Judge cites use of secure email Riseup as a potential terrorist indicator

"do we want to allow a means of communication between people which even in extremis, with a signed warrant from the home secretary personally, we cannot read?"

Probably not (assuming you had judicial oversight) - but Cameron appears to be unaware that this situation is exactly what is now guaranteed to happen because of the illegal suspicion-less bulk surveillance the US and UK have done without accountability and agreement. I support controlled suspicion-based intercept, but the deal is that you do not monitor without cause. They've created a market where products and services are adopted by people worldwide to avoid this disaster.

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/more-surveillance-wont-protect-free-speech

Whether Spain or France, same idea.

 

Working as intended.

A relative handful of lunatics further erodes our civil liberties.

The Oligarchs are protected even further by the increasing power of the surveillance/militarized police state.

 

I suspect that it's AIs, or will be soon

This is what the Singularity looks like

 

Encryption is not the enemy

http://threatpost.com/encryption-is-not-the-enemy

 

I'll be more interested in the responding actions taken by the privacy-minded groups. These sort of things usually move like a saw, e.g. back and forth and back and forth.

 

IMO one of the biggest problems we face in the world today including in America is politicians with low IQ's. I truly believe if a score of 120 on a standard IQ test was a prerequisite to running for office at least half of congress would be out of a job.

 

I was waiting for this to happen, when it was still breaking news I posted on Fox news comments that the far right must be rubbing their hands together in glee when the terrorists were killing people in France at the prospect of all the freedom destroying legislation they could implement as part of their "response".
Of course FN deleted my comment. Funny enough I predicted that would happen too.

Having said that I think this statement by Cameron would be more of a concern if Cameron wasn't such an idiot. I think his mouth precedes his brain by several minutes. Obviously if Britain was to ban encryption that their security forces cannot read the rest of us would know which encryption software is the best to use lol.

 

It's not that they would ban software. They'd just ban services that didn't provide access to them. That's somewhat problematic for services that they can't force to comply. So they'd be left with blocking access, as they've tried with torrent trackers etc. I suppose that they could arrest users, and imprison those who didn't cough up passwords. But that would be a huge job

 

Reactions to David Cameron's plan to ban end-to-end encryption

http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=17822

 

With crypto in UK crosshairs, secret US report says it’s vital

http://arstechnica.com/security/201...k-crosshairs-secret-us-report-says-its-vital/

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/security-not-crime-unless-youre-anarchist

 

I'm kind of a bit confused. In another thread it was said that UK won't be banning apps but only proper encryption. Here, it is referenced that UK is going to ban the apps that use proper encryption.

Anyways, banning strong encryption will make everyone in state to be vulnerable to MITM attacks. This is silly, this is suicidical, and the governments who have an intention to ban proper encryption are going to learn the cyber-security class in a much harder way, up to the point when everything is too late. I can see a regretful ending if they are really going to execute the ban.

 

I doubt that they would ban strong encryption, for the reasons that you note. What they could do is require licensing of services that use encryption, and registration of all users. Licensed services would be required to provide lawful access.

 

I'd bet that this will be one of those double standards regarding how it's applied. It'll be legal for them and whoevers interest they consider necessary to "national security" but not the rest of us. I'm glad that I don't live there but I suspect that this will become widespread.

 

I have watched the debate about this in England and America and what strikes me about these politicians they are obsessed with the communications data issue, watching them constantly reiterating the events in Paris before claiming it is critical that Government agencies can intercept communications and citing developments in privacy technology and their use by terrorists as the main reason for some kind of legislative response yet not one of them in this debate asks, where is the evidence that any terrorist attacks, or terrorist plots were not prevented because the terrorists were using technology that could not be intercepted by Government.
In my opinion this is a predictable response by the ruling classes to exploit the opportunity to use a criminal act by two people as an excuse to implement legislation to restrict everyone's right to privacy. I hope the British people realize this.

 

Some will, most won't.

 

I just hope they won't ban Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture.

We'll see if they'll ban strong encryption, or treating encryption as firearms as mirimir had described. I'm still standing on my prior statement, though.