from the there-are-no-secrets-from-the-government dept.
Yet another instance of using (abusing?) the blanket-term 'terrorism' comes from Europol's Rob Wainwright, through a BBC report:
"Tech firms should consider the impact sophisticated encryption software has on law enforcement", he said. "There is a significant capability gap that has to change if we're serious about ensuring the internet isn't abused and effectively enhancing the terrorist threat".
A spokesman for TechUK, the UK's technology trade association, said: "With the right resources and cooperation between the security agencies and technology companies, alongside a clear legal framework for that cooperation, we can ensure both national security and economic security are upheld".
Under the latest developments in the European Union driving it even further away from becoming a true federal state, i.e. Greece's denial of electing another "yes-men" government, Spain's upcoming elections and the possible election of a radical left government made from non-career politicians, UK's distancing itself from the EU, France's nationalistic party empowerment, Germany's internal turmoil and Iceland's withdrawal of their application for entering the EU (an event barely mentioned by mainstream media), there seems to be a rush to put pressure in signing away as many civil rights as possible, thus enhancing totalitarian-style control before "all left-hell breaks loose", something that Mr. Wainwright seems to be quite stressed about: "We have to make sure we reach the right balance by ensuring the fundamental principles of privacy are upheld so there's a lot of work for legislators and tech firms to do.", he highlights, tossing the ball to legislators.
Also mentioned in the article: how Apple's encryption, encrypted instant messaging apps and advocating surveillance are problems for law enforcement, all in the name of 'War on Terror'.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Monday March 30 2015, @10:28PM
The problem is that government(s) has shown that they don't deserve the level of trust required to on purpose, leave a backdoor for them to use in the purpose of security. When that trust is abused for all kinds of other purposes and intentions. There are absolute long term consequences when this happens.
Will encryption and anonymization cause problems to keep terrorism and criminals in check, absolutely. But it may also keep power entities from getting an edge to totalitarize the society completely. If anyone dault this. Read the history books.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Marand on Monday March 30 2015, @10:53PM
The problem is that government(s) has shown that they don't deserve the level of trust required to on purpose, leave a backdoor for them to use in the purpose of security. When that trust is abused for all kinds of other purposes and intentions. There are absolute long term consequences when this happens.
That isn't the problem with this sort of idea. The problem is, even if you can trust them today, a backdoor is forever. A hypothetical well-meaning, uncorrupted government could convince people to mandate software backdoors for security purposes, and then at some point in the future -- a year, two, five, ten -- something changes. Maybe the good people got corrupted, or died, or got ousted, didn't get re-elected; it doesn't matter, the result is the same: you've now got dangerous shitheads controlling technology they can't be trusted with, and nothing you can do about it.
The only solution is to not allow it to happen, ever, because any undermining of security will eventually be abused. Governments have managed well enough without panopticon for most of recorded history, so I'm not going to believe any arguments that they can't manage without it now. Police have to actually put some effort into getting evidence, instead of getting access to everything at the push of a button? They can cry me a fucking river, because IMO that's how it should be.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by stormwyrm on Monday March 30 2015, @11:03PM
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Monday March 30 2015, @11:25PM
I think the ultimate goal of the authorities (Wainwright, James Comey, et al.) is to make "unlawful" use of encryption a crime.
Imagine this. Facebook, Google, Snapchat, Skype, etc. get to use encryption as long as they comply with data requests and the data is unencrypted on their servers. None of them get to operate a service that they can't decrypt/break/MITM themselves. This isn't so far-fetched, as none of those major services can't access your data and Yahoo! is the major service that seems to be doing the most work on end-to-end encryption. Services that don't want to play by the rules move overseas, shut down, or get shut down. The law survives a 1st Amendment constitutional challenge, EFF protests, Internet shutdowns.
You can get away with using PGP or Tor manually, but if you get raided and your computer is confiscated, your use of encryption becomes an additional charge against you. There's no need for a court to block Internet users from accessing the Tor homepage or downloading the project. It's just that users of encryption have the uncertainty of attracting unwanted attention looming over them. If they aren't doing anything illegal, the use of encrypted communications alone could land them in jail (for say... 1 year).
That's the nightmare scenario.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:55PM
Dude they don't even have to do that in the USA, as we have the child porn laws. Seriously look up the transportation and facilitation clauses in most states CP laws and prepare to be shocked. I have a friend in the state crime lab and he says the laws are written so broadly that even if you were to use Freenet, where every thing is encrypted and you have no possible way of seeing any of the data? If a single CP image goes through your IP address YOU ARE GUILTY and its 10 years per jpeg.
