Techies will continue to sneer.
That is all.
UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd has once again demonstrated she does not know how encryption works, this time by explicitly admitting it to delegates at a Tory party fringe conference where she also hit out at "patronising" techies that "sneered" at politicians. Speaking at a Spectator event, Rudd said: "It's so easy to be …
"any of us who try and legislate in new areas, who will automatically be sneered at and laughed at for not getting it right"
You're a politician framing laws that affect people's rights and possibly reputation, livelihood, standing in society and ultimately even their liberty. "Getting it right" is the minimum requirement of your job.
Here's a novel idea: if you're going to make laws about something, either understand what it is you're making laws about, or find someone who does and get them to explain it to you. If you don't understand it, maybe you should wait to make a law about it until you do.
Note:
This applies on both sides of the Atlantic.
I'll just leave this here:
Speculation that Amber Rudd wants to be PM
What are her leadership chances? She came fifth in the latest poll of party members, with 7.5%, after Boris (21%), Jacob Rees-Mogg (15%), David Davis (14%) and Other (18%).
and let's not forget the bit about "Her majority fell from 4,796 to 346, "
Turning a safe Conservative seat into a marginal is quite a feat, but one she seems to have managed with ease. One might think her constituents had taken a dislike to her. A bit more and she might not be there at all.
The Guardian says “Don’t Leave the Tories Rudd-erless!”
Personally I'd quite happily leave it so.
...and you're a keyboard warrior who who thinks sneering is useful? Amusing on a site like this, yes, but don't fool yourself into thinking you're having any influence. She doesn't understand encription, you don't understand politics - a dialogue of the deaf.
Ah. The problem with your statement is that Techies DO understand politics.
It is a very simple, childish, and systemically broken system filled with arrogant gits that couldn't manage a career doing something actually Useful (like mowing my lawn, or refactoring some code I wrote for my better half some years ago, she relies on and I want to retire for the New Shiny thing I wrote).
We understand, we understand Quite Clearly.
The lack of clarity is one-sided.
Go ahead, ask me about James (FaLaLaLa Silicon Valley's Problem And Theeeeey Woooont Heeeeeelp Meeeee Break Their Stuff FaLaLaLa) Comey.
The thought: "I can do my job, your job, AND your boss' job, maintaining my quality of work, ex increasing that of yourself And your Boss by an order of magnitude, BEFORE I have to add espresso to my day." is largely, where the Well Deserved Sneering comes from.
*Sneer.* -sniff- *SNEEEEEER.*
To be fair, many techies will also try at least once, possibly even more than once to explain some of the obstacles that make the ministers demands unrealistic.
And then - when we have been ignored for the umpteenth plus one time, then we're going to sneer.
It's the wilful refusal to engage with the complexity of the issues at hand, the adamant insistence that "lords and masters" know better. And at that point, when we realise that we have met the ministerial equivalent of "Tim, Nice but Dim", then we sneer!
Yep. While it is true that a politician does not need to know the mathematics behind encryption, especially the more head hurty public/private key arrangements, they do need to understand the basic concepts of security and reality. If a mechanism, any mechanism, is designed with a catch-all bypass which is "protected" by keeping this mechanism "secret" then the mechanism is no longer secure and this bypass mechanism will find its way out to big, bad world.
Would Ms Rudd require that all door locks produced by locksmiths selling locks for use in the UK share a common master key, copies of which are stored in Ms Rudd's office, in all police stations (just in case), in the glove boxes of all emergency vehicles (just in case), in the cabinets of all utility companies (just in case), in the offices of local councils (just in case - terrorists and kiddie botherers y'know) and of course various very reputable* private security companies such as G4S (just in case one wants to outsource things).
Ah... Ms Rudd would think this is a good idea because she is unfeasibly stupid and would lose an intellectual challenge against a tub of lard and can't of think anything beyond a police state. Damn. I think I may have sneered. My bad.
* "Reputable" doesn't necessarily mean having a good reputation...
@Nick
Would Ms Rudd require that all door locks produced by locksmiths selling locks for use in the UK share a common master key, copies of which are stored in Ms Rudd's office, in all police stations (just in case), in the glove boxes of all emergency vehicles (just in case), in the cabinets of all utility companies (just in case), in the offices of local councils (just in case - terrorists and kiddie botherers y'know) and of course various very reputable* private security companies such as G4S (just in case one wants to outsource things).
For the love of [Insert Deity]
Don't start giving her ideas! She's dangerous enough as it is!
The TSA (aka the theif support agency) beat her to that a long time ago:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/18/keysforge_will_give_you_printable_key_blueprints_using_a_photo_of_a_lock/
https://www.wired.com/2015/09/lockpickers-3-d-print-tsa-luggage-keys-leaked-photos/
"then the mechanism is no longer secure and this bypass mechanism will find its way out to big, bad world"
Should be particularly significant to Amber Rudd, because the recent NHS disaster was created by code that found its way from the NSA to the big, bad world.
"Would Ms Rudd require that all door locks produced by locksmiths selling locks for use in the UK share a common master key, copies of which are stored in Ms Rudd's office, in all police stations (just in case), in the glove boxes of all emergency vehicles (just in case), in the cabinets of all utility companies (just in case), in the offices of local councils (just in case - terrorists and kiddie botherers y'know) and of course various very reputable* private security companies such as G4S (just in case one wants to outsource things).".
Y'mean like the TSA require all your luggage to have locks with master keys if you travel to the States?
Can't think what could possibly go wrong with that *stares at kits of TSA master keys for sale*
Don't forget, if you've nothing to hide you don't need privacy.
"*stares at kits of TSA master keys for sale*"
From experience, luggage does get checked by the TSA. (We had a suitcase delayed by half a day because we changed planes and our suitcase got looked at by them, and didn't make it to our flight.)
Ultimately, it all boils down as to whether you can check a suspicious case without opening it, and if not, *how* do you allow access to the various agencies whilst providing security to passengers.
For the record, I know my cases have been rifled through in other countries, and the TSA is the only agency that have left a polite note saying they had done it. (No idea what they were looking for.)
I've never lost anything from hold luggage, but then I'd never intentionally put something valuable in there....
"From experience, luggage does get checked by the TSA."
Seconded from here - the last time I was out that way they left a leaflet in my luggage on the way home... right next to the one that they'd left on the way in (that I'd deliberately placed so that it was they first thing they'd see on opening it...)
FFS. She is part of the same Tory Cabinet that do their own sneering, organising, backstabbing via encrypted WhatsApp messaging, against the clueless deadwood Maybot.
Johnson has admitted to using WhatsApp messaging for such purposes, in a Guardian article.
Amber, hun, you need to realise that not knowing how something works is fine. Encryption is really complicated - that's why you should listen to experts about it. More than one expert. From more than one think-tank. And they'll disagree. And that's fine too. Because the societal issues are almost as complicated as the technology. And once you've accepted that "it's complicated" is a perfectly reasonable answer, maybe you'll be less of a knee-jerk totalitarian and be more in tune with the tolerant traditions that are the best part of this country.
The two words appear to mean exactly the same, and "social" is perfectly adequate. There is no need for another (inevitably longer and more important-sounding) word.
It's rather like "orientated" (as in "object-orientated") which is just a longer, more pompous version of "oriented". Strictly speaking there is a small difference, in that "oriented" means "pointed towards", whereas "orientated" means "made to point towards". On that basis, too, "oriented" is the better choice.
The general principle is this:
"Broadly speaking, short words are best, and the old words, when short, are best of all".
- Sir Winston Churchill (speech on receiving the London Times Literary Award, November 2, 1949)
Reminds me of an ex-boss who encrypted his Android phone as soon as he found out it was possible.. Having done so he was then offered a newer phone which he picked up from the store. Sadly he promptly forgot the password and asked me to unlock it for him. When I explained that I couldn't do that he said I wasn't making any friends with that answer. It took two other people and Googling before he believed me.
We sat around trying to help him remember his password offering potential categories he might have chosen from. After going through half a dozen we hit paydirt with first place he went on holiday. We then went to the pub and he bought a couple of rounds as a thank you. The main reason he was desperate to have access to his phone was because it had the dates of his Wedding Anniversary and Wife's Birthday.
She's just banned the sale of acid to under 18s. So it is vitally important that you take a form of photo ID with you if you want to avail yourself of the standard condiments next time you go to the chippy.
Either that or she's some sort of flatulent, calcium-based life form that's managed to infiltrate the corridors of power.
She's just banned the sale of acid to under 18s.
