'Real Time' Surveillance and Breakable Encryption Proposed in U.K. Government Technical Paper

[MacRumors]

An alleged leak of a draft technical paper prepared by the U.K. government contains proposals that endorse the "live" surveillance of British web users' online communications, it emerged this week.

Civil liberties organization the Open Rights Group received the document on May 4 and decided to publish the draft, which states that telecommunications companies and internet service providers would need to provide "data in near real time" within one working day.

The paper, first reported by The Register, also states that technology companies would be required to remove encryption from private communications and provide the raw data "in an intelligible form" without "electronic protection".

If made law, the capabilities would come under the controversial Investigatory Powers (IP) Act, dubbed the "Snooper's Charter" by critics. According to the act, the access would have to be sanctioned by secretaries of state and a judge appointed by the prime minister. Telecoms firms would be forced to carry out the requirements in secret, leaving the public unaware that access had been given.

The Home Office has denied there is anything new in the consultation paper, which has reportedly been sent to affected bodies without being publicly announced by the government. However, the document reveals that bulk surveillance would occur simultaneously alongside individual access requests, but would be limited to one in every 10,000 users of a given service - or 6,500 people in the country at any one time.

The leak of the paper has re-opened the debate surrounding law enforcement agencies' demands for "back doors" in security protocols that would provide access to encrypted data, similar to the request that caused a standoff between the FBI and Apple last year.

"It seems very clear that the Home Office intends to use these [powers] to remove end-to-end encryption - or more accurately to require tech companies to remove it," said Dr Cian Murphy, a legal expert at the University of Bristol who spoke to the BBC. "I do read the regulations as the Home Office wanting to be able to have near real-time access to web chat and other forms of communication."

Home Secretary Amber Rudd recently argued that the Investigatory Powers Act offers a set of laws necessary to curb "new opportunities for terrorists" afforded by the internet. However, critics counter that the idea of creating back doors in encrypted communications would render the encryption worthless, since such access would inevitably end up in the hands of bad actors, while appearing as a green light for oppressive regimes to crack down on dissenters by compromising encrypted communications.

The U.K.'s Internet Service Providers' Association (Ispa), which represents BT, Sky, Virgin Media, TalkTalk and others, said it would be consulting its members and submitting a response to the draft regulations by May 19.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: 'Real Time' Surveillance and Breakable Encryption Proposed in U.K. Government Technical Paper

 

[smallcoffee]

Thanks big Western governments! I sure am glad that all parties in office can get behind mass survelience.

If you don't think this is happening in places like France and Germany as well you're only kidding yourself.

 

[centauratlas]

How about let's apply this to the politicians for a few years first. Hillary in the US and Macron in France didn't seem to like it.

 

[thekeyring]

Our government is such a let down.

"We believe it's better to remain in the EU, but we'll still run a referendum and pull out of the EU just so you'll vote us in".

 

[ginkobiloba]

Pretty ironic coming from the country that gave the world George Orwell and his classic "1984"

 

[antonis]

They were partners with NSA in this for a few years now, nothing new.

 

[MH01]

they are clueless about exiting the EU, and yet want access to our daily interactions ....

For our non U.K. Friends. Enjoy

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ay-manifesto-radio-nick-ferrari-a7713556.html

 

[H2SO4]

How about let's apply this to the politicians for a few years first. Hillary in the US and Macron in France didn't seem to like it.

Ok, now this. Lead by example Teresa!!.

 

[2010mini]

How on earth did with get through the Cold War era without violating the privacy of every citizen from "red" countries. But today a few bad actors out of 1 billion Muslims demand privacy violations of EVERYBODY?!??

 

[Glassed Silver]

How on earth did with get through the Cold War era without violating the privacy of every citizen from "red" countries. But today a few bad actors out of 1 billion Muslims demand privacy violations of EVERYBODY?!??

That's the official spin, in reality they have been wanting these powers for many many years, but now they have a few moments of fear again to feast upon and abuse to get this bullcrap through.

This has nothing to do with efficient anti-terrorism measures.

Glassed Silver:ios

 

[jimthing]

This is why when a 'lone operator' apparent attack happens in the UK (like the Whitehall one a month ago), I completely shut off when the news starts reporting politicians saying 'this is an example of why our security services need better access to communications from the bad people'.

Not at the expense of mine and everyone else's right to privacy it doesn't. Who are they trying to kid here. Lone ranger attacks will happen regardless of mass surveillance of the population.

