81–90 of 113 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I believe you are mistaken. Governments are quite interested in your financial dealings, even with banks. The more they know, the less you can do without their direct knowledge.
I am not saying they are not interested. I am saying that they just need to ask the banks who will hand over everything no question asked. GCHQ does not need to intercept your connection to get your bank statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I believe you are mistaken. Governments are quite interested in your financial dealings, even with banks. The more they know, the less you can do without their direct knowledge.
I am not saying they are not interested. I am saying that they just need to ask the banks who will hand over everything no question asked. GCHQ does not need to intercept your connection to get your bank statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why you think that. Perhaps I was unclear. The average prospective terrorist / criminal etc isn't going to be able to set up TLS. If they encrypt their communications, the odds are it's going to be going via a third party. Next time you send an email, tell the recipient that from now on you're going to communicate directly by TLS, and they'll need to set up a server before you can talk to them again. I b…
Using PGP securely is as easy as downloading some software, typing in your message, and clicking a button. It's not something that requires any knowledge beyond basic computer usage. You aren't going to be able to stop people from sharing PGP software on the internet. I think you're severely underestimating the intelligence of people in general. If we're talking about ISIS, all it takes is one moderately experienced…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using PGP securely is as easy as downloading some software, typing in your message, and clicking a button. It's not something that requires any knowledge beyond basic computer usage. You aren't going to be able to stop people from sharing PGP software on the internet. I think you're severely underestimating the intelligence of people in general. If we're talking about ISIS, all it takes is one moderately experienced…
What software are you talking about? I've seen very clever people struggle with PGP. In fact Ed Snowden famously screwed up when he first emailed Glenn Greenwald.
I suppose I omitted the step of copying and pasting your recipient's public key, but that's not especially conceptually difficult, either.
This is a pointless petition. "We don't want to ban encryption." - Ed Vaizey, Minister of State at the Department of Culture, Media & Sport, on 16 July 2015 - http://www.scmagazineuk.com/uk-minister-cyber-security-a-pri...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not saying they are not interested. I am saying that they just need to ask the banks who will hand over everything no question asked. GCHQ does not need to intercept your connection to get your bank statement.
Many countries still require warrants.
Urgh. This should be better phrased. From the BoingBoing article: David Cameron says there should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" It's very specific to communication, and reading between the lines, messaging, as opposed to something like HTTP communication between a bank and a customer. Don't get me wrong, it's still incredibly stupid, but the government will be able to reply to this petition wi…
This is a pointless petition. "We don't want to ban encryption." - Ed Vaizey, Minister of State at the Department of Culture, Media & Sport, on 16 July 2015 - http://www.scmagazineuk.com/uk-minister-cyber-security-a-pri...
There shouldn't be a need for any petition. A government with the illusion that it can "ban encryption" has already lost all authority and credibility, so should not be governing anyone.
Says somebody with a technical understanding of encryption. The problem is there's a lack of understanding in this area and the headlines play well to the media. I think this is important and have emailed two friends (a doctor and a lawyer) to ask them to sign it. I described it as: 'It may be similar to how you feel when you watch a B movie lawyer or doctor "making a professional decision". The only difference being…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What software are you talking about? I've seen very clever people struggle with PGP. In fact Ed Snowden famously screwed up when he first emailed Glenn Greenwald.
GPGTools, for example ( https://gpgtools.org ) I suppose I omitted the step of copying and pasting your recipient's public key, but that's not especially conceptually difficult, either.
There's also keypair generation, which is the step that derails most people I think. Plus the fact that people have to grok the concept of public and private keys, and be able to distribute / not distribute them as appropriate. And revocation certificates. And public keyservers. And trust levels. Etc.
I do think an organised, disciplined group might manage to get PGP working as intended, but I doubt there are many such groups.
My point is, I doubt individuals implementing encryption have much to fear from whatever proposals may emerge from this. Maybe they will later. But it seems to me it's much more likely to target companies that offer/facilitate encrypted messaging.
Edit: Thanks to whoever just put my karma over 2000. Does anything exciting happen when you get to 2000 points?