no communication which the PM cannot read

[PJ White]

Does anyone know what Cameron is on about?

I understand some but not all of Cory Doctorow's "What David Cameron just proposed would endanger every Briton and destroy the IT industry":

http://boingboing.net/2015/01/13/what-david-cameron-just-propos.html

It suggests alarming levels of ignorance and stupidity. Which is presumably the opposite of what the govt want to convey.

Be glad for any pointers to articles that explain what DC might be thinking. Is there anything in this that makes sense?

Cheers
PJ

[Simone Castello]

Hello and Happy New Year,

As ex journo and practising marketer no good can come from censoring and policing the internet. The internet is already looked after by a consortium of which the 'inventor' is a director, which upholds its values (international, collaborative, useful) and independency, while leading research on how to grow it. I think any government should collaborate with the consortium, issue laws to protect citizens but not try to control the internet. They can't anyway as the various hacking group have demonstrated over and over again.

My 2p.


Simone Castello

http://www.simonecastello.co.uk/

@simonecas

http://www.linkedin.com/in/simonecastellodigitalstrategy

http://howtoseouk.blogspot.co.uk/

http://fromrattopositiveparent.blogspot.co.uk/

---

From: pjwhi...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:16:43 +0000
To: fleet...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [FleetStreet] no communication which the PM cannot read

--
--
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to FleetStreet...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/FleetStreet
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FleetStreet" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fleetstreet...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Bryan Betts]

The usual kneejerk authoritarianism from a politician who understands soundbites far better than he does technology, I suspect.

Henry Porter has dismantled it pretty well in the Graun:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/12/mi5-surveillance-powers-paris-attacks-terrorists

Bryan

[PJ White]

On 13/01/2015 11:43, Bryan Betts wrote:

The usual kneejerk authoritarianism from a politician who understands soundbites far better than he does technology, I suspect.

Henry Porter has dismantled it pretty well in the Graun:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/12/mi5-surveillance-powers-paris-attacks-terrorists

Yeah, more money not more powers makes sense.

AIUI, the government already has the legal power to see my encrypted correspondence. That is, if they can persuade a judge it's needed, they get a warrant and it's an offence for me not to hand over my key. That's in RIPA, right?

But terrorists don't care. Won't hand over the key if asked and the security forces presumably want hidden surveillance, not legal processes. But how does Cameron think he can read encrypted messages without the agreement of the keyholder?

I appreciate I'm no expert in this. But the only logical thing is that using PGP (GnuPG, whatever) becomes illegal. Is that really what he's saying?

PJ

[Bryan Betts]

That seems about right to me, for the authoritarian mindset I mean.
After all, why would you use PGP unless you have something to hide from
MI5? And of course if it's banned, the bad guys won't use it either.
Just like all the criminals who handed their pistols in when they were
banned.

The guy's a typical politician, spouting whatever ill-considered
nonsense that might win him votes or a few % in the next opinion poll.
He probably just assumes it will be someone else's job & problem to make
it all work somehow.

Bryan

[Louis Barfe]

On 13/01/2015 13:19, Bryan Betts wrote:
> That seems about right to me, for the authoritarian mindset I mean.
> After all, why would you use PGP unless you have something to hide
> from MI5? And of course if it's banned, the bad guys won't use it
> either. Just like all the criminals who handed their pistols in when
> they were banned.
>
> The guy's a typical politician, spouting whatever ill-considered
> nonsense that might win him votes or a few % in the next opinion poll.
> He probably just assumes it will be someone else's job & problem to
> make it all work somehow.

Indeed. It sounds good and tough to the clueless, but is
counter-productive. If they do anything, and it's unlikely they will,
it'll only result in better encryption.

L