-
IMO crime is already low enough as is, and I'd rather have more civil liberties than a reduction in crime.
-
IMO crime is already low enough as is, and I'd rather have more civil liberties than a reduction in crime.
That depends on the country you are in. But anyway, these measures against encryption won't prevent crime. In fact, they will increase cyber crime.
Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço -
I'm not sure about it. Simply put: if you have the need to encrypt or hide something, why on earth you would use conventional storage methods? Especially if you alredy know it's not secure by design?
If encryption won't work, then it's time for an alternative.
OR
write your own encryption application and be done with it.
I mean, if for the NSA 1 mln usd is a "resonalble sum", you can still try to make an offer about 400 k usd and give the keys... -
I'm not sure about it. Simply put: if you have the need to encrypt or hide something, why on earth you would use conventional storage methods? Especially if you alredy know it's not secure by design?
Write your own code for what and on what?
If encryption won't work, then it's time for an alternative.
OR
write your own code and be done with it.
I mean, if for the NSA 1 mln usd is a "resonalble sum", you can still try to make an offer about 400 k usd and give the keys... -
This:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/13/human_rights_court_slams_ukgovs_snooping_regime/
Is why people don't trust intelligence agencies and governents.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/yahoo-webcam-users-intimate-images-intercepted-by-gchq-spy-programme-snowden-files-reveal-9158140.html
That too.
And these are the ones that have been exposed. -
I'm not sure about it. Simply put: if you have the need to encrypt or hide something, why on earth you would use conventional storage methods? Especially if you alredy know it's not secure by design?
Because conventional storage is cheap and widely available.
Today's level of encryption is sufficient even for the highest of Government classified information, provided its implemented and handled in a secure way and kept well away from the internet and portable storage devices. -
Conventional storage may be cheap and widley available, but it does not change the fact that if it's flawed by design, it remains flawed by design. They want that every device on earth has a backdoor plain and simple, right? Then it's simply not worth the risk, if you truly want to hide something at paranoia-level.
I know it sounds paranoid, but that's the fact.... Not to mention that now various agencies are capable of decrypting pretty much anything there's on the market and as time goes on, they will be able to have more specialized and powerful tools to do that.
That is why I am suggesting to see alternatives to conventional storage + encryption.... I'm not saying that encryption does not work, I'm 100% sure that it works, but on the other hands we cannot be 100% sure that what we already have is vulnerable and thus it poses threat. -
Conventional storage may be cheap and widley available, but it does not change the fact that if it's flawed by design, it remains flawed by design. They want that every device on earth has a backdoor plain and simple, right? Then it's simply not worth the risk, if you truly want to hide something at paranoia-level.
What is an alternative to "conventional storage"?
I know it sounds paranoid, but that's the fact.... Not to mention that now various agencies are capable of decrypting pretty much anything there's on the market and as time goes on, they will be able to have more specialized and powerful tools to do that.
That is why I am suggesting to see alternatives to conventional storage + encryption.... I'm not saying that encryption does not work, I'm 100% sure that it works, but on the other hands we cannot be 100% sure that what we already have is vulnerable and thus it poses threat. -
Well, but of course : not storing them and live happily...
We all know that government want to spy on you, they want your money all for themselves, they want to control everything because it's beneficial to them and they are not trustworthy. But, what can we do? There's nothing we can do, and there's nothing they can do to stop crime, because crime happens, it is in the natural order of things, so if they believe that cracking any kind of encryption is beneficial because you discover more criminals, good, however, compared to years ago, informations travels around the world, and so, we have the knowledge that what was thought to be sci-fi in fact is the harsh truth, so probably if we have informations we want to keep secret, is better destroying them and be done with it.
The war on encryption and the government spying... Eh? We are talking about the sense of Lorem Ipsum.... -
We need encryption because big companies can't be trusted with our data. Especially companies that contract for the government. In the US the company Cambridge analytica, I think it was, that was caught making black mail for the trumps had a data breech where all our voting info for the whole country was stolen. Everyone party affiliation, address, DOB, everything, is now "public record", you can never get that back or fix that. Private companies shouldn't even be allowed to have this data. Or look at the millions that shopped at target and got their bank details stolen. Our quest to make money off everything is catching up to us. We tried to make the space shuttle profitable and it blew up because they couldn't wait for the ice to thaw, that would mean less profit as time is money.
