5 ms·

Stross on Cameron's proposed UK crypto ban

42 points by cstross 12y ago

CoreSet 12y ago
Of course Stross is right on. That Cameron would do such an about-face on the values and ideals the Charlie Hebdo staff died for is disgusting (not to mention, as per the author's excellent point, completely counterproductive).
higherpurpose 12y ago
The "illegal guns" the terrorists used in France were brought from outside of the country. So now Cameron thinks he can stop a freaking app from entering the country? I mean he can't be that stupid, can he? I don't think he is, because I think this new proposed law has nothing to do with terrorism and has a completely different agenda behind it.
- sitharus 12y ago
  I guess the idea is the old "Only criminals use encryption, so you must be a criminal". Of course, given that the big crime networks are sophisticated this won't stop them. They'll go back to old cyphers and steganography. Same goes for the compulsory handing over of encryption keys, there are now multi-level encrypted filesystems, where you have n keys where each opens a different set of files. Have a few keys protecting embarrassing but not incriminating files and disclose those. Surely scifi has taught us that totalitarianism never wins?
zamalek 12y ago
Is this guy just going to ban everything? Anybody intent on breaking the law will just [continue to] use steganography and side-step the issue completely. If anything, a cryptographic ban would most likely result in an easier life for terrorists (especially but not exclusively cyber terrorism). One honestly wonders if that's what he wants because it has to be impossible to be this stupid.
jacquesm 12y ago
It's a pity politicians don't need to show even a basic understanding of the material they wish to create laws for.
spuz 12y ago
The most interesting thing about this story is that almost no-one is talking about what else Cameron said in his speech [0]: Mr Cameron also said that a Tory Government would pass a new law to ensure that the intelligence agencies would be able to track phone calls and internet messages. He said that this power to track “who made which call, to which person, and when” was “absolutely crucial not just in terrorism but finding missing people, murder investigations, almost every single serious crime. “What matters is that we can access this communications data whether people are using fixed phones, mobile phones or more modern ways of communicating via the internet.” I refuse to believe our PM is so technologically ignorant that he believes the 'banning encryption' policy will ever fly. The most plausible explanation to me seems to be that he is trying to rebalance the public's expectations of privacy towards greater surveillance to the extent that slightly less egregious (but still objectionable) laws can be passed in their place. I have a feeling that this kind of rhetoric has been used before and probably has a name. [0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/11340621/Spies-should-be-able-to-monitor-all-online-messaging-says-David-Cameron.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/1134...
- jahabrewer 12y ago
  > I have a feeling that this kind of rhetoric ... has a name. Correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique
- CoreSet 12y ago
  It's almost impossible for me to resolve the cognitive dissonance of seeing an educated, by all means literate person completely devalue privacy to the point that it ceases to exist. To say with a straight face, after the events of the 20th century (and the horrors of Russian and German domestic intelligence services, past abuses committed by the FBI, the current human rights clusterfuck in places like China, Iran, and Syria), that all communication should moderated and monitored by the government? Can anyone support that idea in good faith? I agree with you that it's an almost unbelievable level of stupidity and one that betrays an ulterior motive. But normally I'd say something like this played into some industry or private-interest wish, but what bank or corporation (much less any commercial tech venture) is pushing for this? What group could this possibly serve in society other than the most high-ranking (and power-hungry) officials in the intelligence establishment?
VBprogrammer 12y ago
I don't understand why people seem to think he's talking about outlawing encryption. From what I understand he's talking about forcing companies to disclose your messages. You can still have all the encryption you want on HTTPS, but it then get stored on a server somewhere. That said, I believe both ideas are abhorrent, so if we have to take some technical liberties to cause enough uproar then so be it.
- spuz 12y ago
  It's an inevitable consequence of these lines of the speech he gave. I recommend you listen to the whole thing to understand it properly in context [0]: "But the question is are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read. My answer to that question is: no, we must not." "If I am prime minister, I will make sure that it is a comprehensive piece of legislation that makes sure we do not allow terrorists safe space to communicate with each other. That is the key principle: do we allow safe spaces for them to talk to each other? I say no, we don’t, and we should legislate accordingly." The only way to guarantee there is no "safe space for [terrorists] to talk to each other" is to ban all means of communication that cannot be decrypted. If we simply ask Whatsapp to record all their messages (and keep the decryption keys somewhere), that still leaves all kinds of encrypted communication applications available (or safe spaces) for terrorists to use. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/david-cameron-pledges-anti-terror-law-internet-paris-attacks-nick-clegg http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/david-cameron...
  - VBprogrammer 12y ago
    I still think that is a rather literal interpretation of what he is saying. Forcing companies to allow access to data seems much more realistic, though admittedly doesn't meet the condition "no safe space for [terrorists] to talk to each other". But maybe he is a complete moron. Presumably he is going to ban the XOR operation since with a one-time pad...
    - spuz 12y ago
      If he forces major companies to provide access to their data, that still leaves minor companies or open source projects to do what they want and therefore still leaves the bad guys with a place to hide. The only alternative is to ban encryption for all but those who agree to allow access by the government (with a warrant of course) which while possible is highly implausible given how much internet traffic is currently encrypted.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Holy cow this was flagged fast.
razster 12y ago
A comment by Phuzz, one the webpages comment section, says it well. You can even create spray paints in Counter-Strike which are images, these could be used to hide secret messages. Point being, anyone can hide a message if they really wanted to without anyone noticing.
kenthorvath 12y ago
Unbreakable crypto is a genie long out of the bottle. No amount of wishing, legislating, or fear-mongering is going to prevent terrorist organizations from implementing these well-described, mathematically sound, publicly available algorithms. Since we cannot prevent terrorists from using crypto, the only ones without crypto will be non-terrorists. This proposal only serves to enshrine within the government the chilling capability and authority to surveil its citizens.

