UK Government wants your crypto keys... by law.

[gjehle]

In a few hours time Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 will come into effect. The commencement order means that as of October 1st a section 49 notice can be served which requires that encrypted data be “put into an intelligible form” (what you and I might call “decrypted”). [...]

http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/09/30/time-to-forget/

holy fucking crap what the hell?!
mouser, we need a smile-face that does the hitler salute, seriously...
there's just no way to describe how idiotic, nazi, 1984, [more adjectives here] this is...
i'm shocked (and yes, this comes from someone in who's country possession of hacker tools is illegal)

[KenR]

In a few hours time Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 will come into effect. The commencement order means that as of October 1st a section 49 notice can be served which requires that encrypted data be “put into an intelligible form” (what you and I might call “decrypted”). [...]

http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/09/30/time-to-forget/

holy fucking crap what the hell?!
mouser, we need a smile-face that does the hitler salute, seriously...
there's just no way to describe how idiotic, nazi, 1984, [more adjectives here] this is...
i'm shocked (and yes, this comes from someone in who's country possession of hacker tools is illegal)

-gjehle (October 01, 2007, 01:42 PM)

I think you got a pretty good start to the list. The only obvious omission is fascist. What else would you expect from this government though given the other atrocities they've comitted? Absolute power corrupt absolutely and this administration has largely acted without the normal checks and balances. The American people will have a chance again soon to bring the pendulum back if that's what they want. Maybe democracy really can't be sustained.

Ken

[steeladept]

Ken, I hate to get political, but there are two MAJOR flaws with what you stated.

1. It is in the UK, not the US.  Therefore that sorta invalidates everything else as far as political speech goes on this policy.

2. I really see it as more bringing us back from the brink, as it were, that this administration has done.  It isn't working outside the bounds of the system, rather it is using it to bring it back in line with the original tenants set forth in the constitution.  Granted, parts of some legislations *ahem*Patriot Act*ahem* bordered on unconstitutional, and in fact have been ruled as such.  Moreover these have been stricken from the laws of the land by the Supreme Court, or will be as soon as they come before it.  However, many parts of the socialization that past government regimes have inflicted on the U. S. citizenry have hurt it far worse and have been supported and codified in a generally friendly (read socialist) court system.  The class stratification that has occurred from this is just one example.  It used to be that "the poor" were poor until they were able to find jobs.  Now, even as people find jobs they are still staying poor, stratified by the classification system utilized by the system.  How, you say?  In no small part through various forms of welfare (though this is hardly the end of it).  Without access to the wealth of material I have at home, I can't quickly come up with others, but there are at least 5 points I have well argued in the past that I have information on.  My point is, you can't hardly call what this administration does fascist.  Nor can you call it a cure-all.  Let's leave the politics of the administration to the administration being discussed if we are going to discuss politics, and present posts of other policies in their own posts.  That way I can avoid them as desired 

[Carol Haynes]

As a UK subject (we don't have citizens in the UK we are subjects of the monarch - and we say we have a democracy) I have to say this has been on the cards for some time.

I seem to remember some time ago the government said it would make encrypted email illegal - it doesn't surprise me that they want full access to data.

The current 'Labour' (yeah right) government are more right wing than Margaret Thatcher - and she was to the right of Attila-the-Hun. I have to say that when I see some of the legislation enacted over the last 10 years (like removal of the right to trial by jury, removal of the right to silence, attempts to allow imprisonment without showing any cause let alone a conviction - not to mention the concentration camps that currently masquerade as immigration holding camps) it makes me ashamed to be called British.

[KenR]

My point is, you can't hardly call what this administration does fascist.  Nor can you call it a cure-all.  Let's leave the politics of the administration to the administration being discussed if we are going to discuss politics, and present posts of other policies in their own posts.  That way I can avoid them as desired 

-steeladept (October 01, 2007, 03:25 PM)

That's a first for me: having someone tell me not to write about something after they first write about 4 times as much as I did.  

No, there is no major flaw with my reasoing and the fact that you see things differently does not make it so. The fact is, I can call any government fascist that engages in activities such as invading another country under false pretenses, violating our first amendment by trying to influence our press, attack people who say things against them, torturing their prisoners, illegally listening to the conversations of its citizens, trying to compel officials to support their position on issues and firing them when they don't to name just a few of the public scandals this administration has become infamous for that I can think of off the top of my head. This administration has repeatedly behaved in immoral and illegal ways, just like other previous governments who were regarded as being fascists. So, I think I am very well justified in using that word.

I would suggest that if you don't want to read about something, then just say something like "this post is off-topic for the forum" rather than telling them that there are major flaws with their reasoning and then talking about your beliefs at length. It's just a suggestion of course.

Is this the place for this discussion? Nope, but usually, people are given some latitude when they stray off topic.

