David Cameron wants to ban encrypted messengers like FaceTime and iMessage
 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...s-9973035.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-Ne.../?spt=rrs&or=2

I figured this day would come, and this mentality is likely to spread. Save a copy of libgcrypt and gnupg somewhere safe, and also probably the kernel and cryptsetup and wiki articles on crypto. Have a good pair of unweighted high quality dice in a safe place. I'm convinced there will be a massive crackdown on encryption all over the world. These things tend to spread, like all bad things do.

;)

why not to add to all your communication the FBI and Snowden in CC ???

The whole world is available for movement whether it be internet or externet.

The whole world or movement can be encrypted whether it be internet or externet.

Here are some better articles on the topic:
http://threatpost.com/encryption-is-...e-enemy/110375
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ption-uk.shtml

All this surveillance stuff from the NSA and the governments is a pipe dream. It didn't prevent 9/11, the Boston marathon bombing and now the Paris shooting.

Most terrorists are aware that the internet and all types of phones are pretty much bugged and they're probably resorting to alternative offline methods of communication. For example, instead of using a computer to type and send a message over the air, they're probably use a mechanical typewriter or a hand written message and then use a person to deliver their message, etc...

Any comment I made on this would be illegal, so sadly I can't take part in this discussion.

What ? Not yet, but maybe soon.

Many authorities preach the gospel that "to increase the security of the public, you must decrease their right to be secure in their communications." This is not correct. In fact, this is exactly backwards.

If you make it "trivially easy" for authorities to collect a profile about a person, you simultaneously make it trivially easy for :eek: any and everyone else :eek: to do the same thing. Specifically including, "the bad guys." It is already the case the automated data-mining methods can accumulate detailed profiles (including geo-location information), not only about a person, but about a community ... or a state ... or even a country.

We are, (really, "as a planet") already far more vulnerable to this sort of exploit than we care to admit. It is, in my estimation, only a matter of time before a terrorist act of unprecedented scope, the likes of which has never before been seen (simply because it never before was possible) does occur. And that it will occur, not because of communication that is encrypted, but rather because of the vast amount that is not.

It isn't pleasant to acknowledge the existence of "heinously bad bad-guys." (Such as, for instance, people who would demolition three World Trade Center towers on Monday morning, and with such diabolical skill therefore planning as to drop each of those buildings literally "into their own footprint.") When a gaping vulnerability exists, such people (with hearts blacker than the darkest night) will take advantage of it. Literally, just because they can. Yes, they are psychopaths.

Even though this has not happened yet ... and let us earnestly pray that it never will ... we must be pragmatic about such things. The reality is that someone out there is plotting to overturn our prayers, because they can. We are all humans. We know human nature. Unfortunately.

We sensibly took steps to encrypt, say, credit-card information. But we fail to consider the vulnerabilities inherent in "petabytes of non-encrypted information, trivially gathered," coupled with the extant technical ability to make use of such data ... for good or for ill ... fast enough and exhaustively enough to make use of it ... for good or for ill.

We should not be advocating that less data flowing over the Internet should be encrypted, but rather, more. It should not be "trivially easy" to intercept communications and to make use of what has been intercepted, because we cannot control who is doing it nor why.

In some cases, we might stipulate that users of a service might be required to hold their encryption keys in-escrow, or at least digital-signing keys which can be used to demonstrate that a communication came from a particular source, and perhaps to prohibit the carrying or storing of information that is not so-signed. It is already well-established law that authorities can, upon probable cause, issue a search warrant that compels the holder of encrypted information to decrypt it. (And, for the authorities to treat that information as confidential or secret.) But, I think, the communications, themselves, need to be both signed and encrypted "as a matter of routine." Don't make it trivially easy for anyone to assemble a profile by eavesdropping on communications or tapping into an archive ... even as an employee or contractor with authorized(!) access to the channel or to the data-store.

Agreed. Also:

http://threatpost.com/encryption-is-...e-enemy/110375

Compromising or banning encryption is NOT a solution to anything, unless you are a politician or the NSA. It only leads to greater oppression and insecurity ... maybe this is what they are after all along.

Public officials should keep the interests of the public at the front of their mind, but they also have the obligations associated with "being (re-)elected." Therefore, they must be seen as promoting palatable, understandable solutions.

Naturally, they focus upon the messages which they cannot read.

They might dream of "an un-encrypted world" in which there are no impediments to the authorities capturing anything of interest. But there are four very-obvious issues with that:

1. "It's one thing to have the needle (already) in your hands ... quite another thing to be confronted with the haystack." (Hindsight is always "20/20.")
2. The bad guys can always use methods of communication that you cannot tap into by these means.
3. The presence of "vast amounts of data, all of it unencrypted and trivially easy to obtain," represents an unprecedented vulnerability for an unprecedented number of people. The technology needed to exploit that vulnerability readily exists, and it is not necessarily possible to detect that the exploit is occurring.
4. Lots of today's business models (Facebook, etc.) are founded upon data mining and data exploitation, with the implicit but entirely-unfounded trust that "only white hats" are getting or using the information, and only for "white hat" purposes such as "advertising." Those companies, by the way, are also immensely rich.

Of course YES, damn idiot!

I think the biggest danger of all this is it leading to an "Inquisition" type situation. They are saying to your face that you are a terrorist until proven otherwise ... or worse until you confess under torture. It's only a matter of time, IMO.

I mean, most Americans seem to be for torture:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/torture-...igence-report/

I don't see it too far a step on the scale of oppression that if they don't like what you are saying in your communications, they take you in and torture you until you confess to a crime. I think this ban on encryption, should it ever pass, opens the door to maximum oppression. You basically relinquish all your freedoms with this. Freedom of speech without fear of persecution is the foundation of a free country and that is what they are about to undo. Prepare for the worst, I say, because it just might happen.

I know it is not really a ban on encryption, but rather a ban on encryption without a backdoor, but really what's the point of encryption if someone can bypass it ? In this case anyone could use the backdoor.

Oh, and this isn't just about the UK, the FBI has the same opinion:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-therein.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...cryption.shtml

Ban David Cameron & his Old Etonian Gang.

Before there were computers — remember that, anyone? — there were letters and telephone calls. The latter were not encrypted and any hand-encryption available for the former could be broken. I don't recall people panicking because their communications were not secure. So why the panic at the thought that secure emails may disappear? I don't send encrypted messages. I don't need to. Why do you? I suspect the answer may be "I don't need to but it's my right." Well it's my right to live in a secure society. As a Londoner, I'm in the front line: no-one's going to commit an atrocity in Oldham, Brian! I think you all need to take you tinfoil hats off and get a life.

LOL