Senior Police Officer Suggests Companies Allowing People To Use Strong Crypto Are 'Friendly To Terrorists'
from the just-stop-whining dept
Last November, we ran through the list of senior law enforcement officers on both sides of the Atlantic who all came out with suspiciously similar whines about how strong crypto was turning the internet into a "dark and ungoverned" place. Judging by this story in Reuters, others want to join the choir:
Some technology and communication firms are helping militants avoid detection by developing systems that are "friendly to terrorists", Britain's top anti-terrorism police officer said on Tuesday.
That remark comes from Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, who is the UK's National Policing Lead for Counter-Terrorism, replacing Cressida Dick. Here's the problem according to Rowley:
"Some of the acceleration of technology, whether it's communications or other spheres, can be set up in different ways," Rowley told a conference in London.
"Set up in a way which is friendly to terrorists and helps them" obviously means using strong crypto; "set up in a way which doesn't do that" therefore means with compromised crypto. Like his colleagues, Rowley too blames the current mistrust between the intelligence agencies and computer companies on Edward Snowden:
"It can be set up in a way which is friendly to terrorists and helps them ... and creates challenges for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Or it can be set up in a way which doesn't do that.""Snowden has created an environment where some technology companies are less comfortable working with law reinforcement and intelligence agencies and the bad guys are better informed," Rowley told Reuters after his speech.
Well, no, actually. That "environment" has been created by the NSA and GCHQ working together to break into the main online services, and undermine key aspects of digital technology, with no thought for the collateral damage that ruining internet security might cause for the world. Rowley is also quoted as saying:
"We all love the benefit of the internet and all the rest of it, but we need [technology companies'] support in making sure that they're doing everything possible to stop their technology being exploited by terrorists. I'm saying that needs to be front and centre of their thinking and for some it is and some it isn't."
The technology is not being "exploited" by terrorists, it's being used by them, just as they use telephones or microwaves or washing machines. That's what those devices are there for. The idea that trying to make broken internet technologies should be "front and center" of technology companies' thinking bespeaks a complete contempt for their users.
This constant refrain about how awful strong crypto is, and how we must break it, is simply the intelligence services implicitly admitting that they find the idea of doing their job in a free society, where people are able to keep some messages private, too hard, so they would be really grateful if technology companies could just fall in line and make life easier by destroying privacy for everyone.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
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, fud, mark rowley, privacy, terrorism, uk
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Cryptography on the other hand, is such a concern for them because they haven't figured out how to break it by kicking it with jackboots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See how stupid they sound? It is exactly the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When a police officer uses threats of violence against someone it is usually to compel them to act in a certain way. A fair amount of the time the way the police want people to act is to stop exercising troubling (to the government) political speech.
Take note of how many peaceful protests are broken up by police in riot gear, who simultaneously claim that showing up to a protest with anything that can be used as a weapon is proof of unlawful intent.
Police often do commit acts of terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If that statistic applied to another country, the State Department would be issuing warnings to the public not to travel there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you can avoid communicating with or visiting a repressive fascist regime where human rights and their own constitution are considered optional, you stay out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because we can trust that it is only used for fighting terrorism?
What you are asking us to do is to trust you and put our fingers between a door and frame only to hope that you will not slam it and break all our fingers.
Normally I could be willing to do that, simply because I could not imagine a decent person smashing my fingers.
The problem is that these people have done the equivalent of hand-smashing so many times that we are starting to do the only sane thing there is left; simply keeping our freaking hands away from the door.
Somehow these fools simply doesn't get why, which is quite extraordinary in a teethgrindingly infuriating way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rock and a hard place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rock and a hard place
I've often wondered if 9/11 were actually an FBI plot that got away from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rock and a hard place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interestingly...