So they don't have to make services like Tor and Freenet illegal, or even add extra charges, they merely have to give a few users life sentences for child porn (which nobody will come to their defense over, insuring they spend the rest of their days in prison) to kill anybody touching those services with a 50 foot pole. I wouldn't be surprised if the EU states just follow the same playbook, after all by using the word CP they get a free pass from most of the populace to do as they will.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday March 30 2015, @11:44PM
The ability of good backdoors turning into a switch and bait bad backdoor like you point out makes the whole issue moot. No backdoor can be made because they will be abused.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:43AM
Exactly. You not only need to trust the current governments (which are already bad), but all future governments as well. History overwhelmingly shows that this is a losing bet. Only the dangerously naive and ignorant would have this much faith in humans with power.
And even if they were forever trustworthy and this did keep us secure, privacy is still more important than their ability to catch bogeyman.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:29AM
And even if they were forever trustworthy and this did keep us secure, privacy is still more important than their ability to catch bogeyman.
Given that you can implement completely (as in theoretically and practically) unbreakable encryption with a pencil and paper, then this will also do very little to keep us secure.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:46PM
I would only add we have yet to see a law passed that doesn't end up being abused, see PATRIOT, hell see the commerce clause that has been so badly abused that "commerce" can now mean whatever the fuck the US gov wants it to. If you give an inch they WILL take a mile, we have seen this over and over and over, so the only thing someone with common sense can do is refuse to give the inch.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:42PM
Some laws have good intentions and are abused. The rest were written from the ground up to be abused from the outset.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @10:57PM
If you give people unchecked power they WILL subjugate you. Why?
Why does a dog lick his balls?
Because he can.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by stormwyrm on Monday March 30 2015, @10:57PM
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday March 30 2015, @11:27PM
See.. I don't think backdooring encryption will be useful.
Rationale: some can use plainspeak and still remain impenetrable (e.g. "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra"). I've seen this in action in my childhood (under a East European communist regime) - it can becomes a way of life for a whole society.
The danger: focusing on a wrong approach makes one waste a lot of time/effort and live under the illusion of doing a great job. The old-style approach of gathering intelligence based on human interaction works better, even if it's more expensive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday March 30 2015, @11:46PM
Can you elaborate on this?
(btw, what were the most effective ways to live under communist oppression?)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:32AM
Exactly! [wikipedia.org].
(if we don't share a common set of "translation rules", you have no idea what I'm speaking about)
First: oppression is oppression, full stop. Communist or police state or fascist, it's all the same no matter the flavour - I wish you to never need to learn.
Second, answering your question, the most important entries for survival:
Even more, don't trust anyone which you don't know for certain that has done something even remotely against the oppressive rules imposed on all (and not even then)
Use your critical thinking to try to discern what's behind the communication; take calculated risks
The rest of the entries you'd derive by living in such a society.
(what's the most damaging it's the way such a society structures itself. Trust is one of the most important factors one need to live and work efficiently; I have a hunch that the fall of oppressive regimes are ultimately due to the inherent inefficiencies caused by the lack of trust; the final uprising is only the explosion after a prolonged unsustainable and ever degrading way of life)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:56AM
Is there any industrialized countries that are deeply affected by inefficiencies caused by the lack of trust currently?
(btw seems us fulfills 2/3 of those points - spooky)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:30AM
I guess the lack of trust didn't have to enough time/intensity to manifest itself in an unambiguous way (this is why I said "I have a hunch" rather than a demonstration).
Otherwise, I'll give you a simple example targeting the very essence of capitalism: the rationale for the HR depts to exists in any large enough business is to protect the company's interest against any misalignment with the employer's interests. You know? Employees can't be trusted to act as proper resources thus, in the context of eroding margins, the cost of running a HR dept overcomes the potential loses caused by the misalignments in interests. Well, this extra cost is an inefficiency (maybe a necessary one, but still...)
(try to get yourself an explanation why the readers resonated so strong to the presence of Catberg [wikipedia.org]).
Is this inefficiency enough to deeply affect the industrialized countries? Perhaps not, but reasons for lack of trust in other areas started to manifest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by sudo rm -rf on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:19AM
Employees can't be trusted to act as proper resources
Somehow I feel beeing caught red-handed...
