoritarian proposals on either side of the English Channel.

alphanullmeric 4y ago

First they came for financial privacy, and I did not speak out - because I did respect care about financial privacy…

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

er4hn 4y ago

> We’re targeting the modified and bespoke devices that enable access to platforms, similar to Encro Chat, where the software/ hardware has been developed to anonymise its users and their communications and its user base is assessed to be almost certainly criminal. Under Option 1 where articles will be specified, we will be targeting those that supply, modify, and possess these bespoke devices; the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them. The proposed offences will seek to tackle those supplying and exploiting these devices in order to carry out serious crimes and will seek to reduce the supply of these devices to serious criminals. The paper makes it sound like the intent is to target services that are advertised as being used for crime. While that is a judgement call, I do appreciate that standard devices / standard apps are not being targeted. On it's surface it seems pretty straightforward. If you are advertising "Crime Talk as a Service", you'll probably be investigated and this gives a clear policy decision. If you are advertising "Anonymous chats away from nosy spouses" the police will have to do a _smidge_ more legwork to build a case.

chipgap98 4y ago
>that is a judgement call I think this is the critical point though. It leaves a lot of room to criminalize any type of encrypted communication device
stuaxo 4y ago
The laws are never written so that they only target specific things. Examples in the UK are many, you can go back 20-30 years when CCTV and surveillance started, powers aimed at "serious" things, resulting in local councils buying night vision goggles to make sure people are using the right bins.
mthomasmw 4y ago
Make me a hammer that only works on nails
stjohnswarts 4y ago
>I do appreciate that standard devices / standard apps are not being targeted... ... yet. Slow boil principle.

dvh 4y ago

Is Vernam cypher sophisticated?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

shadowgovt 4y ago

Does that mean I can still use Pig Latin?

chatmasta 4y ago

It's a yearly tradition in the UK to propose some draconian law that will be the end of the internet. And yet the policies generally remain unimplemented. Is there some systemic pattern that explains this trend?

splatzone 4y ago
I reckon it’s the dire quality of our elected politicians. UK politicians don’t try to understand technology, and they feel entitled to dismiss expert opinion whenever it will win them public favour, hence the disaster with Covid lockdowns.
stuaxo 4y ago
People that understand the implications are still in some places and put the brakes on.
kneebonian 4y ago
Everytime there is an uproar to fight it again, so they wait and try again a year later. They aren't giving up, they are just waiting as they "only have to get lucky once" Meanwhile those who recognize the issue instead must live by the maximum "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"
- JoshTriplett 4y ago
  The only way to stop having to constantly fight this issue is to manage to swing things back further back, to have backlash in the direction of "no and stop asking", or if necessary, "no, and your smoking crater will be a warning to the next person to try". We should be in a world where "I want to ban encryption" results in "Of course not, and your career in politics is now over". We should be in a world where "I want to ban encryption" results in "No, in fact here are a bunch of laws enshrining the right to encryption and privacy". We should be in a world where everyone building encryption technologies is building it in a fashion not just resistant to but actively hostile to any ability to control or backdoor it.
  - 4y ago

jjice 4y ago

I'm terrified that one of these many proposals that come up from time to time by ignorant politicians will get through because of other ignorant politicians and scare campaigns. These are all too common.

amatecha 4y ago

The suggestions appear to refer to some custom-tailored software made specifically for organized crime purposes, the example given being EncroChat[0]. Stuff like Signal, Telegram, Tor or whatever are not included in this proposal. > the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them That said, I'm never a fan of any outlawing of encryption of any kind, so I do hope people in the respective jurisdictions voice their disagreement. I also imagine that what starts as "just criminal-focused services" will quickly expand to more popular stuff. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat

hanniabu 4y ago
> Stuff like Signal, Telegram, Tor or whatever are not included in this proposal. Yet...
- amatecha 4y ago
  Yeh, that's exactly what I was saying with: > I also imagine that what starts as "just criminal-focused services" will quickly expand to more popular stuff. :)

hsbauauvhabzb 4y ago

Mobile phones are an obviously difficult target to go after (due to the public perception) but what about tor, encrypted Linux systems, or specifically tails?

hsbauauvhabzb 4y ago
And to contradict my own point, australia has anti-association rules specifically to deal with known criminals associating to prevent organised crime, to my knowledge this hasn’t been abused to infringe on the rights of previously convicted but otherwise legitimate people from associating.

tptacek 4y ago

HN is trying to derive axiomatically what this is about, but there's an empirical backstory you want to know about this. Start with this grugq conversation on Twitter from a few months ago: https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/1610169123388141568 https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/1610169123388141568 What this appears to be about is not encrypted messengers but rather particular brands of modded Android phones that are used exclusively for organized crime. That doesn't mean you should support the proposal, but if you're reading it as "the UK is trying to ban encryption outright", that's not the whole story.