It was easy to everyone involved, wasn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Part of this quote appears to be missing
and creates challenges for "
Hackers, crackers, spooks, men in the middle, agents of foreign nations, oh and ... "law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Or it can be set up in a way which doesn't do that."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Senior police officer is sexual predator peeping tom
Senior police officer is sexual predator peeping tom
Senior police officer is sexual predator peeping tom
Senior police officer is sexual predator peeping tom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Washing Machines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Washing Machines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Washing Machines
Now that is a finely aged callback.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The feral agencies are too busy smelling their own farts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We should ban all trees and plants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
b
not sheep = terrorist
period
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: b
I watch the comments on threads like this, over the last year or two - and as time goes on am continually amused at how the reactions from the populace go from 'well thats odd, but because terrorism eh?', then morphs to 'jeez, they must be dumb/typical inefficient govt because they didn't catch any terrorists' to finally the realization...
No, its nothing to do w/terrorism. They just want to watch all of us, all the time, for any reason. Because = awake sheep are scary to them.
Wake up...and _stay_ awake dear readers of the World. Its probably going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US government giving weapons to IS is absolutely OK ofcourse...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let them see how it feels not to have online privacy...
But I'm afraid they won't have the guts to do that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
If so, I wonder if he uses some sort of VPN to connect to his workplace.
If he does, how does he feel being part of the problem?
If he doesn't, then how does he feel about putting national security at risk by allowing all of his communications to travel unencrypted?
People like this have no business commenting on things they don't understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try and find a smart cop.... they are rarier than unicorns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I meant that if those sociopaths in blue are given guns no questions asked then the average citizen deserves to own guns for their own protection and saftey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Flip Side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It has to do with encryption because the government is trying to restrict both in the name of protecting the general population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There appears to be a permit requirement to purchase a gun of any type. You need a purchase for each handgun purchase, and can only purchase 1 handgun every 30 days. Not sure the process and forms, but that sounds like a background check for the lifetime purchaser permit, and the handgun permit regulates the once every 30 days restriction. Seem to be a reasonable, sensible laws. No licence for ownership, so if you get the gun as a gift or inheritance the only hoop you possibly have to jump through is registration if it was a gift. Now you might actually have a problem with the lack of ability to CARRY a gun, but that's not making it difficult to buy or own it, just the ability to carry in public. I am not going to take a stance on the carry permit, but know that if that is your problem, you aren't properly expressing it, which could lead to confusion.
Your original comment was confusing for several reasons. You asked if we supported your right to own firearms (which sounds like the beginning of a rhetorical device to poke a hole in logic), but then discard the rhetorical framing and say "because the government makes it difficult". I could reasonably assume your point was that somehow like guns, encryption should be regulated. But combined with your second argument, it sounds more like your suggesting that we should call for the deregulation of guns as well? Still can't find your purpose in bringing guns up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
See about buying a gun in Chicago. See about buying a gun in NYC, see about buying a gun in New Jersey. Sure, the law does allow it, but it is up to the local PD to approve you, and in New Jersey, they take their time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As to your question - Apples and oranges. First off, I don't remember any "fatalities by encryption" in the last year. Secondly, even when a criminal has encryption, The encryption isn't a tool to commit a crime. Quite the opposite. The closest it comes to being a tool to commit a crime, is in that it can hide digital communication and therefore might hide the discussion of a crime. But aside from sharing classified information and ridiculous 'Racketeering' or 'conspiracy' charges, communication is not, in itself, a crime in this country. Thirdly, unless you are a large corporation, you rarely buy encryption products. You purchase a product that includes encryption as a feature. I can't think of a parallel that is legal in the gun world. Any vehicle that comes with a gun mount either has it completely removed or comes without the gun itself when sold to private parties.
The fact is, that (as an example) in the hands of people who are mentally unstable, encryption doesn't become directly dangerous to the health of others. Guns do. Encryption doesn't give you a way to act upon raging emotions in the heat of the moment. Guns do.
