UK holds Microsoft security talks

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by trickyricky, Feb 15, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. trickyricky

    trickyricky Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Posts:
    475
    Location:
    London, UK
    See this article on the BBC web site:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4713018.stm

    Does anyone remember the Clipper Chip fiasco in the US? Here we go again...
    :rolleyes:
     
  2. berng

    berng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Posts:
    246
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    So? Does not matter. Anyone who has really something to hide will use a real encryption product like PGP, plus tools for detection of keyloggers and so on.
     
  3. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    It is also totally unnecessary - under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, anyone using encryption can be required to provide the plaintext (decrypted content) or the encryption key via a Section 49 notice. Failure to comply can result in a fine or a maximum two year prison sentence.
     
  4. trickyricky

    trickyricky Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Posts:
    475
    Location:
    London, UK
    Indeed, which is much more effective than a mere "back door". It's more like knocking the walls down, rendering any encryption completely ineffectual other than for casual use.
     
  5. webyourbusiness

    webyourbusiness Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,640
    Location:
    Throughout the USA and Canada

    do you HONESTLY think some terrorist is going to be scared by a 2 year prison sentence? how LAUGHABLE is that?
     
  6. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    That law doesn't target terrorists specifically:
    The last category is particularly broad and would seem to offer plenty of possibilities for abuse.

    In any case, terrorism (which is a label that could just as easily be applied to groups considered freedom fighters like the African National Congress, the Afghan mujahideen during the Russian occupation or the colonists during the American War of Independence) shouldn't be an acceptable reason to justify sweeping legislation that limits or removes the rights of the general public.

    On top of this, it seems more likely to me that Vista's encryption is intended to make installing Linux or other OSes harder (by removing the ability of installers to shrink Windows partitions - or even to stop them creating a partition on hard disks at all) since the majority of home users would have little need for hard disk encryption.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.