Category: Big Brother

UK: Cameron sticks to a ban on encryption

In the House of Commons, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has reaffirmed his commitment to ban encryption.

Or, at least, to demand “back doors” to all encrypted communication tools.

Is this political posturing or genuine ignorance?

Practically everyone who knows anything about encryption can tell you that “back doors”  to encrypted communications is a contradiction in terms. Either you have encryption where only end users with proper keys can read our messages. Or you have non secure systems where not only the government but also foreign governments, criminals, corrupt officials and terrorists will be able to interfere with peoples communications.

And how would the British government enforce a ban on encryption? They would need to scrutinise and pre-approve all communication tools and apps on the market. Even non UK ones. And they would need to scan everything to make sure no one uses stand alone encryption tools in combination with ordinary communication tools such as e-mail.

The only way to uphold a ban on encryption is to control all our electronic communications. And even that will not work.

Furthermore, a ban on encryption would need to be world wide.

Link: David Cameron is going to try and ban encryption in Britain »

/ HAX

Bring mass surveillance back on the EU agenda

At springtime last year the European Parliament was conducting hearings om mass surveillance. In parts, it was rather thrilling and tense. The hearings ended with a resolution, where the MEP:s stated (in a rather vague way) that they are ill at ease with what is going on.

Formally, they could do nothing more — as national security does not fall under EU competence.

But informally, it was important that the peoples elected representatives tried to get to grips with what is going on.

Then came the European elections, a new parliament was elected and mass surveillance was not an issue on the agenda anymore.

It’s about time to bring some new life to this issue, on the EU level.

Even though the European Parliament cannot interfere with national security — it has the authority to make statements when it comes to human rights. (The right to privacy is considered to be a human right, according to binding european statues.)

And the European Commission (the only EU institution that can submit real proposals) is formally the “guardian of the treaties” — including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Also, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights can uphold our civil liberties, as stated in the documents above.

The problems with mass surveillance are still the same as a year ago. As a matter of fact new national laws in some EU member states have made things worse since then.

We need to figure out how to apply renewed pressure on our EU politicians when it comes to mass surveillance. And some judicial activism wouldn’t hurt either.

/ HAX

The Snowden spin war

The Sunday Times ran an article this weekend about the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. It claims that Russia and China have cracked the top-secret cache of files stolen by Snowden – and that the MI6 is believed to have pulled out spies because of this.

The whole piece is filled with strange statements, contradictions and obvious disinformation.

Here is some recommended reading, debunking the anti-Snowden spin…

Ryan J Gallagher: Questions About The Sunday Times Snowden Story »

Shami Chakrabarti in The Guardian: Let me be clear – Edward Snowden is a hero »

A comment from The Sunday Times » — (And a slightly longer version »)

Update: The Intercept — The Sunday Times’ Snowden Story is Journalism at its Worst — and Filled with Falsehoods »

Update 2: Techdirt — News Corp. Sends DMCA Notice Over Glenn Greenwald Trashing The Sunday Times’ Ridiculous Snowden Story »

Update 3: Techdirt — Reporter Who Wrote Sunday Times ‘Snowden’ Propaganda Admits That He’s Just Writing What UK Gov’t Told Him »

Big Brotherism when the law is an ass

Laws are the tools politicians (and bureaucrats) use to force the people to behave in a certain way. And they have the police to enforce these laws.

In a democratic society it is essential that the laws are the same for all citizens, and applied in the same way for all. Regardless what these laws stipulate, regardless if they are “good” or “bad”. All people should have the same rights (and obligations).

This does not imply that all laws are good. There are plenty of really bad laws. Some are unfair, some are in conflict with fundamental human and civil rights, some are silly, some creates “crimes” without victims and some are plain stupid.

Most people break some laws, most of the time. There are simply too many laws for anyone to have a reasonable grasp of most of them. Some laws we break because we find them unimportant, silly or patronising. And some laws we should break, as they infringe on our fundamental rights.

Laws are always the footprint of the ruling political forces. We have all seen the Internet meme “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal” (Martin Luther King, Jr.). The fact that something is legal is no guarantee that it is right or reasonable.

In a democratic system, the laws can even be used to undermine or nullify democracy itself. In a democratic, orderly way.

Enter: mass surveillance.

Mass surveillance gives the authorities a way to control that the people obey the laws. All the people. All the laws. All the time. Even really bad laws.

This will create a society where everyone must be looking over the shoulder. A society where you must be careful before you talk. An anxious society.

This might be a classic case of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.

We need to talk about this: If we are to live in a mass surveillance society (like it or not), it must be a somewhat relaxed, liberal and tolerant society.

To put it in different words: The ruling classes need to give the people some slack. If not, pressure and tensions will build in a dangerous way – when authorities can control almost everything we do.

But politicians do not abide by any live and let live principles. And they certainly do not plan ro roll back mass surveillance.