Yes, just a few simple thought experiments show how unworkable this particular knee-jerk is, even if she is just talking about strong acids (rather than, for instance, vinegar, lemon juice, or rainwater)
For example, a sixteen-year-old can legally ride a 50cc scooter on a provisional licence. All such modern scooters have electronic ignition, running off a 6V or 12V lead-acid battery. Will she therefore be making it illegal for under-18s to purchase such scooters, or will she make it so that only adults can buy the batteries? In this case, will it also be illegal for someone over 18 to buy acids, and hence acid-containing batteries for under-18s (in the same way as buying alcohol for under-18s is). To further complicate things, when you buy a replacement battery for a scooter, you often get the battery and acid in separate containers, and have to mix them.
Assuming that the group that Ms Rudd is attempting to target are under-18s using strong acids as weapons, where exactly does she think they are getting them from? Bear in mind that the most likely common source for strong acids is the sulphuric acid in car/bike batteries, how does she think making the purchase illegal is going to restrict access to these ubiquitous batteries? It's not as if someone who is going to attack another person with acid is going to balk at the idea of nicking a battery out of a car.
So no acid to under 18's. but at 17 you can drive.
What happens when the old car that the 17 year old buys needs a new battery - will they be refused ?
What happens to the old battery ?
Do 17 year old's need yet another reason to have an unclean toilet if they can't buy bleach ?
I hear that people can get hurt by a brick when its thrown too - will those be next on the list ??
Just seen an advert for a product containing Hyaluronic acid and the description on this product http://www.boots.com/loreal-paris-revitalift-filler-renew-hyaluronic-replumping- serum-16ml-10191322 describes it as 10 times more concentrated with hyaluronic acid than the average L'Oréal product. Frightening stuff!!
"Same as under 16s not being allowed to buy disposable razors."
The Offensive Weapons Act 1996 makes it an offence to sell to anyone under the age of 18 any knife, knife blade or razor blade, axe or any other article which has a blade or which is sharply pointed. That appears to include wooden skewers, pointed sticks, needles, knitting needles screwdrivers, chisels etc. Because of course the first thing anyone aged 17 years and 364 days would try to do is to stab someone as soon as they got their hands on a sharp object.
Disposable razors don't seem to be permitted but razor blade cartridges are if less than 2mm of blade is exposed. Single and double edged safety razors are banned.
.
To be fair, the low lives who do acid attacks (requires some major brain damage to do that) are unlikely to figure out who to extract acid from a scooter battery without putting themselves in need of hospital treatment. If going to a shop and buying acid doesn't work, then they are stopped.
"when you buy a replacement battery for a scooter, you often get the battery and acid in separate containers, and have to mix them."
Seriously? when did you last have one? the 50s? I have never heard of that.
"It's not as if someone who is going to attack another person with acid is going to balk at the idea of nicking a battery out of a car."
Its a lot harder though isnt it? how many batteries would you need? They'd probly just go back to knifing people.
I agree its a knee jerk reaction , but they already do it with glue and various other household stuff. Dosent seem to have handicapped kids significantly.
Seriously? when did you last have one? the 50s? I have never heard of that.
FWIW, it was around 2005, when I had to replace a battery on a scooter, which although new when bought from the dealer, had a battery in it that must have been made from lemon juice and a couple of nails.
Definitely had to pour the H2SO4 into the battery. I still have the burns in the ironing-board cover to prove it.
Oh, and you can do a LOT of damage with a very small amount of concentrated acid. I learned the hard way not to wear a favourite T-shirt in the lab when I was a student. Car batteries contain a significant amount of the stuff.
Here's a wonderful idea, I've just had it myself, why doesn't she listen to the grown ups and stop dismissing what they have to say?
When I was a child if I asked for something and my parents said it wasn't possible I generally got the idea without making myself look like a massive thunder ****.
Put yourself in her place. It should be dreadful for politicians, used to think about themselves as "know-it-all, know-it-better" types, to find themselves naked to the truth they don't know enough, and the little they believed to know is wrong, in a world that became and is quickly becoming complex in ways all their knowledge is useless to understand, especially since very few politicians have scientific backgrounds.
The very fact she said "encryption helps criminals" shows she doesn't understand why encryption exists and why it needs to be used. Did she ever think what would mean to hinder all the things that "help criminals" - for example, sell only unsharpened knives? Register crowbar users? Ban nylon pantyhose? Enforce a max car speed of 10 km/h, so a policeman can follow thieves by foot? What about money, do politicians know the very existence of money helps criminals a lot - including those among politicians??
It should be dreadful for politicians, used to think about themselves as "know-it-all, know-it-better" types, to find themselves naked to the truth they don't know enough, and the little they believed to know is wrong, in a world that became and is quickly becoming complex in ways all their knowledge is useless to understand, especially since very few politicians have scientific backgrounds.
^-- this
Dear Amber, Try these three simple steps to stop being sneered at:
1. Ask for expert advice
2. Keep asking until you understand the problem
3. Take the advice.
As a side-effect, you may find that the ideas you've been told to promote don't seem so good. That is not a bad thing: maybe those ideas aren't so good. At a minimum, at this point you should go back to the person who gave you those ideas and put some new questions to them; if they do have answers, then take those back to the other expert. Get educated.
Yes, it's hard work, but it's your job.
As a very wise man once wrote: you don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
They never seem to use the useful or good ones.
Look at all their opposition leaders?
Mine's a pint Hague
Bovver boy Smith
Count Howard
And look at the ones they rejected!
May is only PM, because Boris is a complete tool and none of the others want the shitstorm.
Or as the Tories would put it, sneering "experts". Of whom we are, of course, tired of hearing their opinions on their specialist subjects. They truly are an idiocracy, valuing ignorance over knowledge because knowledge exposes the emptiness of their ideology. Auberon Waugh was ashamed of the Conservatives in 1983; God knows what he'd think of them now.
"We will take advice from other people but I do feel that there is a sea of criticism for any of us who try and legislate in new areas, who will automatically be sneered at and laughed at for not getting it right,"
If you don't want to be laughed at. Why not take the advise first before you put forward your ideas for new legislation?
I think politicians are much like managers in that apparently their job is not having any clue about how whatever they're managing works, but having a clue about how to herd human beings instead. And what is the single fundamental tenet of dealing with people? "Never take no for an answer", based on the observation that the surest way to get results is to assure the full involvement of your lab rat by forcing his interest to coincide with yours - ie. denying him the option to simply refuse what you ask. It turns out this approach more often than not produces results that are a workable compromise (for you the pragmatic tyrant) even when your original request is indeed a physical impossibility. It's all inconsequential - your minion, quivering in terror at the consequences of failing, will come up with something close enough.
Now, these days going medieval on your minions is somewhat frowned upon (to the great regret of the powers-that-be, no doubt), but the principle remains unchanged, which should go a long way towards helping us understand why they act as seemingly wilfully thick and stubborn as they do; it's not that they don't understand there's a fundamental problem with their request, but rather that us saying "no" just means they haven't put enough of the right kind of pressure on us. Coercion always gets results of one kind or another. No result just mean not enough coercion.
From the point of view of a techie thinking in absolutes, an imperfectly watertight, backdoored encryption is a useless thing not worth wasting any further brain cycles on. From their point of view, as long as they get their coveted back door, the rest of us getting left potentially naked in the cold is just a risk they're willing to take, even if they have to outright outlaw all "unlicensed" hard encryption to get there. I don't understand why we seem to think they'd finally "get it" if only we'd explain it all to them once again, clearly enough. Does anyone here seriously see these folks just going "oh, if it's not possible then of course just forget about the whole thing" at some point...? They DO GET IT just fine. As far as they're concerned, we're the ones failing to get it that there's no way out of this room until they get something approximating what they wanted...
"I don't need to know how encryption works" - true - not in detail but some knowledge on how it fits in would help.
"Terrorists can use encryption to communicate securely" (para) - true
"Security forces need back doors into encryption" - wrong
It not the facts she has wrong, though some could be, it's the conclusion. Terrorists and other criminals use all sorts of tools to plan and commit their acts but do you ban all of them just because it could be used that way?
---
What I found more worrying is the gaol time for those viewing "terrorist material" on-line. Who defines what is "terrorist material"? Government could decree any sites working on disrupting their plans are "terrorist material".
"What I found more worrying is the gaol time for those viewing "terrorist material" on-line. Who defines what is "terrorist material"? Government could decree any sites working on disrupting their plans are "terrorist material"."
i think that is the direction they are planning on taking, to include any content to the left of enoch powell
Oh well maybe they'll do what they did in Scotland regarding some types of Pr0n.
