British intelligence recycles old argument for thwarting strong encryption: Think of the children! Two notorious characters from the British security services have published a paper that once again suggests breaking strong end-to-end encryption would be a good thing for society. Nearly four years ago Ian Levy, technical director of the UK National Cyber Security Centre, along with technical director for cryptanalysis at …
While I agree, "they" don't see it that way. For them we're a bunch of unruly toddlers they have to watch over, and which ideally should be confined to their playpens and closely monitored...
Now this terminally hackneyed "Somebody think of the children" argument is a loaded rhetoric tool, so popular and widely (ab)used because it makes all discussion impossible: In this case, claim you're against backdoors, and here you are publicly admitting you're a child abuser! You fiend!...
Obviously one shouldn't ever consider the argument itself, which is that child abuse hinges on encryption, and without encryption all children would be safe. Which is obviously utter nonsense, it is widely known most active child abusers are family members and thus don't need encryption of any kind.
Just keep in mind that no matter the cause they try to peddle, people having to resort to this hackneyed "children" cliche are always disingenuous, and clearly have a agenda they can't admit to.
GCHQ has zero interest in child-porn detection, so why are they chipping in? Obviously they have skin in the game here. I suspect they need the principle to justify some existing backdoor mass surveillance they themselves are doing. I suspect they want that done before a change of government. I fear they would interfere in the change of government to achieve that ass-covering legislation.
I think the article completely misses the point. People have a privacy right, here Pritti Patel made a false accusation: "privacy = pedos sharing child porn" to annul that right, and various entities have added meat ot that, by making blantantly false claims, (like the NGO's claiming 20% of kids under 5 are victims of violent child sex abuse, for that EU report, utter bollocks that fell apart simply by reading their sources).
Vague claims about how companies could "mediate" the privacy right, somehow protecting the privacy while breaking the end to end encryption? Oh fook off. Any scanner they install will quickly be moved server side and they would quickly get your extra code in it.
However I notice there is *not* a lot of flak against companies, the push is for the *legal* *basis*, not the *technical* *means*, which suggests to me, it is ALREADY implemented.
I have Peter Dutton and Pritti Patel on my "core threats to democracy" list. When a spook machine is turned against its people, they are a threat to the democracy they seek to protect. That happened when "Mastering the Internet" was funded and implemented, despite the initial rejection of the legal basis by Parliament. That happened when The NZ lot spied on Kim dot com, for copyright, realized it was illegal and did it anyway. And Dutton does a little double act, where police chiefs make press-releases that make zero sense, are unverifiable but that push Dutton agendas.
You think mass surveillance is a threat to Chinese people in China, but somehow not in 5 eyes countries?
Why? I don't think you're that naive, I think your a bunch of little men following orders. It's only one fake claim, or one backdoor, "what harm could that do?" asks the little man following the little order.
I'd openly argue that, in functioning democracies, the government is OUR business - they are *our* employees to hire or fire.
The problem is that people forget this basic premise of civics, vote blindly based on singular or selfish motives or not at all, then turn their backs on the employees whilst still expecting them to perform their duties honorably and without question.
Unless and until we hold our employees to the standards we expected when we hired them, don't expect them to behave to our [employer] satisfaction.
I have argued for years that any system of voting - whether it's proportional representation or first past the post or whatever - should always include an option of 'none of the above'.
At present, there is no simple mechanism to state at voting time 'you're all a load of clots and I want none of you'; something that might leave half the council seats unfilled (or half the parliament) might perhaps concentrate the minds of professional politicians to work to something that their constituents want, rather than just concentrating on party lines.
Voting for no-one is *not* the same as not voting, and has an explicitly different message.
> 'you're all a load of clots and I want none of you'
Unfortunately this isn't how it works: A vote isn't some kind of endorsement, as in "I like this one", it's just a means to choose among a predetermined lineup of people.
In other words, the point is to select which of those morons you'd rather entrust the steering wheel to, in the crazy hope he/she/it won't drive your country into the ditch. Lesser evil and all that.
it's a nonsense argument, it presupposes that the people you elect actually know & have control of the agencies.
Just take a look at the current things the civil service is doing, with left wing propaganda that benefits less than 2% of the population, all it requires is one radical in a position of power.
Unfortunately this isn't how it works: A vote isn't some kind of endorsement, as in "I like this one", it's just a means to choose among a predetermined lineup of people.
Well, yes, that's rather my point. It's a case (at present, in the UK) of either 'I can't be bothered' and not voting at all, or selecting the one you dislike least from a small group. If you are a party member you may have some small influence in choosing the candidate from your party.
But voting none of the above is a clear message that none of the candidates are acceptable to you - and if none of the candidates are acceptable to a voting majority, then no candidate should be selected.
I might go further: perhaps not voting should be an automatic 'none of the above'. I don't require everyone to vote, but I do like people to have some responsibility for their action, or lack thereof. "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him' should be answered with 'Did you vote against him?'
> voting none of the above is a clear message that none of the candidates are acceptable to you
Yes, I got that, but unfortunately it's an empty gesture because obviously they won't rush to find somebody else (where?), just because some voters didn't like the available choice, so in the end your "protest" vote is simply ignored.
