Re:UK PM wants to ban crypto: here's what it would cost, and...
by confounded on Sunday June 04, 2017 @09:28PM
(#14484741)
The Manchester attacker was reported many times as an extremist, and had the ISIS flag on his car. To suggest that he would have been caught if only the Food Standards Authority has constant read-access to your drunk teenage loveletters is ridiculous.
We need more actual police officers to do more actual police work.
Re:UK PM wants to ban crypto: here's what it would cost, and...
by vixen99 on Monday June 05, 2017 @03:11AM
(#14485801)
Isn't it more a question of what instructions those existing police officers are given? Currently their activities always come a bit late for the innocent dead and injured. A positive check about someone hiring a van is not prima facie evidence of intent to mow down pedestrians.
Re:UK PM wants to ban crypto: here's what it would cost, and...
by confounded on Monday June 05, 2017 @03:42PM
(#14490844)
Comparing
- Running investigations, police officers being known and trusted "faces" in their community, and surveilling people in meatspace
To
- Running grep on every TCP packet of 65 million people, then asking a relatively small number of LEOs to "do something" when analysts see something that could be suspicious
The former seems more likely (to me) to succeed.
Re:UK PM wants to ban crypto: here's what it would cost, and...
by jacquesm on Monday June 05, 2017 @05:03AM
(#14486193)
Yes, but that would require rolling back some of those cuts. Another thing that would really help is if police officers would make a half decent salary. That would also cut back significantly on corruption.
Re:UK PM wants to ban crypto: here's what it would cost, and...
by sbov on Sunday June 04, 2017 @07:21PM
(#14484273)
Is it complex? Even with crypto authorities have more ability to surveil us than any other time in human history. Crypto seems like a very small loss when looking at the way things have trended the last 10 years, much less 100.
Re:UK PM wants to ban crypto: here's what it would cost, and...
by ianopolous on Sunday June 04, 2017 @08:09PM
(#14484444)
Even with end to end encryption they can still hack any current OS. We're a long way from having provably secure operating systems for current devices.
It's obvious to me that cryptography shouldn't and realistically cannot be outlawed. That doesn't make any sense. On the flip side, I think that most people would accept that targeted surveillance of criminal suspects is a reasonable tool.
The thing is, if it becomes the default for all messages to be encrypted end-to-end – obviously a good thing – then this effective tool becomes useless.
I think any proposals to restrict cryptographic software are obviously wrong and doomed to failure, and I will continue using such software regardless of what laws are passed in the UK. But it is a complex issue, and I wish there was some more acknowledgement of how the field of surveillance has changed.