 

[Rigby]

The stupidity of it all. This will primarily affect innocent citizens. Everyone who really has something to hide can simply use encryption products by providers outside of UK jurisdiction (such as Signal, Protonmail, Tutanota etc.) who cannot be forced to comply with this law, or just encrypt on their own using PGP or the like.

I just hope people will drop UK-based technology and service providers wherever they can (are there any major ones left besides ISPs?).

 

[apolloa]

I love how some have brought up Brexit
Any excuse for remoaners to moan eh?

And I'm all for this, this will not lead to the failure of encryption services, that's BS being fed from companies to protect their public image and keep their customer base and profit margins, they know damn well it'll change nothing.

Access must be granted by a judge and others before a request is made for the data. And that's how it is now. They'll just get more of it faster unencrypted and they'll be able to act faster on terrorists and peodophiles etc. If you want total security and anonymity without these acts to gain access to the data, then you MUST accept that this will also be given to terrorists and peodophiles etc etc in the same way. Something that some on here seem more then comfortable with

You all happily use freemium apps who collect and sell your data to anyone without telling you or anyone else, and yet when it comes to a law that dictates a judge and MPs have to grant access to your data, after being presented with a case for doing so which will have to prove your breaking the law or are harming people, then you flat out refuse to support it... yeah what super evil governments they are protecting your security...

Pot kettle black IMO.

 

[5105973]

I guess I'm going to have to stop complaining about China and it's iron control over its citizens and look closer to home, lest I become a party to hypocrisy. I'm in the US, not the U.K. but I don't kid myself about our freedoms anymore. We still have a lot on paper, but in actual practice it's shocking what's been done to erode our rights and our dignity in the name of the war on terror, (and the war on drugs, too). And we would not know it if not for leaks. I don't even believe it's really about the war on terror anymore. It's about consolidating power and control. To what end and by whom?

The really strange thing I've noticed is that while documented citizens are monitored and controlled more closely than ever before, the undocumented or poorly monitored immigrants who ostensibly are the ones more likely to be running drugs or operating terror cells are not particularly governed. In fact, there are laws that actually prevent these people from being subject to the same requirements and laws my mom, as a legal immigrant had to adhere to. Oh well that's an entirely different topic.
[doublepost=1494166855][/doublepost]

I love how some have brought up Brexit
Any excuse for remoaners to moan eh?

And I'm all for this, this will not lead to the failure of encryption services, that BS being fed from companies to protect their public image, they know damn well it'll change nothing.

Access must be granted by a judge and others before a request is made for the data. And that's how it is now. They'll just get more of it faster unencrypted and they'll be able to act faster on terrorists and peodpholes etc. If you want total security and anonymity then you MUST accept that you will also be given that to terrorists and peodophiles etc etc.

Apolloa, not to negate your point, which is valid, but the worst pedophile rings I've read about to date were run by the ones in power who have the means of circumventing investigation and trial for years, if not indefinitely.

 

[Porco]

The paper, first reported by The Register, also states that technology companies would be required to remove encryption from private communications and provide the raw data "in an intelligible form" without "electronic protection".

Why don't they require a gallon of rainbow unicorn milk to be served in a thimble on the eighth day of every week while they're at it?

'So just break encryption that takes thousands of years to break within one day yeah, because we're asking you to OK?'


It's scary they're even asking, but it won't really go anywhere because it can't.

Anyone who requires/desires unbreakable encryption enough will still be able to get it, so what is the point of breaking it for everyone else? All it would do would be to weaken encryption for the average innocent person.

Again, if you outlaw encryption, the only ones with encryption will be the outlaws. You can't un-invent the encryption we have, and they shouldn't want to. Idiocy.

Access must be granted by a judge and others before a request is made for the data. And that's how it is now. They'll just get more of it faster unencrypted and they'll be able to act faster on terrorists and peodophiles etc. If you want total security and anonymity without these acts to gain access to the data, then you MUST accept that this will also be given to terrorists and peodophiles etc etc in the same way. Something that some on here seem more then comfortable with

It's not about being comfortable with bad guys having the same tech that currently protects us all. It's about leaving the bad guys as the only ones to still have the protection.

A judge cannot command maths to be discarded anymore than Canute could command the tide to turn. Bad guys who are happy to break the law doing whatever will surely not care they are breaking the law to keep using outlawed encryption products, but all law-abiding citizens will be under greater threat of ID theft, fraud and various other nasty things that encryption protects us from.

