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 …

[amanfromMars 1]

Re: Only the Guilty?

As only the guilty have anything to fear, I presume that Messrs Levy and Robinson would have no issue with me having a browse through the contents of their phones? .... Roj Blake

One imagines that MPs are terrified of what would be found out about them and their proposing shenanigans should their WhatsApp and Signal and Telegram communications be monitored rather than their being granted an immunity/exemption from snooping by the UK’s own Secret and Security Services.

Many would tell you they should be at the top of any leading list of likely candidates to be victimised by errant abuse and misuse of that very particular and peculiar privilege.

One wonders what MI5/MI6/GCHQ really think of that arrangement if it so easily and quickly can lead to wholesale chaos with parties in conflict and opposition. Common sense and a greater wisdom would dictate that they totally ignore the prohibition and discover all that is necessary for a true picture of events be produced and directed for subsequent daily media presentation and virtual realisation.

[Adrian 4]

Re: Only the Guilty?

"One wonders what MI5/MI6/GCHQ really think of that arrangement if it so easily and quickly can lead to wholesale chaos with parties in conflict and opposition. Common sense and a greater wisdom would dictate that they totally ignore the prohibition and discover all that is necessary for a true picture of events be produced and directed for subsequent daily media presentation and virtual realisation."

I would imagine they would completely ignore it, just as they did the law for ordinary joes.

Then when they need to use something incriminating they disguise it's source. This has been the practice since the interception of Ultra in WWII.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Only the Guilty?

would have no issue with me having a browse through the contents of their phones?

ThIs iS dIfFeReNt!

[tiggity]

Re: Only the Guilty?

As everyone is now aware of "spycops" infiltration and subversion of legitimate protest groups e.g. environmentalists, anti nuclear weapons etc. (and lets not get into abuses such as having relationships with the people they were infiltrating)

Do they seriously expect us to believe that its only kiddy fiddlers & terrorists they will be interested in? Scope creep will be instant

FFS I remember being monitored & photographed by UK authorities decades ago, as a law abiding citizen (bar the occasional spliff at student parties), for peacefully protesting at a speech given by a South African diplomat (back in the days when SA was white apartheid state). *

This was when anti SA feeling was quite mainstream worldwide (although Thatcher government at the time called the ANC terrorists, which was not a very nuanced view) - various sports boycotts had been running for ages, many countries had krugerrand bans etc.

* also filmed, not at a protest, but at a talk given about whether Falklands war being a "surprise" was due to bad political decision making given that lots of intel on the surge of reclaim the Malvinas sentiment in Argentina but no UK response in terms of increased naval presence in the area.

Another event where members of the public interested in political affairs likely to attend but treated as potential enemies of the state, FFS,

Probably filmed at many other far busier events, those 2 just happened to be attended by relatively small numbers of people (not in London) so easy to spot the observers with less bodies around.

[ThatOne]

Re: Only the Guilty?

> Do they seriously expect us to believe that its only kiddy fiddlers & terrorists they will be interested in? Scope creep will be instant

Scope creep? Why, nobody does or will care about "kiddy fiddlers & terrorists", the only goal here is to keep tabs on whatever endangers your authority and position: Opposition, journalists, unruly people daring to question the status quo and/or pose a threat to our corporate friends' profits, and so on.

But since they obviously can't say that, they have to use some consensual bogeyman.

[Pascal Monett]

What, again ?

I thought they had just proposed a law to make the telecoms guys responsible for being able to intercept before encryption.

Why are they flogging this dead horse again ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What, again ?

Seem the law been delayed for a while.

[TimMaher]

Re: dead horse

Because they are “bestial, necrophiliac, flagellants”. As per one of my comments several years ago.

[dvd]

I think that recent events have shown that the authorities really don't spend a lot of time concerned about the children.

[Warm Braw]

Though they may spend rather too long thinking about them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooo... shiny tractors!

[BebopWeBop]

Were they new tractors?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they would say that

wouldn't they?

[Mike 137]

Quite apart from online...

