MI5 Argues for 'Exceptional Access' to Encrypted Messages

[ruka.snow]

Scottish Police did the exact same thing.

Scots cops took down huge asylum seeker grooming gang - but kept it secret

COPS took down a huge asylum seeker grooming gang in Glasgow – but kept it secret. The gang preyed on vulnerable young girls in the city, and had at least 44 victims, including a core group o…

www.thescottishsun.co.uk

Also the British Government is wholly responsible for the Intelligence Services of the United Kingdom, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, this is not a devolved power thank god.

These are British problems and it doesn't matter if it's Hollyrood or Westminster, both the British government and the devolved Scottish government have known about this and covered it up for years. There's going to be lynchings when the report is eventually published.

I have absolutely this has happened in Wales too and I would suspect Northern Ireland is also not free from this.

Police 'investigating 54 child grooming gangs'

Police are investigating 54 alleged gangs in a crackdown on child grooming in England and Wales, the House of Lords hears.

www.bbc.com

Why you think this is an English only problem is bizarre. The SNP are so woke they'd happily let it keep on happening if they thought they would get away with it.

Let’s keep England’s problems in England. Criminals in my country will be found and dealt with by law enforcement.

 

[Kabeyun]

It's actually very simple. If the question is: "Should government be allowed to violate constitutional rights in the case of____?", then the answer is NO. Regardless of what the crime is, who the victim is, or how many victims there are. I don't think anyone want it both ways.

What constitutional rights do you mean? If you’re referring to the 4th amendment, the exact text is:

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.​

Text messages, nor Facebook communication, nor iPhone content are “papers,” and even if they were considered “papers” what constitutes an “unreasonable” search? Right now a police officer can pursue and search without a warrant if it’s deemed urgent and fleeting, so-called exigent circumstance.

Since constitutional scholars don’t think these are simple questions, I’m going to guess that scoobydoo shouldn’t either. And, since the constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means, not what you or I say it means, you should also remember that the current majority of justices are originalists or strict constructionists, which means they’re unlikely to take liberties interpreting the literal text of the document.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

What constitutional rights do you mean? If you’re referring to the 4th amendment, the exact text is:

​

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.​

There is a YouTube video that explains the different protections for privacy. It's out there, it's been a while since I saw it. There are rather solid protections, but there has been a concentrated effort to chip away at all of it. We are on the cusp of the headlong fall into fascism. To a time, where like China, your accuser is your neighbor, and you are tried in the press. Scary...

EDIT: I think it was an ACLU talk at DefCon.

[automerge]1582990580[/automerge]
RSA 4096 has supposedly been broken. It's a novel way to break it too. Is it advised to not use RSA 4096? No, but if it can be broken, it's just time before people find a way to do it easier.

Can anyone imagine an 8,192 bit key? Wow...

 

[827538]

Let’s keep England’s problems in England. Criminals in my country will be found and dealt with by law enforcement.

I don't know what country you live in and this article relates to the UK. Are you denying Islamic child rape gangs exist in Scotland and Wales?

 

[jennyp]

MI5's attitude is on the face of it puzzling.

There's a compelling case to say that if the hardware/software suppliers granted this public request, then the bad actors would soon become aware of it and turn to other technologies and practices. If this is true, then a privileged backdoor would yield less and less useful intelligence. Parker et al must surely be aware of this, which makes one wonder if their avowed intentions are disingenuous.

They must surely also be aware that backdoor keys, once they existed, would not remain safe forever, which also makes you wonder how that sorts with their role in securing long-term national and civil security and liberty.

Unless, of course, the disingenuity is real and intentional, to obfuscate other methods.

 

[BuddyTronic]

I really don't see the issue if you have nothing to hide.

Heaven forbid there was another terrorist attack, then people will complain our intelligence agencies didn't do enough. They can't win - let them have access, they're protecting you. They couldn't care less about all the things you believe constitute to privacy...

This argument has been played out on the internet Many times.

Nothing to hide argument

I think it amounts to - nothing to say.

but I hope you research more about it.

 

[kurosov]

But if you aren't doing anything wrong, why should you hide it

Every time i hear that i tell them it's because i don't know those with access aren't doing anything wrong with the tools and data they collect.

Followed up with something the government or an employee has done that you know they strongly disapprove of and they'll at least consider the implications.

 

[fairuz]

isn't UK one big police state already?

it is really not so much about fighting terrorism but about intercepting all contents of communication, you see.

It's the same country that can fine people for expressing "objectionable" opinions and has strict rules about carrying knives.
[automerge]1583016107[/automerge]

Oh right, because we're no longer democratic by doing this.

