Because TLS is already broken with the trusted model. CAs subpoenaed and also hacked a few years ago. PKI is dead.
If you're a threat level is the state then there's very little to hide from them.
UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications
91–100 of 143 posts
Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications
#92If only some large tech company could come up with a way to deal with CSAM while still allowing for e2e... /s
Apple's plan was awful. How about there be no scanning at all? If you don't want your stuff scanned then don't put it on icloud or encrypt it before you put it there. I personally don't want scan-all-the-things policing software put on any of my devices. That should require a warrant at the least.
But you see what happens when there is no scanning at all: politicians hook onto this awful crime to argue against e2ee.
Of course, e2ee everywhere (e2eee? e2e3?) would be all fine and dandy if you didn't have these malicious actors. But we do.
Suppose there are three options:
1. Encryption and no CSAM scanning 2. Encryption and on-device CSAM scanning 3. No encryption
Currently we have 1 (more or less). Legislators are increasingly averse to keeping it that way, and are arguing for 3. Apple proposed 2.
What is the alternative? Is there another option?
Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications
#93A more effective approach would be to highlight how the far-right uses encrypted chat apps. That would get the majority of the media and blue-checks supporting you. > Why right-wing extremists’ favorite new platform is so dangerous. Telegram’s lax content moderation and encrypted chats make it a convenient tool for extremists. https://www.vox.com/recode/22238755/telegram-messaging-socia... > In collaboration with ant…
Don't forget to promote chopping off everyone's hands. I hear some ultra-right-wing people might be typing their nonsense with their hands. So we should make sure no one has hands, that'll get em. ~ Also, this list of US news vendors' articles against e2ee is kinda evidence that it's not just the UK going on a campaign.
I think the parent was commenting not on the ability of disfavored groups to use encrypted chat to organize, but on how readily the current social elite can be scared into banning anything by telling them that such disfavored groups are using it.
Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The police and intelligences agencies aren’t intercepting the communications of normal and petty criminals. Snowden showed otherwise - they're spying on everyone's conversations, criminal or not.
If they did have that capability do you think they would use it to take down and prosecute a small time drug dealer exposing what they are doing? Even exposing this capability to the Police by give them “secret” intelligence would inevitably result in the knowledge of their capabilities leaking. If they do have this capability it is only every going to be used for large scale organised crime, terrorism and state secu…
Well, I don't know about phone conversations, but every Tom, Dick and Harry gets access to web surfing history. Given that highly casual attitude - formalised into law! - I wouldn't put it past them to informally do whatever they like with the rest of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016#...
Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does Prince Andrew have to do with the government?
The United Kingdom is a monarchy ruled by Queen Elizabeth (the mother of Andrew), even though the British people go far out of their way to pretend that's not the case. It's why Boris Johnson had to meet with the queen about forming a new government. Why is she involved at all? It's because she rules the United Kingdom in fact. Andrew's family rules Britain (for what, 1200 years? [1]), that's quite relevant to the co…
France abolished their monarchy. I think the other monarchies took note of this and decided to simply live a life of power, prestige, and influence and not get their heads on a pike by ruling like tyrants.
I think if they tried to exercise major operational control in government, it would trigger revolutions, formal republics, etc.
Reality is usually a bit more nuanced than the formal rules on paper. We have all kinds of laws on the books that don't really apply. Likewise with many of the supposed powers of these monarchies. Without exercise, exercising them makes them legal in the same way killing a home intruder is legal. Legality doesn't mean exercising it won't be bloody, won't have cost, won't have risk, etc...legality one way or another doesn't matter that much.
Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications
#96Those stunts sound super creepy and messed up. Weird, manipulative campaign. This shouldn't really be legal surely in democracies to have campaigns that "appear to be the result of grassroots campaigns and children's charities, while downplaying any Government involvement", when it's a political manipulation campaign paid for, coordinated and organised by the Government themselves. I really hope the counter-campaign…
This is normal for the UK.
It was the current government, well it's previous coalition instantiation that created the nudge unit[0]. A group of behavioural psychologists that use mind tricks to convince people to do as they are told, whether that is to drink less, or stop smoking or to follow COVID rules. A group that has since been spun off as a business to sell coercion as a service, to any two bit dictator, or free democracy that needs it.
This is the same government that deployed it's army information warriors against its own people during COVID [1]. The unit is known as 77 brigade and explains its mission as "modern warfare using non-lethal engagement and legitimate non-military levers as a means to adapt behaviours of the opposing forces and adversaries" [2].
The UK has never had more than a thin veneer of freedom, it's always been an aristocracy lording it over the rest of us. They should just do away with the pretence.
[0] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/nudge-u...
[1] https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/77-brigade-is-countering-cov...
[2] https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brig...
Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications
#97No post body was provided.
Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They're already spying on near every street corner, after all. Citation needed.
https://www.precisesecurity.com/articles/top-10-countries-by... Holy crap, the US has more cameras per capita than China, according to this. The UK is a somewhat distant third. Though I think a distinction should be drawn between government-operated and commercial surveillance.
Per Capita is probably the wrong metric to use here. This isn't just limited to cameras but you don't need a single camera to track a single person. The more population dense an area is the higher efficiency a single camera can have.
Just think about it in this manner. If you have a house and you set up cameras that monitor every square inch of the house, does it matter if there is one person in the house (high camera per occupant) or many people in the house (low camera per occupant)? Obviously not. The US is also one of the least population dense developed nations.
Not that we shouldn't be worried about surveillance, but let's use good metrics.
Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
The United Kingdom is a monarchy ruled by Queen Elizabeth (the mother of Andrew), even though the British people go far out of their way to pretend that's not the case. It's why Boris Johnson had to meet with the queen about forming a new government. Why is she involved at all? It's because she rules the United Kingdom in fact. Andrew's family rules Britain (for what, 1200 years? [1]), that's quite relevant to the co…
> Shall we pretend that the family that has ruled Britain for 1200 years has no political power? Har har. That's like saying the Church of England still has significant political power. it still has the ability to take tithes, although they are mostly optional. The present royal family only really dates back to victoria, I mean sure they are tangentially related to the german/dutch/scots/danish that ruled before, but…
> The queen has "influence", but not political power.
There’s a very peculiar differentiation to make.
Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications
#100I find it amusing that WhatsApp and its e2ee is used as a common target for regulation by the government when their own ministers are using it to organise all sorts of shenanigans; illegal parties during lockdown, “anonymous” briefing of journalists, leaking compromising information about their peers. Not to mention that it always seems like the government is run via WhatsApp (probably need the e2ee for that!). Ultim…
It doesn't really matter if government ministers organise their illegal lockdown parties over end-to-end encryption or not, when the police force were fully aware of it at the time (two officers stationed on either side of the door!) and decline to "investigate".