<suggest>Underpants have been used in an attempted terror bombing, so it's essential that we start inspecting everyone's underpants</suggest>

[Vometia has insomnia. Again.]

Re: Quite apart from online...

Ugh, don't even joke about it, there's already creepy politicians in the US wanting to inspect the contents of kids' undies in case they're trans.

[Wellyboot]

Re: Quite apart from online...

I think we've reached the point when mandatory psychological examination should be required for anyone putting themselves forward for political office.

[A Non e-mouse]

Re: Quite apart from online...

There's the theory that if you're putting yourself forwards for policitial office you've immediately ruled yourself out as being unsuitable.

[Lon24]

Re: Quite apart from online...

Yep - I'm a fan of the jury system. Pick people at random. Maybe require them to do a basic test or two to weed out the extreme nutters and intellectually challenged. On average you would probably find a more representative and even more competent crew than our current legislators.

I mean if you trust them, as we did, to make the right call on people's lives when we had capital punishment - we should be able to trust them with lesser stuff now.

As an example the Royal Statistical Society did a test on our current bunch of MPs to test their basic numeracy. Let's just say a considerable number wouldn't be able to understand the answers. Frightening when they end up on relying on their version of 'common sense' rather than be able to take account of the expert evidence.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Quite apart from online...

"I'm a fan of the jury system. Pick people at random."

I vaguely remember on jury trial. Accused was a hospital worker. Petty thefts of patients' ' property started when he was put on the ward. Some property was marked with a powder. He wasn't caught with the property on him but he did have the marker. Thefts stopped when he was removed from the ward.

Not guilty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Quite apart from online...

I understand the frustration, but the standard of guilt is "beyond reasonable doubt", not "no smoke without fire". CPS were pushing their luck going to trial if that's all they had.

[veti]

Re: Quite apart from online...

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill.

If you think politicians are bad, I can only assume you never talk about politics to strangers. You would not believe what some people believe.

[Blank Reg]

Re: Quite apart from online...

Before your are allowed to vote you should be required to pass a test to prove you are competent enough to vote. imagine how different politics would be if politicians didn't have to pander to the average idiot to get elected, I expect most wouldn't even run for office as they would have no chance of winning

[Eclectic Man]

Re: Quite apart from online...

That has been tried in the USA. Unfortunately it relies on the honesty and integrity of everyone who is responsible for registering voters and checking their competence. For example,

Question: "Who was the first president of America?"

Correct answer (for your supporters) "George Washington" https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/george-washington/

Correct answer (for your opponents) "John Hanson" https://sites.google.com/site/georgewashingtonnotfirstprez/website-builder

So then the school examinations were used as being independent of political meddling. Which led to the amusement of Prof I. N. Herstein's* head of Department having to state in a letter that he had achieved the requisite level of education in order to register to vote.

Watch the section in the film 'Selma' where a Black lady attempts to register to vote, only to be denied when she is unable to name all of the judges in the area.

Or, just remember that Boris Johnson, Tony Blair, Jacob Rees-Mogg, etc. all got degrees from Oxford or Cambridge, but Dennis Skinner (aka 'The Beast of Bolsover') did not. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Skinner)

There are always difficulties with who gets to vote, and, indeed on boundaries of constituencies

* Author of a popular university textbook on Algebra: "Topics in Algebra" John Wiley & Sons, 0-471-02371-X

[T. F. M. Reader]

Re: Quite apart from online...

a test to prove you are competent enough to vote

There is a famous gedankenexperiment on the topic. Pick a contentious issue, formulate a yes/no question, run 2 referendums: one among the general population, another among a large number (1K?, 10K? whatever) of the most intelligent, the most competent, the best educated, the most reasonable people chosen by the most appropriate method (details don't really matter).

Possible outcomes:

1. Same answer in the 2 referendums -> intelligence, competency, education, and reason make no difference. One possible explanation: maybe the people are not so dumb after all? Another: maybe those most suitable ones are not so exceptional? There are other possibilities, too.