Scotland bans smut. What smut? Won't say" just don't tell anyone:
A spokesman told us: "We do not publicly disclose our prosecution policy in relation to specific offences as to do so may allow offenders to adapt or restrict their behaviour to conduct which falls short of our prosecution threshold."
They added that any such information would also be exempt from any attempt to tease it out by using Freedom of Information legislation.
Jennie Kermode, a Glasgow-based campaigner and writer for film review site Eye for Film told us: "The problem with the Crown Office's position in this instance is that, with the best will in the world, people cannot be expected to adhere to a law they do not understand. In the case of a crime like murder, it's pretty simple – don't kill people."
She added: "In this case, what the law says is that people may possess some images but not others; how are they to know which ones are okay?
"This kind of law has a chilling effect on activity not actually considered criminal, much as the infamous Section 2A (clause 28 in England) restricted discussion of homosexuality far beyond its original mandate due to its lack of clarity. Such intentional obfuscation goes against the spirit of our legal system."
That's the sort of catch all. slippery language beloved of politicians.
If they don't like something its terrorism.
Any excuse will do e.g, the odd dodgy act by someone with a particular view and anyone with that view tarred with the same terrorist brush.
However I'm a bit worried about reading too much Conservative party information, after all they keep supplying arms to Saudi Arabia, and Saudi funds lots of terrorists so by looking at Tory websites / speeches I might be associating myself with supporting terrorism
Best switch the telly off, at least while the news is on.
Let's skip the news boy (I'll make some tea)
The Arabs and the Jews boy (too much for me)
They get me confused boy (puts me off to sleep)
And the thing I hate - Oh Lord!
Is staying up late, to watch some debate, on some nation's fate.
(Genesis, Blood on the Rooftops)
Who defines what is "terrorist material"? Government could decree any sites working on disrupting their plans are "terrorist material".
Or what happens when the government go all Spanish and decide that calls for Scottish independence are illegal?
Seriously, after this weekend, in a supposedly civilised, EU country with military levels of force against people expressing peaceful support of their elected representatives by just voting, I don't think the government have a leg to stand on when discussing supposedly anti-terrorist legislation.
It not the facts she has wrong, though some could be, it's the conclusion.
That's probably because she working backwards from a desired end-state (having access to everything, everywhere) and needs to find adequate[1] justification for doing so.
And in the minds of a lot of the populace[2] she's right - because they don't understand the issue either.
[1] In her view and that of her minders in the Civil Service who, having done PPE or Classics at Oxbridge, don't understand either.
[2] Most of whom see a computer as a magic box that sometimes breaks down but mostly shows stuff on the Interwebnetthingy.
"What I found more worrying is the gaol time for those viewing "terrorist material" on-line."
Here are some things that have been used in terrorist attacks. Each of them can, therefore, be considered to be "terrorist material". Presumably reading this post is an act of sedition.
Pressure Cookers; Nails; Screws; Nuts; Bolts; Ball Bearings; Flour; Fertiliser; Diesel Oil; Motor Vehicles; Knives; Batteries; Countdown Timers; Shopping Bags; Plastic Buckets; Mobile Phones.
Lots of others but I don't want to be accused of writing a Terrorist Cookbook.
What I found more worrying is the gaol time for those viewing "terrorist material" on-line. Who defines what is "terrorist material"? Government could decree any sites working on disrupting their plans are "terrorist material". I now worry I'm on a watchlist for viewing YouTube videos of someone chucking a large lump of Sodium/dry ice/other substance into their back yard swimming pool. Ooh and I saw an instructional film about how to take over a US Navy Warship a few nights ago on television. Made a mental note to check for the presence of Steven Segal before attempting it. This was a central warning in the video and I haven't forgotten it.
""We do not publicly disclose our prosecution policy in relation to specific offences as to do so may allow offenders to adapt or restrict their behaviour to conduct which falls short of our prosecution threshold.""
Fucking what??
So, by that logic, you wouldn't publicize the policy on prosecuting murder because people might then know how to avoid murdering people?
Very Kafkaesque.
"I don't need to understand how encryption works to understand how it's helping – end-to-end encryption – the criminals"
Yup. Not understanding stuff you are making decisions about is always a fab idea. Top Tip : Save all this pesky 'trying to understand' stuff by selecting policies with a blindfold and a pin.
She's not wrong, tbh. She doesn't need to understand encryption to understand how it helps terrorists.
Unfortunately, she does need to understand it if she's to try and formulate any sort of policy in reaction to that, and that's where it's all fallen down for them. Otherwise, you end up in the Canute-like position of trying to repeal maths by force of law, which doesn't work.
"Otherwise, you end up in the Canute-like position of trying to repeal maths by force of law, which doesn't work."
The Republicans in Alabama have tried that already for Pi = 3.
“For decades, we’ve all been learning that pi is this crazy ‘irrational’ number. And any number with no end is, not, well, it makes it really hard,” Roby said. “We talked about making pi 3-and-a-third, but that wouldn’t really help, because you’re still then stuck with endless threes.”
Many experts are dying to work with the government, but are constantly frustrated by politicians ignoring their advice, because their advice says: sorry, that is impossible. Amber Rudd would probably say I was condescending if I give a mathematical proof of the impossibility to crack a message encrypted with a true one-time pad, and then demonstrate how easy it is to construct one.
There is also the issue of a very different communication style between techies and politicians: techies are very blunt, and have a tact filter on their input, so they don't easily get offended when they are told bluntly that they are wrong. Politicians (and indeed most others) find being told they are wrong far more offensive.
how about Politicians WORK with Experts rather than blaming each other?????
When every expert tells Government that their policy over drugs - both illegal and legal, with the exception of nicotine now we've gone all sensible over vaping - is utterly wrongheaded, yet they continue with more and more criminalisation because The Daily Mail, you can understand why experts find it tricky to engage with Government policy. And bad for their mental health, too.
Has she not asked anyone to explain to her how "it works"? Is there nobody there that understands it?
"Well minister, it will be rather difficult to stop because it's done using something called source code, which is how all other computery stuff is done too"
"Right, draft a bill for me that bans this source code stuff, that'll solve the problem"
Sorry, but I don't understand your point. The ICO deals with the enforcement of the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act, and will deal with the GPDR when it is enshrined in UK law. The ICO asks questions like "did you encrypt the data to an adequate degree?" or possibly "can you prove you encrypted the data?", or "why have you not responded to a single FOI within the statutory time frame?". It is not particularly concerned with the technological aspects of data protection, more with the processes put in place by organisations to comply with the DPA (especially if breaches occur) and the FoI (especially if a public body fails to respond within the statutory time frame).
Given that the ICO is an organisation whose remit is to monitor and enforce process, how would a computer science degree help achieve this remit?
not a single person working at the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) has a computer science degree
Neither do I - but that hasn't stopped me working in computing for my whole life.. (and having a smidgeon of a clue about encryption too).
Being able to pass a CS degree does not confer the ability to understand computing. It just demonstrates that you can pass a CS degree course..
Has she not asked anyone to explain to her how "it works"? Is there nobody there that understands it?
I've explained this before.
There are people at the HO who do understand it. They need someone who doesn't to front things for them because such a person will be able to spout the bollocks they tell her with complete sincerity as she doesn't know any better.
"You're right - happens to all Home Secs."
Not all. Home Secretary Roy Jenkins ( 1965–1967) overturned many laws that had been recognised as unjust for many years - but the usual conservative forces claimed their god would be offended.
Wikipedia:
"[...] he sought to build what he described as "a civilised society", with measures such as the effective abolition in Britain of both capital punishment and theatre censorship, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, relaxing of divorce law, suspension of birching and the liberalisation of abortion law. "
I work at the Home Office, though nothing in this area.
Contrary to what many people think, there are some very clever people at the Home Office working on IT and some of them really do understand this stuff, at least more than I do.
So I have no doubt that techies are speaking out, I'm unsure if people are listening or other people are poisoning the words or softening them.
"I am not suggesting you give us the code," the home secretary shot back, telling him: " I understand the principle of end-to-end encryption - it can't be unwrapped. That's what has been developed.
"What I am saying is the companies who are developing that should work with us."
It's not very clear what she means here. Work with them how? By decrypting messages? In which case, isn't that just giving the Home Office "the code"? (spoiler: yes it is, assuming she doesn't mean source code; and she probably doesn't mean source code, being Amber Rudd and all).