"An innocent person who has nothing to hide shouldn't be concerned with us seeing your person business" I so wrong and was first said in the McCarthy era. I say to those people: Next time you take a shower open the blinds on your bath room window and put up a clear shower curtain. You are not jerking off in there, you have nothing to hide.
Plus that has so many other implications for people like me who have changed who they were/are and don't want to announce to the world that they used to be a different person. If you are both genetically lucky enough, and have put in enough effort, pain, time, emotional energy and money to change, the last thing you want is to be "found out/clocked" because some company was putting profits above personal privacy. I have no idea what to do when consumer reports and other personal data I don't have access to, can't see, or change, runs an algorithm that comes up male now says female. Does that get encrypted? No it's put on a billboard with big flashing lights on it. -
The fact that "the 5 eyes" exists is disturbing in of itself, the stuff they do is just insane. To make matters worse the majority of people are either ignorant or just don't care. nobody will ever win this fight politically as they are just too powerful and there is not enough people to fight. Would require a civil war on a large scale and that won't happen if most people arn't on board.
So technology seems to be the only way to really fight this, need to always be a step ahead. I think we really need a proper mesh net to replace the internet or at least run alongside it, for those who do care about privacy. Banning encryption is extremely disturbing though and wonder if it would apply to everything and not just the current internet. I do wonder how it would be enforced. I guess the same way as ham radio? It's sickening how much governments now days are chipping away at freedom and rights though. It's not what our ancestors fought for. -
The fact that "the 5 eyes" exists is disturbing in of itself, the stuff they do is just insane. To make matters worse the majority of people are either ignorant or just don't care. nobody will ever win this fight politically as they are just too powerful and there is not enough people to fight. Would require a civil war on a large scale and that won't happen if most people arn't on board.
This is the problem, people tend to fear what they don't understand or have no knowledge of. You're basing this solely on what you read about in the news. It's hardly balanced. Even if you take what Snowden leaked, it wasn't very high-level stuff (by comparison). What he had access to was only the tip of the iceberg and even then, what was widely publicised were selected pages without context.
The 'Five Eyes' has existed for many decades in one form or another. You only need to look at the work undertaken at Bletchley Park during World War II to begin to understand some of what actually goes on. Five Eyes isn't the bogey man people assume it is. Yes, the stuff that goes on behind the doors of the various Five Eyes facilities is insane (in a good way) but to say it's "disturbing" is not only inaccurate but shows a complete lack of understanding of what they actually do (but perhaps rightly so, you don't need to know).So technology seems to be the only way to really fight this, need to always be a step ahead. I think we really need a proper mesh net to replace the internet or at least run alongside it, for those who do care about privacy. Banning encryption is extremely disturbing though and wonder if it would apply to everything and not just the current internet. I do wonder how it would be enforced. I guess the same way as ham radio? It's sickening how much governments now days are chipping away at freedom and rights though. It's not what our ancestors fought for.
Civilians (whether good or evil) are already in many ways a step or two ahead of Government agencies. There are freely available applications that you can carry around in your pocket that the Government cannot access. It's a constant game of cat and mouse. But bare in mind, the Government aren't interested in you as a normal citizen, what they need to know, they already know because you've provided it to them. This whole thing isn't about you, your elderly neighbour or the kids down the street.
As for the "mesh" network they already exist. The largest and most publicised is the "Dark Web", although if you think that it is secure and will keep you hidden from the authorities, think again. However, unless your intention is to buy illegal firearms or drugs or trade child abuse material, then I don't know why you'd want to be part of it.
What "we" are fighting is exactly what our ancestors fought for. Except today we largely don't use bombs and tanks, we use technology. -
These are the same old arguments governments have always used to justify taking away civil liberties and attempting to control the populace. It's always "you don't understand" " if you only knew the truth" etc, etc. It's a ruse to keep the people fearful and in a state of imagined dependence.
