Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK anti-encryption law

falkvinge.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 198 posts

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#111

Post by pavel_lishin »

einhverfr wrote: post #38
Zenst wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you find yourself being asked for the encryption key for /dev/rand then you know things are pretty messed up. Given the technology intellegence of some law makers I do wonder when that day will come about.

actually when I read /dev/urandom I get a much larger stream of data. I think /dev/random is corrupted becuase it hangs after a bit when I try to read. So please hand over the key for /dev/urandom..... ;-)

It hangs because your system entropy pool runs dry.

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#112

Post by kintamanimatt »

Torn wrote: post #98
kintamanimatt wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Encrypted data, at least that encrypted with TrueCrypt, is distinguishable from random data. [1] [1] http://superuser.com/questions/383526/is-a-normal-truecrypt-...

Says down below that it isn't: http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4234959

I'm very glad I'm wrong in this case! It would be a horrible weakness in TC.

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#113

Post by excuse-me »

jff wrote: post #108
excuse-me wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's very easy. You claim the "key" is a one time pad, ie an XOR of the encrypted data - then you simply take the encrypted data and generate a "key" which XORs it into "the home secretary is a wonderful person and i support him"

So, perjury.

Not sure you can commit perjury if you are the accused !

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#115

Post by sdoering »

Zenst wrote: post #89
excuse-me wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was being discussed well before this, in the early 90s i went to a computer lab seminar about this and we asked - we have Tb of data in our detector system that is either truely random (ie part of a Monte Carlo sim) or is essentially random (the detector noise), how do we prove this isn't encrypted. Oh don't worry, said the nice man from the police computer unit - it's only going to be used against terrorists.

That is in practice the intention, though as it is a law on the book's it is open to be abused down the line against non-terroists. As a rule the UK police tend to have alot of common sence, but they are also human. That all said the whole blackberry encryption affair recently arising due to the riots does highlight further shortcommings. Still this law was instigated prior to 9/11 and in that you do wonder what it w…

Well, if I remember right, the UK had their "fair share" of terror (IRA), long before the US suffered from 9/11.

So this argumentation does not strike me so extraordinary. But that does not change the point, that this law really has the possibility to be misused.

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#116

Post by excuse-me »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #101
mjwalshe wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uk Judges are separate from the govenment. You would ahve to go back to the bad old days of the star chamber to find the UK law system doing anything as doddgy as Al Capone (not exactly the USAs Legal systems finest hour)

Here in the USA we like to periodically hold witch hunts. That's how we got Martha Stewart, for example.

Martha Stewart is a witch?

I suppose that explains the eye of newt in the recipes.

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#117

Post by mahyarm »

mjwalshe wrote: post #74
CWuestefeld wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is usually true, when the system is working as intended. But it's not all that unusual for the gov't to really "have it in" for someone, but not be able to pin the crime on them, as with Al Capone. In his case, the government didn't think it could pin the true charges on him, so he was actually convicted on tax charges. The tax code is big, obscure, and no expert agrees on the detailed interpretation, so i…

Uk Judges are separate from the govenment. You would ahve to go back to the bad old days of the star chamber to find the UK law system doing anything as doddgy as Al Capone (not exactly the USAs Legal systems finest hour)

Judges, police and the people who direct the police are all socially close coworkers for the most part.

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#118

Post by MRonney »

I was watching 'Garrow's Law' yesterday. He said that "Laws which are passed in times of fear, are rarely removed from the statute books". Terrorists always win, because every time they attempt to strike the Government removes our basic liberties under the guise of protecting us.

Re: UK anti-encryption law

#119

Post by PaulAJ »

nathan_long wrote: post #4

His argument is: 1) They can lock you up for refusing to decrypt something. 2) Encrypted data looks exactly like random noise. 3) Encrypted data can be hidden in any file. 4) Therefore, they can allege that nearly anything is encrypted and lock you up on that basis. I'd say that's terrifying. Another thought: doesn't this make it possible to frame someone by writing random data to their hard drive?

Fortunately its nowhere near that bad. The prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the file contains encrypted data and that you have the key. So if you did have a file of random noise then the police would not be able to prove these things. And if you had software for using that file as a random number stream then that would be evidence in your defence. Remember, its for the police to prove your guilt, not you to prove your innocence. And the law in question does actually talk about that.

If someone wrote random noise to your hard drive then they couldn't prove these things (and in that scenario it would be a lot easier to frame someone by simply writing some child porn).

Encrypted files are not usually just cyphertext: there tends to be a header file with the file type, and of course there will be associated decryption software on the disk. Time and date stamps may well coincide (e.g. the decryption program was last run at the same time the suspect file was accessed). All of this would help build a case that the suspect had in fact decrypted the data in the past, and therefore could do so again.

As for steganography, they would need some clear evidence that the alleged steganographic data existed. Merely saying "maybe" and a pound will get them a cup of tea.

Post reply on HN