Reports Claim That Pakistan Is Trying To Ban Encryption Under Telco Law
from the yvxr-gung-jvyy-jbex dept
As various governments have tried to clamp down, censor and/or filter the internet, all it's really done is increase interest and usage of encryption tools such as VPNs. Every so often we have commenters who insist that outlawing encryption is the obvious next step for governments, though that suggests an ignorance of the practical impossibility of truly banning encryption -- which, after all, is really just a form of speech. The US, of course, famously toyed with trying to block the export of PGP in the 90s, but finally realized that it would likely lose big time in a court battle. While I could certainly see some politicians here trying to ban certain forms of encryption, I couldn't see any such effort being successful long term.In other countries, however, they seem ready to make a go of it. Privacy International is reporting that Pakistan is trying to ban the use of encryption, including for VPNs, as part of the implementation of a new telco law (pdf) which requires telcos to spy on their customers. Obviously, encryption makes that tougher, so the response is just to ban it entirely.
But here's the big question: can any such ban really be effective? I mean, if you and I agree on using a simple cipher between us, that's "encryption," but is indistinguishable from "speech" in most contexts. That means any such ban on encryption is effectively and practically useless the moment it goes into effect. There will always be incredibly simple ways around it. Trying to ban encryption is like trying to ban language. You can't reasonably do it.
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, pakistan
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think the Pakistanis understand the security consequences of what they are doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Qhu, Rapelcgvat!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eh?
Why, the US Government has a ban on murder, and it never happens in the US anymore{.}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SWEET!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SWEET!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SWEET!
Buh-zing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SWEET!
http://freefactfinder.com/definition/Teledeldonics.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SWEET!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SWEET!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SWEET!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SWEET!
That was my first thought too. And not only that, but what about all the other industries that rely on some form of encryption to function? Information technology MSP firms? Gone! Phone systems with soft phones? Maybe gone? Encrypted passwords? Gone?
I mean...what the hell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trying to ban encryption.
Actually it amounts to a ban on sending anything unintelligible over the internet. The Welsh must be very upset!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trying to ban encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trying to ban encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trying to ban encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trying to ban encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trying to ban encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that a right
Either way it still seems silly to try to ban it. I bet the definition of 'encrypted' is along the lines "any communication that can't be understood by a government official. So if they don't understand pig-Latin a bunch of visiting American kids are going to be in big trouble!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
encryption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security
Banning encryption will lower the security of the whole country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We've got the **AA lobbyists on our side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It will be like all the other prohibitions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mental Note
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Way
> trying to block the export of PGP in the
> 90s, but finally realized that it would
> likely lose big time in a court battle.
> While I could certainly see some politicians
> here trying to ban certain forms of
> encryption, I couldn't see any such effort
> being successful long term.
Yes, that's a nice philosophical/legal analysis but the practical reality is that encryption will never be banned in the USA because Big Copy would have a shrieking meltdown if the government ever tried to do that. Can you imagine their reaction if all their current and future DRM schemes suddenly turned into criminal offenses and them being required to broadcast/provide all their content in the clear?
As has been pointed out here too many times to count, there are far too many politicians who routinely drop trou and bend over for Big Copy for there to ever be enough votes to pass a ban on encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not about banning cryptography
This backdoor is what a lot of governments desire. It is a way to obtain a key for any cipher used. This will make it far easier to track and prosecute or persecute all criminals, both real and political. This is not foolproof. If illegal encryption is used, the government could possibly identify the communication endpoints and prosecute just on the basis of utilizing an illegal cipher. Smart criminals and dissidents will resort to using strong, illegal encryption along with steganography and traffic obfuscation (i.e. Tor Onion Routers). The technology that would make the system functional on a general basis is automatic flagging or filtering of packets identified as using illegal encryption. In the U.S., considering that the NSA is already monitoring all our communications, this is not far-fetched.
When strong encryption, encryption that the U.S. federal government couldn't defeat, became available to the masses in the early '90s, the U.S. became involved in two separate struggles. One was the export of strong cryptography and the main battle was with PGP and Phil Zimmermann. The feds dropped their indictment of Mr. Zimmermann without any comment. The code had been exported, but it was not clear that Phil was instrumental in doing that. Later, court precedents did allow algorithms for strong cryptography to be published and exported, protected as free speech by the first amendment. The feds did relax the rules on export, recognizing their futility because of the free speech aspect and also recognizing that it hurt U.S. business by restricting the use of strong encryption in international transactions.
