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

[VulchR]

I'm not sure what the situation in the UK is, but I know that we in the US have a lot of laws and court decisions that have the net result of shielding gang members and criminals and criminal activity for political reasons.

On the surface these laws and court decisions are well intentioned and meant to be humanitarian. But in practice they keep law enforcement from sharing very simple information such as identity fraud and immigration status. None of this information needs to be obtained by invading anyone's private information. It should be a matter of public record or law enforcement data obtained through arrest records or ICE data. But there's an extensive "don't ask, don't tell" web of interconnected regulations across all levels of government that prevent laws from being enforced and public safety being maintained.

People who attempt to speak out about it are silenced with labels such as racist or xenophobe even if they are actually the same demographic as the people in the gangs or terror groups that are taking advantage of these shields.

I have watched gang activity erode the safety of our public schools. In my area we once had the highest rated public school system and we have the high taxes to maintain one. That's not going to matter in a few years. There's one particular gang that's growing more and more powerful. I had a run in with them years ago when they weren't as crazy as they are now.

We already had a highly publicized rape in one of our high schools. It isn't a gang related incident but the alleged perpetrators were illegal aliens and it brought to light just how unbalanced our laws are in favoring illegal immigrants against documented and natural born residents. It results in situations where we have men 18-21 years of age and possibly older enrolled with girls as young as 13 and we know almost nothing about them, even if there is something in their records to know. The schools aren't allowed to ask. But I know I have to fill out a crapload of papers to enroll my kids in the same schools. There is no common sense in our laws anymore.

So no, I wouldn't trust the government with any more power right now. They're a mess in my country.

I don't know first-hand but I've gathered from comments and reading that the situation isn't much better in Europe and the U.K. So stick up for yourselves and make sure the laws you're already buried in make sense before ceding any more power over to these politicians who prove time and time again they're only there to sell their own grandma down the river if it would gain them some perks.

This UK law is about snooping, not about government agencies talking to each other. It is a law that would be unconstitutional in the US because it violates reasonable search (actually already there are many UK laws that would be unconstitutional in the US). The law has not been passed yet, but the last time the UK government tried to weasel this thing through, they would have allowed everybody from the police to the local dog-catcher to see the entire trail of your online activities (OK, that's an exaggeration, but officials in local government who are not police would have been able to see the data). The UK Parliament got inundated with petitions not to pass this abominable violation of free speech, free association and privacy last time, yet here we are with the Tories trying the same thing once again. They just don't get it. All in all, it seems conservative parties in both the US and UK like to make noise about the evils of 'big' government, and then they merrily turn around and try pass laws worthy of Big Brother.

 

[unlinked]

I wouldn't use the word 'ironic' so much as 'tragic'.

The real irony is that people who showed so much distain for the UKs obsession with CCTV are probably the same people clamouring for a million mobile CCTV cameras to be deployed in the US.

Well that or wait till people get a wiff of Macrons encryption policies.

 

[smallcoffee]

It's not. This is mostly an Anglo-Saxon approach

You're kidding yourself.

 

[miniyou64]

Yes, lets all live under tin foil and pretend that our lives are suddenly worse off.

Or you could just carry on as normal. If you're not guilty of anything, why be so annoyed? The opposite logic should mean that Community Support Officers, speed cameras, CCTV and forensics should also be abandoned.

Yes they should. You think its safe to let other people decide what "guilty" means? Governments are inherently untrustworthy.

 

[jeremiah256]

On the surface these laws and court decisions are well intentioned and meant to be humanitarian.

You'd have to link to an example, but I'm guessing the rulings deal with Constitutional rights.

 

[MH01]

I'm not sure what the situation in the UK is, but I know that we in the US have a lot of laws and court decisions that have the net result of shielding gang members and criminals and criminal activity for political reasons.

On the surface these laws and court decisions are well intentioned and meant to be humanitarian. But in practice they keep law enforcement from sharing very simple information such as identity fraud and immigration status. None of this information needs to be obtained by invading anyone's private information. It should be a matter of public record or law enforcement data obtained through arrest records or ICE data. But there's an extensive "don't ask, don't tell" web of interconnected regulations across all levels of government that prevent laws from being enforced and public safety being maintained.

People who attempt to speak out about it are silenced with labels such as racist or xenophobe even if they are actually the same demographic as the people in the gangs or terror groups that are taking advantage of these shields.

I have watched gang activity erode the safety of our public schools. In my area we once had the highest rated public school system and we have the high taxes to maintain one. That's not going to matter in a few years. There's one particular gang that's growing more and more powerful. I had a run in with them years ago when they weren't as crazy as they are now.

