Govt now wants access to all encrypted messages

vale

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/27/amber-rudd-call-backdoor-access-hazy-grasp-encryption

though frankly i think rudd has a hazy grip on reality in general & this merely one aspect.

digitalscream said:

mike_l said:

No, It really would waste their time.

There is no point in looking for a needle in a haystack without having some reasonable idea the needle is there in the first place.


If the security forces are looking at 10 (unrelated/unknown to each other) people, and one of those 10 has links to a known criminal, that's where the security forces will look. The other 9 who have no links or connections to known criminals won't get looked at. And IF they do, it'll be cursory. The security forces do not have the time and man power to search through every single thing.


They may very well use various technologies to see where the needles are in the first place, but the majority of people will have nothing to fear.

I don't think you understand how this is intended to work. It's data mining (regardless of whether they say it isn't) - the data is used to determine whether you're committing a crime or not, based on profiles and metadata; they look at the people you've contacted and sites you've visited. That's how de Menezes was determined to be a terrorist and shot; no actual evidence, just a rough, incomplete profile and poor communication.

They can't tell whether you've explicitly visited a site (eg a site with illegal porn on it) or it's the result of a rogue ad, either, and that could easily ruin your life even if you're eventually found innocent by a jury.

Once they've made the determination, they can focus on you and comb through everything you've ever said or looked at to find evidence of a crime. Do you really believe you're whiter-than-white, and would remain so through the process of innuendo and desperation to get a conviction by an incompetent authority?

Having been party to the in-court part of two cases, I can honestly say that the incompetence displayed by the police and the CPS is terrifying, not to mention the callousness with which they toyed with the defendants' lives and livelihoods for over a year in an attempt to get a conviction with their not-really-evidence. The overall impression I got was of an organisation who will do anything to get a conviction, regardless of the actual laws involved or whether the evidence points to that person in the first place.

Do I want to be opened up to that through profiling? Not a chance. Taking reasonable precautions to prevent it seems like the most prudent approach.

You're also implying that this is purely for the security forces; that's nonsense. Just look at the local authority who used anti-terror legislation to sic surveillance on a family because they suspected that they might be applying for their child to go to a school while living slightly outside the school's catchment area.

agree with every word of this @digitalscream ;;;;;;; thank you for the great post.

on the police investigation side, so true. i have seen someone close be put through it too.
once police resources have been committed to pursuing a course of investigation (which someone has had to make a judgement call on & justify to a superior) they are then under pressure to show a result or be seen to be chasing shadows & wasting resources. the internal market. quotas & targets. the bottom line is that no one wants to be worst performer in the room when the next round of cuts hit. you or them.
& they can find something on everyone because so many of the laws around 'threatening behaviour', 'terrorist material', 'porn', etc are all so vague & elastic. subjective calls.
a cynic (i'm one) would suggest intentionally so. so they can pick up & neutralise/inhibit anyone who opposes the government or the neoliberal status quo in a way which might embarrass them (or even actually have some effect). ask jenny jones of the green party.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/21/ipcc-investigates-claims-police-used-hackers-to-read-protesters-emails-jenny-jones

when the police want to nail you, they want acces to everything you have ever touched.
when you try to catch them out, or prove your innocence, they shred & resign with stress.

& if you think it can't happen think back to the last time you got pulled over for some stupid random traffic thing, which turned out to be nothing, but because the pc involved didn't like your attitude on the day he/she starts going through your entire car (tyre tread depth, indicators working, stickers obscuring back window, etc ) just to find that one thing he/she can nail you on to put you in your place.

clearly some police are great & deserve our support. & some are as evil as anyone they are supposed to catch & an insult to their office. they are a cross section of people in general.
but while both exist i'd rather not flip a coin with my or my family & friends' lives.
better they have nothing or as little as possible to rummage around in.

i use a (no logs) vpn for general secure stuff, ccleaner to wipe internet files & history after each session, firefox on private & ghostery to block trackers & cookies.
snowden would laugh at me & say it's not enough (i really like the guy) but i'm not a spy or a crim. so maybe it's ok. i'm trying to do my best.
have also tried tor-through-vpn as an experiment, but it seemed a bit like overkill. & also tried to set up a virtual machine (again, curiousity) but got confused & gave up. i think that's for the pros.