The other front in the strong cryptography battle was the feds attempt to put backdoors in any system using cryptography. The Clipper chip was an effort to do this for voice transmission. It was not mandatory, and the existence of alternatives and the fact that the algorithms behind clipper were classified and could not be independently evaluated for vulnerabilities led to it's demise.
Why wouldn't the U.S. government be successful in making backdoors mandatory for all strong ciphers? Business needs strong encryption for both domestic and international transactions. A U.S. business might not trust having a backdoor available even if that backdoor is supposedly restricted with a key escrow system. More importantly, would a foreign business trust the U.S.? Such a requirement would have put U.S. businesses at a disadvantage in international competition.
France, in the mid '90s had very strong restrictions on the use of cryptography. France's decision to drop their strict cryptography laws came about because of lobbying from businesses. This link briefly describes that decision and humorously gets the French Finance Minister's gender wrong (it was Dominique Strauss-Kahn, yes, that DSK!).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/01/15/france_to_end_severe_encryption/
If you think that the U.S. will never have laws restricting the use of cryptography, think again. There have been laws introduced that would make the use of cryptography an enhancement when committing a felony. Consider also, the slow but steady expansion of CALEA regulations.
The following is a good summary of existing crypto-law in various contries:
http://rechten.uvt.nl/koops/cryptolaw/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not about banning cryptography
Even if your interpretation is correct, that would still outlaw VPN and any other type of encrypted proxies. VPNs encapsulate a normal packet, including all header and signalling information, between two points. Once the packet arrives at the other end of a VPN, it is decryted, the extra VPN header stripped, and the packet is sent on its way. There is no way to track that packet after it reaches the end of the VPN with only the information you had by monitoring the encrypted packet.
No sane business would operate with their data following over an open network without encryption. Many business based in other countries, notably banks (or anyone dealing with financial information) and those dealing with medical information are legally required to protect that data with encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not about banning cryptography
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rimmer: Open communications channels, Lister. Broadcast on all known frequencies and in all known languages, including Welsh.
I can't see how Pakistan has any hope that this idea will work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If their legal system can send people to the gallows for questioning ancient superstition then it is more than capable of enforcing a very vague "anything else" clause against anyone who the secret cyberpolice believed to be trying to engage in clever circumvention.
Unfree nations do not have loopholes and safe harbors.
Soviet era dissidents didn't have that luxury either. If they didn't like you then there was always something or another on the books enabling them to do basically whatever they wanted.
Arguing over what is and isn't within the bounds of technical language is meaningless when the police can accuse a person of doing something "they shouldn't" and which the police "don't like" and be assured that guilt will be rubber stamped by a kangaroo court.
In unfree countries you have no rights to begin with, only temporary privileges.
An unfree nation moving against encryption will not afford users any sort of due process by adhering to what is and isn't strictly mentioned by the law.
Nations with a lack of due process come down on anyone who violates the spirit of the law, whereas we in free nations exonerate those who comply with the letter of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Banning Business??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Alliance Blog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they cant do that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate being online
all banks use VPNs,all telcos use these..i can never consider paki media secure with my data...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hahha, idiots
We have many ISPs but PTCL is the major Internet contractor throughout Pakistan. The Internet service is worse than anything I have ever used before, line drops, disconnections and not to mention other issues. Now, we're already using a crippled system adding something like this rule/filter is just stupid. You know why it's stupid? Because people in Pakistan don't have a clue. The PTCL is a Government component and even if they implement the system they will only make their lives harder.
They might try to bans certain things but considering their history (Banning Youtube (LAWL)) I don't think they're capable of doing it.
But hey thanks to this move, I will start using SSL more and get VPNs accounts because honestly I am tired of Pakistan politics. These people are MORONS! Someone gives them the order and without even thinking they just go for it.
I hope they try to implement this fail, I am going to make sure to complain the f**k out of it :D.
TL;DR, Pakistani Government and Agencies are idiots. I am surprised they didn't ban the whole Internet already, oh wait they can't hahahaha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hahha, idiots
anyways judging from what u have to say bout ur country,ur a ungrateful son of a "cross between a african american sex tourist and a cheap hera mandi tramp",yes i know i am being rude but hey i can be rude i have met people who talk trash about there country on international forums,and when i traced them back a bit,i found bout this whole new breed :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ALL encryption?
Commmon, if this is a way to snoop to people, the people who are scared, may obey. Then only the criminals will use encryption. Its like trying to take the guns away from all good people, so the crooks can have open season on them.
Lets see how this all washes out. It may have been a misunderstood comment, and then, the knee jerk reporters grabbed what they could just in time for print.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honda Financial being proactive
Are they headquartered in Pakistan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]