42 points by cstross 12y ago

Of course Stross is right on. That Cameron would do such an about-face on the values and ideals the Charlie Hebdo staff died for is disgusting (not to mention, as per the author's excellent point, completely counterproductive).

higherpurpose 12y ago

The "illegal guns" the terrorists used in France were brought from outside of the country. So now Cameron thinks he can stop a freaking app from entering the country? I mean he can't be that stupid, can he? I don't think he is, because I think this new proposed law has nothing to do with terrorism and has a completely different agenda behind it.

sitharus 12y ago
I guess the idea is the old "Only criminals use encryption, so you must be a criminal". Of course, given that the big crime networks are sophisticated this won't stop them. They'll go back to old cyphers and steganography. Same goes for the compulsory handing over of encryption keys, there are now multi-level encrypted filesystems, where you have n keys where each opens a different set of files. Have a few keys protecting embarrassing but not incriminating files and disclose those. Surely scifi has taught us that totalitarianism never wins?

zamalek 12y ago

Is this guy just going to ban everything? Anybody intent on breaking the law will just [continue to] use steganography and side-step the issue completely. If anything, a cryptographic ban would most likely result in an easier life for terrorists (especially but not exclusively cyber terrorism). One honestly wonders if that's what he wants because it has to be impossible to be this stupid.

jacquesm 12y ago

It's a pity politicians don't need to show even a basic understanding of the material they wish to create laws for.

spuz 12y ago

The most interesting thing about this story is that almost no-one is talking about what else Cameron said in his speech [0]: Mr Cameron also said that a Tory Government would pass a new law to ensure that the intelligence agencies would be able to track phone calls and internet messages. He said that this power to track “who made which call, to which person, and when” was “absolutely crucial not just in terrorism but finding missing people, murder investigations, almost every single serious crime. “What matters is that we can access this communications data whether people are using fixed phones, mobile phones or more modern ways of communicating via the internet.” I refuse to believe our PM is so technologically ignorant that he believes the 'banning encryption' policy will ever fly. The most plausible explanation to me seems to be that he is trying to rebalance the public's expectations of privacy towards greater surveillance to the extent that slightly less egregious (but still objectionable) laws can be passed in their place. I have a feeling that this kind of rhetoric has been used before and probably has a name. [0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/11340621/Spies-should-be-able-to-monitor-all-online-messaging-says-David-Cameron.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/1134...

