Basically she's saying chat apps in the UK shouldn't be allowed end-to-end encryption.<p>So the terrorists will setup a chat system that look like payments.<p>In the mean-time, the UK government will use our chat to identify harmless political dissidents, groom them online and then fail to incite them to violence. Given previous performance, they will meet some of their targets, get a few pregnant and then get sued 20 years later when someone reports on how idiotic the police and spies really can be while everyone sane scratches their heads about the targeted pro-solar-power "terrorists", who happened to piss off Lord McOil who had a quiet chat with his Eton buddy in GCHQ which got them classified as dangerous.<p>After 5 years, Boris, our new PM, will decide to give government departments access to find benefit cheats and illegal immigrants. The system they'll build will cost more than they recoup and will be a drop in the bucket compared to what they could have recovered if they had spent 1/10th of that money chasing rich tax dodgers.<p>A couple of years later, they will give councils access to the whole country's chat to try and catch some fly-tippers.<p>In this time, the civil servants will actually use the system to stalk ex-girlfriends, random crushes and celebrities or spy on wives and husbands.<p>Eventually, some civil servant will accidentally leave a hyper-storage-cube on the bus containing the last 5 years of everyone's chat and it'll turn up on 4chan.<p>The resulting misery and damage will be justified by the government because they once caught a "terrorist" who was standing in the street screaming "Allah is great" and stabbed a policeman. In reality he was a normal guy who had suffered from Bipolar Disorder but the NHS couldn't afford to treat him and classified him low risk, so ended up having a breakdown.
The problem is largely the UK's lack of a constitution. There are no checks or balances in the UK. Parliament can literally do anything they want. The courts can't block Parliament. Parliament can just abolish the courts. The house of lords can't stop the house of commons, the commons can just override the lords. The queen won't veto the commons because she fears parliament will just abolish the monarchy.
> Companies are constantly making trade-offs between security and 'usability', and it is here where our experts believe opportunities may lie.<p>Amber Rudd's "experts" couldn't prevent a simple brute force attack on her own parliament that would have easily been mitigated with 2FA (<a href="https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/26/parliament_email_hack/" rel="nofollow">https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/26/parliament_email_ha...</a>)
<i>> Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of features to perfect, unbreakable security. So this is not about asking the companies to break encryption or create so called "back doors". Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family? Companies are constantly making trade-offs between security and "usability", and it is here where our experts believe opportunities may lie.</i><p>lol what a terrible argument.<p>> suggesting that E2E encryption hinders usability<p>> points to the massive number of WhatsApp as proof
"So, there are options. But they rely on mature conversations between the tech companies and the Government - and they must be confidential"<p>i.e. backdoors. Trust us, we are the government!
Dear UK secretary: your department lost credibility to talk about "real people" needs when the UK police helped Murdoch's "News of the World" to hack into "real people" phones.<p>But I don't expect you to understand your own responsibilities so let's just wait until Vladimir Putin hacks into any server containing your private information. Then UK politicians will understand.
Banning encryption won't hurt the bad guys since they can always use codes. I believe the Sept 2001 terrorists used terms like "birthday. Are", "candles" (for the WTC) etc.<p>It will simply destroy the privacy of ordinary people who set up a dinner or buy a birthday present for their kids
I don't think her statement actually says "real people don't need end-to-end encryption". I'm not sure what she <i>is</i> saying though. Not banning end-to-end encryption, not asking for back doors, but having "mature conversations" that have something to do with trade-offs between usability and security. What?
As demonstrated in this camera footage, terrorists do not use WhatsApp to plan attacks. They meet in person - without their phones:<p><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/News/uk/home-news/london-attack-cctv-video-terrorists-ilford-gym-before-borough-market-stabbing-ummah-fitness-centre-a7778666.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.independent.co.uk/News/uk/home-news/london-attack...</a>
What politicians do not understand:
- if we are forced to chat unencrypted, terrorists will communicate in "code": "the eagle will fly today" means "attack now!"
- terrorists did successful attacks before the internet and before smartphones and do not need encryption
- terrorists do harm because they are harmed. Stop harming them and they will leave you alone.
It'll be interesting in 10-15 years when the US is one of the few countries left that allow unfettered access to encryption, VPNs, secure messaging, etc.<p>How does the saying go? "The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe"
Hilarious! Let's criminalize privacy and ask pointed questions to those who seek it.<p>Staggering double speak from Orwell's own land. Who would have thought.<p>Question: Is a terrorist more a threat to civilization or these closet totalitarians crawling out of the woodwork?
I realize the article was about the UK, but this entire encryption/spying issue certainly applies to the US as well. My comments are regarding the US because I don't know enough about the UK's laws and general situation to speak on it.<p>The cat is out of the bag. End to end encryption that is very easy for the average user to use exists. There's no going back. These terrorists that they are so worried about are going to use it (if they have any common sense), even if it is outlawed somehow. Making it illegal or extremely difficult to use is the same as gun control - the criminals are still going to break the law because their end goal is a crime far worse and if they are willing to commit that crime then they are surely willing to commit the lesser crime of not getting a license for a weapon or possibly using end-to-end encryption.<p>In the US we supposedly have the 4th amendment to protect against this NSA spying criminality. The 4th amendment protects against both search <i>and</i> seizure. The giant dragnet they use to sweep up all communications over <i>private</i> channels is supposed to be a crime without a warrant. And when done in bulk it should be easily considered a mass, rank violation of the 4th amendment. For example, in the case of your cell phone, you agree to allow a private business to forward your data and communications. They theoretically can access it all, including your GPS because of the cell tower triangulation. That should be understood as necessary to providing the base service. But your agreement is only with the telecom provider, <i>not</i> the government. The government just decided to stick it's head in and declare itself to have a national security interest in the data of not just you, but everyone in the entire nation, and demanded access to it all.<p>What's worse is that these programs have not been proven to actually stop terrorists:
<a href="https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-has-no-record-of-thwarting-large-terror-attacks-regardless-of-snowden-leaks/" rel="nofollow">https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-ha...</a>
<a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/nsa-program-stopped-no-terror-attacks-says-white-house-panel-f2D11783588" rel="nofollow">http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/nsa-program-stopped-no-ter...</a><p>In fact, based on my memory, every instance of a thwarted attack has been the FBI actually communicating directly with alleged terrorists using undercover agents. This is how actual investigative work has historically been done. They followed up on tips, evidence, etc. and followed the leads and performed a real investigation and followed the proper warrant protocols. And doing it "the hard way" has yielded them more terrorists in handcuffs than the NSA.<p>The results are so abysmal for the PRISM program and it's siblings, that it begs the question whether or not stopping terrorists is even the real purpose. Personally, I have never thought it was the main goal. Sure, they might catch some, but I think the real purpose is to make sure no one poses a political threat. If anyone starts to get out of line or cause too many problems, they can just rifle through all their data they have on you and find something to use against you. How many people are clean enough to escape that? Ever, even once, downloaded an illegal mp3? Ever watch a movie on an illegal, streaming tube site or use torrents? Ever cheated, even a little on your taxes? Ever cheated on your spouse? Have a porn fetish that others may find unsavory? In the closet? Are you fully in compliance with every housing regulation? Have permits for every little thing that legally requires a permit? Have any secrets that aren't illegal but may be embarrassing? Done anything that isn't illegal but people would look upon with disdain? It might just be used against you.