Even that first premise is wrong in any state with the rule of law. Only crimes have to be prosecuted, not "people" or "communications" and prosecution is always something done "a posteriori."
The above must be understood correctly: I am not advocating that one should not investigate possible criminal plans: because planning some kind of crime (like killing someone) with intent is, ipso facto, a crime.
It is not PEOPLE that the law applies to. It is CRIMES.
We incarcerate people because we do not know a better way to punish them for their crimes, not because we do not want them to be human beings. CRIME-PUNISHMENT, not MAN-JAIL.
Ultimately that's their biggest fear. That certain elements that are not friendly to their interests organize either themselves, or organize at the behest of a foreign government to undermine their control over the system. And it's a valid concern. Governments want to maintain their control. It doesn't take much to destabilize a State, they have done it many times they know this to be the case.
> "It's in nobody's interests that anything should be able to [...] communicate out of the reach of authorities."
Forcing encryption backdoors compromises systems that do nothing but talk to systems. How'd you feel about a smart grid now that has knowingly insecure crypto.
The absolute most idiotic part is that any slightly intelligent person would use one of the multiple secure algorithms for encryption not controlled by authorities.
In other words, there is nothing they can do short of making encryption illegal; good luck with that.
I'll only believe these "we stopped x number of attacks" quips when that number is given to us by an independent authority who doesn't have a vested interest in making numbers up.
Call me cynical - but I think recent history backs up that position.
I don't think asking for validation of what we're being told is cynical at all. I think that problem is that people think its a problem to ask for proof.
Poor Harold Wilson - 'Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.' - he was paranoid about being bugged and it eventually turned out that they were.
Prior to the Internet where people and spies communicated using radio, telephones, Telex, telegrams, ... those technologies were intercepted by the security services.
For example, in 1967 it was revealed that in Britain all private cables into and out of the UK were being intercepted and given to the security services.
There is nothing new in GCHQ's desire to have access to signals intelligence and to sift through it looking for both metadata patterns (who is talking to who) and actual contents.
I wonder if he's referring to the fact that they can't hack into tech companies as easily as they did pre-Snowden revelations.
> But Mr Parker, in the first live interview by a serving MI5 boss, said what should be included in new legislation was a matter "for parliament to decide".
Yes, I'm sure the MI5 or GCHQ will offer no input whatsoever to the Parliament and will just let them come up with the legislation on their own.
I am sure I have just read an article which basically says: bo ho we can't decrypt all the security used. Switch the target from paedophiles back to terrorists, so that we can remove the liberties of the nation.
Would it harm national security if they published a list of former security agency employees who are now employed by the security industry? It think it's safe to assume that a very high percentage of former security agency employees end up working in this industry as it is in their area of expertise and the industry could use their connections to the agencies. With all of this in mind, would it not make sense to assume that the terrorism threat could be highly exaggerated or even fabricated?
Especially innovations in shower rooms where criminals can communicate without authorities interference. I think every shower room should have a backdoor in form of a chair for an agent to sit and listen.
At some point isn't there an argument to be made that they're being lazy? For example, say they gained the ability to inspect every single digital communication and read every message sent, as if that were actually feasible. So people stop sending the messages via the internet.
What's the next thing they're going to do? Install listening devices around the country to listen into private conversations in private homes all around major cities (assuming they already don't do that with mobile phone microphones on standby) ? Once they have that, will they begin exploring how to effectively 'read minds', or do pattern analysis on behaviors of different people as they walk around or sit in cafes or something to look for 'malicious intent behavior' ?
Terrorists will always continue to look for new ways to avoid detection, and these agencies are always going to push for more invasive means of circumventing them. It will always get worse, until we start saying, no thanks, i'd rather risk it. And, hey call me crazy, but maybe even working to stop the root causes of extremism rather than simply waiting for them to boil over could be a good idea.
How much more secure would be using codes rather than encryption for "terrorists"? If I were a terrorist, I don't think I'd use encryption as it pretty much guarantees scrutiny.
But, how secure is coming up with some sort of code? Like say, "Honey, can you pick up some milk on the way home." Means the truckload of fertilizer is ready to be delivered or something.
Using a code words etc still leaves you vulnerable to analysis. MI5 here are asking for the ability to request records of individuals or individuals that match certain narrowly defined criteria. So at this point they would have a low level suspicion of you, something they can use to drive analysis. The only reasonable protection at the point of already being in the cross hairs is to use mathematically secure communications.
At which point it seems unlikely they'd be able to do anything other than work on techniques to detect steganography (which they no doubt already do)... which leaves us with a steganographic arms race (which has probably already been the case for some time behind the scenes).