We already had a highly publicized rape in one of our high schools. It isn't a gang related incident but the alleged perpetrators were illegal aliens and it brought to light just how unbalanced our laws are in favoring illegal immigrants against documented and natural born residents. It results in situations where we have men 18-21 years of age and possibly older enrolled with girls as young as 13 and we know almost nothing about them, even if there is something in their records to know. The schools aren't allowed to ask. But I know I have to fill out a crapload of papers to enroll my kids in the same schools. There is no common sense in our laws anymore.

So no, I wouldn't trust the government with any more power right now. They're a mess in my country.

I don't know first-hand but I've gathered from comments and reading that the situation isn't much better in Europe and the U.K. So stick up for yourselves and make sure the laws you're already buried in make sense before ceding any more power over to these politicians who prove time and time again they're only there to sell their own grandma down the river if it would gain them some perks.

It's a plain joke. If you ever followed the Abu Hamza case, trial etc, it just shows what a joke the legal system is.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/71...e-extradition-US-terrorist-soft-jail-hostages

They can't even deal with a bloke they have in custody..... he must seriously be laughing , guy has had a better life style under "custofy" than a common thief, and he is a "terrorist" inciding hate....

 

[Marshall73]

UK has one of the highest volume of CCTV cameras... so it's not surprising.

And they don't stop crime, they just issue fines for dog fouling and littering. It's just another revenue stream.

 

[canadianreader]

It makes want to throw up

 

[Shirasaki]

I wish there are a flood of cases which criminals are pouring into innocent people account and conducting tons of times of actions to their financial data, personal information etc. . In short, I wish crime rate skyrocket if this law has passed. Or maybe even that is not enough to stop government from forcing people to hand in more data?

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.

But as time goes on, you probably will find there is no such government that does not treat their citizens as enemies anymore. And I am pretty sure that given the influence of china communist party is rapidly increasing worldwide, more government will learn how to suppress citizens and eventually against them.
I want to blame china to be so oppressive but seems that U.K. wants to be the second.

Please post your internet history and all your logins and passwords. I presume you have nothing to hide.

And he does not post anything mentioned in your post yet.
Seems that he does have something to hide from general public.

 

[IJ Reilly]

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

What is "alleged" here: the leak, or the technical paper?

Neither, actually, since the existence of the document is not in question, and its having been made public is the reason for the story.

 

[alphaod]

This is just crazy stuff.....

 

[jeremiah256]

And they don't stop crime, they just issue fines for dog fouling and littering. It's just another revenue stream.

In general, the creation of data far outpaces our ability to process it. There are at least 140,000 websites created every day in the world. People upload at least 300 hours of videos per minute to YouTube. Ten billion phone calls are made per day in the world and over 200 billion emails are sent every day. And the pace of data creation is increasing.

Even without encryption, the UK government will lose if their goal is stopping crime. They'll stop the stupid and be able to project a false sense of safety while the marginally clever will continue to prevail.

 

[5105973]

You'd have to link to an example, but I'm guessing the rulings deal with Constitutional rights.

I'm on the road. I'll be back to this discussion with links when I get the chance. It's more a matter of extending the Establishment clause to illegal immigrants.

 

[apolloa]

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]

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

I'll ignore the other posts and pick you, do you really think the secret services and Police are going to tell the public how they track down and catch terrorists? Because that's the assumption you've just made, they no doubt spend tireless hours using EVERY resource they have and hacking if needed to get the information they need and stop plots that you will NEVER hear about.
Peadopyiles are in the same boat because they funnily enough use the internet to organise themselves and sell on pornographic child abuse to their clubs, it's been in the new countless times, it's very very very very wrong to ignore them.

I really find it ridiculous how people go nuclear at the thought of the government stopping people that want to abuse and kill you? They can only acces this data after providing proof they need to, unless anyone hear is a peadophile or terrorists then they will never access your data but you lot seem to all have a big problem with being protected by your governments.

Oh and as for the rings, well people have been put in jail now and it was the corporation they worked for that protected them, not the Police, it's because of a Police investigation that they have now been caught.
[doublepost=1494203298][/doublepost]

Those who want safety at the expense of liberty deserve neither. Police have been successful at catching criminals for centuries without the need to violate everyone's privacy. You want to use the excuse that it is ok for government to violate everyone's freedoms to catch the few. Remember one thing: when you give government new powers, they will never give it back. And history has shown those new powers have always been abused.

Everyone's privacy? Just how does the law in this topic give up everyone's privacy to the Police then? Read the story properly. Theirs a key thing the blood shot angry eyes of those commenting has missed, the fact they need to provide proof as to why they need acces to a judge and MPs BEFORE acces is given to the data requested, it's not some bloody free for all on anyone they want!
[doublepost=1494203607][/doublepost]

It's a plain joke. If you ever followed the Abu Hamza case, trial etc, it just shows what a joke the legal system is.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/71...e-extradition-US-terrorist-soft-jail-hostages

They can't even deal with a bloke they have in custody..... he must seriously be laughing , guy has had a better life style under "custofy" than a common thief, and he is a "terrorist" inciding hate....