Bringing up Bletchley Park and WWII is a red herring. There was a wartime imperative then that does not exist now. Sure the manufactured "war on terror" is used as an excuse - but it is an end unto itself. Keep the people in fear and appeal to manufactured "patriotism" to get them to fall in line and not question. History is ripe with multiple examples of this kind of abuse of power.
Fortunately, slowly but surely people are waking up. More and more are starting to realize that they've been sold a con, and the Western powers are slowly losing their stranglehold. This latest effort to further abduct peoples right to privacy by neutralizing all encryption is a sign of their desperation to maintain control for the corporate masters. They may win this battle but the war is far from over. People in the West are losing their faith in the "democratic" institutions due to the obvious abuses of power.
The scary part is that their desperate efforts to hold onto power is resulting in the rise of populist demagogues who will make things worse in the short term. The elites are so desperate to maintain control they don't care - they'd rather see it all burn down than allow individual liberties to flourish. -
These are the same old arguments governments have always used to justify taking away civil liberties and attempting to control the populace. It's always "you don't understand" " if you only knew the truth" etc, etc. It's a ruse to keep the people fearful and in a state of imagined dependence.
I don't think so at all. When have you ever heard a Government say that? Governments everywhere do everything they can to protect these sorts of organisations and the less the public knows, the better. If anything is "the same old" it's that whole notion of Government wanting to "keep the people fearful" and in a "state of imagined dependence". Those are just fairy tales and pretty old ones at that.Bringing up Bletchley Park and WWII is a red herring. There was a wartime imperative then that does not exist now. Sure the manufactured "war on terror" is used as an excuse - but it is an end unto itself.
Is it? I don't think so. What went on at Bletchley Park is exactly what goes on behind the closed doors of SIGINT today, albeit the technology has evolved by orders of magnitude, the objective is the same. If you think the need for high quality intercept and intelligence capabilities don't need to exist today, then you are hugely mistaken and must be living in a bubble.Fortunately, slowly but surely people are waking up. More and more are starting to realize that they've been sold a con, and the Western powers are slowly losing their stranglehold. This latest effort to further abduct peoples right to privacy by neutralizing all encryption is a sign of their desperation to maintain control for the corporate masters. They may win this battle but the war is far from over. People in the West are losing their faith in the "democratic" institutions due to the obvious abuses of power.
The scary part is that their desperate efforts to hold onto power is resulting in the rise of populist demagogues who will make things worse in the short term. The elites are so desperate to maintain control they don't care - they'd rather see it all burn down than allow individual liberties to flourish.
Don't get me wrong, people are waking up to the fact that many Governments in the last few decades have been utterly useless, but that has nothing at all to do with the current conversation. With respect to signals intelligence, Policing and counter-terrorism, there is nothing to "wake up" from. As I said, the public are kept in the dark for good reason. You and I don't need to know what goes on behind those doors (regardless if you think you do). I've experienced first-hand the effect these organisations have on criminals and public safety, yet, I don't get told of the workings of everything.
This mentality of all Government = Bad, unlimited encryption/privacy = Good should only be reserved for those "tin foil hat" people. As I said, many people are afraid of what they know nothing about, so therefore is must be bad. It's just bonkers and fails on so many levels. -
It is said on a regular basis in USA and UK and probably other countries as well. I know from my travels and friends in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the late 80s that the same things were being said to them. Historically, police states have always used those type of justifications for assault on personal liberties.These are the same old arguments governments have always used to justify taking away civil liberties and attempting to control the populace. It's always "you don't understand" " if you only knew the truth" etc, etc. It's a ruse to keep the people fearful and in a state of imagined dependence.