The whole thing smells like a ranty soundbite. Designed, presumably, to appeal to the Tory faithful at the annual conference. And to get Rudd a few column inches about being tough on terrorism while conveniently skipping over all the detail of how that might work. Perhaps it will also take the spotlight off her recent contempt of court travails.
Amber Rudd and the liberal-arts-educated political and Civil Service elite would do well to pay more attention and respect to technical experts generally. Rather than treading on toes every time she opens her mouth.
"It's not very clear what she means here. Work with them how?"
Unfortunately she doesn't know what she means either.
It's the same situation management and IT,and likely other technical departments, face daily.
Management ask for something to be done, IT say it can't be done and/or doesn't work like that. Management say "You're not being very helpful".
"Management ask for something to be done, IT say it can't be done and/or doesn't work like that. Management say "You're not being very helpful"."
That's because the correct response to management asking for something to be done is to agree completely and then tell them how much it would cost. Management will then calculate how much this will reduce their bonus for the year, and will quietly drop the impossible tasks. Their requests re usually not actually impossible anyway - if it's not a function of an existing bit of software, then just price up a bit of software that will do it, or figure out how much they'd have to spend to get it custom-written.
Remember, when management asks you if something can be done, they are not asking you if it can be done affordably. They think that's their decision, not yours. This allows them to feel they are contributing, despite having no relevant skills or useful knowledge. That's also most of the point of management coming to meetings, too.
"Remember, when management asks you if something can be done, they are not asking you if it can be done affordably. They think that's their decision, not yours."
Sure, but there are plenty of things that quite literally can't be done but management don't understand that.
Or the thing they want done is extremely costly and/or time consuming and you warn of this, but they assume that you're just being "unhelpful" and proceed anyway. Only to complain later that said thing has taken a long time or cost too much.
This is why it's important to have managers who understand what they're managing, not just managers who know how to managers. Managers who don't understand the field they're managing, and ignore the "unhelpful" feedback from their underlings tend to make poor decisions.
Remember, some requests are impossible because they are contradictory rather than actually impossible.
For example, I want to be able to access the company's secure document area from anywhere in the world, from any device without having to log in, but it also has to be secure from everyone else.
Or: I want you to put a back door into your encryption process that only I, and a couple of hundred other government departments, can use.
That was in reply to Michael Beckerman trying (badly, I might add) to explain that encryption is just maths and that it's piss-easy to roll your own.
I'm guessing that she thinks that if you have "the code" you can control encryption, completely missing the point that "the code" is just an implementation of a mathematical function and can be implemented in a huge number of ways.
And she wonders why us techies sneer at her? Could it be because it is eminently justified?
"I am not suggesting you give us the code,"
Which only adds to her display of ignorance. Some encryption code is readily available if you want it and even for proprietary code either it will use publicly available algorithms or the TLAs will be with home-grown alternatives. It's the keys that matter and for real end-to-end not even the vendor will have those. But the thing that matters most of all is the extent to which encryption is essential to the security of everyday commercial life and that the damage she can wreak there vastly exceeds what terrorists are attempting to do. It is she that is trying to help the criminals and everyone else who is trying to stop her.
The trick that politicians are pulling again and again is appealing to the audience. Rebuffing expert criticism is an integral part of this tactic. The speaker makes then connection between A and B (here end-to-end encryption and terrorism) so that any criticism is perceived by the audience as an attempt to undermine security. Amber Rudd almost certainly understands the oxymoron of end-to-end encryption with a backdoor but she knows that her audience almost certainly doesn't. If she aligns herself with her audience any criticism of her arguments will be perceived as criticism of the goal – greater security – and those who want it.
You stupid, stupid cow. If you don't understand technology, you're unfit to hold high office, and unfit to propose new legislation that affects tech. Nothing personal in this, the rest of your cabinet colleagues are no better, just a bunch of self interested, clueless arts and humanities graduates, with no knowledge of science, technology, defence or commerce (alight, correction, Davis has a science degree, Fox has a medical degree, but in terms of balance you remain a bunch of people far more versed in history, classics, PPE, and the faux science of economics). Worst of them all is that idiot we have for a prime minister, hiding away from voters, totally out of touch with people, and now (entirely through her own fault) not having a safely workable majority, despite the Labour party fighting the election as a bunch of unelectable marxist freaks.
And it isn't going to get any better. When you wake up and understand that the characterless Mrs May will never win an outright majority, there will be another squalid little fight to become the leader of the Conservative party. The two people most likely to be in with a chance are sadly yourself, and that disgusting rich buffoon, Johnson, with his really useful degree in classics. And all the time you shower of piss are struggling ineffectually over Brexit, where your inherently spineless characters are revealed time and again.
By the time we get to the next election, will the Conservative party have a credible manifesto? Will you twats have realised that the people who do or might vote conservative don't support your crappy energy policies, your moronic waste on foreign aid, that we want the House of Lords reformed to be something useful and democratic, not a club stuffed full of politicians' talent free chums, that HS2 is a complete waste of money. Will you be in control of migration, or will we continue to need to build the equivalent of a city the size of Coventry every year until we run out of land?
"By the time we get to the next election, will the Conservative party have a credible manifesto?"
The only monster raving loony who didn't stand in my constituency in the last general election is the one belonging to the official monster raving loony party. Pity, because I would have voted for him this time round...
"The only monster raving loony who didn't stand in my constituency in the last general election is the one belonging to the official monster raving loony party."
IIRC Screaming Lord Sutch complained that over the years the mainstream political parties had quietly stolen several of the Monster Raving Loonies' policies.
>By the time we get to the next election, will the Conservative party have a credible manifesto?
Didn't they drop the entire manifesto before they had even formed a government this time. Is there any possibility (especially with serial liar Johnson potentially in charge) that we can believe anything that it contains?
@ AC
AC, while I agree with your assessment of the current crop of Conservative Party clowns, (from an across the Atlantic perspective), I am somewhat sceptical with regard to your focus on the type of degree possessed any given individual.
Talent will out, it is said, and while these people all seem to have a degree of some sort, they do not seem to have any talent beyond that required to gain, and perhaps retain, high office.
I say a degree (of any sort) is immaterial, or as near as dammit. What England, or any other country for that matter, needs from it's leadership is talent above all else. A degree may be useful, but in the opinion of many, it is not necessary.
I have no doubt that some of the readership will disagree with this contention, in defense of which I offer this example.
A hard act to follow, by all accounts.
Indeed, Kurt. In my opinion, part of the current crisis in Western politics is that there are too many politicians with degrees, who have never actually worked in a "real" job. They don't know what it is like to live below a comfortable life, and they have rarely had to interact with people who have other opinions and motivations. The traditional Labour party made it possible for working class people to enter Parliament and have their voices heard, and the country was better for it. Sadly, this is not going to happen again.
At what point in our society did it become acceptable to declare your own ignorance and be proud not to know something so fundamental.
It seems to be a British management disease, and perhaps the ultimate arrogance, to suppose you can manage things you do not understand. Her stance on encryption is a classic example - has she got hold of the worng end of the stick or what!
"At what point in our society did it become acceptable to declare your own ignorance and be proud not to know something so fundamental."
A very long time ago. In fact, I'm not sure there ever was a time this side of the middle ages where knowledge other than legal knowledge was essential. In the middle ages a talent for violence was also handy.
@Flocke Kroes
"Not convinced the solution you and Amber propose will work. If you use violence to get rid of the politicians (or the experts) they will be replaced by people who are more ignorant."
Youi may be right. However, it would enable people to release their pent up anger and thus become less stressed, which can only be a good thing. Also, if politicians were replaced by people more ignorant, continuing with the eradication policy would do more to raise the average IQ of the country than the education system ever has.
I vote for putting it all on telly as well. Prime time viewing.
"In the middle ages a talent for violence was also handy."
Westminster House of Commons still has a formal separation between the benches of the opposing parties that inhibits sword fights. There are apparently two red lines denoting the point beyond which swords would be able to engage.
I vaguely remember from my PRINCE2 certification (shows you how much I use it) that one of the supposed strengths of the framework was that it was portable across all types of different projects. Whether that was canning soup or building an online service.
So it wouldn't surprise me if people brought up in the public sector management tradition do think they can manage stuff they don't understand. Or apply the same rules to two totally different projects.
And you know what, they're right in some ways. On a large enough project, management isn't going to know everything. One key to success is realising what you don't know, listening to and empowering (sorry) the people who do know, to do the right thing. Another key to success is building mutual respect with the technical experts so they give you good advice and information.