Actually he's the guy who used the EU Human Rights laws to get what he wanted and it's why it took several years to kick him out, because of a EUROPEAN LAW! And it was the now current Prime Minister who finally got rid of him and I doubt he'll be allowed back, I also wouldn't trust what that website says either..

 

[2010mini]

I'll ignore the other posts and pick you, do you really think the secret services and Police are going to tell the public how they track down and catch terrorists? Because that's the assumption you've just made, they no doubt spend tireless hours using EVERY resource they have and hacking if needed to get the information they need and stop plots that you will NEVER hear about.
Peadopyiles are in the same boat because they funnily enough use the internet to organise themselves and sell on pornographic child abuse to their clubs, it's been in the new countless times, it's very very very very wrong to ignore them.

I really find it ridiculous how people go nuclear at the thought of the government stopping people that want to abuse and kill you? They can only acces this data after providing proof they need to, unless anyone hear is a peadophile or terrorists then they will never access your data but you lot all have a big problem with being protected by your governments... it's sad really.

Oh and as for the rings, well people have been put in jail now and it was the corporation they worked for that protected them, not the Police, it's because of a Police investigation that they have now been caught.
[doublepost=1494203298][/doublepost]

Everyone's privacy? Just how does the law in this topic give up everyone's privacy to the Police then? Read the story properly. Theirs a key thing the blood shot angry eyes of those commenting has missed, the fact they need to provide proof as to why they need acces to a judge and MPs BEFORE acces is given to the data requested, it's not some bloody free for all on anyone they want!
[doublepost=1494203607][/doublepost]

Actually he's the guy who used the EU Human Rights laws to get what he wanted and it's why it took several years to kick him out, because of a EUROPEAN LAW! And it was the now current Prime Minister who finally got rid of him and I doubt he'll be allowed back, I also wouldn't trust what that website says either..

This is an answer to your post( bolded )

Use what happened in the US as an example. The NSA was SUPPOSE to get a FISA warrant BEFORE spying. That FISA court turned out to just be a rubber stamp. Also the NSA started to just collect everyone's data. Their calls, their social media accounts ( they actually hacked FB) cloud backups.... you name it.

Heed it as a warning!

I'll say this again: when you give the government new powers it will never give it back. And will eventually abuse it.

History says so.

 

[Mactendo]

I'm not a fan of Big Brother™, but I think the outrage is a bit over the edge.
People lived ages without messengers and encryption and anyone could read your old plain paper mail or a telegram at the post office, so what has changed so much in the last 10 years that everyone is so crazy about their basic conversations being encrypted?

I'm really curious what's so secret do you have to be afraid of? If you don't discuss the overthrowing of your government, then I think you'll be safe. If reading my chats by some bored government agent would help to stop at least one criminal, then I'd be happy. And as was said above, the access to my mail will be granted after the judge decision. And even if not still everything it will learn from reading that is that I'm not a terrorist.

And if I'd be so high profile person so could be targeted by bad guys, then always there are ways to encrypt your info and probably some very special ways not available to most of us, mortals, anyway.

In 60-80 years, every one of us here will die. No one will remember most of us except our kids. We are not so important as we think, although the last generations tend to be taught so. There's too much sense of entitlement these days... but that's a different topic.

encryption that can stop a lot of fraud, ID theft, domestic violence, bullying, intimidation, economic damage, wars(!), corruption

And encryption is used to ease all of that and hide traces. It's not a magic bullet working one way.

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.

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

There's a lot of old plain pedophilia happening out there not linked with any powerful rings. Some police officers claim it's on the rise and is a real issue due to the spread of internet, social networks, etc. They have websites (sometimes on Tor network or even on the plain web), where they are chatting, "socializing", even exchanging photos and videos between trusted members, and they are usual workers, teachers, medics, etc. There are reports about such groups being found on Facebook(!), or about yet another teacher being caught, so it's a real issue among normal people, not some mysteric thing happening only so high that no one could stop them. My feeling is that it is probably much more widespread and close than most people imagine.

 

[jeremiah256]

1. The American Founders realized that the potential amount of damage/killing a terrorist can do, pales in comparison to the potential amount of damage/killing your own government can do if not restricted.

2. The US government had everything it needed to stop 911. The US government had everything it needed to stop the Underwear Bomber. The US government had everything it needed to stop the Boston Marathon bombing. The government has everything it needs, right now, to combat terrorism and pedophiles effectively. How many "He said publically on Facebook he was going to do it" incidents does it take to convince people that there is just too much noise online for law enforcement to process? Like it or not, technology has leveled the playing field. Taking away rights and freedoms by weakening encryption and constantly watching your citizens is not the answer.