"For my part...all my traffic is encrypted with 2048-bit RSA, which would take many times longer than the age of the universe to crack with current computing capabilities. Good luck to 'em."

is that an option for tech mortals of for the hardcore only? i would be interested to hear more about what you think regular people (on little & no money) should be using. you know stuff.

curiously, one unintentional side-effect of the govt announcing these crackpot snooper schemes is that it encourages more civil rights minded types to think harder about their privacy options (hence my playing with tor & vm, even there is no real need).
which ultimately probably makes their job harder when they do want to pick someone out.

FelineGuitars

digitalscream said:

FelineGuitars said:

I don't trust any government , and especially not any of the recent Tory ones.

Fun fact...it was Labour who started the ball rolling on this.

New Labour were Tories.......for the most part
Since potential MPs have discovered that it is more fun to have your nose in the trough and making way more than their salary for special interests etc , there have been relatively few who genuinely stand for any cause or for their constituents.

I think it is what makes Corbyn seem so weird, and why the Blairists don't want to act in a way befitting of a traditional labour MP when life seems so much better when lining your own pocket.

Sporky

57Deluxe said:

Br9zFdYkaDQo49cjTv1J/Dn6p86TFULDHMqpY5osZjdM+/DIhd+CiSJTC+J4Z54MJoXR43t5Ys63ogzA3KYjmdVC2SqmDtekocDN/pd1RQLl2LPF4HJcLxZXdjNdgtcs

Easy for you to say.

HAL9000

57Deluxe said:

HAL9000 said:

57Deluxe said:

Br9zFdYkaDQo49cjTv1J/Dn6p86TFULDHMqpY5osZjdM+/DIhd+CiSJTC+J4Z54MJoXR43t5Ys63ogzA3KYjmdVC2SqmDtekocDN/pd1RQLl2LPF4HJcLxZXdjNdgtcs

Sorry to nitpick but there's a typo in the second word....

Just as well you ain't in charge then cos is exactly this that gets innocent ppl sent down!

http://www.online-toolz.com/tools/text-encryption-decryption.php

Ah, excellent.

digitalscream

FelineGuitars said:

digitalscream said:

FelineGuitars said:

I don't trust any government , and especially not any of the recent Tory ones.

Fun fact...it was Labour who started the ball rolling on this.

New Labour were Tories.......for the most part
Since potential MPs have discovered that it is more fun to have your nose in the trough and making way more than their salary for special interests etc , there have been relatively few who genuinely stand for any cause or for their constituents.

I think it is what makes Corbyn seem so weird, and why the Blairists don't want to act in a way befitting of a traditional labour MP when life seems so much better when lining your own pocket.

Thing is, this is nothing to do with partisan politics, and everything to do with the authoritarian/libertarian split. Western governments (almost) all made a massive lurch towards the authoritarian after 9/11, and they've just been moving further in that direction ever since.

It wouldn't have mattered who was in power - there's massive international pressure (mostly originating in the US) to do so, and nobody wants to be seen as breaking with the pack.

Fretwired

digitalscream said:

Thing is, this is nothing to do with partisan politics, and everything to do with the authoritarian/libertarian split. Western governments (almost) all made a massive lurch towards the authoritarian after 9/11, and they've just been moving further in that direction ever since.

It wouldn't have mattered who was in power - there's massive international pressure (mostly originating in the US) to do so, and nobody wants to be seen as breaking with the pack.

OK.  Serious question.

Do you think personal freedom and liberty is more important than national security? Is the attack in London a price worth paying to live in a society in which the government has no right to our personal data or any right to monitor us, or any right to film us in public?

gubble

Fretwired said:

digitalscream said:

OK.  Serious question.