Based on what's in the media, Amber Rudd appears to be pretty bad at both these things.
Long time ago.
Countless politicians and columnists have proudly said on Question Time 'I don't know anything about science - BUT [pick one] genetically modified foods are dangerous / nuclear power is unsafe / the climate isn't changing / vaccines cause autism / ...'
Pretty sure Melanie Phillips will have said all of those, possibly in the same answer (to a question about house prices).
Er....nuclear power (at least, nuclear fission) *is*, demonstrably, unsafe in practice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Event_rating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Human_impact
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-does-the-us-do-with-nuclear-waste/
Other forms of power generation are, of course, 'unsafe' in their own ways, some more than others. But suggesting some kind of equivalence between the claims that 'vaccines cause autism' and 'nuclear power is unsafe' is patently absurd.
The same can almost be said for genetic modification of food; of course many claims that we know for sure it's incredibly dangerous are wildly overblown, but claims that it's certainly safe are almost equally dodgy. The truth is there's nowhere near enough data to be really sure what various long-term impacts of it will be, but one lobby wants everyone to pretend it'll all definitely be fine and we should just go ahead and genetically engineer the shit out of everything, while another lobby wants everyone to somehow revert to a state of pastoral bliss that never existed, and sane people who would like some sort of rational compromise involving careful scientific investigation get stuck in the middle.
My study of the British suggests among the Upper Classes it's been "forever"?
While "The Lower Orders" have striven to behave like their "betters" and adopted a similar disdain for knowledge in most forms.
Ever noticed how the British tend to pronounce "intellectual" (with or without the air quotes) with a sneer?
I'm not sure who coined the term "The arrogance of ignorance" but it certainly applies to a significant sector of the "ruling" class.
"Later today the Home Secretary is expected to announced that people who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years in jail."
That's one way to deal with those pesky journalists who think they can observe and report on terrorism instead of just regurgitating the party line then. Next up: Remainers websites to be classed as "terrorist content".
Hello... Did someone call my name?
Look, lets not fool ourselves here any longer. I've seen some people ask why the war against encryption is a thing; the governments response is "because terrorism, ofc!". This has led others to ask why there isn't a similar approach to cars, knives, the postal service or anything else that terrorists have demonstrably used in terror attacks. Furthermore, we are told that mass surveillance and intrusion into our private comms. is essential "because terrorism, ofc", despite the evidence being that such terrorists are often "known to the security services" or used unencrypted messaging (as in the Bataclan and Westminster attacks) or runners with notes (as in AQ and ISIS known methodology).
When our tech experts poke their head above the parapet to question the move against encryption, when political analysts suggest that perhaps government policy is off the mark, when the EUHCR and the supreme courts rule against surveillance and when intelligence specialists criticize government strategy the answer is changed to "we're BORED WITH EXPERTS, isn't EVERYONE? Eh?!"
This isn't about terrorism, is it? This is about social control. This is about freedom of speech and association. Most of all, this is about the internet and modern communications. It *terrifies* the powers-that-be.
The internet is without borders, at least in the traditional geopolitical sense. It facilitates instant communication and thus, instant coordination of like-minded persons. It sees censorship as a fault and routes around it. It cannot be taxed. It cannot be silenced. It is beyond the control of politicians.
And that's why they denigrate it and seek to undermine it. Its why they want to censor it and monitor it, because, like the printing press before it, the freedom of knowledge and interchange of ideas that it represents; the very evolution of thought that is the inevitable consequence of so many people freely communicating, is the harbinger of the end of "traditional politics".
Their politics. Their power.
So, we must defend net neutrality, we must resist censorship and state control, we must celebrate our freedom of speech and association, and we must retain our encryption and develop the right to be forgotten. It's that, or we allow a tiny elite minority to determine all those things for us.
Except it won't be for us. It'll be for them. Which is just how they've had it for centuries.
Coming soon.
All websites/blogs/social media accounts with views/comments that specifically challenge or go against what the government is saying are creating a sense of fear within said officials, therefore one might say they are "terrorist content".
When all these "terrorists" are locked up Ruddy-Bottom will finally be able to speak in public once more without being sneered at.
Won't someone think of the poor politicians!
"All websites/blogs/social media accounts with views/comments that specifically challenge or go against what the government is saying are creating a sense of fear within said officials, therefore one might say they are "terrorist content".
Not far from the truth, I fear. The current definition of terrorism, as found below, certainly would allow the prohibition of almost anything that the government doesn't like. Pay careful attention to the words used, especially the word "influencing". Just about anything can be called an "influence" and "force" can mean public pressure, popularism, or any kind of movement of persons or ideas - not just limited to actual, physical force. They may say that they MEANT only physical force, but this is a legal document and language in law should be/is an exacting thing. Be wary of such weasel-words.
"acts of terrorism" means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto.
Terrorism Act 2000 - Wikipedia
[Source] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000
""acts of terrorism" means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto."
That sounds like the foreign state in Rome that my MP keeps telling me are directing his voting against various social equality acts. If he doesn't obey them then he obviously feels he would be a doomed outcast from their organisation.
After deconstructing that sentence, the pivotal aspect appears to be
"by force or violence".
So, as long as whatever you are watching doesn't involve force or violence it shouldn't fall foul of this definition. Well, that's the theory. I don't suspect for a minute that it will actually hold true.
Has anyone asked Amber Rudd what she thinks of Boris Johnson and others using WhatsApp?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-leaked-whatsapp-screenshots-theresa-may-general-election-leadership-challenge-a7784981.html
Perhaps Boris Johnson counts as an 'organ of the state' and so it's ok for him to use such technology?
This post has been deleted by its author
Parliament only governs by the consent of the people.
On paper. But if you recall the widespread opposition to the Iraq war, I'd say that proves that Parliament do what they want, with and often without the consent of the people. And, were it not for Cameron trying to head off UKIP in the 2015 election, the population would not even have been asked for their consent to the continuing EU integration. Likewise, recall how both Brown and Cameron promised a vote on the Lisbon treaty, and then decided that they didn't need a vote at all, as soon as they thought they could get away with it. I'd suggest that there's nowhere near universal support for our wildly expensive energy policy, but that's never really been consented to by the population.
Of course, you could say that anything that was vaguely in an election manifesto has consent if that party wins, but with an effectively two party system, we don't often have the luxury of any real choice.
>On paper. But if you recall the widespread opposition to the Iraq war, I'd say that proves that Parliament do what they want, with and often without the consent of the people.
For fairness, opinion polls were mostly in favour of the Iraq War at the time. With time that has shifted against it. But we all know how good opinion polls are.
American polls showed the overwhelming majority of the public supported the coming war on Iraq. In the UK the polls showed north of 50% opposed, south of 40% in favour, often greater opposition. Europe was even more against.
It did depended on whether one was talking about a UN sanctioned war or the GWB-Blair regime change plan. My recollection is that opposition grew as it became obvious that 'Bliar' was determined to play poodle to Bush.
The most obvious issue I can think of which has parliament at odds with the electorate is the death penalty. I imagine we'll be seeing that back after brexit :(
It's OK to not understand encryption - it's a difficult subject.
You propose things in public that have been demonstrated to be beyond the limits of possibility. You've been told this before. Yet you keep asking in public for magic technologies that can't be made.
You are a grown up with the resources of an entire government department backing you. You therefore appear to be unable to find competent technical advice on this subject. As a government minister, finding competent advisors is (or should be) one of your key skills. If this is beyond you it suggests that you are not competent.
But that's not really the case, is it? This whole fiasco is not about whether you understand encryption or not - the whole thing is a diversion. You (or more correctly, some of the people advising you) are very aware of what you're aiming at. It's fully backdoored access to the encrypted communications of the general public, and framing it as counter terrorism is merely a convenient means of achieving that goal. You will moan and fuss about creating magic encryption that allows governments to snoop but no-one else, all the while pushing companies further into a corner, so that backdoors are created anyway and damn the consequences.
The more fuss you can make about experts sneering at you, or technology companies refusing to work with you, the more you can hoodwink the general public into not trusting the technology experts. And if the general public don't listen to the technology experts there will be no-one to inform them of the full implications of what you're doing - an end to privacy, an end to private life, and the birth of a fully automated police state.
Don't believe me?
"Later today the Home Secretary is expected to announced that people who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years in jail"
Yes, thoughtcrime really is going to be a thing now.
