UK govt. responds to petition surrounding strong encryption

[aljowen]

The UK government has responded to a petition titled: "Government to abandon all ideas of trying to ban strong encryption".

 

Hopefully this response is accurate as to what their intentions actually are as it seems pretty reasonable.

In the UK any petition on the .gov website that reaches 10,000 signatures has to receive an official and timely response from the Government. Any petition with over 100,000 signatures has to be considered for debate in parliament. This one reached over 10,000 signatures so has received an official response.

 

This is the response that they gave in full:

 

 

The Government is not seeking to ban or limit encryption. The Government recognises the important role that encryption plays in keeping people’s personal data and intellectual property safe online.
This Government recognises the importance of encryption, which helps keep people's personal data and intellectual property safe from theft by cyber means. It is fundamental to our everyday use of the internet. Without the development of strong encryption allowing the secure transfer of banking details there would be no online commerce. As Baroness Shields made clear in the House of Lords on 27 October 2015, the Government does not require the provision of a back-door key or support arbitrarily weakening the security of internet services.
Clearly as technology evolves at an ever increasing rate, it is only right that we make sure we keep up, to keep our citizens safe. There shouldn’t be a guaranteed safe space for terrorists, criminals and paedophiles to operate beyond the reach of law.
The Government is clear we need to find a way to work with industry as technology develops to ensure that, with clear oversight and a robust legal framework, the police and intelligence agencies can, subject to a warrant which can only be issued using a strict authorisation process where it is necessary and proportionate, access the content of communications of terrorists and criminals in order to resolve police investigations and prevent criminal acts.
There are already requirements in law for Communication Service Providers in certain circumstances to remove encryption that they have themselves applied from intercepted communications. This is subject to authorisation by the Secretary of State who must consider the interception of communications to be necessary and proportionate. The Investigatory Powers Bill will not ban or further limit encryption.
Home Office

 

Source: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106369

[zacRupnow]

using a strict authorisation process where it is necessary and proportionate, access the content of communications of terrorists and criminals in order to resolve police investigations and prevent criminal acts.

Isn't that a backdoor?

[escape093]

where it is necessary and proportionate

 

This part really pisses me off. What will their definition of "necessary and proportionate" be?

[Prysin]

oh, whilst beside the point.

anyone knows what happened to the petition to ban Donald Trump from the UK??? that petition got like hundreds of thousands of votes

[alexyy]

Isn't that a backdoor?

Well yes but save the children! /s.

[aljowen]

oh, whilst beside the point.

anyone knows what happened to the petition to ban Donald Trump from the UK??? that petition got like hundreds of thousands of votes

they debated it, for 3 hours. The whole thing is available on video (or in text transcribed) here:

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003#debate-threshold

[aljowen]

Isn't that a backdoor?

 

My understanding is that a backdoor in this context is a purposeful weakness in a system that a government can exploit in order to gain access to something. What they mentioned there is as far as I can tell them stating that there will be a process where they can ask for access to be granted, which I can only presume would be done by just handing the data over. But i would agree that it is fairly vague in that part and presumptions don't mean much, since it could be interpreted in many different ways. Giving data to the government on request and leaving security holes in systems to allow access at any time are slightly different as far as I am aware.

[Marziman]

 

Good for you UK!  Keeping Encryption is important. I thought this post was gonna be about the bull shit Petition in Europe to ban Donald Trump.

[suicidalfranco]

tl;dr: think about the children and france will always be better than us

[Sauron]

oh, whilst beside the point.

anyone knows what happened to the petition to ban Donald Trump from the UK??? that petition got like hundreds of thousands of votes

 

what happened is that you can't randomly ban a person from a country ^^

[brownninja97]

this still raises a lot of questions and it still leaves flaws, flaws that can be exploited by those that have the skill set to deal some damage.

[AresKrieger]

They still insists on back doors in this very statement, it's as if they simply talked in a manner that was overly inflated in fancy wording to essentially say we're going to derail encryption anyway, but since they made the statement so full of fluff people didn't realize the snake hidden within.

[Master Disaster]

what happened is that you can't randomly ban a person from a country ^^

They banned hook from the UK for extremist preaching.

I'm sorry but if preaching jihadi Islam outside a mosque in Birmingham is grounds for an extradition and ban from the UK then going on breakfast TV and calling for a total ban on Muslims from America should warrant a similar response.

FTR in not saying they were wrong to extradite hook, he deserved everything he got. What I'm saying is they can't pick and choose who they apply their own rules to. Trump should be banned them life, not just England.

[Sauron]

They banned hook from the UK for extremist preaching.

I'm sorry but if preaching jihadi Islam outside a mosque in Birmingham is grounds for an extradition and ban from the UK then going on breakfast TV and calling for a total ban on Muslims from America should warrant a similar response.

FTR in not saying they were wrong to extradite hook, he deserved everything he got. What I'm saying is they can't pick and choose who they apply their own rules to. Trump should be banned them life, not just England.

 

Preaching jihad means inciting violence, which Trump (for now) has not done. He's a piece of garbage, but that's not enough to ban him from a country - especially when there's a chance he'll become president of the us.

[Master Disaster]

Preaching jihad means inciting violence, which Trump (for now) has not done. He's a piece of garbage, but that's not enough to ban him from a country - especially when there's a chance he'll become president of the us.

Yeah I know that but still...

[Sakkura]

Isn't that a backdoor?

It's a bit vague. They may be referring to the company just keeping the encryption keys so the government can get a copy that way, instead of actually breaking the encryption.

[Alurit]

It's a bit vague. They may be referring to the company just keeping the encryption keys so the government can get a copy that way, instead of actually breaking the encryption.

that is still weakening security though, cause keys can leak in a security breach

[Sakkura]

that is still weakening security though, cause keys can leak in a security breach

 

Right, it's just not a backdoor in the encryption itself.

[samcool55]

Right, it's just not a backdoor in the encryption itself.

A backdoor in an encryption would have an effect worldwide and the UK can't demand backdoors of encryption methods that are used worldwide.

What could be the case is that only specific ways of encryption are allowed that are designed with a backdoor, which would be awful.

Or as you said that they would have to give the key if the gov asks so, which is awful, but could be worse.

At least they have to ask for it and they can't just get it without anybody else knowing. But still it's horrible.

[Bittenfleax]

Signed. 

[Trik'Stari]

Only a politician or lawyer can take an entire paragraph and say nothing. Except maybe "we know you don't want us to do this, be we're totally doing it, and we're banking on you being too stupid to understand what we're saying in this paragraph, to allow us to get away with it."

 

 

Isn't that a backdoor?

 

My point exactly.