Do you think personal freedom and liberty is more important than national security? Is the attack in London a price worth paying to live in a society in which the government has no right to our personal data or any right to monitor us, or any right to film us in public?

If someone is going to do something like this and has the intelligence and ability to make it happen they will - regardless of what barriers are put in place.

If the government get unlimited access to everyone's online and technology based correspondence those who want to correspond in secret will find another method.

So the government wanting access to this particular messaging service is fairly irrelevant for preventing attacks on the public as once they have the access - they'll just move software or platform entirely.

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

digitalscream said:

Thing is, this is nothing to do with partisan politics, and everything to do with the authoritarian/libertarian split. Western governments (almost) all made a massive lurch towards the authoritarian after 9/11, and they've just been moving further in that direction ever since.

It wouldn't have mattered who was in power - there's massive international pressure (mostly originating in the US) to do so, and nobody wants to be seen as breaking with the pack.

OK.  Serious question.

Do you think personal freedom and liberty is more important than national security? Is the attack in London a price worth paying to live in a society in which the government has no right to our personal data or any right to monitor us, or any right to film us in public?

I think personal freedom, liberty and security (and freedom from abuse of surveillance powers) are more important than the tiny increase in national security capabilities (which would be, in the best case scenario, marginal) brought by robbing the population of their right to privacy.

Fretwired

gubble said:

So the government wanting access to this particular messaging service is fairly irrelevant for preventing attacks on the public as once they have the access - they'll just move software or platform entirely.

I think in this case the security forces want to find out who the perpetrator was talking to - it's about gathering intelligence that might stop future attacks. Since the attack last week its clear the security services can only monitor a small number of people. The guy who carried out on the attack was on the list but considered not worth bothering with ..

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

gubble said:

So the government wanting access to this particular messaging service is fairly irrelevant for preventing attacks on the public as once they have the access - they'll just move software or platform entirely.

I think in this case the security forces want to find out who the perpetrator was talking to - it's about gathering intelligence that might stop future attacks. Since the attack last week its clear the security services can only monitor a small number of people. The guy who carried out on the attack was on the list but considered not worth bothering with ..

They already have the ability to see who the perpetrator was talking to. This is not about that.

Sporky

digitalscream said:

Thing is, this is nothing to do with partisan politics, and everything to do with the authoritarian/libertarian split. Western governments (almost) all made a massive lurch towards the authoritarian after 9/11, and they've just been moving further in that direction ever since.

Bingo. They've even managed to make "liberal" a synonym for "authoritarian".

Fretwired

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

gubble said:

So the government wanting access to this particular messaging service is fairly irrelevant for preventing attacks on the public as once they have the access - they'll just move software or platform entirely.

I think in this case the security forces want to find out who the perpetrator was talking to - it's about gathering intelligence that might stop future attacks. Since the attack last week its clear the security services can only monitor a small number of people. The guy who carried out on the attack was on the list but considered not worth bothering with ..

They already have the ability to see who the perpetrator was talking to. This is not about that.

The government claims it can't .. heard an interview on R4 today.

Fretwired

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

gubble said:

So the government wanting access to this particular messaging service is fairly irrelevant for preventing attacks on the public as once they have the access - they'll just move software or platform entirely.

I think in this case the security forces want to find out who the perpetrator was talking to - it's about gathering intelligence that might stop future attacks. Since the attack last week its clear the security services can only monitor a small number of people. The guy who carried out on the attack was on the list but considered not worth bothering with ..

They already have the ability to see who the perpetrator was talking to. This is not about that.

The government claims it can't .. heard an interview on R4 today.

Fretwired

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

digitalscream said:

Thing is, this is nothing to do with partisan politics, and everything to do with the authoritarian/libertarian split. Western governments (almost) all made a massive lurch towards the authoritarian after 9/11, and they've just been moving further in that direction ever since.

It wouldn't have mattered who was in power - there's massive international pressure (mostly originating in the US) to do so, and nobody wants to be seen as breaking with the pack.