walrus01 4y ago
If anyone wants to start reading on the shady world of organized crime, smuggling, gangsters and such that can be found in Vancouver, BC, google "phantom secure Vancouver". The well known "phantom secure" custom firmware phones sold years ago for organized crime type people. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=phantom+secure+vancouver https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=phantom+s... Then google "Vancouver Canada casino money laundering". I would think that any sufficiently sophisticated organized crime group in 2023 would consider any "special" secure phone sold with such software to be a honeypot, and either DIY it or come up with some other method. This sort of thing would be purchased by clueless/gullible mid and low level people only now.
- realce 4y ago
  > This sort of thing would be purchased by clueless/gullible mid and low level people only now. And therefor should actually be subsidized immediately.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Yes... Waste your time and resources on the mitifable or manageable agents, and leave the high-threat, throughput multiplying organizers to just continue the churn. Low-hanging fruit collection, while looking good on a poster, will never be as effective as neutralizing high-level actors. This is the same logic that makes it a jailable offence to steal a loaf of bread, but stealing someone's life savings and disappearing it through fraud or malfeasance gets you a shot on getting on a Board someday.

jchw 4y ago

So basically... computers. That have been either modified, or created, in such a way that they are illegal. They do not actually specify how. The phrasing is "modified and bespoke devices that enable access to platforms [...] where the software/hardware has been developed to anonymise its users and their communications". Now... of course, we can always trust the good intentions of government bodies and agencies wink but it sounds like by this definition, installing Tor and a couple of apps that use it onto a phone could qualify as a "sophisticated encrypted communication device." It seems that in a race to the bottom, the UK government is always a few steps further ahead of their peers.

facorreia 4y ago
So... computers running firewall software? Perhaps browsers with TLS support and anonymous mode as well?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rom-antics 4y ago

HTTPS is pretty sophisticated. Are we going to outlaw Google Chrome next?

reeckoh 4y ago
You joke, but until the year 2000, open-source asymmetric encryption such as TLS was export-controlled as a munition under ITAR in the United States. Apparently the government didn't see much of a problem with that classification until online merchants started wanting to encrypt credit card transactions in the mid-'90s, and the ball was slowly rolled uphill from there.

dirigeant 4y ago

Years ago, Turkish government made a law to force companies which develop crypto communication devices to share a copy of keys with government. Few years later, a group leaked call recordings of president and ministers. The same government complained about corruption in the system and power of bad guys. They couldn't accept they were hit by their own gun. in UK, as conservatives screw everything up even with crypto devices, they may not be worried about these kind of leaks.

raybb 4y ago
Are there news articles about this? I did a quick search and I see more about cryptocurrency legislation in Turkey but not so much about communication cryptography.

vorpalhex 4y ago

> Digital files or templates for 3D-printed firearms components Since freedom of speech is no longer a value of the UK, the population can now be arrested for having files that the government doesn't care for. Mirroring thingiverse? That's a crime now.

sys32768 4y ago

Can't they just criminalize crime and put away the bad guys so that good people can enjoy society?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

lifeplusplus 4y ago

I always felt US was most authoritative govt amongst the democratic countries, now I feel that spot is being taken either by UK or Australian govts.

costco 4y ago
The US put the operator of a service called PhantomSecure in jail after he expressed willingness to sell phones to an undercover pretending to represent a drug cartel. A Canadian who started a similar service after PhantomSecure was shut down is also currently wanted by the US https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.701970/gov.uscourts.casd.701970.1.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.70... despite there seemingly being very limited evidence he was aware of criminal activity on his platform.

cm2187 4y ago

> An offence of making, modifying, supplying, offering to supply a specified article where a person has reasonable grounds to suspect that it will be used in any serious crime. Looks broad enough to cover any object. I have reasonable ground to suspect that of all the hammers sold in the UK, some will be used to break a window. It would certainly catch exploit toolkits, even if their primary intended use is pen testing. How can you not suspect someone will use it to break in into some system? And VPNs, ISPs, etc.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rlpb 4y ago

I think it's important to note that the linked document does say this: "...the prosecution would need to show that the accused had reasonable grounds to suspect that the article they are making, modifying, supplying, offering to supply or possessing will be used in serious crime." In other words, they're not proposing to criminalize "sophisticated encryption devices" except when associated with crime. I think the HN headline is misleading by omitting this distinction.