I stop listening to what the BBC had to say the day they were just "reporting" the project fear during the Scottish Independence referendum. The most notable fact was the report of new oil field discovered in North Sea early 2014, that suddenly couldn't outlive the current decade during the referendum period. Only to be completely resurrected the day after the referendum and the No victory. All reported by the same BBC.
I agree, more people should be talking about that, but... (a) MI5's budget isn't based on how well it supervises the police, because it doesn't, and (b) MI5 is based in a country where that "8 times more likely" statistic is completely reversed.
I heard Admiral Lord West[0] today giving an interview on the BBC radio station '5 live'. In it he sated words to the effect:
"Nobody cares about your emails or if your having 30 affairs".
This is just a variation on the 'if you have nothing to hide' argument which as ever forgets that bothersome dimension - time. Perhaps I have nothing to hide 'now', but who's to say I won't later? Even in very recent history I'm pretty certain that if I was gay I'd be very much regretting making any previous public declaration of my sexuality in Russia say 5 years ago, much less the age numerous examples over the last century where people have been persecuted as government positions changed.
This is a very difficult subject. I value privacy but I suppose I also value honesty. Knowing that what I put online (like this statement) is being surveilled en mass somehow feels better than finding out after the fact.
The flip side to that is then, what's the point of more security powers? Surely if everyone knows they're listening no one will say much of that particular interest? It's common knowledge that the security services have broken 'everything' save for cleanly and properly implemented encryption on a clean system (even then the hardware is breached so air gap it). The 'Bad Guys' know this so the likelihood of obtaining quality intelligence from such mass surveillance seems counter-intuitive to put it kindly.
Those who do use common online services will be the 'low-hanging fruit' and likely so stupid the'd have been caught anyway (maybe we should still pick that fruit, I guess).
The truth is, attacking a soft target like a western country is easy and requires no use of encryption. Just go and get a couple containers of fuel, go on a tube at rush hour with them in a backpack, pull the emergency stop, dump the fuel and light a match. You could probably rig up something custom made to get the job done simply and effectively (with no end of variation to counter your initial 'that wouldn't work'). That sort of thing would probably rival the 7/7 London bombings with just a one man attack (and talking about it will no doubt get me on a list now - wow look at me worrying about self-censoring).
In fact, I'd put £1000 on fire being the next weapon of choice because done properly it's incredibly effective. Could we defend against that sort of attack? No. We can't. That's the truth. We can't really stop anything (or most things) done quickly and where the attackers are themselves prepared to die.
So do we pull down all the (illusions of) freedom we have built up for ourselves in the hope of catching some low hanging fruit? I don't think that's a good idea. After all, the security services must remember that their job is in fact _supposed_ to be difficult (impossible even) and they must struggle to do it whilst maintaining those pesky freedoms the populace deserve that keep getting in the way all the time.
[+] [-] fredley|10 years ago|reply
Since you can't distinguish between 'terrorists', and anybody else, this effectively reduces to our old favourite:
> "It's in nobody's interests that people should be able to [...] communicate out of the reach of authorities."
[+] [-] pfortuny|10 years ago|reply
The above must be understood correctly: I am not advocating that one should not investigate possible criminal plans: because planning some kind of crime (like killing someone) with intent is, ipso facto, a crime.
It is not PEOPLE that the law applies to. It is CRIMES.
We incarcerate people because we do not know a better way to punish them for their crimes, not because we do not want them to be human beings. CRIME-PUNISHMENT, not MAN-JAIL.
[+] [-] x5n1|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Already__Taken|10 years ago|reply
> "It's in nobody's interests that anything should be able to [...] communicate out of the reach of authorities."
Forcing encryption backdoors compromises systems that do nothing but talk to systems. How'd you feel about a smart grid now that has knowingly insecure crypto.
[+] [-] hvidgaard|10 years ago|reply
In other words, there is nothing they can do short of making encryption illegal; good luck with that.
[+] [-] tomelders|10 years ago|reply
Call me cynical - but I think recent history backs up that position.
[+] [-] chipgap98|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevcampb|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arethuza|10 years ago|reply
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/apr/18/mi5-bugged-10-down...
Poor Harold Wilson - 'Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.' - he was paranoid about being bugged and it eventually turned out that they were.
[+] [-] jgrahamc|10 years ago|reply
For example, in 1967 it was revealed that in Britain all private cables into and out of the UK were being intercepted and given to the security services.
There is nothing new in GCHQ's desire to have access to signals intelligence and to sift through it looking for both metadata patterns (who is talking to who) and actual contents.
[+] [-] nota_bene|10 years ago|reply
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/fear-of-terror-makes-...
[+] [-] agd|10 years ago|reply
Despite his protestations to the contrary, he very much is trying to shape UK policy and opinion.
