Re: Lets ban all encryption coz protection!!!
WRT backdoors, if the idea is to cripple encryption standards by weakening ciphers, then it's no better than obscuring data. As we've seen demonstrated time and time again, if there's a backdoor, it will be found by people other than those it's intended for and it will be exploited. I'm sure companies transmitting trade secrets and the banking industry to name a few would just love that. So in answer to the point about not caring about gov't access but caring about criminal access - how about both?
And, I really, really don't trust the UK government's competence in designing such a cipher (they're still a good few years off understanding what this thing called the Internet is, it would seem). Neither AES, nor any respected ciphers, have any key escrow capability, so such an addition would require either a massive rework of the algorithm, or a new one entirely. And designing secure ciphers is hard. It doesn't take much of a slip-up to completely ruin the security of a cipher.
Also, considering that in the real world, we need to know the source code of ciphers (and even in a theoretical situation without it, decompiling code or taking photographs of chips achieves the same thing), it would be pretty trivial to reverse engineer it and discover how to exploit the backdoor. The whole concept of a backdoor'd-for-one-group cipher is fundamentally broken. All previous attempts have failed quite spectacularly.
The NSA were smart enough to give up on the idea a long time ago. They also gave up on gimped ciphers like DES when it became apparent that, in order for a gov't to have access, it also destroys the credibility of the cipher for securing data from everyone else. The damage caused by using a fundamentally insecure cipher standard is immeasurable. That's why we now have strong ciphers.
And that's pretty much my original point; how absurd the whole thing is from a technical perspective.
@wasabi: Missed your last point. Oh I agree, I also object on principle. And neither am I against spying when necessary.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archiv...ty_vs_pri.html
Re: Lets ban all encryption coz protection!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
watercooled
All that "Unalienable rights, freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" kinda stuff that doesn't really apply outside of America, as far as I'm concerned.
Same thing for Freedom Of Speech/Expression, although people forget that it's mainly about just the freedom from persecution by the government for expressing yourself... which is also conditional, as things like Hate Speech and Incitement To [insert crime here] are also factors.
Nothing about non-government people, even if they are subject to the same/similar conditions for doing something in response to your 'expression'.
I personally don't believe in human rights as such, especially when people say they inalienable or whatever. You have no right to anything you haven't fought for and gone out to get for yourself and even then, when you finally have it, it's not a right. Even if it were actually a right and something you're entitled to, it doesn't mean you're going to have it - I and every other human has a right to life... Does the bear that attacks me or the virus that infects me gve a toss about these rights? No? Then it's not something I'm entitled to.
Thinking more about this, I can honestly say I don't think I've ever actually requested, requisitioned, demanded or asked for something or gone after it myself on the basis that I'm 'entitled' to it. There's a lot I think I should have, but I've always felt it's down to me to get it if I can.
I rather liked how Heinlein described it.
As for (part of) the reason people self-censor - I don't call someone a [redacted] in an email because the law says I can't, or because the government might be spying on me - I do so because the recipient wouldn't like it and the resulting comeback from them is not what I'm looking to achieve.
Speed limits is another one - I don't care if the government makes this road a 20, I will travel down it at 60 if I deem it safe to do so... What stops me is the fact that it's not safe and I'll likely crash and die if I try it!
Speed cameras don't really force the limit adherence as people will just pay the fine, which is why so many people still get caught for speeding these days. The government knows this and uses the cameras as a cash cow.
If you dropped the fine and double the points penalty (2 strikes = 12 points = no licence), suddenly people would be a LOT more cautious around monitored areas... but it would not bring in so much revenue, which is why it won't happen.
Yeah yeah, if I'm not doing anything wrong they have no reason to watch me... but how will they know if I'm doing wrong unless they are watching in the first place?
I also don't believe we can really do anything to stop them and that so few people actually care, that ultimately I can't afford to care unless it gets to the point where we take up arms against them... which is about all that anyone would pay attention to these days. As is, governments don't even try to hide their misdeeds - Case in point, MPs expenses. After all that outrage, how is it that ridiculous things are still being claimed on expenses?
Because no-one cares and both government and criminal alike are free to do what they want because they know nothing will likely happen.
Re: Lets ban all encryption coz protection!!!
There's more to the argument than just, 'I'm not doing anything wrong', did you read all of the article I linked? To paraphrase "Even if you're doing nothing wrong at that time, it may one day become illegal, and one day it may be used against you." and "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." as examples.
'I'm not doing anything wrong' is a deeply flawed and naive argument.
But as I was saying, regardless of your position on surveillance, you can treat that as a separate matter to the insurmountable implementation challenges.
What's the point in doing something when it has no positive, and major negatives?