OK.  Serious question.

Do you think personal freedom and liberty is more important than national security? Is the attack in London a price worth paying to live in a society in which the government has no right to our personal data or any right to monitor us, or any right to film us in public?

I think personal freedom, liberty and security (and freedom from abuse of surveillance powers) are more important than the tiny increase in national security capabilities (which would be, in the best case scenario, marginal) brought by robbing the population of their right to privacy.

I agree - I wouldn't mind limited access to the details of a specific individual as sanctioned by a judge in a closed court based on hard evidence that they were a threat to national security. 

vale

call me a radical but my opinion is that more people are 'killed' & harmed (physical & mental health severely damaged) in this country as a direct & indirect consequence of tory austerity policies every week, than are killed or harmed in terrorist actions in this country in any year (probably ten).

nhs failures (errors, delayed surgeries, late diagnoses, cuts to drug funding, etc) that can be attributed to govt funding cuts, suicides/self-harm/trauma/clinical depression that result from cuts to mental health services, elderly people dying & suffering terribly (physically & mentally) as a consequence of cuts to care services.
(i'm a carer so i see this side of tory cuts every day. that's why i'm so fired up & angry a lot of the time. i'm not a snowflake, i am in it).

then there are more indirect factors such as reduced life expectancy & increased prevalence of life-limiting diseases among the poor (children/working age/retired) from malnutrition, obesity, stress, poor accomodation, etc.

there is a socio-political concept called 'structural violence' put forward by john galtung in the late 1960s, which i hold very much with.

Structural violence is a term commonly ascribed to John Galtung, which he introduced in the article "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research" (1969).
It refers to a form of violence wherein some social structure or social institution may harm people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs.
Structural violence is an "avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs". As it is avoidable, structural violence is a high cause of premature death and unnecessary disability. Because structural violence affects people differently in various social structures, it is very closely linked to social injustice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence

so while the rare lone terrorist attack is obviously something to reflect upon & seek (rationally not hysterically) to prevent, if you are really concerned with saving lives & safeguarding public welbeing, you may want to expand your notions of what violence within societies is & can be, & then ask who is responsible for most of the harm inflicted on the population by those means.

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

gubble said:

So the government wanting access to this particular messaging service is fairly irrelevant for preventing attacks on the public as once they have the access - they'll just move software or platform entirely.

I think in this case the security forces want to find out who the perpetrator was talking to - it's about gathering intelligence that might stop future attacks. Since the attack last week its clear the security services can only monitor a small number of people. The guy who carried out on the attack was on the list but considered not worth bothering with ..

They already have the ability to see who the perpetrator was talking to. This is not about that.

The government claims it can't .. heard an interview on R4 today.

Looking at the architecture of Signal, they most definitely should be able to (with my understanding of it) - depending, of course, on whether they have the legal standing to compel WhatsApp to cough up that data.

Assuming that WhatsApp's owners have a local presence - which is overwhelmingly likely - the answer to that is "yes". However, the general public's understanding of how this works is so limited - as evidenced by a number of comments in this thread - that the security services can pretty much say what they like with impunity, in the name of getting the public on their side so they can expand their surveillance capability. See the front page of The Sun today for clarification.

Lucas said it best with the least offensive of the Star Wars prequels...



That's the goal.

FelineGuitars

What happened in London was a horrific act, but it is the media coverage and reporting that turned it into terrorism and spread that terror across the country /globe.

It is the media who turned the narrative from being about one "nut-job" to having people looking at the man who runs the local newsagents etc with suspicion because of his skin colour or religion.

The news reporting play such a big part in whipping up these events and actually increase the chance of them happening again because of the effect it had seeming worthwhile to those who would commit such acts in the name of "insert cause here"

Emp_Fab

THANK YOU.  This is exactly what I was saying in the Westminster attacks thread, and got mocked by several for doing so.

HAL9000

Not our government, and not encryption related, but this is interesting...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39427026

Mr T looking after his business mateys.