Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

I really don't understand the hard-line antics the UK has against end users employing encryption. To me, it just screams "we don't trust our own citizens" with a heavy side of "we are too incompetent to break it ourselves, and MANDATE that you, the telecom industry, do it for us. Our understanding of modern cryptographic systems is so bad, we expect real-time monitoring within 24hrs of our demand."

Do they want the moon, a pony, a winning lotto ticket, and a bag of crisps to go along with it, because that is how absurd that demand is.

Protip UK MPs:  good encryption takes longer to brute force than the life expectancy of the sun. No, really, the sun will literally have exhausted all of its fuel before you will be assured to have that key. It is designed to be that way. Any encryption you can trivially bypass is not worth the compute cycles it uses. People who know this, know this. You will not put the genie back into the bottle, and it is idiotic to try. Making absurd demands betrays your lack of understanding of the situation.

[Neonivek]

Well there are many reasons why the government would want your personal information and conversations beyond just terrorism and crime fighting.

For example an excellent thing for the UK to do. Labor in power? Well if someone really hates Labor maybe put them on a watch list.

[wierd]

That does not address the issue of the level of all incompetence required to honestly, and with a straight face, demand absurdities like those demanded here.

To parallel with your sentiment: it sure would be nice if I won the lottery! I will demand (at gunpoint) that the lottery commission declare me the winner, or else.

[ChairmanPoo]

I think German would fare better as a lingua franca if the etiquette for greetings and departures didn't vary so much from region to region.

[Loud Whispers]

Well there are many reasons why the government would want your personal information and conversations beyond just terrorism and crime fighting. For example an excellent thing for the UK to do. Labor in power? Well if someone really hates Labor maybe put them on a watch list.

Who is Labor and why does everyone hate him

I really don't understand the hard-line antics the UK has against end users employing encryption. To me, it just screams "we don't trust our own citizens" with a heavy side of "we are too incompetent to break it ourselves, and MANDATE that you, the telecom industry, do it for us.

That would be because the UK Gov doesn't trust its citizens, and if it can break it themselves, it will not tell the public it can
Probably with a side dose of "hurr durr we're not spying on you it's the private companies we're not liable blame google"

Our understanding of modern cryptographic systems is so bad, we expect real-time monitoring within 24hrs of our demand."

Fortunately (unfortunately?) the UK is leading the world in infosec

Surveillance of some mobile phone user data in "as near real-time as possible" has already been available to law enforcement authorities for many years, noted Dr Steven Murdoch at University College London.

It uses its world expertise to watch its people, who are a rowdy bunch at times

Protip UK MPs:  good encryption takes longer to brute force than the life expectancy of the sun. No, really, the sun will literally have exhausted all of its fuel before you will be assured to have that key. It is designed to be that way. Any encryption you can trivially bypass is not worth the compute cycles it uses. People who know this, know this. You will not put the genie back into the bottle, and it is idiotic to try. Making absurd demands betrays your lack of understanding of the situation.

They are not seeking the powers or resources to attempt brute forcing encryption, they are seeking companies who run shit like Whatsapp to remove encryption altogether by installing backdoors into their own shit, despite them already having the tools needed to surveill specific targets
Basically it's a shit policy that benefits no one and harms the public so it shouldn't happen. Probably won't happen. Politicians and civil servants will still pursue it anyways, worryingly. #1 surveillance state in the world

[Neonivek]

Who is Labor and why does everyone hate him

It is a UK thing.

Though not everyone hates him.

[wierd]

LW:

There is no other way, aside from brute force (or some obscure technical exploit) to defeat actual, real, honest encryption systems-- and it will be very hard to force their backdoors into foss software. Even if that means the sofware becomes illegal in the UK (due to lack of back doors), its use will not go away. The US tried that battle in the 90s by treating strong encryption as a munition. It did NOT work.