The more fuss you can make about experts sneering at you, or technology companies refusing to work with you, the more you can hoodwink the general public into not trusting the technology experts.
If the opposition has an unbeatable argument, attack their personality or morals instead.
"As a government minister, finding competent advisors is (or should be) one of your key skills"
I have no idea what has given you that idea. As far as I can tell, the key skills for a government minister are shameless self-promotion and the ability to avoid taking responsibility for failures.
See, for example, Theresa May, who excelled at these two things as Home Secretary, to the point hat no-one noticed that she has literally no other recognizable skills whatsoever. If the definition for success for a minister is to become Prime Minister (which most of them seem to feel it is), then May has been tremendously successful as a minister. If it was to actually achieve anything, then she was an abysmal failure. But no-one was talking about her as a failure prior to June of this year; few people pointed to her laundry list of failed policies and missed targets at the Home Office. So clearly, actual achievements are not really a priority, and therefore having competent advisors is simply not relevant - a happy accident when it occurs, but hardly as important as a good spin doctor to hide your failures and promote your semi-triumphs as great acts of political genius.
You don't need to understand encryption at any level to understand why breaking it isn't a good idea. You just need to have a brain and a small amount of logical thought.
When transacting services online (let's say buying something), you need encryption to secure the transaction and provide non-repudiation. Otherwise, everyone can just insist it wasn't them. Obviously, encryption doesn't do it all, but it does the secure communication bit. So, therefore, if you allow anyone to break the encrpytion, every transaction becomes questionable. Bang goes your online economy!!
Now, that didn't require any thought beyond that found lurking in the average pond. All goes to show that Amber Rudd is not the missing link, but something far further back. Perhaps she's just crawled out of the primordial soup. If she keeps getting in, says something about the voters in Hastings and uselessness of our electoral system.
If she keeps getting in, says something about the voters in Hastings and uselessness of our electoral system.
I think that is genuinely wrong; the voters can only vote for candidates to stand, and who is to say that the other candidates weren't even worse? I also fail to see how the electoral system can be blamed; however you might tinker with it if the candidates are all dunderheads then a dunderhead will be elected.
Being an MP (or SoS or Minister) must be one of the very few jobs (if not the only one) where some decent substantive knowledge of something relevant* isn't an essential requirement; what matters is adherence to the party line at a local level, leavened with more brown - nosing than I could ever hope to achieve. (Yuck!)
I cannot see how any sort of fundamental "competence" test could be applied; who would set the standards? Other politicians, I fear, so there is no prospect of a change of the better any time soon.
* "Relevant" does not include PPE, along with numerous others...
"I think that is genuinely wrong; the voters can only vote for candidates to stand, and who is to say that the other candidates weren't even worse? "
A friend in Rudd's constituency has met several people who regretted not doing a tactical vote when they saw the narrow win margin. There was a lot of ABC*** voting in the general election - but Labour shouldn't count on that happening next time if the Tories look likely to lose anyway.
***ABC - Anyone But Conservative
So, therefore, if you allow anyone to break the encrpytion, every transaction becomes questionable. Bang goes your online economy!!
You've missed the bit where the magic wand will be available only to the Home Secretary when the press is screaming for it, and will not be leaked/stolen/abused/circumvented within the first week. It's fine, everything is fine.
... physicists!! Aircraft keep crashing causing the deaths of hundreds of innocent travelers, including (think of the) children and physicists just callously sneer and flatly refuse to change G !! They cooked up the gravitational constant in the first place so they should damn well change it when democratically elected authorities tell them to!!
Oh, and anyone mentioning one time pads and the fact that a 128Gb thumb drive of random junk gives you a lifetime of absolutely uncrackable point to point encryption is publishing information likely to be useful to terrorists. You have been warned ....
That whichever idiot is Home Secretary at the time, the Home Office will continue to be a monster seeking ever more intrusive powers for itself.
It likes someone fronting the show who won't ask questions and who has no relevant experience (Amber Rudd, Jackie Smith) because then it can fill whatever passes for their minds with soothing words about how just a few more powers will secure the state. And they happily go along with it
If that person is also a genuinely nasty piece of work with an authoritarian streak as wide as the M4 (Jack Straw, David Blunkett etc) - so much the better, tabloid editors and readers alike enjoy jerking off to hard men sneering at liberals and human rights.
If the puppet falls, don't worry, another ambitious mediocrity hot-wired to the Murdoch press will be along to fill their shoes.
Quick question - last decent Home Secretary? Ken Clarke possibly or perhaps we have to go all the way back to Roy Jenkins.
"... there is a sea of criticism for any of us who try and legislate in new areas ..."
I remember people patiently explaining to politicians why this was a stupid idea in 1993, so it is hardly new. The idea has come up again and again since then and I am sure there are grey beards among us who remember pointing out the same issues to Julius Caesar and Gilgamesh.
"I don't need to understand how encryption works to understand how it's helping – end-to-end encryption – the criminals."
Perhaps the NSA are a bunch of criminals, but I am not convinced that is what really she meant. After spouting this non-sense months ago, she has had plenty of time to listen and understand. As she has just stated she has not learned anything (and didn't even try) all we can do for now provide sarcasm and ridicule with the faint hope that she will be replaced by someone less wilfully clueless.
"I don't need to understand how encryption works to understand how it's helping – end-to-end encryption – the criminals."
What needs to be fed back against this is that it's simply a tool and like any other tool, has its good and bad uses. In this case its good use is the securing of everyday commercial transactions. In trying to destroy it you are helping criminals Home Secretary.
Gosh, maybe we shouldn't expect someone trying to draft laws about something to actually understand what they're drafting laws about and not make ridiculous claims?
Whether you're a techy or not, if you're drafting laws, you CALL IN EXPERTS. That's what you do. You don't just make up things that sound good. And if those experts are telling you that your plans are rubbish, untenable, have knock-on effects, etc. then maybe you should listen to them rather than put fingers in ears and go "La, la, la, can't hear you".
This is what annoys me most about modern so-called democracy. People without a single clue are just as likely to end up in a job as someone who actually knows what they're doing. I never get why ministers of various things have ZERO BACKGROUND in those industries/areas.
"We have consulted with experts, and they advise us that this isn't the best way to go about things, so we will look for other solutions". What the hell is negative about that sentence?
Whether you're a techy or not, if you're drafting laws, you CALL IN EXPERTS.
But they do; unfortunately they are experts in drafting laws, not experts in what the law in question is actually trying to address.
"We have consulted with experts, and they advise us that this isn't the best way to go about things, so we will look for other solutions". What the hell is negative about that sentence?
Nothing negative, but from a politician's viewpoint it's simply wrong. Their approach is
"We have consulted with experts, and they advise us that this isn't the best way to go about things, so we will look for other solutions experts."
"But they do; unfortunately they are experts in drafting laws, not experts in what the law in question is actually trying to address."
They are not even that. The work to actually draft the law takes far longer than has been allowed since at least 1997.
What successive governments have done is assumed that the most vocal insider lobbyists are "experts" in the subject. So you get the draft bill's aims prepared by people with a vested interest. They generally either water down any safety regulations - or in the case of "morality" judgements they usually try to make them draconian. The composition of such co-opted "helpers" reflects the minister's prejudices.
When the draft bill is published for public consultation there is then an uphill struggle of damage limitation to get something more sensible into the final act.
The loose drafting then opens up avenues for law enforcement agencies to push the limits - needing defendants' Appeal Court judgements to establish case law protection.
This post has been deleted by its author
Well if they upfront admitted that they don't understand either the issue and the tech and called for advice they would likely be less sneering... But here she's repeating the MO, she wants to do something, "to stop criminals" without understanding *anything* about the issue or how anything works, or the chances of success, or the likely response and evolution of the threat, or the consequences and response of non-criminal users, but expects not to be sneered at.
If she wants a grown up response she needs to stop behaving like a petulant child and develop some adult thought processes and behaviours.
Worth a read from today's Guardian. Police Officers Wahid Husman and Tahsib Majid receive total of 31 years for breaching intelligence systems.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/02/west-midlands-police-officers-jailed-plot-steal-sell-drugs
What bothers me is that when you're in charge of a significant area of policy-making, not just for an SME, but for a major world power, that you don't think it's important that you have a very firm grasp of the subject, or that if you don't (because if the scope is too broad you can't be an expert on everything) that your opinion shouldn't be to defer to the experts.