[+] [-] touristtam|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|10 years ago|reply
> But Mr Parker, in the first live interview by a serving MI5 boss, said what should be included in new legislation was a matter "for parliament to decide".
Yes, I'm sure the MI5 or GCHQ will offer no input whatsoever to the Parliament and will just let them come up with the legislation on their own.
[+] [-] laumars|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] if_you_see_sid|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fukusa|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elcct|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peterwwillis|10 years ago|reply
What's the next thing they're going to do? Install listening devices around the country to listen into private conversations in private homes all around major cities (assuming they already don't do that with mobile phone microphones on standby) ? Once they have that, will they begin exploring how to effectively 'read minds', or do pattern analysis on behaviors of different people as they walk around or sit in cafes or something to look for 'malicious intent behavior' ?
Terrorists will always continue to look for new ways to avoid detection, and these agencies are always going to push for more invasive means of circumventing them. It will always get worse, until we start saying, no thanks, i'd rather risk it. And, hey call me crazy, but maybe even working to stop the root causes of extremism rather than simply waiting for them to boil over could be a good idea.
[+] [-] JustSomeNobody|10 years ago|reply
But, how secure is coming up with some sort of code? Like say, "Honey, can you pick up some milk on the way home." Means the truckload of fertilizer is ready to be delivered or something.
[+] [-] tankenmate|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dharma1|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] richmarr|10 years ago|reply
After a while the only option left would be steganography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography
At which point it seems unlikely they'd be able to do anything other than work on techniques to detect steganography (which they no doubt already do)... which leaves us with a steganographic arms race (which has probably already been the case for some time behind the scenes).
[+] [-] gtf21|10 years ago|reply
If two people really wanted to communicate, they could still do the encryption on paper, and transmit the garbled messages.
[+] [-] nota_bene|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cbpy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] venomsnake|10 years ago|reply
As long as keeps it just ethical and not legal responsibility ... oh wait, we are pushing in that direction.
[+] [-] NickHaflinger|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JupiterMoon|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] touristtam|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danlindley|10 years ago|reply
Is anyone talking about that?
[+] [-] richmarr|10 years ago|reply
"According to data collected by the UK advocacy group Inquest, there have been 55 fatal police shootings – total – in England and Wales from 1990 to 2014." http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-p...
And this list broadly supports that figure (adding deaths from Scotland and Northern Ireland):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
[+] [-] JupiterMoon|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] satai|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badger404|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] x5n1|10 years ago|reply
However, this does happen from time to time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_%28Italy%29
[+] [-] PuffinBlue|10 years ago|reply
"Nobody cares about your emails or if your having 30 affairs".
This is just a variation on the 'if you have nothing to hide' argument which as ever forgets that bothersome dimension - time. Perhaps I have nothing to hide 'now', but who's to say I won't later? Even in very recent history I'm pretty certain that if I was gay I'd be very much regretting making any previous public declaration of my sexuality in Russia say 5 years ago, much less the age numerous examples over the last century where people have been persecuted as government positions changed.
This is a very difficult subject. I value privacy but I suppose I also value honesty. Knowing that what I put online (like this statement) is being surveilled en mass somehow feels better than finding out after the fact.
The flip side to that is then, what's the point of more security powers? Surely if everyone knows they're listening no one will say much of that particular interest? It's common knowledge that the security services have broken 'everything' save for cleanly and properly implemented encryption on a clean system (even then the hardware is breached so air gap it). The 'Bad Guys' know this so the likelihood of obtaining quality intelligence from such mass surveillance seems counter-intuitive to put it kindly.
Those who do use common online services will be the 'low-hanging fruit' and likely so stupid the'd have been caught anyway (maybe we should still pick that fruit, I guess).
The truth is, attacking a soft target like a western country is easy and requires no use of encryption. Just go and get a couple containers of fuel, go on a tube at rush hour with them in a backpack, pull the emergency stop, dump the fuel and light a match. You could probably rig up something custom made to get the job done simply and effectively (with no end of variation to counter your initial 'that wouldn't work'). That sort of thing would probably rival the 7/7 London bombings with just a one man attack (and talking about it will no doubt get me on a list now - wow look at me worrying about self-censoring).
In fact, I'd put £1000 on fire being the next weapon of choice because done properly it's incredibly effective. Could we defend against that sort of attack? No. We can't. That's the truth. We can't really stop anything (or most things) done quickly and where the attackers are themselves prepared to die.
So do we pull down all the (illusions of) freedom we have built up for ourselves in the hope of catching some low hanging fruit? I don't think that's a good idea. After all, the security services must remember that their job is in fact _supposed_ to be difficult (impossible even) and they must struggle to do it whilst maintaining those pesky freedoms the populace deserve that keep getting in the way all the time.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_West,_Baron_West_of_Spith...