2. The answers are different -> the above qualities do matter, but get lost in the democratic process. Now, who do we trust to devise the selection rules to disenfranchise all but the most suitable? The same people who voted differently from the majority of the population on the divisive issue in the experiment?

Difficult. Should we run a referendum on which outcome is better?

[ThatOne]

Re: Quite apart from online...

> Pick a contentious issue, formulate a yes/no question, run 2 referendums

All for naught. The only thing influencing somebody's vote is: "Does it potentially affect me?". If it does, or might do it, or somebody said it might, all people, no matter their education, will vote to preserve their interests.

So the only issue politicians wanting to be elected care about is to seem to pander to the most voters' interests, whatever those might be.

[Eclectic Man]

Re: Quite apart from online...

ThatOne: "The only thing influencing somebody's vote is: "Does it potentially affect me?""

And here I was hoping that people would vote for the general benefit of the world, humanity or even just their country, rather than specific self-interest.

[ThatOne]

Re: Quite apart from online...

You forgot the "Sarcasm" icon...

^{(In the remote case you're actually serious, I'm really, really sorry... I mean, just look around. I too believed in my youth, a long time ago, that humans are reasonable beings, fundamentally good and striving for betterment. But I was cured quite brutally.)}

[TimMaher]

Re: self interest, an old joke.

A very old, very British joke:-

People who read The Times run the country.

People who read The Telegraph think that they run the country.

People who read The Grauniad think they should run the country.

People who read The Mail are married to those who read The Telegraph.

People who read The Mirror are married to those who read The Grauniad.

People who read The Sun don’t care who runs the country providing they have big tits.

Sorry guys.

[BebopWeBop]

Re: self interest, an old joke.

I think you forgot 'The Financial Times' - the people who own and really run the country.

[John Smith 19]

"Does it potentially affect me?".

An actual test of this has (supposedly) been done. Described in the series "The Power of Nightmares"

Only 2 groups of people always voted for their own self interest over everything else

1)Psychopaths

2)Economics students

Other groups were (on occaisions) willing to put the benefit of the group (or society as a whole) over their own self interest.

An interesting demonstration of people voting against their best interests were the car workers who voted leave in the Brexit referendum.

Turkeys really can be persuaded to vote for Christmas.

[EnviableOne]

Re: Quite apart from online...

Churchill also said "Representative democracy is absolutely the worst form of government, except all those other forms of government we have tried from time to time"

in other words, the system is not perfect but its better than what came before

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Quite apart from online...

Gyles Brandreth makes the comment that, in his time as MP for Chester, he began to grow tired of the electorate and their pettiness... only to discover the feeling was mutual to the next election

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Quite apart from online...

"Yep - I'm a fan of the jury system. Pick people at random. Maybe require them to do a basic test or two to weed out the extreme nutters and intellectually challenged. On average you would probably find a more representative and even more competent crew than our current legislators."

Being more competent than our current legislators sets a #very# low bar. And you seem to have overlooked that most jurors are so stupid, they couldn't even come up with an excuse to get out of jury duty.

Trusting juries in the good old days of capital punishment didn't work out all that well. Many innocent people got put to death. Which still happens in the Land Of The Free. Today's jury outcomes are little better: OJ was innocent, the Birmingham Six were guity, etc.

[JimboSmith]

Re: Quite apart from online...

I often get canvassed on my doorstep by representatives of local politicians before elections. Usually they have no idea what I’m like and are in for a bit of a shock. I ask what the politician’s position on a random and unlikely subject. You should see the look of terror on their faces when they realise they have no idea what the position could possibly be. The last one to bother me was asked about what their candidate’s position was on tartrazine in foods.

[WereWoof]

Re: Quite apart from online...

Aternatively ask their position on whether DHMO should be banned . . . .

[BebopWeBop]

Re: Quite apart from online...

Well \sanctimonius-on some of us didn't try considering it an opportunity to both learn something and maybe do a service \santimonious-off

My two weeks of jury service was interesting and the jurors took it seriously. One not guilty verdict (with some regret the majority feeling was that the bar steward had got away with it based on a technicality, one guilty and well substantiated.