 

[Paul Dawkins]

Not only US has stupid government.

 

[Rigby]

A judge cannot command maths to be discarded anymore than Canute could command the tide to turn. Bad guys who are happy to break the law doing whatever will surely not care they are breaking the law to keep using outlawed encryption products

Just for clarification, the use of secure encryption is *not* being outlawed. There is nothing wrong with people in the UK using encryption products without government-mandated backdoors. You just can't rely on any products and services from UK-based companies anymore.

Otherwise I agree with you.

 

[2010mini]

I love how some have brought up Brexit
Any excuse for remoaners to moan eh?

And I'm all for this, this will not lead to the failure of encryption services, that's BS being fed from companies to protect their public image and keep their customer base and profit margins, they know damn well it'll change nothing.

Access must be granted by a judge and others before a request is made for the data. And that's how it is now. They'll just get more of it faster unencrypted and they'll be able to act faster on terrorists and peodophiles etc. If you want total security and anonymity without these acts to gain access to the data, then you MUST accept that this will also be given to terrorists and peodophiles etc etc in the same way. Something that some on here seem more then comfortable with

You all happily use freemium apps who collect and sell your data to anyone without telling you or anyone else, and yet when it comes to a law that dictates a judge and MPs have to grant access to your data, after being presented with a case for doing so which will have to prove your breaking the law or are harming people, then you flat out refuse to support it... yeah what super evil governments they are protecting your security...

Pot kettle black IMO.

Oh God you are dense. Did You learned nothing from the US' NSA whistleblower? We too had a supposed judicial system to obtain warrants. Guess what happened??? It turns out when you have judges appointed by politicians who want mass surveillance.... then that judicial oversight then becomes a rubber stamp.

We were collecting more data from our citizens than bad actors in countries where the actual bad actors were. But I'm sure that makes sense to you.

 

[apolloa]

All I see is the usual 'American' scaremongering because you'd sooner trust a serial killer then your own government...

Their is a HUGE difference in attitudes towards this with the UK and the US, and you ARE essentially going to be comfortable with peodophiles rings and terrorists using the same services you are, it's a fact, but you don't want laws in place to catch them and you'd rather those types of people had the same protection as you do...

I mean you lot go nuclear mental at the mere thought of a Police officer having the right to force you to use your finger and unlock your phone... ignoring the fact they would have to have probable cause to make you do that in the first place....
[doublepost=1494171545][/doublepost]

Oh God you are dense. Did You learned nothing from the US' NSA whistleblower? We too had a supposed judicial system to obtain warrants. Guess what happened??? It turns out when you have judges appointed by politicians who want mass surveillance.... then that judicial oversight then becomes a rubber stamp.

We were collecting more data from our citizens than bad actors in countries where the actual bad actors were. But I'm sure that makes sense to you.

Oh you mean the guy who stole information on a USB stick from inside the NSA building and passed it on.... something that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS STORY!

Oh yeah I'm dense... I mean how stupid am I to assume those working at your NSA are veted and believe in America and it's security and the constitution, right?

 

[Paul Dawkins]

All I see is the usual 'American' scaremongering because you'd sooner trust a serial killer then your own government...

Often it is one and the same, but to see that intelligence is required.

 

[Porco]

Just for clarification, the use of secure encryption is *not* being outlawed. There is nothing wrong with people in the UK using encryption products without government-mandated backdoors. You just can't rely on any products and services from UK-based companies anymore.

Otherwise I agree with you.

I think I see the technical distinction you are making, but I think they effectively are wanting to do just that (outlaw secure encryption), at least in terms of anything that involves communications in the UK.

All I see is the usual 'American' scaremongering because you'd sooner trust a serial killer then your own government...

Their is a HUGE difference in attitudes towards this with the UK and the US, and you ARE essentially going to be comfortable with peodophiles rings and terrorists using the same services you are, it's a fact, but you don't want laws in place to catch them and you'd rather those types of people had the same protection as you do...

I mean you lot go nuclear mental at the mere thought of a Police officer having the right to force you to use your finger and unlock your phone... ignoring the fact they would have to have probable cause to make you do that in the first place....

Terrorists etc can drive in cars, let's ban cars...? Terrorists etc also breath air, let's ban air so that they can't breathe...? Where does it end?