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:25AM
On the human intelligence front, we get terrorists organising themselves into cells - there is no product or technology that can be outlawed to prevent that happening.
On the communication intelligence front, we get terrorists deploying encryption - a product so widespread and free that it can't possibly be outlawed, but some idiots really think they can stuff everything back into Pandora's box and get the lid back on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:11PM
"On the human intelligence front, we get terrorists organising themselves into cells"
Therein lies the solution. These spooks keep claiming that they need to read everyone's mail. The fact is that terrorists and other criminals continue to be caught in exactly the same way that they always were, regardless of encryption: A large percentage of people nod and agree while listening to their pitch, then call the cops as soon as they're out of earshot.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hash14 on Monday March 30 2015, @11:37PM
Will encryption and anonymization cause problems to keep terrorism and criminals in check, absolutely. But it may also keep power entities from getting an edge to totalitarize the society completely. If anyone dault this. Read the history books.
This. People need to realize that with liberty comes the risk of danger. The only way to live completely free of danger is to give all your liberties away. The converse (having liberties is absolute danger - or is that the inverse?) is not true in any way of course.
Very simply, these authoritarians want control. They don't want people exercising their liberties in ways that they do not like. That is not in any way the purpose of law enforcement. The letter of the law is one thing; the peace of society is quite different....
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Monday March 30 2015, @11:55PM
So:
If you give away your liberties to gain comfort. You will end up with no liberties nor comfort.
If you give up your comfort for liberties. You will end up without comfort and with liberties. And you can exercise your liberties to gain some comfort.
The choice is clear?
(game theory and self interest at it's finest moment?)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hash14 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:12AM
If you give away your liberties to gain comfort. You will end up with no liberties nor comfort.
Pedantically speaking, whether you feel comfortable in a padded cell and strait jacket is a personal choice. Maybe it does appeal to some people.
If you give up your comfort for liberties. You will end up without comfort and with liberties. And you can exercise your liberties to gain some comfort.
Not sure what you mean by that last sentence. But there are plenty of countries that have both liberties and comfort. There are other ways of promoting social peace than by the iron hand of the law.
The choice is clear?
You could argue that a balance could be reasonable. But I think we on SN can all agree that outlawing encryption is not within that balance.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:49AM
You could argue that a balance could be reasonable.
Infringing upon people's fundamental liberties (i.e. using mass surveillance of any sort, engaging in censorship, etc.) is a no-go. There is no "balance" there. Ignoring the law/constitution is also intolerable. When people speak of balancing fundamental liberties with security, they are almost always authoritarians who want to take away your rights.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:38PM
More and more I think the watchword for this age is "disruption." We should all of us apply ourselves to disrupt the status quo as much as possible. For example, oil barons have the power they do because we drive cars that burn their product; so we should stop doing that. Bike, take the train, or switch to an electric car instead. Put wind and solar on your house to generate your own electricity and put ConEd out of business too. Grow your own food--you'll be healthier and your food will taste better too; and you'll get to put Monsanto and Big Ag out of business, too. Get rid of your television and take up exercise or a craft like woodworking instead. You'll get more satisfaction from creating than consuming, and you'll likely have fewer health problems as well. You'll get to put Hollywood out of business and spend less on doctors.
Of course none of that is perfect. A lot of people won't be able to do any of that, or much of it. But the more of it you can do, the more power you reclaim for yourself. Voting with your feet and your dollars is the only kind of voting that really matters anymore.
If the game is rigged, stop playing it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by spamdog on Monday March 30 2015, @11:49PM
They're worried about encryption being used by terrorists... but at the same time they're bending over backwards for the entertainment industry to criminalize piracy.
People are going to use encryption to continue their piracy and only push encryption software into the mainstream. Seems pretty stupid to me.
(Score: 2) by glyph on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:03AM
They've been painting file sharers as terrorists for a while now so at least they are being consistent. Attempts to ban encryption are only going to pick up steam as more and more legitimate behaviour is criminalized simply for being unprofitable.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by MostCynical on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:02AM
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150325/17430330432/fbi-quietly-removes-recommendation-to-encrypt-your-phone-as-fbi-director-warns-how-encryption-will-lead-to-tears.shtml [techdirt.com]
Everyone is doing it now..
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:46PM
You could almost look at this like a warrant canary dying - the FBI have stopped warning you to protecting yourself in this manner, therefore do it ASAP.