With all the talk from Gove about us having all had enough of experts and dismissive responses from this to ignoring the advice from their own experts on changing drugs policies, it's clear that many of the current politicians, however bright and well educated, don't have sufficient grasp of how much they don't know, or care more about winning votes and pushing populist policies regardless of mounting analysis indicating that their preferred policy is not in the best interests of society as a whole.
Clearly, I'm in favour of ensuring that our front bench politicians have some knowledge about the areas they're in charge of, but when that's not the case (i.e. most of the time), then they should be expected to set up expert groups with a specific agreement that they won't only listen when it fits their policies.
A young friend did Economics at university. They were also offered some modules from other degree courses - which would widen their knowledge while not really counting towards their own degree. My friend did a module on Politics - which was a mandatory module for PPE students. He was surprised how poorly the PPE students performed on that module - compared to the mathematical Economics students.
On the surface politicians sound thicker than a salted slug. It is hard for techies to believe such monumental levels of incompetence are even possible. Perhaps there is an ulterior motive. Perhaps it is just an act. Techies are bright enough to find such motives, like ignorance is more easily forgiven than corruption. Because we can think of such things we attribute the ability to do likewise to others.
May called for a general election two years early. I think that confirms the salted slug theory.
In one sense Rudd is right. She does not need to understand cryptography.
What she does need is to listen to the advice of security experts who will explain to her what is feasible and what is not.
If she has an expert advising her who claims PKI can be weakened or outlawed, let Rudd put him/her forward to explain how this would work.
No. I thought not.
"We will take advice from other people but I do feel that there is a sea of criticism for any of us who try and legislate in new areas, who will automatically be sneered at and laughed at for not getting it right,"
I understand that you might not understand everything to do with encryption but shouldn't you at least have people you can advise you so that you can get it right?
If I'm reading this right.....
"acts of terrorism" means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto.
Terrorism Act 2000 - Wikipedia
Then driving your car into a herd of people isn't terrorism. Shooting a copper isn't terrorism, etc etc, UNTIL some muppet claims that it was supposedly contrary to the UK Government's influence.
Doesn't this actually mean that invoking the Terrorism Act is illegal, until that communique comes through, because no act is terrorism until it's proven to be "... directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government...".
Maybe I'm just being picky...
Voting is indeed a form of force, it is a substitute for force.
For example, if you no longer had the vote, or your vote simply doesn't count for anything, then the only recourse you might have to make your voice heard is some form of violence (against property/people or ideology).
Why do you think they keep trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and make them think that their votes actually mean something? The day the electorate wakes up and realises this obvious reality is the day we see the thin veneer of civilization ripped apart and burnt in the streets.
The people in power who are creating this situation treat anyone 'not them' as the enemy and that ,my friends, means me and thee.
Understanding only one small piece of a situation is far from enough to start legislating, especially when these are massive and harmful steps that the experts are advising against. This moronic minister should take a moment to wonder why the entire tech community is sneering, and she might realise she's creating more problems than she's singing, but instead her arrogant ignorance leads her to try to trample on civil liberties, robust online systems and various other protected and important rights and systems.
If you don't know WTF you're talking about, Ms Rudd—and that's a problem that extends well beyond your ignorance of tech to many other topics, and well beyond yourself to many other mouths-on-sticks in Westminster—then Shut The F**k Up.
Techies and experts of many other stripes—the same people that another odious little Toryturd, Michael Gove, boasted to have"had enough of"—are entirely and absolutely *sick* of listening to bloviating ignorami in politics mouthing their shyte on topics they know nothing about, scoring their cheap, childish points.
We think you are actually rather stupid, poorly educated, jumped-up little twerps whose ambition vastly exceeds your ability ...and, Ms Rudd, you do nothing to demonstrate otherwise.
Too stupid to understand encryption: well, that's OK, the details are generally fiddly and need the sort of education you don't have if you have a history degree.
Too stupid to realise she doesn't understand encryption & should ask someone who does. This is bad.
Too stupid to realise that *standing up and announcing the previous two things in public is not a good idea*. This is really quite a special level of stupid.
Too stupid to realise that accusing people who *do* understand it of 'sneering' and 'patronising' you is not going to help any.
We are ruled by stupids.
Too stupid to be able to comprehend the Dunning-Kruger effect.
It's not quite, but almost, Dunning-Kruger, the way I read it: I've always taken DK to be when people who are really bad at, say, physics assume they are really good at it because they are so bad they don't realise how bad they are. This is worse: this is someone who doesn't realise that there is such a thing as physics at all.
It's like a lizard looking at a spaceship: you can see them sniffing around it and wondering if it's some kind of food, or whether they can lay their eggs in it. There's just no room in their lizard mind for the notion of what a spaceship *is*.
Yes. I was wrong: we are ruled by lizards.
Ah, my friend, you should have looked first before leaping :) It says in the El Reg guidelines that this will be the case.
However, in this case I would have to agree with you that it is a price worth paying. However, you can no longer prove you have 100* more upvotes than me :P
Well, Britain had a decent run while it lasted--1200 years or so. But all good things come to an end.
So where should everyone with at least two neurons left to fire move to? Ideas? And will the last non-vegetative Brit turn off the lights as they leave?
"So where should everyone with at least two neurons left to fire move to? Ideas? And will the last non-vegetative Brit turn off the lights as they leave?"
Oh, don't worry. Alcohol can deal with those neurons. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
No, really, Amber, we're not sneering.
We're just open mouthed in disbelief and anger than someone who is in charge of drafting legislation which is vitally important to the social, economic and political well-being of the nation has, in a public forum, in front of her own crowd, in fact, basically rolled up and told the world that she doesn't know what she's doing and doesn't understand the things about which she's supposed to be making law.
It says much about the times in which we live that a senior politician is not only unashamed of this, but seems to be reveling in the breadth of her utterly pig-headed, willful stupidity, and seems to be claiming it as some kind of virtue. Welcome to post-truth, post-intellect politics. Welcome to the fucking asylum, please collect your jacket on the way in.
Makes me wonder how many femtoseconds would elapse between the "Security agencies only backdoor" encryption being popped wide open on every service (banking, browsing, shopping, "special content") that the politician(s) use, and them demanding that the backdoor be removed to keep their "Christmas holiday photos", "secret blends of herbs and spices", and "important personal notes and drafts" safe...
I'm almost of an opinion that we should do something about creating a backdoored encryption scheme and, of course, make it mandatory to use with all government officials and communications.
That to see just how fast they backpedal when the inevitable cracked account spills horrendous details on their personal lives that they would have preferred kept secret.
Either that or to see how they squirm to avoid having such a scheme applied to them because they full well know that they could get hacked in the first place. Cue endless arguments about how it is "not needed" at high levels and somesuch, which would just demonstrate their hypocrisy to the world.
But it can't happen and that's a good thing. I'll just have to fantasize about them getting ridiculed that way. Or I could just wait for them to ridicule themselves. Won't be long.
Never is.
Cue endless arguments about how it is "not needed" at high levels and somesuch, which would just demonstrate their hypocrisy to the world.
A counter argument could be to point out how many top-level agents and government ministers have been caught passing information to the enemy. If any one needs their stuff monitored full-time.... (or is that 'fool-time'?)
Couse they'll claim immunity through innocence... Which I'd then claim as proof of their wrong doing, "nothing to hide" etc etc...
Dear Amber;
It goes like this...
For security the locks on all government buildings, office doors, ministerial cars and your Red Box have been fitted with a super duper lock and key (made by GCHQey where the Q is like the Q in Nissan QashQai) where even though the design of it is made public It is so complicated that no-one else but GCHQey can make one.
Unfortunatley on the PMs instruction all the Qeys sorry Keys have been made in such a way that one skeleton master Key can open every lock and every lock of that type that will ever be made in the future.
Now just imagine what would happen if ....... (OK we know you don't do imagination)
Byeee...
I don't know what the fuss is about, I've done this all my life and I haven't cut my head off more than two, may be three, times...tops.
*If you always ensure the pointy bit is away from you, then the warning really needs to be made to the people in your way, not to you.
You seem to be struggling to understand why techies are laughing at you. Apparently you think that the error that you made was a small one, that could be overlooked because it doesn't matter in the great scheme of things and that it's just some sort of cruelty on the part of "techies" that causes them to laugh at a jolly good person who is getting on and doing Very Important Stuff That Needs To Be Done.
Let me explain. As a techie, well actually I'm a scientist with slightly better qualifications than your own, and I'm used by now to politicians calling me a "techie" or "boffin" or even "nerd" and "geek". Clearly since my qualifications are in science, not all-important History and because none of my ancestors shagged the monarchy I'm not really of any consequence, but I think even from my lowly position I can give you a flavour of the magnitude of your cock-up.