The problem you seem to miss, along with many politicians, is you can't filter the innocent people and bad guys when it comes to strong, secure encryption. We either all have it, or no-one does. And on balance, it's better that we have it than we don't, because luckily the innocent many outnumber the small number of bad guys.

I want laws in place to catch the bad guys you mention, but not laws that turn the world into an ineffective fascist police state where those bad guys would still get away with stuff anyway but the innocent are unprotected from not only those bad guys but other bad guys we currently have some measure of protection against!!

To put it another way, yes I'd rather have encryption that can stop a lot of fraud, ID theft, domestic violence, bullying, intimidation, economic damage, wars(!), corruption... even if that means it's harder to track down the portion of terrorists and pedophiles who also use encryption.

Because the alternative is you try to catch more terrorists and pedophiles by compromising encryption, but they would surely just use other methods of communication (offline/alternate encryption that isn't back-doored), and meanwhile you've opened up everyone who uses the internet to greater risk of fraud, ID theft, domestic violence, bullying, intimidation, economic damage, wars and corruption. So why do that?

Any sane, humane person wants to stop terrorists and pedophiles from committing their horrible acts. But it's far from clear that having backdoors in encryption (whether just communications or more widely) would achieve that. I'd say it would potentially actually do the opposite, and make it less likely we catch such people. All the while making many other crimes more likely.

And it's not about not trusting the government in an ethical sense - more that even if you trust them to be doing it with good intentions, if they have access to backdoors etc, then sooner or later that access would leak to... guess who? Your proverbial terrorists and pedophiles, along with everyone else who could misuse such access.

 

[Huntn]

Big Brother 33 years later.

 

[steve62388]

Their is a HUGE difference in attitudes towards this with the UK and the US, and you ARE essentially going to be comfortable with peodophiles rings and terrorists using the same services you are

Am I supposed to be uncomfortable with using a telephone or postal service because criminals do?

 

[SeattleMoose]

Since western security agencies no longer represent the will of the electorate, are not elected, and pursue their own adversarial agendas, we can safely say they are not part of the "government". Therefore they should no longer receive any tax money. If you treat the people in your own country as "the enemy", you deserve nothing from them.

 

[MH01]

I love how some have brought up Brexit
Any excuse for remoaners to moan eh?

And I'm all for this, this will not lead to the failure of encryption services, that's BS being fed from companies to protect their public image and keep their customer base and profit margins, they know damn well it'll change nothing.

Access must be granted by a judge and others before a request is made for the data. And that's how it is now. They'll just get more of it faster unencrypted and they'll be able to act faster on terrorists and peodophiles etc. If you want total security and anonymity without these acts to gain access to the data, then you MUST accept that this will also be given to terrorists and peodophiles etc etc in the same way. Something that some on here seem more then comfortable with

You all happily use freemium apps who collect and sell your data to anyone without telling you or anyone else, and yet when it comes to a law that dictates a judge and MPs have to grant access to your data, after being presented with a case for doing so which will have to prove your breaking the law or are harming people, then you flat out refuse to support it... yeah what super evil governments they are protecting your security...

Pot kettle black IMO.

the question here, has there even been a terrorist act that could have been prevented if the governments had access to the data? Ill say a big no. Though the consequences are that the average joe loses more and more rights each time cause the government could not have stopped the attack in the first place, cause they are not plain stupid. The simple fact is that people planning these attackers are not stupid. All that will happen is that we loose more rights and privacy while the real terrorists continue to avoid detection as they will just move to other channels.

As for Peodophiles, interesting you bundle them in with Terrorists, as most of these bastards are actually protected by the government as they are high ranking/rich etc or ooold money.... http://livingresistance.com/2016/12...ngs-come-forward-rapists-wealthy-politicians/

Just stick to the terrorists being poor evil bastards out to kill us, cause the other group you describe, are not going to be affected by this at all.....even the terrorists will laugh how we are giving up our rights. Like taking our shoes off at airports now...this is the type of act this is....no terrorist if going to put explosives in shoes, but every single person flying now goes through this ....... jokes on us! the average punter.
[doublepost=1494173399][/doublepost]

Apolloa, not to negate your point, which is valid, but the worst pedophile rings I've read about to date were run by the ones in power who have the means of circumventing investigation and trial for years, if not indefinitely.

Spot on. These same rings the police are aware of, and ignore due to the importance of people involved.