4 ms·

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]

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]