.
> 'Did you vote against him?'
Totally agree.
I'm not so sure about that.
If the protest vote is bigger than the leading candidate - which with current voter apathy is almost a certainty - then there are going to be a lot of empty chairs. Even if the protest vote comes second or third, it's going to concentrate the minds of the professional pollies.
> I'm not so sure about that.
I agree it depends on the country and how their government is chosen. Also in countries with several parties the choice is usually broader and more varied than in single-or-dual-party countries, but don't forget the lineup of potential candidates is not there to give The People an adequate choice, but just the result of a bloody fight among a mob of politicians in search of power and money. Voting for none is irrelevant because the whole point is to select and legitimize one of the champions who is in the list.
It nearly works that way in Australia, but not quite.
I think a formal NOTA goes nicely with compulsory voting. You have to vote, but you can vote NOTA. I think that, whilst there's the potential for electorates repeatedly returning NOTA as the winner, the reality would be that after a few times of voting NOTA for the giggles, there would in fact be an equilibrium between electorates getting fed of having to keep turning up to the voting booths and the quality of candidates.
Unless and until we hold our employees to the standards we expected when we hired them, don't expect them to behave to our [employer] satisfaction.
Employees cannot do the job the employer is asking them to do, if the employer is not giving them the means by which to do it. The employer is welcome to come try the job for themselves (that is what a democracy is afterall), if they can persuade the other shareholders that they could do it better.
We (the electorate) are a really dreadful employer...
... Her Majesty's Government has no intention of picking up the tab for this project, nor overseeing its operation ...
Which basically means that there is little chance of it ever becoming a reality. Industry is not going to pick up the tab (not to say the negative kudos) doing something that only the government wants.
Interesting that HMG suddenly couldn't find WhatsApp messages about CovID contract deals or party invitations etc. it could be useful if we could decrypt and record all their chats for the public record... after all, nothing to hide nothing to fear....
I also find it interesting how much effort they are willing to put into this (and yes child abuse needs to be prevented) but they don't seem to want to spend much on child poverty.....
@Infused
You are wrong.
Most M.P.s of All parties have stopped using WhatsApp.
They have switched to Signal. For the self destruct messages perhaps? As I mentioned in a previous comment somewhere, almost makes you wonder if they know something that they are not letting on.
which is commandable, until one of them was speared, or phished, or whatever, most probably by Russians, and some, no longer steaming pile of shit re. brexit 'strategies' was exposed. Unfortunately for the Russkies, nobody gives a (...) about brexit now, so they didn't get what they wanted. Must be sharper, more on the ball, comrades. I mean, yesterday's news is prehistory, so...
> I also find it interesting how much effort they are willing to put into this (and yes child abuse needs to be prevented)
Come on, does anybody really think that encryption is the mainstay of child abuse? Most real child abuse happens inside a family and doesn't require anything electronic. The only ones using encryption are those who swap pictures, and they could easily go back to not using it, by using snail mail or hidden exchange places or some such. It would be a little more convoluted and not as convenient, but would it stop them? I don't think so.
I think you will find there was absolutely no child abuse before the publication of the RSA algorithm.
Ok there was systematic child abuse inside the British establishment, but that was only because they had already invented public key encryption in GCHQ but kept it secret.
industry is not going to pick up the tab (not to say the negative kudos) doing something that only the government wants.
Who are you trying to kid? Industry will do as they're told. With or without laws or regulations;.
"That's a nice tax shelter you have there google/trwiiter/facebook/apple/etc. It would be a pity if something was to happen to it."
Of course that assumes anyone in the current set of cabinet numpties has the clue or the balls to say that.
Nah, it's NCSC's way of putting an idea into HMG so that HMG hopefully says we'll pay for NCSC's time to pursue it further.
It's because NCSC hasn't got money to begin with (unlike big-brother GCHQ), so NCSC is alway hassling other government departments and outside companies for money in return for NCSC's time/kudos/etc.
[I was a civil servant in the 'naughties...]
>Industry is not going to pick up the tab
Really? Every network node your email/web/tiktok/snapchat/whatsapp/instagram/wibble-pling activity goes through gets to eavesdrop/analysis and sell all that data? And you are forced to allow it ?
You bet they are going to pay for it !
This message brought to you by Bob's used carpet, shovel and gaffer tape supplies (based on your reading history of BOFH)
That is my response. Sure - bork encryption. Hell, get rid of it in its entirety. For everyone with no exceptions - not politicians, not the military, not government, not banks - absolutely no one can use [unborked] encryption.
Write it into law that it's a crime punishable with prison for anyone found breaching said law.
Let's see how long they stick to the "think of the kids" and "you only have anything to hide if you're guilty" when they have to eat their own dog food.
Only English allowed?
You jest, but in a previous place where I worked, a manager became frustrated that he couldn't eavesdrop on some conversations between devs (presumably paranoia-driven) and declared "English only in the office please".
Said office was in Gibraltar, where a large % of people speak Spanish. You can imagine how well that was received.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