jahabrewer 12y ago
> I have a feeling that this kind of rhetoric ... has a name. Correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique
CoreSet 12y ago
It's almost impossible for me to resolve the cognitive dissonance of seeing an educated, by all means literate person completely devalue privacy to the point that it ceases to exist. To say with a straight face, after the events of the 20th century (and the horrors of Russian and German domestic intelligence services, past abuses committed by the FBI, the current human rights clusterfuck in places like China, Iran, and Syria), that all communication should moderated and monitored by the government? Can anyone support that idea in good faith? I agree with you that it's an almost unbelievable level of stupidity and one that betrays an ulterior motive. But normally I'd say something like this played into some industry or private-interest wish, but what bank or corporation (much less any commercial tech venture) is pushing for this? What group could this possibly serve in society other than the most high-ranking (and power-hungry) officials in the intelligence establishment?

VBprogrammer 12y ago

I don't understand why people seem to think he's talking about outlawing encryption. From what I understand he's talking about forcing companies to disclose your messages. You can still have all the encryption you want on HTTPS, but it then get stored on a server somewhere. That said, I believe both ideas are abhorrent, so if we have to take some technical liberties to cause enough uproar then so be it.

spuz 12y ago
It's an inevitable consequence of these lines of the speech he gave. I recommend you listen to the whole thing to understand it properly in context [0]: "But the question is are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read. My answer to that question is: no, we must not." "If I am prime minister, I will make sure that it is a comprehensive piece of legislation that makes sure we do not allow terrorists safe space to communicate with each other. That is the key principle: do we allow safe spaces for them to talk to each other? I say no, we don’t, and we should legislate accordingly." The only way to guarantee there is no "safe space for [terrorists] to talk to each other" is to ban all means of communication that cannot be decrypted. If we simply ask Whatsapp to record all their messages (and keep the decryption keys somewhere), that still leaves all kinds of encrypted communication applications available (or safe spaces) for terrorists to use. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/david-cameron-pledges-anti-terror-law-internet-paris-attacks-nick-clegg http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/david-cameron...
- VBprogrammer 12y ago
  I still think that is a rather literal interpretation of what he is saying. Forcing companies to allow access to data seems much more realistic, though admittedly doesn't meet the condition "no safe space for [terrorists] to talk to each other". But maybe he is a complete moron. Presumably he is going to ban the XOR operation since with a one-time pad...
  - spuz 12y ago
    If he forces major companies to provide access to their data, that still leaves minor companies or open source projects to do what they want and therefore still leaves the bad guys with a place to hide. The only alternative is to ban encryption for all but those who agree to allow access by the government (with a warrant of course) which while possible is highly implausible given how much internet traffic is currently encrypted.

higherpurpose 12y ago

Holy cow this was flagged fast.

razster 12y ago

A comment by Phuzz, one the webpages comment section, says it well. You can even create spray paints in Counter-Strike which are images, these could be used to hide secret messages. Point being, anyone can hide a message if they really wanted to without anyone noticing.

kenthorvath 12y ago

Unbreakable crypto is a genie long out of the bottle. No amount of wishing, legislating, or fear-mongering is going to prevent terrorist organizations from implementing these well-described, mathematically sound, publicly available algorithms. Since we cannot prevent terrorists from using crypto, the only ones without crypto will be non-terrorists. This proposal only serves to enshrine within the government the chilling capability and authority to surveil its citizens.