[HN Gopher] UK proposal to criminalize "sophisticated encrypted ... ___________________________________________________________________ UK proposal to criminalize "sophisticated encrypted communication devices" Author : costco Score : 104 points Date : 2023-01-24 21:43 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk) (TXT) w3m dump (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk) | Havoc wrote: | 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 | jchw wrote: | 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 wrote: | So... computers running firewall software? Perhaps browsers | with TLS support and anonymous mode as well? | hsbauauvhabzb wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 | | 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. | wmf wrote: | This whole story is kind of sad because crimephones don't even | provide good security. Either they are easily hacked by the | government or they're government honeypots from the beginning. | costco wrote: | From what I have read [no1bc](https://no1bc.com) has been one | of the more popular devices after the Sky ECC takedown, and | it's basically just an iPhone with their special messaging app | installed and an MDM setup to disable a bunch of settings and | allow remote wipe. An iPhone is "commercially available" and | some of these services even have their apps on the app store. | Would that be a sophisticated encrypted communication device? | It will be interesting to see what definition they come up with | but it seems likely it will include some false positives. | walrus01 wrote: | 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+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 wrote: | > This sort of thing would be purchased by clueless/gullible | mid and low level people only now. | | And therefor should actually be subsidized immediately. | SV_BubbleTime wrote: | >"the UK is trying to ban encryption outright", that's not the | whole story | | It really is though. | | They'll always have a good reason to present, and they'll | always say it won't go any further. | endgame wrote: | The problem, of course, is that the government can never be | trusted to keep within the boundaries they claim they'll set. | Metadata retention went through in Australia and the meat | inspectors wanted access to it; surveillance in the UK was used | to spy on people who left their rubbish bins out; at the height | of the pandemic, contact-tracing data (which was promised hand- | on-heart to be for public health only) was used by the police | for unrelated crimes. | realce wrote: | > but if you're reading it as "the UK is trying to ban | encryption outright", that's not the whole story. | | But isn't that the whole story? A device produced to securely | encrypt data is proposed to be outlawed - if that's a physical | device today, it'll be an algorithmic device tomorrow. A law | against one effective safe is a law against all effective | safes. | | Any encryption device is "sophisticated" if it is useful. Maybe | we could read it as "UK is trying to ban /useful/ encryption | outright" | nhchris wrote: | It's dangerous to assume context and intent when writing a law | will limit how that law, once passed, is applied. Because they | won't. And there's a lot of "not available commercially" | language in there, that makes me think it'll apply to anything | you can't buy at a local mall, e.g. a privacy-focused Android | fork. | | It's also a dangerous step in making the mere act of hiding | from the government a crime. | RajT88 wrote: | It's still troublesome as a precedent: Making a particular | class of software illegal to be in possession of. | | As others have pointed out - once the precedent is in place, | what is stopping them from deciding that some other piece of | software superficially matches the law close enough that the | police will ding you for it? After all, this is policing 101, | where they use whatever laws are on the book as leverage for | something totally unrelated to the laws they're using. | | Having a look at the wording on offer: | | - 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. | | - An offence of possessing any specified article where a person | intends or, has reasonable grounds to suspect, that it will be | used in any serious crime. | | Every time we get new laws like this, we take a step towards | the police being able to arrest anyone, for any reason, at any | time. | ben_w wrote: | Two things are simultaneously true: | | 1. The entire UK economy is dependent on everyone having | access to cryptography so good that even Russia can't break | it, therefore it is of paramount national interest that | everyone does have access to it. | | 2. Bad people will use the exact same tech to avoid detection | while planning and committing major crimes that have the | potential to escalate to the level of undermining the state. | | The only way to _prevent_ #2 is to _enforce_ extremely | luddite laws that mess up #1. | | In reality things get much harder to guess at when | pontificating from armchairs, as when you have to account for | the fact that the government and police aren't actually | trying to _perfectly_ enforce _any_ specific law -- not even | the ones we all grew up assuming they "surely must" fully | enforce because they were the worst horrors in the newspapers | -- it stops being clear how much any given law is supposed to | help nor how much harm it will cause. | RajT88 wrote: | > The only way to prevent #2 is to enforce extremely | luddite laws that mess up #1. | | That's often how they think, but of course it isn't true. | | The FBI has had good success with another route: | | https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-sold-criminals-fake- | encrypted... | | Then there's just good old fashioned good police work. | Informants. In-person Surveillance. Sting operations. | loup-vaillant wrote: | If a communication device is favoured by criminals, I kinda | want in. I mean, we're talking people who have very good | reasons to avoid detection, right? Maybe there's something good | in those phones? | | _(Not that I would trust the criminal 's supply chain, mind | you.)