3. The UK government couldn't even keep their technical paper safe from the media, yet they want us to believe they can keep the backdoors to weakened encryption safe?

 

[jkcerda]

Only terrorist have something to hide. ......

 

[Rigby]

I'm not a fan of Big Brother™, but I think the outrage is a bit over the edge.
People lived ages without messengers and encryption and anyone could read your old plain paper mail or a telegram at the post office, so what has changed so much in the last 10 years that everyone is so crazy about their basic conversations being encrypted?

What has changed is that it is now feasible to do it en masse. You cannot possibly open and analyze millions of letters as they pass through the postal service, or make a note of every article a person reads in a physical newspaper. You can do the same with emails they send and web sites they read. It's comprehensive mass surveillance on a massive scale that wasn't possible just 15 years ago.

I'm really curious what's so secret do you have to be afraid of?

By the same logic you could ask: what important things do you have to say that you need freedom of speech?

 

[Mactendo]

What has changed is that it is now feasible to do it en masse. You cannot possibly open and analyze millions of letters as they pass through the postal service, or make a note of every article a person reads in a physical newspaper. You can do the same with emails they send and web sites they read. It's comprehensive mass surveillance on a massive scale that wasn't possible just 15 years ago.

You can't read and analyze millions of emails either, only if it's a kind of automatic filtering by specific keywords and phrases, but that shouldn't affect you if you have no criminal intents.

Still, this article speaks about not massive scanning but about doing it on a case by case basis. Just as was possible with mail before.

By the same logic you could ask: what important things do you have to say that you need freedom of speech?

It's not the same logic. No one prohibits you anything in this case. And it's not an answer to the question.

 

[Roadstar]

Everyone's privacy? Just how does the law in this topic give up everyone's privacy to the Police then? Read the story properly. Theirs a key thing the blood shot angry eyes of those commenting has missed, the fact they need to provide proof as to why they need acces to a judge and MPs BEFORE acces is given to the data requested, it's not some bloody free for all on anyone they want!

For a brief period it will work like you described. However, to comply with the time limits, any encryption would have to be structurally weak and/or have a backdoor. The problem with that is that a backdoor only for good guys simply does not exist. It will be discovered by the bad guys who give zero ****s about warrants and such, and at that point it will be game over for everybody. I'm all in for catching the bad guys, but not at this cost.

 

[simonmet]

If there's one thing you can count on it's that authorities will abuse what power they have. It happens in every country at every level all the time.

The argument for greater powers is never demonstrated in anything other than vague fear-mongering language.

 

[apolloa]

For a brief period it will work like you described. However, to comply with the time limits, any encryption would have to be structurally weak and/or have a backdoor. The problem with that is that a backdoor only for good guys simply does not exist. It will be discovered by the bad guys who give zero ****s about warrants and such, and at that point it will be game over for everybody. I'm all in for catching the bad guys, but not at this cost.

You are the first person to actually make a reasonable argument to this story. Well done! And I guess that all depends on how it's handled, but it's a fair point, asking a ISP or WhatsApp to remove the encryption themselves is different to the encryption system itself being made weaker.

 

[daveak]

Access must be granted by a judge and others before a request is made for the data. And that's how it is now.

You are very much mistaken. There is no requirement for a judge in the new powers. The ambulance service can access your internet history, the food standards agency can access your history, all without a warrant from a judge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inves...allowed_to_access_Internet_connection_records

The legislation also legalises what they were found guilty of illegally carrying out in previous years.
[doublepost=1494226094][/doublepost]

This UK law is about snooping, not about government agencies talking to each other. It is a law that would be unconstitutional in the US because it violates reasonable search (actually

It is a law which is illegal under EU law as well, just like its predecessor which the ECJ ruled on. Just like the EU data retention law (a law the UK pushed on the EU via Mr T. Blair) was ruled illegal. Due to idiots however we will now lose this protection.

 

[SgtPepper12]

You can't read and analyze millions of emails either, only if it's a kind of automatic filtering by specific keywords and phrases, but that shouldn't affect you if you have no criminal intents.

Still, this article speaks about not massive scanning but about doing it on a case by case basis. Just as was possible with mail before.

Oh boy, there is a lot for you to learn. Methods of machine learning came a long way and are now capable of a lot more than "filtering for specific keywords", in particular in many regards they are even better than actual humans reading every single one of your messages. Just because it's not a person looking through every single piece of information I produce, doesn't mean that I don't feel watched. It's absolutely terrifying. If I make a joke about terrorism in a private message to an equally tasteless friend, I don't want the police checking out my flat. Hell, even if I do something criminal, I don't want to get caught based on my private communications. You don't want to have microphones installed in your home for some "completely harmless, automated data analysis" either, right? To me there's no difference.