I don't think so at all. When have you ever heard a Government say that?QuoteThis mentality of all Government = Bad,
A strawman. I never said that. I am a big fan of government when it is serving the public interest and accountable to regular citizens. With few exceptions, it’s been decades since we had that kind of government on a national level in the USA. We now have 17 intelligence agencies in the USA. Why is that? Eliminating 15 of them would not imply that “all Government is bad” or even that all government intelligence gathering is bad.Quoteunlimited encryption/privacy = Good
Almost. “Unlimited “ is a strong word. I and most people would agree that convicted criminals and those for whom honest police work have identified as posing an imminent threat (confirmed by honest judicial oversight) lose some privacy rights. But thats not at all what we are talking about here. We’re talking about mass surveillance and now government coercion of private companies and individuals to give up their right to encrypt their data. This means abdication of the right to privacy which for most civilized people is considered a fundamental human right. And in the US it is a subterfuge of the 4th amendment.QuoteAs I said, many people are afraid of what they know nothing about, so therefore is must be bad.
It’s quite presumptuous to imply that others “ know nothing” (but you do!). Many ordinary people are quite well informed and there are countless scholars, journalists, historians, ex high ranking intelligence officers and government officials who are expressing the same or greater level of alarm at the expansion of the intelligence apparatus and police state.
I find it fascinating how some can be so narrowly focused (or fearful) that they don’t recognize the historical parallels that are going on all around them. It gives me a new appreciation for how it happened that so many countries allowed the slow creep of Totalitarianism to take hold without much fight.
The new twist on this historical phenomenon, is that we now have an Inverted Totalitarianism to use the term coined by the late great Sheldon Wolin. -
I find it fascinating how some can be so narrowly focused (or fearful) that they don’t recognize the historical parallels that are going on all around them. It gives me a new appreciation for how it happened that so many countries allowed the slow creep of Totalitarianism to take hold without much fight.
Absolutely. At the very least we can agree on one thing. -
Global warm-ongering is totalitarianism on a global scale newer seen before. God be almighty good to Dumpf for his clean coal project!
-
I don't think so at all. When have you ever heard a Government say that? Governments everywhere do everything they can to protect these sorts of organisations and the less the public knows, the better. If anything is "the same old" it's that whole notion of Government wanting to "keep the people fearful" and in a "state of imagined dependence". Those are just fairy tales and pretty old ones at that.
What you're saying is dangerous in different ways. We do need to be aware what our governments do. In functioning societies there has always been a healthy tension between the rights various governments allocate themselves and the liberties of the people. It only makes sense people at various levels are trying to expand their capabilities to do things slightly beyond their reach and keeping that in check is necessary. The fact that both watch each other and raise a flag when the other oversteps his boundaries too far is what makes the system work and keeps it healthy. We keep each other in line. In more totalitarian or disfunctional regimes this balance has grown lopsided. A good citizen is a vigilent and critical citizen. Not one that keeps his mouth shut and lets things happen without a word. That's when bad things start to happen.
Is it? I don't think so. What went on at Bletchley Park is exactly what goes on behind the closed doors of SIGINT today, albeit the technology has evolved by orders of magnitude, the objective is the same. If you think the need for high quality intercept and intelligence capabilities don't need to exist today, then you are hugely mistaken and must be living in a bubble.
Don't get me wrong, people are waking up to the fact that many Governments in the last few decades have been utterly useless, but that has nothing at all to do with the current conversation. With respect to signals intelligence, Policing and counter-terrorism, there is nothing to "wake up" from. As I said, the public are kept in the dark for good reason. You and I don't need to know what goes on behind those doors (regardless if you think you do). I've experienced first-hand the effect these organisations have on criminals and public safety, yet, I don't get told of the workings of everything.
This mentality of all Government = Bad, unlimited encryption/privacy = Good should only be reserved for those "tin foil hat" people. As I said, many people are afraid of what they know nothing about, so therefore is must be bad. It's just bonkers and fails on so many levels.
