Navigation

Government and encryption: The split key approach

By on April 14, 2015 in Big Brother, Cryptography, Privacy, US

Governments are trying different approaches to circumvent encryption. While the British can send you to jail if you don’t give up your password, the US administration (restricted by the fifth amendment) is floating an alternative concept: the split key.

The idea is to gain access to smart phones and computers trough a unique “master key” for each unit, that is split in two — where the tech company in question has one part and the government has the other. By a court order the tech company could be ordered to hand over their part of the key to the government.

Keeping track of every new or used smartphone, tablet, laptop an PC and who is using it — pairing it with half a unique key — for sure will create a lot of new jobs in the public sector. And it will become a mess.

One central issue is how not to compromise user security. The Washington Post writes…

But some technologists still see difficulties. The technique requires a complex set of separate boxes or systems to carry the keys, recombine them and destroy the new key once it has been used. “Get any part of that wrong,” said Johns Hopkins University cryptologist Matthew Green, “and all your guarantees go out the window.”

How can we even trust that tech companies will not collaborate with the government behind their customers back? It has happened before. Would you bet on it never happening again? Ever?

And, is it necessary?

Neither Bitkower nor FBI Director James B. Comey, who also has been vocal about the problem, has been able to cite a case in which locked data thwarted a prosecution. But they have offered examples of how the data are crucial to convicting a person.

Should we really treat all citizens as potential criminals or terrorists? Will not the uncertainty about security breaches and fuck ups overshadow possible “benefits”? Do people have any reason to trust government any more than the government trusts them?

Somehow, this is no longer a question of security, law enforcement or even intelligence activities. It has become a matter of principle. The government demands to have access to all citizens all telecommunications and computers.

This is a red line that should never be crossed. Because if we do, it will be irreversible.

WP: As encryption spreads, U.S. grapples with clash between privacy, security »

/ HAX

0

EU: Should you be in control of your personal data or not?

By on April 10, 2015 in Big Business, Big Government, Data Protection, EU, Privacy

The European Union is currently working on a new legal framework for data protection.

This process has been subject to massive lobbying from companies on both sides of the Atlantic – trying to water it down.

At the moment the dossier is dealt with at the European Council. There EU member states seems to be just as eager to undermine any substantial protection of citizens rights to their own data as the industry lobbyists.

This is a complex process, hidden behind a wall of documents and often carried out behind closed doors. It’s all so complicated that the media seems to choose to ignore it.

So, what is the conflict all about?

To put it simply: It’s about your right to control your own personal data.

The principle that lobbyists and member states refuse to accept is that it should be up to you to decide if and how your data is to be used. It’s a matter of consent.

The Big Business and Big Government approach is that there is no need for consent. That you should not be in control of how your personal information is used. That you and your rights are not important.

The usual suspects would like to keep us all as digital slaves.

This is about privacy. And it’s about your right to control your own life.

/ HAX

0

How to get the general publics attention on surveillance issues

By on April 9, 2015 in Big Brother, NSA & Snowden

But most notably of all, Oliver might finally have pinpointed a way to make the debate about surveillance accessible to a wide audience. By honing on one aspect of the government surveillance, the capacity for intelligence agencies to access “dick pics,” he captures the attention and summons the outrage of numerous passersby in a filmed segment in Times Square. Many of those interviewed can’t properly identify Edward Snowden or don’t quite recall what he had done, but all recoil at the thought of government access to intimate photography.

“If I had knowledge that the United States government had pictures of my dick,” one man says with dire seriousness, “I would be very pissed off.”

“The good news is there’s no program named ‘The Dick Pic Program,'” Snowden says in response to the video. “The bad news is they are still collecting everyone’s information, including your dick pics.”

The Atlantic: What It Takes to Make People Care About NSA Surveillance »

0

UK to ban anonymous porn surfing?

By on April 5, 2015 in Internet, Porn, UK

The UK is about to “shut down hardcore pornography websites that don’t put in place age-restriction controls”. The purpose is said to be to protect children from being exposed to pornography.

As a consequence, anonymous porn surfing will become impossible. This is bad, in many ways.

Porn surfing on the net is a way for many people to explore their sexuality and to learn more about non-mainstream sex. Not being able to do this anonymously will keep some people away. Maybe most people.

Keeping people away from anonymous surfing on esoteric porn sites may also have other, unintended consequences. If people are deterred from fulfilling their sexual fantasies online, they might move to other ways and places. Like your lokal park.

But what about the children? Well, I think they should be aware of sexuality, being ready to embrace it when that day comes. And it is moronic to believe that you can keep young people away from porn. All you may accomplish is to make “forbidden fruit” even more thrilling for them.