The UK Govt is going to run up against somebody that knows what they are doing, is using actually vetted, GOOD encryption without obvious back doors, and will issue their bullshit 24hour demand to the telecom, who will have no choice but to reply "Sorry mate, Can't."

[Loud Whispers]

It is a UK thing.
Though not everyone hates him.

What kinda thing

There is no other way, aside from brute force (or some obscure technical exploit) to defeat actual, real, honest encryption systems--

And their intention is to make real, honest encryption systems illegal

and it will be very hard to force their backdoors into foss software. Even if that means the sofware becomes illegal in the UK (due to lack of back doors), its use will not go away. The US tried that battle in the 90s by treating strong encryption as a munition. It did NOT work.

I don't doubt its use will not go away, what I'm concerned with is how much damage they can wreak in attempting it. Look at it this way, the UK gov failed to make VPNs and Tor go away, but it its efforts to do so, expanded the scope of its powers to be able to snoop on everyone not protecting their privacy. Useful comparison is China, they have failed to stop VPNs or encryption, yet their drives to control both allows them to consolidate their information control on the vast majority of their public who don't give a/f about their information

The UK Govt is going to run up against somebody that knows what they are doing

There is a joke to be made here

At any rate, any failures they meet usually gets shored up with grabbing something else. For example they used the Snowden leaks, wherein it was ruled their surveillance regime was illegal as impetus to make it legal

[Neonivek]

Well I never thought I'd have to link this for someone from the UK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)

I'd have explained what I meant, but as you have complained. I try to tell you things.

[Loud Whispers]

Well I never thought I'd have to link this for someone from the UK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)

I'd have explained what I meant, but as you have complained. I try to tell you things.

I asked for Labor, not the Labour Party. Typical tricksy hobbit, never linking his proper sources

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well I never thought I'd have to link this for someone from the UK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laor_Party_(UK)

I'd have explained what I meant, but as you have complained. I try to tell you things.

I asked for Laor, not the Laor Party. Typical tricksy hobbit, never linking his proper sources

[Neonivek]

People rarely say it in full and typically just call it Laor.

[Starver]

Well there are many reasons why the government would want your personal information and conversations beyond just terrorism and crime fighting. For example an excellent thing for the UK to do. Labor in power? Well if someone really hates Labor maybe put them on a watch list.

Who is Labor and why does everyone hate him

Pat Labor, the Irish mecha-pilot.

[Loud Whispers]

Labour Manifesto leaked.
Honestly I don't think this is going to be bad for them, on everything I've read thus far it seems like a really well-done manifesto. Hell, it'd convince me to vote for comrade corbachov if he wasn't in favour of unlimited migration and against nuclear arsenal renewal, and my own ideological predisposition towards supporting the party most likely to deliver Brexit (it is worth noting, that we have not yet left the European Union, and I will not consider a success before it's been finally achieved).

[Starver]

The unilateralism of Corbyn is my biggest sticking point with his leadership. But the manifesto looks at it differently so not so off-putting.

And the "refusing to make false promises about immigration" is hardly a negative, because it would be nice to not have false promises (unless the promise to not falsely promise is false, but if you're not even promising in the first place then that won't happen), even ignoring my contrary view on the 'dangers'...   (And how's that "getting more control over our borders" working out, again?)

I don't see it persuading enough people to jump from blue to red to change government, the outlines I've seen, but if there's not some good counter-manifesto from May's team (they do now have the advantage of getting their reaction in earlier than if it hadn't leaked, and revising their own bumf before going to print) I think there's attractiveness in there to potentially draw down the Tory majority, which I think would be the best situation.  Leavers can still jolly themselves with a Leave-party, but we don't get the "hey, while we're here, let's created Grammar Schools and hunt Comprehensive pupils foxes again" attitude from the right. Instead, we get an egalitarean discussion (which, to be egalitarian, includes the possibility that we decide that No Exit is preferable to No Deal is preferable to Wreckxit) once we know what's on the table.