Ken

[Cpilot]

steeladept,
You won't find many opinions here to be sympathetic to your perspective.
I'm politically conservative and while I try to keep my politics off of this forum (after all it's called "donationcoder" not "democratic underground") others can't seem to resist taking their shots any way they can.
This forum is good for what it's set up for, but tone deaf to others political perspectives.
Save yourself some grief and do what I do, limit yourself to the software and coding discussions.
If you want a place to discuss politics PM me.

[Darwin]

Well... politics aside, everyone seems to have missed the main point: Ken is back! Hooray!

[Grorgy]

hehehe ya beat me darwin, Welcome back Ken, hope you are feeling well and the recovery is quick

[Carol Haynes]

Hey Ken welcome back - if that isn't an inappropriate comment  Maybe I should have said your return is very welcome

 

... Sorry for the rant everyone - I get quite passionate about the dwindling pretence of democracy in the UK and I just needed to let off a little steam   

[KenR]

Hey Ken welcome back - if that isn't an inappropriate comment  Maybe I should have said your return is very welcome

 

... Sorry for the rant everyone - I get quite passionate about the dwindling pretence of democracy in the UK and I just needed to let off a little steam   

-Carol Haynes (October 01, 2007, 06:45 PM)

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Thank you VERY MUCH Carol. That was a wonderful message and I REALLY APPRECIATE IT (even though you were and and now I am off topic). It's fantastic to be (at least a little) back. 

Ken

[Renegade]

Welcome back Ken.

Back on topic...

From a link in the OP:

http://www.stand.org...k/index-update3.php3

The Electronic Commerce Bill would make it a crime to fail to give up the decryption key to a message if a policeman thinks you've got it. If you haven't got it, it is up to you to prove you haven't. If you can't prove it, you would be liable for 2 years in jail.

OUCH! Innocent until proven guilty? Yikes!

Before I was going to post something like "oh whatever - I forget the password - don't have the key - screw yourself - suck my balls - blah blah..." (Got to get that Eric Cartman thing in there...) However, seems like that would be up to a 2 year term. OUCH~!

Going to another link in there:

http://www.stand.org.uk/dearjack/

It's a letter telling about how at the end there's a block of encrypted text, and that the recipient could go to jail for it. Very good letter and excellent read!

This kind of stuff is just plain scary. Mere possession can land you in jail...

To add to the list of adjectives, may I put forth "insane"?

[gjehle]

The Electronic Commerce Bill would make it a crime to fail to give up the decryption key to a message if a policeman thinks you've got it. If you haven't got it, it is up to you to prove you haven't. If you can't prove it, you would be liable for 2 years in jail.

OUCH! Innocent until proven guilty? Yikes!

-Renegade (October 02, 2007, 01:51 AM)

Exactly.. that's what the German government is working towards too...
They also keep using new words to make stuff sound better, sounds like newspeak, i'm not kidding...

[Carol Haynes]

OUCH! Innocent until proven guilty? Yikes!

Welcome to 21st Century UK! Notice the police don't have to provide any evidence that you are being obstructive or that the encrypted data contains anything illegal - it is just sufficient to suspect. Eric Arthur Blair* must be sliently chuckling "Told you so" in his grave!

This is becoming the default fall back in the UK - if in doubt you are guilty.

*

Eric Arthur Blair

No relation that I know of - but this is the real name of George Orwell. IMHO he just got the year a little out.

[iphigenie]

Still, let's not forget that in the UK the police cannot even ask people for an ID on the street. So they're not about to walk up to random people and demand access to their USB keys. We are talking about a judge being able to grant a warrant which demands that people decrypt information, within the confines of a police investigation...

We do seem to live in a world where governments and media (including the fiction industries) do seem to like to create constant alerts and fear, so we feel things are getting worse all the time and meekly accept to sacrifice liberties - from big civil liberties to simple things like the right to take a bottle of water on an airplane! We also seem to be creating "thought crimes" which is something that really really bothers me. So I have a tendency to be suspicious and wonder why such a law is needed, and how it could easily be abused, and what the agenda is.

Encryption is a challenge, and as much as I defend my right to privacy, (eg. using Tor even for mundane stuff because one day I might need it) and worry about the growing concept that what people think and imagine needs to be policed... I have to be honest and admit I also find it disgraceful that people can escape conviction just by encrypting their stuff. I can understand the frustration of the police and justice system at this... and why we might find it acceptable to let them demand the keys in certain circumstances.

I think it is a fine line between fair rights and letting people hide unduly behind the right not to incriminate themselves. If they kept the documents then it could be argued that they have already incriminated themselves by keeping the documents.

Of course I am all for putting "watch the watchers" in place, limits as to what kind of crime warrant this (real crimes not thought/planning crimes) etc. which there never seems to be in the UK - and without such controls and public monitoring I can easily imagine it could be abused...

So I am not sure where I stand on issues such as this one, really, worried about my privacy (and who knows when their kind of thinking might be made a crime!) but also outraged that money launderers, fraudsters, people trafficers, slave runners etc. could get away thanks to good encryption practices...