My guess is that the British Conservatives are just using children as a pretext for antiquated moral dominance. (Which seems a bit kinky to me.)

/ HAX

Links:
• Porn Websites Without Age Verification To Be Shut Down, Sajid Javid Pledges »
• Are a Tenth of the UK’s 12-Year-Olds Really ‘Addicted’ to Porn? »

6

Our governments do not trust people with their own money

By on April 3, 2015 in Uncategorized

There are rumors that Greece will default to the IMF, nationalise the country’s banking system and introduce a parallel currency. [Link»]

If this will happen, Greece will have to introduce some sort of currency regulations – to stop a bank run, to stop money from floating out of the country and to uphold the value of the new, parallel currency.

This can not be done without coercion and control.

So, I guess Greece might not only end up being bankrupt – but also becoming something of a neo-socialist totalitarian society.

The thing to follow closely is how currency regulations (and nationalisation) will be enforced – as this has never been tried at this level in a society with modern mass surveillance capabilities.

At the same time other countries, e.g. France, are introducing ever tighter regulations and controls when it comes to cash and international money transfers. So there is surely a new European “market” for financial mass surveillance.

From the EU there are indications of a coming EU database for surveillance and analysis of all European bank transfers. (According to the 2009-14 European Commission.)

So, I guess the next big battle on surveillance and government control will be about money. Your money.

Our governments simply do not trust people with their own money.

/ HAX

0

Registration of air travel back in the EP

By on April 3, 2015 in Big Brother, EU, PNR

EDRi reports…

Despite the decision of the European Parliament to refer the EU-Canada PNR agreement to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in December 2014, the urge to keep increasing surveillance citizens’ movements across Europe seems to be irrepressible. Timothy Kirkhope, Rapporteur (MEP in charge) of the Fight against terrorism and serious crime: use of passenger name record (PNR) data (procedure file 2011/0023(COD) ), is again launching the EU PNR proposal in the European Parliament, after it was rejected by the Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee in 2013.

Read more at EDRi »

0

Eternal fools to ban filesharers from flying?

By on April 1, 2015 in Big Brother, File Sharing, France, PNR

EDRi reports: French filesharers to be banned from flying?

A proposed European Directive threatens the ability of French filesharers to use airlines. The problem is a new attempt to adopt a Directive on the collection and storage of “passenger name record” (PNR) data. The European Commission’s plan is for air travellers’ data to be used for profiling individuals, to guess if they are involved in “terrorist offences and serious online crime”. A “serious crime” is defined as punishable by imprisonment for a “maximum period of at least three years”. In France, filesharing (like manslaughter and death threats) can be punished by a period of up to three years in prison, and so falls under the Directive’s definition of “serious crime”.

No, this is not an april fools joke. Read the rest of the story here… »

0

Europol lobbying against encryption

By on March 29, 2015 in Big Brother, Cryptography, EU, NSA & Snowden, Privacy

The law enforcement lobbying campaign against encryption continues. Today it’s Europols director Rob Wainwright who is trying to make a case against privacy on BBC 5.

Europol chief warns on computer encryption »

This is the same man who told the European Parliament that Europol is not going to investigate the alleged NSA hacking of the SWIFT (international bank transfer) system. The excuse he gave was not that Europol didn’t know about it, because it did. Very much so. It was that there had been no formal complaint from any member state.

So the EU police agency happily turned a blind eye to ongoing crime — when possibly committed by the NSA.

That will give you an indication about where the Europols sympathies lies. That is, not with the general public.

/ HAX

 

1

The war on truth about… truth

By on March 27, 2015 in Censorship, Data Retention, Democracy, NSA & Snowden, Privacy, surveillance

One common practice when it comes to surveillance is to prohibit ISP:s, telecoms operators and tech companies to disclose that there is or has been any warrants or other demands for information from the authorities. (In the US this is known as national security letters.)

Some companies have worked their way around this by so called warrant canaries. In short this means that they state in e.g. their transparency or annual report that there has been no secret warrants. If they, the next year, leave that information out — they have communicated that there has been one or several secret warrants. But in an indirect, subtle way — without breaching the actual secret warrant in question.

This practice is now going to be illegal in Australia, when it comes to the government spying on journalists. BoingBoing explains…

Section 182A of the new law says that a person commits an offense if he or she discloses or uses information about “the existence or non-existence of such a [journalist information] warrant.” The penalty upon conviction is two years imprisonment.

This making it illegal… to or not to indicate to the public that… you are or are or are not not… telling the truth. Or a lie.

Orwell would have been amazed.

Or, in plain words: The Australian government does not appreciate the truth.

/ HAX

0