UK Confuses Gullible Reporter Into Believing It Changed Its Position On Encryption
from the tricking-the-press-is-so-easy dept
We've talked a few times about how UK Prime Minister David Cameron has made it abundantly clear that he wants to backdoor encryption to make sure law enforcement and intelligence agencies can read private communications. Back in January, he made it clear that the UK "must not" allow there to be any "means of communication [that] isn't possible to read [by the government]." Just a few weeks ago, he once again made it clear that there should be no "safe space" where anyone can communicate without the government being able to spy on you (that there already is the ability for two people to converse in person without being spied upon is left ignored)."We just want to ensure that terrorists do not have a safe space in which to communicate. That is the challenge, and it is a challenge that will come in front of the House.This is, of course, no different than what the FBI has been whining about in the US as well. Basically they're both demanding backdoors into encryption, so that the government can access whatever it wants. They are demanding this because they're basically ignorant of how such backdoors effectively undermine security, put more people at risk and open up that access to much more than just the government.
"We have always been able, on the authority of the home secretary, to sign a warrant and intercept a phone call, a mobile phone call or other media communications, but the question we must ask ourselves is whether, as technology develops, we are content to leave a safe space—a new means of communication—for terrorists to communicate with each other.
"My answer is no, we should not be, which means that we must look at all the new media being produced and ensure that, in every case, we are able, in extremis and on the signature of a warrant, to get to the bottom of what is going on."
However, it's not just the government officials who are confused about this. It appears that reporters and supposedly respected publications can't get it right either. Business Insider -- which seems to get the little things wrong on a fairly consistent basis -- has a big story up trumpeting that the UK has made a giant "U-turn" and will no longer seek to attack encryption.
But Number 10 is now emphatically denying that Cameron is considering such a ban, telling Business Insider, "The Prime Minister did not suggest encryption should be banned."See? This is neither huge nor a U-turn. It's simply the UK government reiterating what Cameron said: that they would like to figure out ways to backdoor end-to-end encryption. Which is, you know, the same thing he's been saying for months. The real story here is that this is a really dumb idea that will make the internet less safe -- but there is no change in position by Cameron. Just a confused reporter for a publication that apparently has no reporters or editors who understand the subjects they're writing about.
"We accept and completely recognise the importance of encryption," a representative said, highlighting its use in e-commerce as an example of why it will not be outlawed. The person did reiterate, however, that the British government believes "terrorists cannot have a safe space in which to operate" online — raising the question of how it hopes to achieve this.
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: backdoors, david cameron, encryption, end-to-end encryption, journalism, reporting, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The original interpretation was correct...
I'm sorry, but those that interpreted the original statements to mean that the UK wanted to ban encryption were correct.
Introducing a backdoor to any form of encryption, ends that encryption's ability to function properly.
Backdoors to encryption means no encryption, period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The original interpretation was correct...
If they were actually banning encryption outright, at least users would know that they were always exposed and could adjust (or leave the UK or break the law).
But backdooring encryption while leaving it nominally in place is deceptive to those who don't understand encryption (a large portion of the populace).
So no, they're not banning encryption, they're making it a honeypot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The original interpretation was correct...
If you want an example, look at the DVD and BluRay encryption specs. Once details about the encryption leaked, it was broken. Updates to BluRay encryption typically last about 24 to 72 hours max.
Do you really think that once back doors were added that any other form of encryption would survive better than these 2 do?
Don't fool yourself. Backdoors to encryption = No encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The original interpretation was correct...
On topic: You can play word games all you want, but the net effect of backdooring encryption equates the end of encryption.
Technically. But nominally you can still say that "encryption is allowed" which is his point. And the point the journalists in the article missed. We know that backdoors = no encryption but do the average joe know it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The original interpretation was correct...
Just because you don't like that it proves my point, doesn't make it off-topic.
For another dead-on comparison, let's look at SSL v1.0, v2.0 and v3.0...
Each time, once the encryption was cracked, security blurbs went out telling people to stop using/trusting them.
Backdoored encryption = cracked encryption = no encryption.
I do thank you for proving my point though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The original interpretation was correct...
Breaking encryption and banning encryption are not the same thing, even though some of the symptoms are similar. Arresting a shoplifter and killing a shoplifter are not the same thing, even though some of the symptoms are similar.
Heck, introducing a flaw in encryption and finding a flaw in encryption aren't even the same thing, even if one can lead to the other. I understand that you have a similar emotional response to the ideas of breaking encryption and banning encryption, but that *still* doesn't make it the same thing.
I agree with you that either is a bad thing, but your original statement, "I'm sorry, but those that interpreted the original statements to mean that the UK wanted to ban encryption were correct.", is plain wrong. Those interpretations were incorrect and harmful, they lead to people debating the wrong point and being dismissed, and (can) end up hiding any debate over the actual issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The original interpretation was correct...
Broken encryption cannot be considered to be encryption any longer because it no longer performs the function that it was designed to do.
Backdoored encryption is broken encryption. Therefor backdoored encryption can no longer be considered as encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The original interpretation was correct...
The truth is more than what you think it is or focus on. There are other aspects to consider. Regular day-to-day people will trust that the banking websites and email providers that they use will ensure their security. What a computer science professor might consider "not encryption" is irrelevant to them if it's still called encryption or information security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The original interpretation was correct...
The truth is more than what you think it is or focus on. There are other aspects to consider. Regular day-to-day people will trust that the banking websites and email providers that they use will ensure their security. What a computer science professor might consider "not encryption" is irrelevant to them if it's still called encryption or information security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The original interpretation was correct...
