Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Monday December 05 2016, @07:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the that-why-we-should-read-it-first dept.

Kieren McCarthy at The Register has an interesting article discussing the inclusion of encryption backdoors in the recently passed Investigatory Powers Act, also knows as the Snooper's Charter.

Among the many unpleasant things in the Investigatory Powers Act that was officially signed into law this week, one that has not gained as much attention is the apparent ability for the UK government to undermine encryption and demand surveillance backdoors.

As the bill was passing through Parliament, several organizations noted their alarm at section 217 which obliged ISPs, telcos and other communications providers to let the government know in advance of any new products and services being deployed and allow the government to demand "technical" changes to software and systems.

[...] As per the final wording of the law, comms providers on the receiving end of a "technical capacity notice" will be obliged to do various things on demand for government snoops – such as disclosing details of any system upgrades and removing "electronic protection" on encrypted communications.

Thus, by "technical capability," the government really means backdoors and deliberate security weaknesses so citizens' encrypted online activities can be intercepted, deciphered and monitored.

[...] In effect, the UK government has written into law a version of the much-derided Burr-Feinstein Bill proposed in the US, which would have undermined encryption in America. A backlash derailed that draft law.

[...] To be fair, there were some fears that Blighty's law would effectively kill off the UK software industry as well as undermine Brits' privacy, and expose them to surveillance and hacking by criminals exploiting these mandatory backdoors. This mild panic did bring about some changes to the UK's Investigatory Powers Bill before it was passed.

The question is: were the changes sufficient?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Monday December 05 2016, @07:49PM

    by dyingtolive (952) on Monday December 05 2016, @07:49PM (#437348)

    From what I recall, most of the bad guys haven't really been using encryption anyway.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday December 05 2016, @08:07PM

    by Zz9zZ (1348) on Monday December 05 2016, @08:07PM (#437358)

    Those are the ones you hear about... though you're correct, there are methods people can use to communicate that are quite secure, but those are like humanoid one-time pads.

    --
    ~Tilting at windmills~