An anecdote not data, but given that Juries are not interviewed, close to the best you can get to real observed behaviour.

[R Soul]

Re: Quite apart from online...

"Frightening when they end up on relying on their version of 'common sense' rather than be able to take account of the expert evidence."

Sometimes that can be a good thing. Expert evidence isn't always truthful or correct.

[OhForF']

Last continent system

Can't we adopt the system used in "The last continent" according to Sir Pterry?

"'We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they are elected. Don't you?"

"Why?"

"It saves time."

[Eclectic Man]

Re: Last continent system Or Ankh Morpork

I refer you to the Patrician of Ankh-Morpork, Lord Havelock Vetinari's firm belief in the appropriateness of the 'one man one vote system' of governmental 'democracy'.

Explained thusly: "I am the man, I have the vote".

Later elucidated as "Because I say so." *

*(In 'Making Money' IIRC.)

[hammarbtyp]

Re: Last continent system Or Ankh Morpork

In another book, there is a town called Escrow where people line up to have there blood sucked by vampires

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Last continent system Or Ankh Morpork

In the 1930s Oswald Mosley wrote a manifesto for the BUF - if it had won an election majority at Westminster.

1) ban opposition parties and the general electoral process.

2) MPs could still represent constituencies but would only be allowed to debate selected issues.

3) Whatever Parliament decided could not overrule the Leader's decisions.

4) Leader was for life and ruled by decree.

Boris Johnson has shown that would work - all you have to do is promise your party's majority MPs that they would have their job and perks as long as they wanted.

Wait for Liz Truss to follow that same path before she loses the next General election.

[JimboSmith]

Re: Last continent system

Have an upvote for the Sir Pterry reference.

Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?'

[gryphon]

Re: Quite apart from online...

If memory serves that was Douglas Adams theory from the foreword to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

No idea if it was original or not but certainly makes sense. :-)

He also had the idea that about voting to make sure that the wrong lizard didn't get into office. I'm sure he wasn't thinking about any of our honourable members there.

Other alternative is 'The Voter' I think it was called by Isaac Asimov.

One person per electoral cycle talks to a computer which then decides every single elected official.

All depends on the algorithm I suppose.

[FrogsAndChips]

Re: Quite apart from online...

Other alternative is 'The Voter' I think it was called by Isaac Asimov.

It was called "Franchise".

[The Oncoming Scorn]

Re: Quite apart from online...

The major problem - one of the major problems - for there are several - one of the many major problems with governing people is that of who you get to do it. Or, rather, of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarise: it is a well-known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarise the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should, on no account, be allowed to do the job.

To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. And so this is the situation we find. A succession of Galactic Presidents who so much enjoy the fun and palaver of being in power that they never really notice that they’re not.

And somewhere in the shadows behind them, who?

Who can possibly rule if no one who wants to, can be allowed to?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Quite apart from online...

"I think we've reached the point when mandatory psychological examination should be required for anyone putting themselves forward for political office."

I think you meant to type firing squads, not psychological examination.

[Alumoi]

Re: Quite apart from online...

Along with an IQ test.

[Strahd Ivarius]

Re: Quite apart from online...

I'd suggest that they participate in a game of Soviet roulette first.

(same thing as Russian roulette, but with a Tokarev TT 33 instead of a Nagant M1895)

[Wellyboot]

Re: Quite apart from online...

Airport body scanners.

[longshots]

Here we go again...

.....In their latest paper Levy and Robinson argue that this isn't a major issue, since non-governmental organizations could be used to moderate the scanning of personal information. This would avoid the potential abuse of such a scheme, they argue, and only the guilty would have something to fear.

"Two notorious characters from the British security services" must be the only people on the planet that think "potential" abuse can be avoided. Room 641A, plus countless other examples make their premis laughable.

And, of course, they always separate the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse: terrorists, drug dealers, child sexual abuse material (CSAM), and organized crime. If they lumped them all together the dramatic effect is lost.