Surveillance strategies in the UK and Israel often go global
No way this lasts or holds up to basic scrutiny. End to end encryption is a de-facto standard for so fucking much technology.
Like fucking HTTPS.
Well if they commit to this, it will never affect “e2ee” options that collaborate with feds e.g. whatsapp, imessage. If you can kill Refaat Alareer with it rest assured you will be able to keep it in your phone anytime
Yes, the trick is to outlaw it entirely then enforce the law selectively against those whom you find politically awkward.
TLS is not typically considered end-to-end encryption. It’s transport encryption.
So literally everyone in the UK using any website that uses TLS is now a hostile actor?
Essentially everyone’s a criminal which is a huge boon for the government. They can now get rid of anyone they want at any time, legally.
TLS is not typically considered end-to-end encryption. It’s transport encryption.
I don’t get it. E2ee is about encryption in transit not encryption at rest. TLS sounds exactly like e2ee
E2E is about the sender encrypting, and only the intended receiver decrypting, with nothing in the middle able to read the data.
TLS is not designed for that, as the server you connect to is not necessarily the intended receiver, yet it can see everything.
With E2E, you can send data to a server, which is not the intended receiver, and it won’t be able to read it.
Your explanation assumes that scope and scale are part of the definition which it is not.
If you keep zooming in or zooming out the definition of E2E keeps changing under your statement.
If the only knowledge a system has is between a sender and a receiver (Which satisfies even your definition of “intended recipient”) then TLS is E2E encrypted.
The definition of E2EE has evolved since the concept surfaced. You seem to be stuck with the original meaning.
TLS does not fit the modern definition.
Yes the technical term has evolved but did the term evolve in the legislation definition of it?
If not, then the technically correct usage doesn’t matter which is a point I’ve made in another comment as well.
And in my previous comment, I am pointing out the logical inconsistencies. Not that I agree or disagree with the technical terminology. You seem to be conflating a logical explanation/call-out of logic holes for my opinion, which it is not
Removed by mod
Do they strictly define end to end encryption in this bill?
If not, then yes, TLS is “end to end” as the sender encrypts the message, and the receiver decrypts it. Each “end” to each “end” is encrypted, satisfying the semantics of the term.
Paving roads makes it easier for an invading army to get around.
No-one’s invading Lincolnshire then.
Easier, not possible.
This is great.
If you are (or know) a UK citizen, please let them send this with the above context to their representative.
Yes end to end encryption is for hostile actors why don’t you send your nuclear launch codes in plain text.
A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto
By Eric Hughes
Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn’t want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn’t want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.
If two parties have some sort of dealings, then each has a memory of their interaction. Each party can speak about their own memory of this; how could anyone prevent it? One could pass laws against it, but the freedom of speech, even more than privacy, is fundamental to an open society; we seek not to restrict any speech at all. If many parties speak together in the same forum, each can speak to all the others and aggregate together knowledge about individuals and other parties. The power of electronic communications has enabled such group speech, and it will not go away merely because we might want it to.
Since we desire privacy, we must ensure that each party to a transaction have knowledge only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction. Since any information can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible. In most cases personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. When I ask my electronic mail provider to send and receive messages, my provider need not know to whom I am speaking or what I am saying or what others are saying to me; my provider only need know how to get the message there and how much I owe them in fees. When my identity is revealed by the underlying mechanism of the transaction, I have no privacy. I cannot here selectively reveal myself; I must always reveal myself.
Therefore, privacy in an open society requires anonymous transaction systems. Until now, cash has been the primary such system. An anonymous transaction system is not a secret transaction system. An anonymous system empowers individuals to reveal their identity when desired and only when desired; this is the essence of privacy.
Privacy in an open society also requires cryptography. If I say something, I want it heard only by those for whom I intend it. If the content of my speech is available to the world, I have no privacy. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy, and to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Furthermore, to reveal one’s identity with assurance when the default is anonymity requires the cryptographic signature.