costco 4y ago
But it also says: > It could in some cases criminalise those who did not suspect the articles would be used for serious crime. The justification for criminalising such people, who lack actual suspicion, is that the articles named in legislation are so closely associated with serious crime that it is appropriate to expect that those who are involved in making, modifying, supplying or offering to supply, or who are found in possession of such articles have at least a reasonable standard of awareness of the signs of criminal activity. And then they say (in bold): > Both options intend to better equip law enforcement agencies to target people supplying the tools of organised crime and people found in possession of those tools. And in the EncroChat example they provided to justify their proposal, they say they lacked "sufficient evidence to seek to prosecute Mr A under existing offences" so they let him go. Presumably under the proposed law they would still be able to get him for possessing the EncroChat device.
t-writescode 4y ago
> " that the article they are making, modifying, supplying, offering to supply or possessing will be used in serious crime." Every single employee at Intel knows that terrorists probably have a Windows computer; and statistics say that half of those terrorists will be running an Intel-created chip.
nhchris 4y ago
> I think the HN headline is misleading by omitting this distinction. You make a secure messaging service/protocol/app. It takes off, getting 100k+ users. The police send you a letter (gag order included) informing you 10 of those users are under investigation for "serious crime". Now that you have reasonable grounds to suspect your service is used in "serious crime", you can either immediately shut it down and stop distribution and support of the code, or take the police's generous offer to stay prosecution against you if you sabotage your code and help them take down the bad guys. They pinky swear they won't use the vulnerabilities against anyone but "serious criminals". There is no distinction.

sublinear 4y ago

These may be incredibly dumb questions, but... Can someone explain to me how making something illegal actually prevents crime? Is it really so difficult to prove crimes are being committed without making something illegal? Why would anyone vote in favor of measures like this?

loup-vaillant 4y ago
Something must be done, we are doing something, something has been done. That's one bias: legislator wielding law to solve every and all problems like they would the proverbial hammer. Reinforced by the fact that they're public figures, surely they can't be caught doing nothing? A second, more pernicious possibility, is to make illegal stuff that is highly correlated with actual crimes, such that law enforcement can now arrest people for innocuous as a substitute for punishing them for the real thing. Think Al Capone being done for because of taxes of all things. A third, positively alarming possibility, is to facilitate arbitrary arrests. Probably wasn't the intent (it rarely is), but it does give ammunition to future governments or law enforcement, should they need to stifle, silence, or discourage political opposition.
- costco 4y ago
  > A second, more pernicious possibility, is to make illegal stuff that is highly correlated with actual crimes, such that law enforcement can now arrest people for innocuous as a substitute for punishing them for the real thing. Think Al Capone being done for because of taxes of all things. I think it's mostly this. If you read their example they're basically mad that they couldn't prove that the guy ("Mr A") had a bunch of illegal money.
anigbrowl 4y ago
It doesn't. It makes prosecution of crime easier by adjusting the threshold of criminality. It's not about crime being difficult to prove, so much as multiplying the reasons you could be charged with one, thereby raising the cost of doing business for criminals. People vote for it because there is plenty of cash to be made out of conditioning the public to feel as if they are under siege and danger lurks around every corner.

FpUser 4y ago

>"Home Office" Is that you Xi?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Havoc 4y ago

I can sorta get the where they're going with this on the Encro example given, but that line seems impossible to define. "Sophisticated encrypted communication devices" is a complete and utter joke in a world where even the memes are https encrypted

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

raspyberr 4y ago

I wonder if this applies to GrapheneOS. It's not far off the Encro phone that this is clearly targetting.

anonymousiam 4y ago

Always be wary of government proposals to criminalize things that the government itself does. It can never be good for the citizens.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rolenthedeep 4y ago

Surely it'd be easier to just make crime illegal? Because we all know that declaring something illegal just makes it go away. Stop interfering with unrelated fields like encryption to stop criminals and just make criminal activity illegal!

andrewstuart 4y ago

It's the "brexit of technology" - the UK doing something stupid that shoots itself in the foot. I think we should just leave them to it......

corobo 4y ago
Techie Brits exist too :(
stjohnswarts 4y ago
Giving up Europe to "return to monke"?

varispeed 4y ago

Tory party seems to be under great influence of Russian oligarchs and they seem to be enchanted by the stories of Soviet Union how Stalin has managed to keep the nation under his boot. They want to have at least the same amount of power. The laws they propose are vague, open to interpretation and it means anyone could go to prison for anything if they do something the party doesn't like. Nasty party.

vmoore 4y ago

I understand some criminals want encrypted comms without having to learn anything new or do technical deep dives (maybe they're just not technically savvy enough?). Personally I use a Nitrophone[0] for encrypted comms with friends, and GrapheneOS is stellar and I've configured it heavily and locked down many things. Not affiliated, just love that phone. [0] https://www.nitrokey.com/news/2021/nitrophone-most-secure-android-planet https://www.nitrokey.com/news/2021/nitrophone-most-secure-an...

corobo 4y ago

Criminalise something used by criminals for crime? I'm sure that'll stop them. Good work chaps.

windex 4y ago

As part of rule making, MPs should be forced to make their own info available twelve months prior to this rule being applicable to the public. A lot of useless laws would stop being proposed almost immediately. Increasingly, rule makers are a cabal.

fooker 4y ago

So, phones?

stjohnswarts 4y ago

so they want to ban cell phones now? ouch. Not a good look UK