In practice, this probably just means that WhatsApp, Signal etc. have to implement a lawful intercept capability, whereby a targeted user can have their communications read but everyone else continues as normal. Doesn't seem like such a big deal, considering this would be done by court order and limited to users suspected of engaging in criminal activity.
UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption
121–130 of 234 posts
Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not saying this applies to you, but generally when I see someone espousing this opinion online, they are about to endorse a country who literally has a single king-like ruler, who will throw you in jail if you speak ill about them
"citation needed" I certainly agree that there is really only oligrachy everywhere, and I certainly do not think any individual hero ruler would be better. The statement only observed a bad thing. It did not advocate or even hint at some other bad thing as a proposed solution. Putting words into someone else's mouth is worse even than whatever they might have said if they had actually said it. It's an actual wrondoin…
> "citation needed"
From the sibling comment by PhilipRoman:
> But I would ask you this - when you are jailed for speaking, would it be of some comfort to know that the decision to jail you was decided by 100 politicians instead of 1?
I realize this comment was written 5 minutes after yours, so you had no way of knowing, it is amusing how quickly the parent turned out to be right.
Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption
#123To ban end-to-end encryption you effectively need to ban math. Even if all messaging apps will remove built-in encryption function you can still use e2ee in your keyboard app or something that would seamlessly decrypt incoming messages and encrypt outgoing messages on the fly.
They can't stop people from doing math, but they can stop people from sharing high-entropy (i.e. "looks encrypted") data.
There are of course workarounds (e.g. steganography), but if you add enough friction then the average person won't bother, and those who do try to maintain their privacy will be at even greater risk of detection and punishment.
Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth pointing out that right-wingers say precisely the opposite and can produce plenty of evidence showing the BBC's left-wing bias.
I think it would be more apt to call it plenty of "evidence"...
Yes, but it's an argument that just goes round and round forever. Conservatives think the BBC is run by a left-wing cabal. Leftists think it's an establishment mouthpiece run by the Tories. We've been having exactly the same argument since the 1960s.
Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption
#125The UK has threatened this on and off for a while. I recall around 2000 they proposed a bill which would have forced everyone who wanted to use encryption to escrow a key with the government. I used to watch some TV in those days and the UK programme "NewsNight" had a discussion about it. There proposing the idea was some poor government flunky. There explaining the flaws in the idea was Whitfield Diffie[1]. Diffie j…
> the bill was eventually dropped If you're referring to the Electronic Communications Bill, it did indeed become an act. And in fact it contained an explicit section prohibiting the imposition of escrow (which has not been removed by any subsequent amendments): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/7/part/III 14 Prohibition on key escrow requirements (1) Subject to subsection (2), nothing in this Act shall confe…
>Friend, who has changed his mind because we have learned much more about the matter. All credit is due to him for that.
Complimented for being a rational human being, no less.
Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption
#126The UK has threatened this on and off for a while. I recall around 2000 they proposed a bill which would have forced everyone who wanted to use encryption to escrow a key with the government. I used to watch some TV in those days and the UK programme "NewsNight" had a discussion about it. There proposing the idea was some poor government flunky. There explaining the flaws in the idea was Whitfield Diffie[1]. Diffie j…
> UK programme "NewsNight" had a discussion about it. There proposing the idea was some poor government flunky. There explaining the flaws in the idea was Whitfield Diffie Aah, the good old days when the BBC was un-biased. These days you would get a government flunky, and on the other side of the table a pro-government flunky from a lobbying outfit whose real accreditation has been carefully omitted by the BBC and th…
[dead]
Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the command-in-chief of UK and other Commonweath militaries? Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Cana... As all executive power is legally reposed in the Crown, the role of commander-in-chief is the only constitutional means by which decisions are made over the deployment and disposition of the Canadian Armed Forces.[6] Under the Westminster system's conventions of responsible governm…
It’s concerning to think of some sort of major constitutional crisis taking place during wartime due to disagreement between PM and King. I’m a little baffled that this has never been framed as a national security issue, at least it hasn’t been a popular narrative in my lifetime. At the same time, whatever government opens that particular Pandora’s box is in for a hell of a ride, so I understand why. I'm obviously an…
Bare in mind that the other reason noone wants to open that Pandora's box is that in reality the monarchy's interference is relatively minor and the political establishment (with full backing of the public) would permanently shut down any attempts to interfere in a more major way.
That's not too say that the guardians findings aren't troubling or that the powers the UK monarchy do wield aren't antidemocratic. But they're only ignored because they're relatively minor.
In the case of something major like a national security incident they'd be overruled and potentially trigger the dissolution or atleast severe weakening of the monarchy. They're aware of that fact and thus careful about what they do.
Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it would be more apt to call it plenty of "evidence"...
Yes, but it's an argument that just goes round and round forever. Conservatives think the BBC is run by a left-wing cabal. Leftists think it's an establishment mouthpiece run by the Tories. We've been having exactly the same argument since the 1960s.
[dead]
Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the bill was eventually dropped If you're referring to the Electronic Communications Bill, it did indeed become an act. And in fact it contained an explicit section prohibiting the imposition of escrow (which has not been removed by any subsequent amendments): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/7/part/III 14 Prohibition on key escrow requirements (1) Subject to subsection (2), nothing in this Act shall confe…
>Friend, who has changed his mind because we have learned much more about the matter. All credit is due to him for that. Complimented for being a rational human being, no less.
Always good to reinforce positive behaviour especially amongst legislators.
Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption
#130Ending encryption is like ending math. It's not possible and just moves the developers more into the underground. It could likely cause regulatory arbitrage situations too (e.g. developers create apps for other countries but determined people in the U.K. find a way to access them).
It's quite easy, really. It's not hard to find phones communicating with WhatsApp's servers, and the moment WhatsApp indicates it can't decrypt a message for a UK user, fines and arrests can be made. You can simplify it further with Signal and WhatsApp: any UK phone number that can't be decrypted by the golden state decryption key is a problem. You can get around these restrictions by sending independently encrypted…
> It's quite easy, really.
Another thing that is quite easy: A service provider can simply stop offering his service in the UK if such laws are passed. I wonder what the electoral outlook is, of a government that essentially prevents it's citizens from accessing WhatsApp...probably on par with someone proposing to ban sugar or declaring cats to be illegal.