Unlike was historically the case, the level of surveillance in much more intricate than it has ever been. Contrary to your ideas, the various agencies do take a keen interest in what normal citizens excercising their rights do. There are many people who take an interest in these matters and they are much better informed than you give them credit for. It's not a fear or the unknown. Various intelligence people have come forward with their stories because they felt that what they were doing had little to do with their national security mandate. It's not just Snowden. Turkey is a recent example of how seemingly benign information is used against law abiding citizens with what's considered the wrong opinions. Just last month the European court of human rights found that UK's GCHQ data collection regime has violated human rights. They're known to collect a wide array of data, including internet browsing behaviour of regular people inside and outside of their country. We know that in the US protesters have been tracked and that movements and protests have been surpressed by using that information. In many cases there's an obvious and blatant disregard of the rights of citizens and a lack of restraint on the part of the various agencies. You don't need a law prohibiting it to understand that spying on innocent people through their webcams on a large scale isn't an acceptable practice, yet that's exactly what both the NSA and GHCQ did. However, even without malicious intent the availability of a large amount of information means the ability to assert pressure onto parties with different interests than those of the government. It's only natural and pretty much inevitable that this will happen as people are trying to optimize the job they do with the tools at their disposal, but it should worry anyone with a bit of historical sense. Controlling information means controlling people so an attempt to access all information should be considered an attempt to grab power, whether that's the intent or not. A government with total access to all information is for many intents and purposes a totalitarian regime. Privacy isn't a matter of national security, it's a civil rights issue.
When one party is making sure he has access to all the information and discourse and the other is supposed to sit still and be quiet like a child at the barber's, things are bound to go awry. Discourse and dissent is a vital part of a healthy society. A government is there to serve us and our best interests, not the other way around. A government only exists by virtue of its constituents and we are to keep an eye on it as much as it keeps eyes on us. That some things need to be temporarily obscured from the people is only logical, but that doesn't mean the people should be kept in the dark. It's the people who keep their goverments accountable. -
The sad thing about discussions like these is that the invitable outcome seems to be that people go "harumpf!" and turn around and leave the discussion a bit more indignant than they were before, but without changing their stance or opinion in the slightest. Confirmation biases seem to run amok and evidence brought into the discussion seems to be carefully ignored.
As Trump would say it "This is the saddest thing in the history of sad things. Not good. Very bad." -
This has been going on for a long long time, look up ECHELON for example. Probably was legit in the beginning but it's a slippery slope and as we have become more and more dependent on the internet, cellphones, social media and so on, all this "just in case" mass surveillance has become highly problematic. Just think about all the things you use the internet for now: texting; email; banking; reading/watching news, fiction, all kinds of media; even dating. These days governments keep a record of all that for several years, supposedly "just in case" you decide to become a terrorist in ten years.
You have to be pretty naive if you don't realise these powers are also used for industrial espionage and other more nefarious purposes, and that's just the government sanctioned stuff, who knows how much of it leaks to less scrupulous entities. One interesting tidbit one could read in the United States diplomatic cables leak was a report on a conversation with one of the top employees of Shell (iirc, it might have been another one of the big oil companies). They were talking about the situation in Nigeria, about problems with corruption there and how all the big oil companies had agents in the Nigerian government, but she was reluctant to share too much with the US government because the US gov. was rumoured to be too leaky. Kind of ironic reading about it in leaked cables, but I don't think she was referring to whistleblowers.
The world is a pretty rotten place and things can suddenly go completely nuts, it happens, and in that case you don't want governments sitting on all that info about their citizens. -
The sad thing about discussions like these is that the invitable outcome seems to be that people go "harumpf!" and turn around and leave the discussion a bit more indignant than they were before, but without changing their stance or opinion in the slightest. Confirmation biases seem to run amok and evidence brought into the discussion seems to be carefully ignored.
Absolutely. But the same can be said for any number of semi-political discussions. As I mentioned before, people tend to fear or at least disapprove of ideas they have little to no knowledge about and basing their opinions on what is reported in mainstream media.
At the end of the day regardless of what you and I think or say, this stuff is still going to continue behind closed doors and that's the way it should remain. -
Absolutely. But the same can be said for any number of semi-political discussions. As I mentioned before, people tend to fear or at least disapprove of ideas they have little to no knowledge about and basing their opinions on what is reported in mainstream media.