/ HAX

UK to escalate the war on encryption

The announced UK Investigatory Powers Bill is said to “force some of the world’s biggest internet companies including Google, Apple and Facebook to hand over encrypted messages from terror suspects”. (The Telegraph »)

To be fair, it should be pointed out that this specific part of the bill is said to be limited to “suspects under investigation”. So it’s not about blanket mass surveillance. But I’m sure that is being covered in other parts of the same bill, said to…

…”address ongoing capability gaps” that are hindering the ability of the security services to fight terrorism and other serious crime. (…)

A Home Office spokesman said the bill was a “landmark piece of legislation to cover the whole investigatory powers landscape in modern communications”.

I guess it’s going to be pretty bad. But back to the encryption issue. Ars Technica points out that…

In the face of these demands, some companies might decide to re-design their systems such that it would be impossible for them to break the encryption even if required to do so by law. This facility is already available from companies offering peer-to-peer encryption. If the UK government goes ahead with this plan, we are likely to see this approach being adopted by more communications providers and messaging apps, which would undermine the effectiveness of the proposed law.

So, the effect of far reaching legislation might actually be that it will be harder for authorities to obtain the information they want. Even in legitimate cases.

In the UK, you can be put in prison if you don’t surrender your encryption key to the authorities. But that isn’t much use when it comes to covert surveillance, is it?

With P2P encryption you can legislate as much as you want. It will not work.

This leaving the UK government with one option: To demand all P2P encryption to – somehow – be corrupted by back doors.

That would be a terrible idea. And if at all possible, it would only work with big, commonly used communication apps and systems. I cannot see how anything other than traditional and time consuming code breaking could be used against open source encryption software in P2P communications.

The only option left for the UK government might be to make such encryption illegal. And trust me, this is an option that will be taken under consideration…

The war on encryption is now entering the madcap phase.

/ HAX

• The Telegraph: Google and Whatsapp will be forced to hand messages to MI5 »
• Ars Technica: New UK law would give government access to encrypted Internet messaging apps »
• Ars Technica: The new war on encryption is based on a lie »

Queens Speech and Big Brother

BBC summons up the Queens Speech from todays opening of the British Parliament. Here is what to expect when it comes to Big Brother-related bills…

Extremism Bill

This includes measures to tackle broadcasting of extremist material. The government wants to strengthen watchdog Ofcom so that it can take action against channels that transmit extremist content. The legislation will also propose the introduction of banning orders for extremist organisations who use hate speech in public places, but whose activities fall short of proscription. A new power to allow police and local authorities to close down premises used to support extremism will also feature. And employers will be able to check whether an individual is an extremist and barring them from working with children.

Investigatory Powers Bill

“New legislation will modernise the law on communications data,” the speech said. An Investigatory Powers Bill will revive plans to give intelligence agencies new tools to target communications data – branded a “snooper’s charter” by critics. The government says it will equip the police intelligence agencies with the tools to keep people safe.

…and what is not in the Queen’s Speech?

Although it appears in the Queen’s Speech, there is no legislation, either in full or draft form, on a British Bill of Rights. Instead, ministers will consult on the pros of replacing the Human Rights Act with a new legal framework of rights and responsibilities.

Read more at BBC – Queen’s Speech 2015: Bill-by-bill »

Is the NSA to shut down bulk surveillance programs? Maybe not.

The NSA bulk surveillance program is hanging by a thread — as the controversial Patriot Act expires and as US Senate did not manage to adopt a replacement bill (the USA Freedom Act) before its week-long recess.

The Associated Press reports…

“In a chaotic scene during the wee hours of Saturday, Senate Republicans blocked a bill known as the USA Freedom Act, which would have ended the NSA’s bulk collection but preserved its ability to search the records held by the phone companies on a case-by-case basis. The bill was backed by President Barack Obama, House Republicans and the nation’s top law enforcement and intelligence officials.”

There will be an emergency session scheduled for Sunday, May 31st.

This is a cliff hanger. But even if the replacement bill will be adopted, bulk mass surveillance will not end. It will only change form.

The USA Freedom Act obliges telecoms meta data to be kept by the phone companies. This is the same model as in the EU Data Retention Directive. Even though this directive has been invalidated by the European Court of Justice for breaching human rights, it is already implemented in most EU member states.

In many EU countries authorities use data retention on a massive scale and in a rather indiscriminate way. There are even attempts to give the police direct online access to meta data held by the telecoms, in some countries.

So even if the Freedom Act might be adopted it will not be the end of bulk collection of telecoms data in the US. It will not be as bad as the Patriot Act, but still it will be pretty bad.

However, it will be interesting to see what happens if the Freedom Act is not adopted before the Patriot Act expires. In that case the NSA might have to shut down parts of their operation. At least for some time. (For all the public is allowed to know…)

• NSA is getting ready to shut down bulk surveillance programs in response to failed Senate vote »
• NSA winds down once-secret phone-records collection program »

Update: Julian Assange: Despite Congressional Standoff, NSA Has Secret Authority to Continue Spying Unabated »

/ HAX