US Intelligence Agencies Angry At France Over Three Strikes; Worried It Will Drive Encryption Usage

from the strange-bedfellows dept

Wed, Oct 6th 2010 11:39am — Mike Masnick

You may recall that, in the fight over the Digital Economy Act in the UK, those who were against the three strikes proposal had an unexpected ally: law enforcement. They were specifically worried that a three strikes plan would lead to more people using encryption, which would make it harder to spy on everyone.

It looks like the same thing happened in France. With Hadopi now underway and sending out its first warning letters, the news is leaking out that US intelligence agencies, like the NSA, "yelled" at the French government over the plan, for the same reason. They know that a three strikes law will only increase encryption usage, making it more difficult to spy on people. For a group that wants to wiretap the internet, that's a problem:

US intelligence agencies are concerned that it will only encourage file-sharers and others to arm themselves with the same encryption tools used by criminal networks, making their job of detecting threats and illegal activity that much harder as the use of such tools goes mainstream.

During a recent cryptography symposium in France they made their concerns known to their French counterparts, taking the time to "yell" at their French counterparts about Hadopi during a coffee break and make it clear that they are not happy.
They think it's wrong to pass legislation to fight the simple, though illegal, exchange of movies and music because it means file-sharers will simply equip themselves with strong encryption tools to avoid detection, and make both the copyright holders and the govt losers in the end.

Some are saying this is why we've never seen any real progress on three strikes laws in the US. Even as the Justice Department and the entertainment industry have a pretty cozy relationship these days, the law enforcement folks recognize that greater encryption makes it more difficult to spy on everyone.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: encryption, france, intelligence agencies, three strikes

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Johnny, 6 Oct 2010 @ 12:04pm

Somewhat different I think
I think it's more a case that encrypted communications, even if they can't be read can still be traced. Someone using encryption may therefore become suspect. When millions of people start to use it for mundane things like file sharing, how do you find suspicious communications? Plus it's not only encryption, a whole new range of technologies will appear to obfuscate or even hide the sources and destinations of data traffic. Spy agencies won't even know who's communicating with each other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 6 Oct 2010 @ 12:05pm

What's good for spooks is not good for the vice squad?
So, the government knows that it's better to let stupid criminals use open forms of communication rather than driving them underground where it's harder to monitor them? Maybe the NSA should have a talk with the US attorneys general who are going after Craig's List and explain this simple concept.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 6 Oct 2010 @ 12:18pm

Re: What's good for spooks is not good for the vice squad?
Waste of time. Politicians do not understand logic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yogi, 6 Oct 2010 @ 12:19pm

No doubt
Human folly and politicians' stupidity and shortsightedness will carry the day.

Encryption is not a problem,just outlaw it - anyone using encryption is a criminal, after all, if you have nothing to hide - why encrypt?

So, problem solved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 6 Oct 2010 @ 12:25pm

Re: No doubt
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him"
-Cardinal Richelieu

I believe you're paraphrasing a very old and debunked argument. Only a totalitarian state with reason to fear its citizens would have any need for such a machination.

(or my sarcasm detector failed.)
; P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2010 @ 12:26pm

I'm evil
I intend to encrypt garbage, lot's of garbage. If 9.9999% of the encrypted information is garbage, imagine the resources required to find the 0.0001% that isn't? (insert evil laugh here)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2010 @ 12:27pm

Re: Re: What's good for spooks is not good for the vice squad?
That's because they're immune to logic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Dan (profile), 6 Oct 2010 @ 12:34pm

Re: Re: No doubt
If your detector failed on that post, you really should get it checked. That one was almost off the end of the scale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Dan (profile), 6 Oct 2010 @ 12:35pm

Re: I'm evil
I assume you meant 99.9999%?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2010 @ 12:39pm

Re: No doubt
Encryption is not a problem,just outlaw it

The evil hackers would love it. A lot of today's use of encryption is explicitly to deter them. Wireless encryption, SSL/TLS/HTTPS, SSH, and many others, all created to protect against evil hackers.

In fact, we do not use encryption enough today. Since most http traffic is not yet encrypted, some evil hackers write malware which hijacks http traffic from other machines on the same network, and injects evil browser exploits into the web pages returned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 6 Oct 2010 @ 12:42pm

Re: Re: Re: What's good for spooks is not good for the vice squad?
Well the good thing is, we get a +10 on our willsave vs rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2010 @ 12:42pm

Re: Re: No doubt
You... obviously haven't seen this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2010 @ 12:51pm

Re: Re: Re: No doubt
And I... need to read more carefully. Oh well, the conference is worth it anyway, enjoy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 6 Oct 2010 @ 12:51pm

Re: What's good for spooks is not good for the vice squad?
If the politicians understood that logic, they might start using encryption and make it more difficult for the NSA to spy on them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yogi, 6 Oct 2010 @ 1:05pm

Re: Re: No doubt
Of course I was being sarcastic. But I'll stop since this isn't the first time I've had my sarcasm completely misunderstood on Techdirt.