In an extension to my earlier analogy, say in regards to greenhouse gasses from electricity production in New Zealand. Now, they're a fairly small country but a lot of it is fed from one coal-fired power station. Banning encryption is loosely analogous to promptly decommissioning that power station for environmental reasons with no replacement; it would be disastrous for the country, badly harming the lives and well-being of all involved, for pretty much zero net benefit towards the claimed goal of reducing emissions.
This really needn't be an emotional/philosophical/political argument; it doesn't even need to get that far as it completely falls apart at the first hurdle.
Re: Lets ban all encryption coz protection!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
watercooled
"Even if you're doing nothing wrong at that time, it may one day become illegal, and one day it may be used against you."
That kind of thing already happens... Numerous people have been banged up quite recently because they grabbed a girl's backside back in 1965 or something - Perfectly normal back then, but highly illegal by today's standards.
As mentioned, I honestly don't believe anything would stop a government from doing this if they wanted to anyway, short of removing them from power.
My ONLY concern is how other entities and criminals might then be able to take advantage of it for their own purposes.
Re: Lets ban all encryption coz protection!!!
Very true.
And since no perfect single-entity backdoor has yet been created to my knowledge, your last point is also very valid. Like I say, even if you're indifferent about gov't data collection (and therein possibly assume gov't is some being incapable of doing wrong or making mistakes), what about the other entities/criminals who will also exploit such a vulnerability?
On a somewhat similar subject, it's been in news over the past year or so about a lot of SOHO routers having manufacturer-installed backdoors. It seems those very backdoors have been actively exploited, and apparently this has led to the routers being added to huge botnets used e.g. for the recent XBL/PSN DoS attacks.
Re: Lets ban all encryption coz protection!!!
I have great admiration for Bruce Schneier a a mathematician and cryptographer, but that does not make him an expert on moral philosophy. And the arguments
Quote:
"Even if you're doing nothing wrong at that time, it may one day become illegal, and one day it may be used against you." and "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."
Are the same ones in different guises to support anything that the ridiculous right or ludicrous left disagree with - a prime example is the argument for the unrestricted right' to bear arms "to protect ourselves from the the Government"
As I said, I don't regard the Government as my enemy, and while I don't expect them to pry into my private communications at will - hence judicial oversight, I also have a reasonable expectation that they will use all reasonable measures to gather intelligence that will help protect me from harm.
We have data protection laws that govern how personally identifiable data can be used. We live in a society that is under threat, and in a society, no-one has the 'right' to put their 'rights' above anyone else, and if the right to absolute privacy is partially given up for the right to precaution against those that provide a threat, then that is one I would accept - subject tp appropriate safeguards and judicial oversight.
However, the implementation and enforcement of such a law would be difficult, but as I believe most publicly available crypto systems can be broken, given enough time and resource, to is a partly empty argument anyway.
Re: Lets ban all encryption coz protection!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
peterb
As I said, I don't regard the Government as my enemy, and while I don't expect them to pry into my private communications at will - hence judicial oversight, I also have a reasonable expectation that they will use all reasonable measures to gather intelligence that will help protect me from harm.
We have data protection laws that govern how personally identifiable data can be used. We live in a society that is under threat, and in a society, no-one has the 'right' to put their 'rights' above anyone else, and if the right to absolute privacy is partially given up for the right to precaution against those that provide a threat, then that is one I would accept - subject tp appropriate safeguards and judicial oversight.
They're some rather massive and idealistic assumptions. Governments aren't perfect.
And as I said, where is there even the remotest of supporting evidence that this would help 'protect' us? Cameron saying something doesn't make it gospel.
Edit: And even if you only trust Schneier as a mathematician and cryptographer, he also says how technologically stupid the whole idea is, before politics even come into it...
Re: Lets ban all encryption coz protection!!!
This seems like a more cool-headed take on it: http://www.cityam.com/207124/snapcha...ameron-comment
And I'm inclined to agree, it probably is a case of taking a highly ambiguous speech out of context/assuming worst-case (myself included). If it is just a case of renewing existing laws and encouraging ISPs/companies to be more proactive in alerting gov't to threats then I've no problem with that.
Re: Lets ban all encryption coz protection!!!
Anyone who isn't me making decisions about my life is to some degree my enemy.
Re: Lets ban all encryption coz protection!!!
Looks like the Yanks are being more sensible about it...
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...MCNEWEML6619I2
Re: Lets ban all encryption coz protection!!!
RE: OP. Terrorists would only ever have to talk about a cheese dip fetish and it could be game over for the rest of us.
I couldn't help but think of Allo Allo should this become a reality one day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGBa...tailpage#t=667
Re: Lets ban all encryption coz protection!!!
I don't really feel I could trust the UK gov't on this. Lots of anti-terror, safety, protect the children but when it comes to protecting its citizens from itself it seems to go poorly, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28189858