Thanks for proving my point, I guess? People are much more informed than you're indicating, as has been discussed in the third link below. Pretending they're not is both insulting and silly, as is pretending that it's just an unfounded fear of the unknown. Many people have informed themselves quite well. The remaining lack of knowledge of what the agencies are doing is in large part malicious intent of those agencies themselves, as has been discussed in the post in the first link below. They prefer to veil themselves in vagueness, although not with enough success to obscure their systemic lack of restraint and blatant disregard of civil rights. The rights we have given them come with a responsibility and that trust has been thoroughly broken, which is where the actual disapprovement comes from. It's also clear that the effectiveness of mass surveillence is unproven or actually disproven, as has been discussed in the post in the second link below. The importance of the people holding the various agencies that are violating their civil rights accountable has been discussed in the post in the third link below.
At the end of the day regardless of what you and I think or say, this stuff is still going to continue behind closed doors and that's the way it should remain.
Your arguments or viewpoints have all been discussed before and have been blown clean out of the water, yet you simply refuse to even acknowledge the arguments discussed and simply reiterate the statements you've made from the very start. Unfortunatly that's exactly what I referred to in my previous post in the fourth link below. I guess this is the point where you go "harumpf!"
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-war-on-encryption-the-five-eyes-are-watching-you/msg1803530/#msg1803530
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-war-on-encryption-the-five-eyes-are-watching-you/msg1808681/#msg1808681
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-war-on-encryption-the-five-eyes-are-watching-you/msg1845905/#msg1845905
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-war-on-encryption-the-five-eyes-are-watching-you/msg1845917/#msg1845917 -
" just trust us"
"we know better"
"you don't know what we know - you're uniformed"
"what we do should be kept secret"
"we only use bulk surveillance to root out terrorists".
Uh huh. Sure.
UK intelligence agency admits unlawfully spying on Privacy International:QuoteThe UK's domestic-facing intelligence agency, MI5, today admitted that it captured and read Privacy International's private data as part of its Bulk Communications Data (BCD) and Bulk Personal Datasets (BPD) programmes, which hoover up massive amounts of the public's data. In further startling legal disclosures, all three of the UK's primary intelligence agencies - GCHQ, MI5, and MI6 - also admitted that they unlawfully gathered data about Privacy International or its staff.
Snowden's comments on this today are spot on - it's not about terrorism, it's about power and control. Encryption threatens that. -
https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/spyware-on-phone-fears-as-dutton-pushes-new-security-laws-20180924-p505oc.html
the Australian government is pushing for spyware to be installed on all phones so that it can be activated as needed.
-
Absolutely. But the same can be said for any number of semi-political discussions. As I mentioned before, people tend to fear or at least disapprove of ideas they have little to no knowledge about and basing their opinions on what is reported in mainstream media.
Thanks for proving my point, I guess? People are much more informed than you're indicating, as has been discussed in the third link below. Pretending they're not is both insulting and silly, as is pretending that it's just an unfounded fear of the unknown. Many people have informed themselves quite well.
At the end of the day regardless of what you and I think or say, this stuff is still going to continue behind closed doors and that's the way it should remain.
I don't disagree on your point. You're now just making a point for the sake of argument. I'm sure that there are some people who are well informed. No one is disputing that, but MOST people are not. If you knew me, you'd also know that I never "pretend", just to make that point clear.Your arguments or viewpoints have all been discussed before and have been blown clean out of the water, yet you simply refuse to even acknowledge the arguments discussed and simply reiterate the statements you've made from the very start. Unfortunatly that's exactly what I referred to in my previous post in the fourth link below.
That's YOUR opinion but myself (and others) have a differing view. You not agreeing with me doesn't give your argument any more validity that it already has (good try, but it doesn't work that way).I guess this is the point where you go "harumpf!"
You guess wrong. But that's OK too. ;-)
EDIT: I really couldn't care less whether you agree with my views and opinions or not. The world will still carry on as normal. This mentality of "if your views aren't equal to mine, then they are wrong" that some people tend to have on this forum needs to stop, we aren't school children. Most of us are smart enough to respect differing views without resorting claiming that they are incorrect. I'm not trying to change your mind, whether you do or don't has zero impact on me. Personally I welcome open discussion and enjoy seeing how others perceive things. I enjoy learning and being closed-minded never enters into my thought process, I might not always agree but that doesn't make either side of the argument more or less valid.