No, it equates the end of effective encryption, which is not the same thing. As A/C has explained, if there is still ineffective encryption, many people will continue to use that without realizing it's ineffective, whereas if encryption were entirely banned, everyone would realize it. It is not word games, it's a meaningful difference in outcomes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The original interpretation was correct...
"effective encryption" ? pah - word games
"encryption with *government only* back-doors" - pah - word games.
Encryption isn't encryption unless it's;
A) Secure from back-doors
B) Hasn't been hacked / cracked
C) Nobody but the person who encrypted the file has the original encryption keys
D) Nobody but the people that the originator wants to have the decryption keys have said decryption keys.
If any of these elements aren't true, then for all intents and purposes it may as well be plain text.
So play all your silly Alphabet Organization / Apologist word games you want, the rest of us in the real world know the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The original interpretation was correct...
So play all your silly Alphabet Organization / Apologist word games you want, the rest of us in the real world know the truth.
Holy crap dude. The world is not divided into the two groups of people who agree with you and people who are on the other side and must be stopped at all costs. I am not an apologist. I am actually saying that backdoored encryption is even worse than banning encryption. For some reason you are unable or unwilling to even see the difference. I would try an analogy, but if it's been explained to you twice with no effect whatsoever, I give up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The original interpretation was correct...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The original interpretation was correct...
To be encryption, it must follow the following rules.
A) Secure from back-doors that break rules C and/or D
B) Hasn't been hacked / cracked that break rules C and/or D.
C) Nobody but the person who encrypted the file has the original encryption keys
D) Nobody but the people that the originator wants to have the decryption keys have said decryption keys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The original interpretation was correct...
With an outright ban, people would realize that unwanted ears could listen in. With a backdoor, only technically savvy people realize this. The proposed backdoor is worse than a ban because most people would think they were safe when they were not. That is no mere word game. That is the point you are refusing to address. The government is trying to make people think they are safe rather than openly admitting that they are listening in.
In fact, your repeated claims of "word games" only helps the government agencies. They will show people that they can use encryption applications. And people will be able to see these applications. They will see no ban. And they will see you saying that if there is no ban, they are safe -- because you are saying every danger equals a ban. And because of you, such people will disregard the warnings of all the other people here who are telling them that, even though they can see an encryption product with their own eyes, their communications are still not secure.
Congratulations, you have done more for the alphabet soup agencies than 100 PR agents working full time ever could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The original interpretation was correct...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cameron is an idiot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cameron is an idiot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't want to ban ALL encryption...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They don't want to ban ALL encryption...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They don't want to ban ALL encryption...
War on people
War on peace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and moving on to a piece i read yesterday about how China has now increased the security there to stop certain web sites being accessed and started arresting civil rights lawyers, how can the UK ever condemn a country over human rights again? it is making a rod for the backs of the people, not just the government! it wouldn't be so bad if it were to stop terrorism but it isn't even for that. it's so the government knows exactly what every ordinary person is doing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Was that a rhetorical question? You're going to foot the bill of course. Unless you're extremely rich and then I'm sure your people can find a way to have an insurance company or government cover it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ENCRYPT IT ALL AUTOMATICALLY
Those who say "Encryption is bunk, I've got nothing to hide" are forgetting that in some countries it would be impossible to live their lives as openly as they live them now. When dissidents are the only people using encryption then the gov't can easily identify who the dissidents are. Whereas if everyone encrypted then everyone is safe from targeted surveillance. Terrorists and criminals can create their own encryption. Does anyone think they would be stupid enough to leave a backdoor in it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even in fairytale land it would be devastating...
They want it now! and if sanity is thrown out the window and they are allowed to do this, then we would end up with the worst possible and most unsecured solution of them all just because it could be done next month and not in 5 years.
I'd bet they would wind up with something akin to 1 password for everything. When that password leaked people would at best be informed to update this to a new key manually, which many won't do in years, and at worst be spread all over the net while they would deny it feverishly and try to prosecute themselves out of it.
This would be in the fantasy land where things like dragons, magic beings and good guy only backdoor encryption would be possible. We are in for worse in the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Encryption is how we protect our Constitutional Rights
I'm sorry, but the bill of rights doesn't stipulate limitations on our inalienable rights.
Let's go check.. hmmm, Bill of Rights, 4th amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Scanning... Processing... Processing... Processing...
Ah-hah.. I was right...
There are NO EXEMPTIONS to this right.
That means that you don't get to clamor about how encryption is hurting investigations because of *GASP* terrorists .. extremists .. whateverists ..
The 4th amendment applies to EVERYONE. Get it? Got it? Get over yourselves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Encryption is how we protect our Constitutional Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Encryption is how we protect our Constitutional Rights
Sorry to have "hijacked" your story to infer what we Americans are dealing with at the same time.
However, I do believe the UK falls under Article 8 doesn't it? And doesn't Article 8 pretty much grant you the same rights as our Bill of Rights?
Right to privacy, et al.
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/artic le-8-right-private-and-family-life
Essentially the same stuff, just worded and presented differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is a lot easier for a criminal to stay in power if he arrests anyone that speaks ill of him. In order to do that he needs to know who is speaking ill of him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An evil goal
Let's just stop there, shall we? Since we control who gets labeled "terrorist", what we are saying is we want to spy on everyone we so desire.
At some point, that someone will be you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An evil goal
The only way to eliminate secure forms of communications for terrorists is to eliminate them for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gostapo third reich would be envious with this kind of IMMENSE power.......and our governments are not made up of fucking angels, at some point an evil or misguided fool will abuse it
To put it in perspective, if a goverment wanted this kind of information pre internet, they would have to stop and search everyone at everytime, have a cameras and microphones stationed EVERYWHERE.....WITHOUT a warrent.........we are in the age of guilty until proven innocent, and they have the audacity to pretend to be the good guy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]