Give into terrorism and trust the government to handle it, and yes, that's what you end up with. Most of those places are technically democracies, just sucky ones. If you think MI5, the FBI, etc can be solely responsible for safeguarding backdoors, you're trusting a promise they've already broken in the past.
[automerge]1583016168[/automerge]

I really don't see the issue if you have nothing to hide.

Everyone has something to hide, doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong. A hacker with knowledge of everything I send digitally can impersonate me or worse.
[automerge]1583016789[/automerge]

MI5's attitude is on the face of it puzzling.

There's a compelling case to say that if the hardware/software suppliers granted this public request, then the bad actors would soon become aware of it and turn to other technologies and practices. If this is true, then a privileged backdoor would yield less and less useful intelligence. Parker et al must surely be aware of this, which makes one wonder if their avowed intentions are disingenuous.

They must surely also be aware that backdoor keys, once they existed, would not remain safe forever, which also makes you wonder how that sorts with their role in securing long-term national and civil security and liberty.

Unless, of course, the disingenuity is real and intentional, to obfuscate other methods.

Exactly, seems they can only benefit from a security flaw they discover and keep secret.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Every time i hear that i tell them it's because i don't know those with access aren't doing anything wrong with the tools and data they collect.

Followed up with something the government or an employee has done that you know they strongly disapprove of and they'll at least consider the implications.

COINTELPRO baby. You didn't have to do anything wrong, they would make *anything* that you did *look* bad. Even outright lying about it. Yes, when the government wants you to suffer, they can make you suffer.

 

[CplBadboy]

Im just gonna email this prick and see if he he'll send me his log in details for everything he has online.... Im sure if he has nothing to hide he will send them ASAP and he will be very obliging. I just need to read his private conversations etc. Again. Im sure he won't mind if he has nothing to hide.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Im just gonna email this prick and see if he he'll send me his log in details for everything he has online.... Im sure if he has nothing to hide he will send them ASAP and he will be very obliging. I just need to read his private conversations etc. Again. Im sure he won't mind if he has nothing to hide.

I'm sure he'll hide behind the flag. Like all 'good patriots'.

 

[scoobydoo99]

What constitutional rights do you mean? If you’re referring to the 4th amendment, the exact text is:

​

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.​

Text messages, nor Facebook communication, nor iPhone content are “papers,” and even if they were considered “papers” what constitutes an “unreasonable” search? Right now a police officer can pursue and search without a warrant if it’s deemed urgent and fleeting, so-called exigent circumstance.

Since constitutional scholars don’t think these are simple questions, I’m going to guess that scoobydoo shouldn’t either. And, since the constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means, not what you or I say it means, you should also remember that the current majority of justices are originalists or strict constructionists, which means they’re unlikely to take liberties interpreting the literal text of the document.

You seem to be trying to offer your own, incorrect, interpretation of the constitution as opposed to simply reviewing SCOTUS case history. Surprising, since you yourself admit that the constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, and not what you or I think. How to explain your assertion that cell phones are not protected, then?

Please see SCOTUS in Riley v. California, where the Court ruled that warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, said:

"Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life". The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought."

I agree with you, SCOTUS is the definitive voice on the subject. And they disagree with you.

 

[Kabeyun]

You seem to be trying to offer your own, incorrect, interpretation of the constitution as opposed to simply reviewing SCOTUS case history. Surprising, since you yourself admit that the constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, and not what you or I think. How to explain your assertion that cell phones are not protected, then?

Please see SCOTUS in Riley v. California, where the Court ruled that warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, said:

"Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life". The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought."

I agree with you, SCOTUS is the definitive voice on the subject. And they disagree with you.

Chill, Charlie Brown. I offer no assertions of protection or lack thereof. But thanks for the reference. And in Riley, the ruling also included reservations about the “blunt instrument” of carte blanche fourth amendment protections and inconsistencies Riley could create with established search & seizure practices, leaving the door open to a different ruling depending on the nuances of future cases before the court. As I said, and this is my point, it’s interesting and complicated.

 

[s66]

And aside from this is the hacker community who find backdoors and other flaws that expose data and conversations.

Show one flaw in current encryption algorithms such as AES that has led to an exploit used by hackers to expose data.

A backdoor is a flaw in the algorithm (that cannot be fixed without using a different algorithm), not an error in the implementation of one (that can be fixed relatively easily).

VERY few hackers bother to attack encryption head on: it's not worth the effort. What they'll try to do is find implementation flaws relating to key management and that way get a hold of the key to then just be able to decrypt the date straight on.

The problem with the way of thinking of those who want to weaken encryption is once the implementations start to allow things like a master key or intentionally implement ways to recover keys that should be fully hidden etc.: that will be a hacker's wet dream.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

A backdoor is a flaw in the algorithm (that cannot be fixed without using a different algorithm), not an error in the implementation of one (that can be fixed relatively easily).

What?