[Carol Haynes]

Still, let's not forget that in the UK the police cannot even ask people for an ID on the street. So they're not about to walk up to random people and demand access to their USB keys. We are talking about a judge being able to grant a warrant which demands that people decrypt information, within the confines of a police investigation...

-iphigenie (October 02, 2007, 04:13 AM)

Nope - warrants seem to be a thing of the past in the UK. As I understand it the police can ask for anything they like in the course of an investigation. They only have to mention the word terrorism*. If you refuse they would get a court order (presumably after confiscating you and your equipment).

As for no ID cards in the UK have you seen the current proposals for UK ID cards - they make visible tatoos look tame. Iris patterns, fingerprints, credit history all sorts of stuff are likely to be stored on smart cards - and best of all the citizen won't even be able to check that it is correct information - or even necessarily know what is stored or who has access to it. We are also likely to be charge around £100 a pop for the privilege (not that it will be optional).

And don't even mention the proposed national DNA database!

* This is not paranoia - a Labour Party member was ejected from the party conference 2 years ago and taken into custody under the terrorism provisions for having the temerity to shout a single word in the public meeting "NONSENSE" (highly emotive you will agree). And he was in in his eighties! See BBC

[KenR]

These are some pretty shocking data. I just hope there will be a brighter futue.

[gjehle]

These are some pretty shocking data. I just hope there will be a brighter futue.

-KenR (October 02, 2007, 04:22 PM)

well, to have a brighter future tomorrow you have to light a candle today...

[Carol Haynes]

These are some pretty shocking data. I just hope there will be a brighter futue.

-KenR (October 02, 2007, 04:22 PM)

well, to have a brighter future tomorrow you have to light a candle today...

-gjehle (October 03, 2007, 08:21 AM)

And I know where I'd like to light it !

[hamradio]

I probably know where you would like to too!

[katykaty]

As a UK subject

-Carol Haynes (October 01, 2007, 04:20 PM)

Really? My passport must be a forgery - it says I'm a British Citizen 

[Carol Haynes]

Mine too - but in British law it is meaningless. The United Kingdom is based on a Constitutional Monarchy and the British people are subject to the Crown (ie. we are all literally owned by the Crown in serfdom).

It is also one of the reasons why it is not possible to take out a civil action against the Queen (or indeed the Armed Forces in the execution of their duty since they are her representatives) and why UK parliament cannot act without written consent from the Monarch.

Here is an article (abstract - I couldn't get the whole article) ...

http://www.informawo...nt=a713658853~db=all

It is also interesting (if that is the right word) that no one in the UK owns land. You can own a freehold but that doesn't mean you actually own the land - ultimately it all belongs to the Crown and if a nutter came to the throne we could all be disenfranchised.

Here is an easy read description of the current UK constitutional situation:

http://www.art-scien...nt/constitution.html

And the government has the temerity to make the teaching of Citizenship compulsory in schools (ROFL hysterically).

Up the revolution - oops most countries have done that!

[Jimdoria]

WARNING: Off topic alert (but I just had to respond to Carol)...

I've heard before about that obscure provision of UK law that all land ultimately belongs to the government (the Crown) and that no one can really "own" land.

I've also heard that this is also the case in the U.S., despite a general perception to the contrary, and I can't say I can find the flaw in this argument. In fact I'd say it's probably true in just about any civilized country, despite various legal fictions that disguise the fact.

It seems to me it all boils down to the ability to levy taxes on land. Once a government has this power, actual, private ownership of land becomes a legal fiction. Land that is subject to tax cannot be owned, because if you fail to pay the rent (oops, tax) on the land, government agents will come and put you off the land, seize it, and sell it to someone else.

When you own something, it belongs to you free and clear and cannot be taken away. Furthermore, when you own something, you no longer have to pay for it. Neither of these are true for land.

[Carol Haynes]

When you own something, it belongs to you free and clear and cannot be taken away. Furthermore, when you own something, you no longer have to pay for it. Neither of these are true for land.

Can you think of anything where it is true - apart from picking fruit at the roadside

I have just been watching "500 Nations" (history of Native North Americans before, during and after the struggle with colonisation). Interestingly one of the issues they genuinely couldn't get to grips with, and caused real conflict, was land ownership. Much like the Australian Aborigines they view people belonging to the land and not the land belonging to people.

I actually find this a much more pleasing (and thoroughly sensible) view which binds peoples together rather than allowing for conflict of land rights. Given the geological time scale of our planet and the insignificant periods of history and potential future of the human species it makes land ownership complete nonsense!

[Darwin]

Sadly, cultures that have adopted a farming or animal rearing (or combination thereof) way of life tend to view the land that sustains them as belonging to them (as a group or to individuals within the group) and thus have a clear concept of "ownership" of the land. Rather than being in tune with, or part of, nature, they tend to see themselves as masters of nature (both subsistence patterns require extensive modification of the landscape). Unfortunately, it's a short intellectual leap from "mastering" nature to "mastering" other people...

[Deozaan]

I know the USA isn't perfect and there are plenty of flaws with the government here, but I am so glad I am a US citizen!