We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their beneficence. It is to their advantage to speak of us, and we should expect that they will speak. To try to prevent their speech is to fight against the realities of information. Information does not just want to be free, it longs to be free. Information expands to fill the available storage space. Information is Rumor’s younger, stronger cousin; Information is fleeter of foot, has more eyes, knows more, and understands less than Rumor.
We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do.
We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money.
Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can’t get privacy unless we all do, we’re going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don’t much care if you don’t approve of the software we write. We know that software can’t be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can’t be shut down.
Cypherpunks deplore regulations on cryptography, for encryption is fundamentally a private act. The act of encryption, in fact, removes information from the public realm. Even laws against cryptography reach only so far as a nation’s border and the arm of its violence. Cryptography will ineluctably spread over the whole globe, and with it the anonymous transactions systems that it makes possible.
For privacy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract. People must come and together deploy these systems for the common good. Privacy only extends so far as the cooperation of one’s fellows in society. We the Cypherpunks seek your questions and your concerns and hope we may engage you so that we do not deceive ourselves. We will not, however, be moved out of our course because some may disagree with our goals.
The Cypherpunks are actively engaged in making the networks safer for privacy. Let us proceed together apace.
Onward.
Eric Hughes
9 March 1993
If I were to send a physical letter written in code that can only be decrypted with a cipher would I now be breaking the law?
What about radio or telephone conversations in code?
Can I still password protect my zip files or encrypt my NAS or PC before boot?
Using password protection for files is definitely work of terrorists you should be imprisoned for life. \s
Make sure you only use transparent envelopes.
So google, amazon and Microsoft are hostile actors.every cloud provider is an enemy of uk government. They have gardeners (at best) or lawyers ( most probably), which did their own research.before writing these abominations. At the same time, they want to give all medical datas in the NHS to palantir. This is the apoteosis of incompetence.
So google, amazon and Microsoft are hostile actors
Obviously not. They’re happy to give MI5 a backdoor into all their systems.
This is the apoteosis of incompetence.
The age old question - malicious or stupid.
Gee why does the capitalist oligopoly fear communication they can’t monitor it’s not like they are doing anything wrong and have anything to fear from little old us
Shit-flinging desperation at the realization that they have failed to contain dissent via internet-based coordination. Elbit and the UK’s protection of property was defeated by persistent disruption thanks to the work by Palestine Action. Unlike previous forms of communication, the empire has had tremendous difficulty wrestling control away because the materiality of the internet is so dispersed, accessible, and impossible to restrict without dire economic and military consequences.
The autonomous murder bots are not complete yet
thats what happens when we as society become ignorant and inept, and therefore we vote for inept and ignorant people to represent us.
They are not all inept.
They know exactly what they are doing.
It is a hostile act to create information the state isn’t privy to. That is a very deliberate act.
When has the majority not been ignorant and inept?
Back when societies collective knowledge was like 4 things?
to me when they defended their rights and prevented certain toxic people from staying in power
That doesnt mean they werent ignorant or inept, they were just aware of what was happening to them, and in most cases for rights it was only after decades or centuries of mistreatment. Its a reaction not a prevention.
As for toxic people in power, thats a lot harder to argue but toxic people enter and leave government all the time. It can be obvious sometimes who will be shit but theres only so many choices and again a significant portion of people are ignorant or inept.
I think this is more malice than it is ineptitude tbh.
There’s a common saying in Germany that applies.
Basically translates to: “Those Brits are crazy”, but the literal translation would be: “The Brits are spinning” (yarn).Obelix knows best.
So they’re happy for us to read all their messages, right?
I heard reddit sends out warnings for updating certain comments these days.
“You are a hostile actor if we say you are a hostile actor.”
So every financial institution and everyone using WhatsApp
Oh great more mens rea-less laws.
Nothing like police showing up for reasons that you don’t understand and charging you for crimes that you were not even aware that you were committing.
I forget which page this was on the in book of Democracy, but I’m pretty sure it was towards the end.