Imagine me as a techie talking to you about history and I say that At 5:40 a.m. on the 21st of October 1805, Nelson commenced an engagement with the French and Spanish combined fleet that he would win decisively because of his creative use of the recently invented Gatling gun. How much would you sneer at me? Clearly I would be talking ignorant drivel about a subject that I barely understand.
That's you that is.
"I don't need to understand how encryption works to understand how it's helping – end-to-end encryption – the criminals. I will engage with the security services to find the best way to combat that."
I wish she would understand how end-to-end encryption helps law abiding citizens too.
She comes across as a self-pitying self-righteous bully who invents hurts and grievances to excuse the premeditated and malicious policies that she is intending to foist upon millions of tax-payers who do nothing but make her richer and who have never harmed a hair on her head.
Malicious leeches have no place in civil society. She should take the medicine and do her --ing job or piss off back to whatever swamp she slithered out of.
FWIW I suspect the same will be true of the next Home Sec. and the one after that too. :)
Think? She obviously hasn't done any. Next thing you know, these politicians will be branding your POV as populist and dismiss it as the ramblings of people who "only understands tech" and nothing about the families and children that is in dire need of protection, or the security requirements and details of a country
I actively go out of my way to avoid the crap that passes as'"news" in NZ, but several times a week I'll see or hear some snippet. Much of that is "terrorist material", would that be covered?
Has any ony told the stupid bint that she could qualify as "terrorist" under many definitions?
And why the hell aren't you brits pushing to be rid of her? She's making chump look like an intellectual! Flood your mp's offices with letters, phone calls (polite ones) tying up office resources, protests etc. Get her gone!
The sheer lack of downvotes to comments on this story serves as a message of how seriously the community views (or fears) our Government’s apparent incompetence in the matter.
Was thinking the same. Sometimes I'd love to see a count of total up/down votes on a thread. Not always but sometimes it could be interesting.
I would have gone further than sneering. I would have announced a public statement that the woman is an idiot and the company has no wishes to weaken security of it's own users to help build a police state.
Who cares if terrorists are using the same messaging as us? They also use the same air and planet and building a police state just to know who has ill intentions and who doesn't isn't worth the massive threat to our civil liberties.
Just how long after this brain-dead legislation pops into being it will be before the first report appears of a victim having concentrated sodium hydroxide thrown in their face? It's not an acid, it's easy to find in several places.
Then how long after this before the knee-jerk is to ban all alkalis?
On a separate note, has anyone started to think about how much acid they transport on a regular basis? Car battery, that's a couple of litres of strong sulphuric acid solution. Any cleaning product that claims to be good for removing limescale (a lot of these use hydrochloric acid) etc.
We could change all the car batteries to LiIon polymer. Of course they happen to full of alkali and they are so dangerous that people who work on Prius/Tesla batteries have to wear head to toe rubber suits. It's clearly inconceivable that anyone would use an old LiIon battery as a weapon, isn't it?
> Later today the Home Secretary is expected to announced that people who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years in jail.
So a journalist or researcher who follows t*ist web pages in order to understand how those movements are evolving goes to jail?
So the way to "exploit" this loophole is to become a journalist? OK. Done.
Then I'll be waiting for Amber Rudd to say she doesn't need to be a journalist to understand how being a journalist is helping the criminals and begin the clamp down on press freedom.
I expect a special register for Journalist registration soon that needs the approval of the HomeSec?
The basic gist of the matter is she is UTTERLY IGNORANT ABOUT TECHNOLOGY and has NO BUSINESS AT ALL creating ANY legislation dealing with encryption AT ALL!!!!!
Here is a scenario! I am one of the BEST encryption coders around (a TRUE STATEMENT!) and I make an end-to-end ENCRYPTED videophone and encrypted binary file transfer system and encrypted instant text messaging.
It's fully PEER-to-PEER and hides data within scrambled TCP/IP/UDP packets using Triple AES-256 encryption (i.e. 768-bits long) AND Shor's Resistant encryption algorithms that not even a Quantum Computer can decrypt!
AND I make this application fully open source in MULTIPLE programming languages such as Basic, C/C++, JAVA, HTML5, Pascal, Python which means ANYONE can download and run the code WORLDWIDE WITHOUT RESTRICTION! I'm in Canada and so if a Brit were to download and run the code TOO BAD!
I made it OPEN SOURCE and FREE TO EVERYONE....What can ya do!
--N--O--T--H--I--N-- ZERO, NIX, NEE NYET, NAY NADA, ZIP, ZILCH --- NOTHING!
No legislation she makes will be able to touch me or my COMPLETELY FREE AND OPEN SOURCE ENCRYPTED VIDEOPHONE/TEXT MESSAGER/FILE TRANSFER APP !!!
NOTHING !!!!! And...since I actually DO HAVE thet very app I speak of...which I made sometime ago, I will update it and ABSOLUTELY WILL give it away for FREEEEEE and make the code COMPLETELYOPEN SOURCE so EVERYONE has end-to-end, peer-to-peer encrypted text, video and audio communications !!!!
And there is NOT A THING she can do about !!!!!
Seriously?
That would be great because I have spent 15 years writing routines for cryptography (37 in general IT) (some of which people here have probably used) and I still struggle with secure routines.
I would really welcome your input if its so easy. As for triple-AES pfff. Just because you extend the key-length doesnt make it significantly more secure numpty.
Writing FDE is complex enough (and ours had flaws unsurprisingly that were teased out over time) let alone encrypting streaming data which is notorious for significantly more exploits thereof.
I've been doing this since 1982 so I think I have more than a few years ahead of you on low-level C/C++ and assembler for multiple CPU types including x86, ARM, MIPS, SPARC, IBM Power, MC68000, 6502, z80, etc, etc. AND since I work with encoding up to 4-way streams of 10,000 frames per second 4096x2160 FULLY ENCRYPTED video streams IN REAL TIME using arrays of GPU's ...SOOOOOO.......I think I know video/audio streaming technology (since I write my own codecs!) AND encryption inside AND out! We also don't just extend the keys on AES --- you have to encrypt each AES-256 encrypted block a second time with a DIFFERENT algorithm. We use CAAST-256 for encrypting each layer for input into the 2nd and 3rd layers of AES-256 encrypted blocks. CAAST was one of the Canadian-designed runner-ups for the AES standard so it is VERY SECURE!
Since MOST PEOPLE don't have access to multiple 24-card AMD S9150 array processors like I do, I can STILL do 24fps or 30 fps 1920x1080 realtime encrypted AES-256/CAAST-256 video streams using only AMD Radeon RX-480 series GPU graphics card which is less than $400 US (300 Euros!) With a bit of Assembler tweaking I've even got it up to 60 fps 1080p streaming with the odd dropped frame or two! You're at the mercy of GPU/CPU memory bandwidth and stream processor latency for 60 fps operation so I made it workable BEST for 24/25/30fps ENCRYPTED STREAM operation.
So yeah! I've got it on pretty good authority my code works VERY WELL !!!
I am VERY familiar with the acronym Beginners All-Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code aka BASIC and JAVA vs Java...and since I know PERSONALLY one of the original Canadian developers OF JAVA while at SUN (aka Stanford University Network) Microsystems. The ORIGINAL development team is/was SPLIT on JAVA vs Java but almost all employees now at Sun/Oracle specify Java as the correct name.
The original reasoning was possible trademarking issues for coffee products so originally JAVA was put forward but over time Java became the norm.
And NOW you know the REST of the story!
Indeedy. You see, SG7, we have this saying around here that goes "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." You may have heard this elsewhere, such as on Reddit. So, ante up some evidence for your claims as, clearly, us techies would be very interested in the BEST ENCRYPTION written by the BEST CODER (sic), wouldn't we?
Also, would you happen, I wonder, to be the same Stargatesg7 as found commenting on behalf of WikiLeaks a while back? Perhaps "Q" on behalf of "The Traveller"? If not, your writing styles are very similar.
I'm in Canada and so if a Brit were to download and run the code TOO BAD!
Actually.... Look at Dotcom - no crime under either NZ or US law but....
There's at least a few international laws you could be charged under, after all according to Dudd your software would be aiding crims, paedos and worst of all terrorists!!!!1!!1!!1!!!!!1!1!1!1!!!!!1!1!!!!!1!1!!!
(Btw are you somehow related to Bob or Charles? :-) )