P.S. - I was unfamiliar with that quote.Seems true enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chris (profile), 6 Oct 2010 @ 1:07pm

Re: Re: I'm evil
I assume you meant 99.9999%?

while he probably did, even a 10% increase in traffic would mean a significant decrease in the effectiveness of monitoring.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Dan (profile), 6 Oct 2010 @ 1:10pm

Re: Re: Re: No doubt
Nah, don't worry about it, it was obvious. I think there's some sort of internet law that, no matter how over-the-top you are, someone will think you're serious and respond as such.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Will Sizemore (profile), 6 Oct 2010 @ 1:21pm

I don't think encryption will make a marked difference
I don't know the technology that governments use to conduct these alleged taps, but I can say with a certain degree of confidence that increasing personal security on the internet by using encryption IS the way to go, but governments will ALWAYS find a way to make that happen.

Its not exactly the same thing, but does anyone remember the capabilities of the pre-ban Steganos Security Suite? As I understand things, NSA couldn't crack it so the software is banned in the US without some sort of key that NSA can use to see exactly what's in a file.

Consider an adaptation of Newton's Third Law; To every security measure taken, there is always an equal and opposite measure will be fabricated. Without a lock, who would have created a pick, or better yet; the bolt cutters?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Oct 2010 @ 1:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: No doubt
"I think there's some sort of internet law that, no matter how over-the-top you are, someone will think you're serious and respond as such."

WHAT!!??? There's a fucking law of the internetz now!!?? Holy goddamn poop sandwich!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2010 @ 1:33pm

The government easily bypasses encryption by placing keyloggers on whatever devices people use. This isn't a threat AT ALL to their surveillance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2010 @ 1:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: No doubt
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2010 @ 1:46pm

A UK lad has been jailed today for not revealing his password, after sending encrypted data.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/British-Teenager-Jailed-over-Refusal-to-Reveal-Computer-Passwo rd-159722.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2010 @ 1:54pm

Re:
lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 6 Oct 2010 @ 2:53pm

Anyone remember back when NSA surveillance wasn't admitted?
Now they're openly saying it's an over-riding consideration. A de facto police state spying on everything you do on the net, even positioned as *saving* you from 3-strikes rules. Whew. We keep sliding into the rabbit hole, and most now don't even remember last week's lies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2010 @ 3:11pm

key:techdirt
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 10.0.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com
Charset: utf-8

qANQR1DDDQQJAwL1W4e5xFItBKDSjgEvMYcFg5MwokaorYNjcYc9S8R0gNC2LJ+E
B1t3bcxyaxjV1gsyy9/+eYOvP mdSQypCMVUAo00wyEFZ2rcsNu4b6AhxTVvk70DW
LQAEQ+bT3Bj2Xf9xi9e7zcx6D2fZ6HhDv0s0YNVg/peTdj2hLprTAJ/EoKZ yK06T
SQxsB1RCh13RKyTsl0+WL4R3DC4=
=O3hP
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 6 Oct 2010 @ 3:20pm

Re:
Keyloggers require actually going to the place where the computer is. It's much cheaper and easier to spy on citizens remotely. Plus they're probably a lot less concerned about actually getting a warrant if they're just intercepting email, without physically trespassing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2010 @ 3:54pm

Re: Re:
Not necessarily, a keylogger can be deployed remotely and even some governments want to make that legal(France with LOPSI 2).

SSL can be subverted if you have access to the authority issuer of that key which is easy for the U.S. government because almost all the big ones are in the U.S. so in theory one could send fake updates and say they are the original company.

But that would be bad for sales if it ever got out in the public, who would buy any piece of American software knowing they could get something nasty from another government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2010 @ 4:13pm

Re: Re:
It's much cheaper and easier to drug you and beat the information out of you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 6 Oct 2010 @ 5:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No doubt
Thanks!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2010 @ 7:43pm

Re: No doubt
There are perfectly good reasons for ordinary citizens to use encryption. Lemme see... NDAs, organizing birthday surprises and rallies, trade secrecy, anonymity, etc.

Besides, your mobile phone calls are encrypted. You'd become an instant criminal if you do use it (with your proposed legislation).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MadderMak (profile), 6 Oct 2010 @ 7:51pm

Re: key:techdirt
Oh man - that is so hilarious! Er... on a side note you compromised your key :)

Where can I find your luggage?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 7 Oct 2010 @ 12:19pm

Re: Re: key:techdirt
"... you compromised your key ..."

More than likely thats his public key. Using asymmetric key encryption, anyone can encrypt messages using the public key, but only the holder of the paired private key can decrypt the message.

I hope that helps ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Dan (profile), 7 Oct 2010 @ 2:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No doubt
Yep, that's the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 7 Oct 2010 @ 4:35pm

So Sorry
You can't infringe these people's civil liberties and human rights...that's OUR job!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bryan Maynard, 7 Oct 2010 @ 6:04pm

Re: No doubt
Please, please let this be sarcasm, if it is not, then you my dear internet user are a fucking idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 21 Dec 2010 @ 7:02am

Re: Somewhat different I think
Welcome to the birth of the MetaNet ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 21 Dec 2010 @ 7:15am

Re: Re: Re:
"SSL can be subverted if you have access to the authority issuer of that key which is easy for the U.S. government because almost all the big ones are in the U.S. so in theory one could send fake updates and say they are the original company."

If you gen your own keys it will take a huge amount of resources to crack the encryption.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 7:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't solve everything though, because the person you're communicating with is left wondering if the self-signed certificate he's presented with is legitimate. To have really secure communication in that situation requires a trusted outside channel of communication. (if I understand all this correctly)
[ link to this | view in thread ]