As for the local PD being slow approving your purchase permits (or background checks), I can see that being a clear and present problem. That probably should be addressed. If its due to a permit backlog, they should really hire some temporary workers while a backlog exists. If its due to officers being slothful in their duties, a response time should be mandated by law with the Local PD being fined for not meeting that response time (perhaps a refund of the filing fee and mandated recovery of any court costs if a lawsuit is filed because it goes beyond 30 days past due?) If its a problem with your filings individually, sounds like a clear case of discrimination, and you could probably get it handled on those grounds.
Frankly, no. A permit and background check system for encryption is not only not supported by me, its unsupportable. It doesn't help solve the problems law enforcement have with it (permitted encrypted communications are still encrypted communications), it doesn't serve a public need (as it does with guns), and wide spread public encryption has a number of known, proven benefits (reduction in online theft, improving Anonymous conversation for the discussion of sensitive topics like government overreach esp in regions subject to government retaliation, ect).
As I said, its an apples to oranges comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should their be limitations on either for law abiding citizens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, lets use the mental illness example. In one case, the Mentally ill person gets ahold of encryption and wants to kill someone. The worst they can do is hide his communications with a contract killer. The encryption might have helped, but it isn't doing the killing, nor is it facilitating a crime that otherwise could not have happened as the communication could have happened over other untracable communication lines, such as in-person or via snail mail. In all situations with encryption, the mentall ill can not take direct, immediate action. Contrast with a mentally ill person getting a gun. In a reasonable scenario, they kill the person they want to kill. Potentially some bystanders. maybe its the bystanders that they want to kill. In any case, the gun allows them to take direct immediate action upon their whims. A background check can help prevent people with no criminal record (law abiding citizen) with known mental health problems (I know a guy with paranoid schizophrenia, hes great 95% of the time on his meds, but the other 5%?) don't get a hold of weapons that allow him to act on impulses coming from a damaged psyche.
Cars are deadly in the wrong hands. So we regulate the shit out of them. Licences, regestration, mandatory insurance, tests both written and practical. Encryption is not deadly, its not a weapon, and we don't need to track who has it.
You have a very flawed premise. Police don't like locked doors because criminals use them. Should we require a permit for a door lock? Police don't like cheap pay as you go phones because criminals use these 'burners'. Should we require a permit for them? Guns are not controlled because law enforcement doesn't like that criminals might use them. They are controlled because evidence has shown that sensible gun control laws save lives.
To debate with me, you really need to address why this comparison is, despite my claims, not actually an apples to oranges comparison. You made the claim that they are the same with your only evidence being that law enforcement dislikes both for the same reason. I responded by giving you clear reasons why they should not be treated the same by law. Your response was to again make the claim that they are the same because law enforcement dislikes both. So I again have demonstrated a line of reasoning that expresses the fact that they are different and should be treated differently. Now I am going to ask something of you. Prove your point. You made the claim that guns are the apple to encryption's apple. You claim they are the same. I can show that gun control solves both a law enforcement problem (registration helps track guns used in crimes) and a public interest problem (reducing crime by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill). Can you bring up any evidence of how a permit system for encryption would solve either a law enforcement problem (They don't want it at all), or a public interest one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Front and center
It bespeaks a complete contempt for more than that. In fact, it goes against the very idea of free speech and an open society.
Imagine, for example, if he had claimed that stopping "terrorists" from exploiting the news should be "front and center" of the New York Times editorial staff. I think even he would see that this would lead to blatant censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Front and center
Which is not to say that he would be opposed to it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Friendly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We can't breathe!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definitions matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Friendly to freedom"
So on the other side of it, it can be said, and rightly so, that they themselves are enemies of freedom
Whose the bad guy again?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dEAR mR. pOLICE OFFICER..
And if you had better encryption, your system wouldnt be hacked..
And other precautions, would make your system more secure against SPAM/Malware/BOTS...
Love it when Clients, have FULL write privileges to the Main server..(FAIL)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goodbye TLS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't he forget something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are terrorists in the government too
Even the police are running their little secret terrorist program called organized stalking, a covert psychological harassment program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which?
I hope he will tell us which companies fall into each category.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't expect a ignorant moron cop to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]