_ | costco wrote: | You would think so but most of them have terrible security: | | https://threatpost.com/europol-arrests-cracked-sky- | ecc/16474... | | https://www.wired.com/story/encrochat-phone-police- | hacking-e... | | https://arstechnica.com/information- | technology/2018/11/polic... | | https://www.engadget.com/fbi-encrypted-chat-app-anom- | crimina... | cm2187 wrote: | > _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. | rom-antics wrote: | HTTPS is pretty sophisticated. Are we going to outlaw Google | Chrome next? | reeckoh wrote: | 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. | vsviridov wrote: | Do cellphones qualify? They are very sophisticated and full of | encryption... | Muromec wrote: | sophisticated as in "we tried to decipher or wiretap it and | failed at both" | vlovich123 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 | varenc wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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.) | asow92 wrote: | "the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile | phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them" | dilippkumar wrote: | 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 wrote: | Nathan Fielder would be proud. This policy will be easily | avoided by any serious manufacturer of devices like these. | asow92 wrote: | That is a great question. | smoldesu wrote: | Almost enough to undermine your faith in commercially | available mobile phone encryption, hm? | jacooper wrote: | GrapheneOS? Its not really commercial is it? | splatzone wrote: | " 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | Here is an example they give: | | >The case relates to an alleged conspiracy to transfer cash | in excess of PS10m 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 wrote: | 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." | dirigeant wrote: | 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. | rlpb wrote: | 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. | unity1001 wrote: | Much democracy... | staringback wrote: | Elected representatives voting for a bill? Yes you are right | that is democracy. | | I feel like you wanted a different word for this. | loup-vaillant wrote: | It's only democracy if the _people_ would actually have voted | those laws. | | We have many, _many_ examples demonstrating without the | shadow of a doubt that elected representatives are often a | pretty bad proxy for the actual will of the people. | | There's a bill in the works right now in France to increase | the legal retirement age, that we have excellent reasons to | believe over 2/3rd of the population is against. Yet the | politicians are very likely to vote it (or something similar) | anyway. | | Elections don't make a democracy. | unity1001 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 | sublinear wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | > 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. | nhchris wrote: | > 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/71586727326166220... | sys32768 wrote: | Can't they just criminalize crime and put away the bad guys so | that good people can enjoy society? | asdadsdad wrote: | One more from the new, independent Britain =) | vorpalhex wrote: | > 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. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | 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. | FpUser wrote: | >"Home Office" | | Is that you Xi? | raspyberr wrote: | I wonder if this applies to GrapheneOS. It's not far off the | Encro phone that this is clearly targetting. | belter wrote: | 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. | shadowgovt wrote: | 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] | gonzo41 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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. | bayindirh wrote: | Isn't this ironic? A proposal for criminalization of encryption | devices in the country which broke the Enigma device... | | From where, to where... | onei wrote: | Well, it would have been much simpler if Britain had banned | encrypted communications during WW2 and Germany had | cheerfully complied. | bayindirh wrote: | That would be hilarious, indeed. Chaps shall communicate | clearly. Makes sense. | Moissanite wrote: | Oi m8 you got a loisence for them there elliptic curves? | loup-vaillant wrote: | Obviously they want to _keep_ breaking that stuff. Worked out | in the past, didn 't it? | eddsh1994 wrote: | Cryptography is in the forbidden library Harry | E2EEd wrote: | If that helps to compartment knowledge in order to further UK | security, one can expect it, eventually. | | Nothing is scarier to me than a distant techno landscape where | knowledge in irresponsible or irrational hands can be used for | unimaginable horrors. Such extreme measures as censorship of | undergrad STEM education would, in such a case, seem appealing | to authorities. | | Encryption offers table stakes for weaponization of math. I do, | however, agree in spirit with your slippery slope arg | scrlk wrote: | Two things to fear: the criminalization of mathematics; | secondly, the enforcement of the new regulations being in the | hands of the UK's weather service. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Met_Office | belter wrote: | I was assuming should be the Met Office as they would have | the mathematical education :-))) | CJefferson wrote: | You'll be shocked to hear how most countries already ban large | pieces of chemistry, and even inappropriate uses of momentum. | loup-vaillant wrote: | The world isn't exactly Texas indeed. | | Still... I do hope even Texas bans some of those | _inappropriate_ uses of momentum. I do value the | electrochemical impulses going on between my fellow meatbags | ' ears. | Moissanite wrote: | They'll have to prise my illicit angular momentum from my | cold, dead, rapidly rotating fingers. | mrtksn wrote: | Framing it like that doesn't help, when they banned drugs did | they banned chemical reactions or the atomic theory or the gas | laws? | | Obviously the intentions here are not to ban computations but | devices doing computations that makes jobs of those people | harder. | loup-vaillant wrote: | Computers are a little different than specialised devices | like... well, bombs & drugs let's say. | | Heard of the coming war on general computation? | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg | | https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_War_on_General_Com. | .. | mrtksn wrote: | People claim things all the time. | | It gets old quickly to claim that "they introduced DRM" | kind of things as if those things were imposed from the top | and didn't happen within the dynamics of the businesses. | johnklos wrote: | That sounds flippant, but it really isn't. | | Imagine this: someone doesn't like you and wants to harm you. | They plant a USB stick with random data on it on you, or in | your home. They call the authorities and tell a story about how | you're colluding with terrorists, and the information you've | been exchanging with terrorists is somehow in your possession. | | The hard part would be to get someone to believe the story | enough to get a search warrant, but if you're in a position of | authority in the government, this isn't unreasonable. | | Now the warrant is executed, your home is searched, and the USB | stick is found. The data is examined, and the judge orders you | to provide the means to decrypt it. Because you can't, and | because the data is indistinguishable from real, encrypted | data, the judge orders you held until you provide the keys. | | Is this theoretical? No. It really could happen. The UK is a | very, very scary place to be if you ever do anything that might | piss off someone in power. | convery wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_number | jb1991 wrote: | 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. | alphanullmeric wrote: | First they came for financial privacy, and I did not speak out - | because I did respect care about financial privacy... | er4hn wrote: | > 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 wrote: | >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 | mthomasmw wrote: | Make me a hammer that only works on nails | stuaxo wrote: | 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. | lifeplusplus wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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.70... | despite there seemingly being very limited evidence he was | aware of criminal activity on his platform. | dvh wrote: | Is Vernam cypher sophisticated? | shadowgovt wrote: | Does that mean I can still use Pig Latin? | chatmasta wrote: | 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? | stuaxo wrote: | People that understand the implications are still in some | places and put the brakes on. | stranded22 wrote: | This time around, we have a party that is able to push through | laws as they have 1) 80 majority and 2) no qualms about hiding | their facist ways. | splatzone wrote: | 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. | dijit wrote: | they keep trying, public outrage keeps it from being viewed by | our ruling class as anything other than political suicide. | | These policies will get implemented as soon as we are sick of | being outraged. | kneebonian wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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. | Lio wrote: | I always wonder if it's a _" look at this crazy law we might | pass and definitely don't look at the money we're stealing from | the NHS or the tax we forgot to pay or the_ "loans" _we 've | been given in exchange for plush jobs and peerages"_ kind of | deal. | TillE wrote: | They tried for years to implement a bizarre law that would | impose onerous age verification systems on porn sites, but do | nothing about porn on Twitter or Reddit or whatever. Just total | ineffectual nonsense, whatever you think about the principle. | | I think they finally gave that one up. | jjice wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 | hanniabu wrote: | > Stuff like Signal, Telegram, Tor or whatever are not included | in this proposal. | | Yet... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-01-24 23:00 UTC)