Theresa May wants to ban crypto: here's what that would cost, and here's why it won't work anyway


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/06/04/theresa-may-king-canute.html

Aaron Swartz once said, “It’s no longer OK not to understand how the Internet works.”


#2

I’m honestly at a loss for words. This is straight up tyranny. It’s comforting that this will be very easy to bypass for most people. I have no idea how the UK’s law system works, but hopefully there’s no way this can pass.

They are using horrific events to push laws that are orders of magnitude worse. It’s doubtful that any terrorist attacks will be stopped with this, but crimes could easily skyrocket. Encryption is the backbone of the modern economy. If the economy takes a downtown, there will be some very desperate people trying to make it through.


#3

Proofread - I think you mixed up your pronouns.


#4

She should lead by example.

Let her internet experience be like the one she prescribes now. Let us have access to her browsing history. Let us decide what she may or may not view.

How can we trust the leaders of the free world to view such filth and violence without it affecting their behavior?

We must stop them from taking our freedoms by taking politicians freedoms.


#5

We know from experience that these laws will have careful exceptions built-in for government themselves.

Except. Except that the software they use will necessarily have the same mandated backdoors, only that our police and intelligence services will be forbidden from using the keys.

The Russians, the Chinese, the North Korean intelligence services, on the other hand, will have no such restriction.

And they will now know that the keyhole that they’re looking for exists. Which is half the battle.


#6

Unless your name is Caroline Lucas or Jenny Jones.


#7

Al Gore & Bill Clinton loved ITAR back in the day as well.


#8

Remind me not to vote for either of them in the UK election on Thursday.


#9

Worth noting that terrorism isn’t the actual reason for them wanting this, it’s merely the excuse given.

Terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with this, ability to spy at will on any person in the UK is.


#10

Truth.
 


#11

See the thing that liberals don’t understand, is that life is all about work. Hard work. If you keep on trying, long enough and hard enough, then you will be successful. So if Prime Minister May keeps on trying long enough and hard enough, eventually complete information security with access by the designated trustworthy authorities only (and all designated authorities are trustworthy,by definition,another fact that liberals just don’t seem to get) will happen, and we will all be safe again, and forever so. Liberals keep admitting defeat and putting us all in danger. Remember Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, Columbus, and of course Henry Vth. Jesus, yes Jesus too. See?

Gah, its all the grasshopper and the ant. Read it,it explains everything.


#12

I don’t see anything wrong with making sure government security services have backdoors into all communications systems. I mean, it’s not as if that information would ever leak out and get turned into a weaponized attack on the infrastructure, businesses and services of… oh, yeah.


#13

Grasshopper and the ant? Not the version I prefer.


#14

I love the subnormality dude! His comics are always great.


#15

“Oh, and private conversations will be outlawed too.
I forgot to mention that part.”


#16

I’m not sure how many times i’ve repeated this but, it has already passed. With few amendments so enough wiggle room in the wording of technical capability notices to allow them to interpret it however they wish and spy on everything, everywhere on everyone all the time in near real-time.

I think we might have to face the reality that not only has this ship sailed but we’re seeing its ass-end disappearing over the horizon. I want the authoritarian, lizard-faced, cold blooded overlord gone but, realistically, can we expect anything better from labour when they voted overwhelmingly for it? This despite the fact, as well as the others mentioned, dianne abbott and jeremy corbyn have both also been subjects of surveillance yet abstained from voting.

I’m just continually dumbfounded that they talk about not letting it change us or affect our freedoms and yet in the same breath calling for shit like this. Oh and while i’m at it, what the fuck does the overlord mean when she says we’ve been tolerant of extremism for too long? Since when? This is nothing more than keeping us permanently in fear and at a high state of alert so as to consolidate her power over the state.


#17

Probably won’t happen, since the U.K. lives from financial services. These can’t operate without encryption…


#18

I suspect what will happen eventually in the US, not sure about the UK where they sound even more clueless, is that device manufacturers will be required to be able to unlock an individual device on demand from gov’t. No master key, per device keys stored “securely” by the manufacturer. encrypted communications in transit won’t be blocked.

This is obviously still not real security as even the NSA can’t hold onto it’s secrets that well. I’m sure we’ll hear of databases of keys being stolen.

BTW, on the TSA lock thing don’t use TSA locks. Use cable zip ties. If they really need to search the bag they can cut it off. the missing cable tie will be an immediate tip off something happened to your bag and you don’t really care about losing a cable tie. Additionally since I’ve started using them I’ve actually had zero TSA inspections. Even when i pack tons of electronic cables or liquids (beer bottles) in the checked bag.


#19

Will it be legal to communicate in a language they can’t translate? a la the Navajo Code Talkers.


#20

The comparison with the TSA locks is very ill-suited. After all, it’s not like physical keys can be copied like software, is it ?