Labour reverses policy on Net encryption

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Shaun Hollingworth

unread,
Feb 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/13/99
to
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 18:36:12 GMT, igel...@capital.demon.co.uk (Ian
Geldard) wrote:

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_52000/52117.stm
>
>Labour reverses policy on Net encryption
>
>Encryption: the key to security on the Internet
>
>The Labour Party has agreed to allow police access to Internet
>encryption codes despite a pre-election pledge to protect privacy
>on the Net.
>
>The Home Secretary, Jack Straw, has agreed with other EU
>leaders that law enforcement agencies must have access to the
>codes used to scramble information.

Do they really understand what this means ?

How on earth are they going to get people to give the police their
private PGP keys ?

How on earth are they going to be sure that those keys are the ones
people are using ?

How on earth are they going to be sure, that people are not using
steganography on their messages ?


How on earth are they going to be sure that people are not using
steganography on their computers ?

>
>They say this is necessary to crack down on organised crime
>which police believe may use the Internet to mask its activities.

It will do nothing to crack down on 'organised crime' and will do
everything to further repress a sad repressed people.

>
>If the policy goes ahead, it could lead to the police and other
>bodies having wide ranging powers to intercept e-mail, read
>confidential documents and tap into systems, without monitoring
>by the courts.


>
>But the decision, taken by EU ministers in Birmingham, is a
>reversal of the party's pre-election pledge to civil liberty
>organisations and Internet professionals that encryption would not
>be touched.
>
>Encryption allows personal or sensitive information to be
>electronically transferred safely through the Internet, providing
>privacy to individuals and security to companies.
>
>Internet experts say that "strong encryption" is necessary to
>protect individual users and improve the chances of so-called e-
>business taking off in coming years.
>
>The Labour Party's manifesto for the "Information Superhighway",
>published before last year's General Election, agreed.

Indeed. No wonder politicians have a bad reputation generally...
What is it ? Liars, damned liars, and politicians ?
>
>The manifesto said: "It is important that privacy is rigorously
>protected over the new networks, for both personal and commercial
>reasons.
>
>"Attempts to control the use of encryption technology are wrong in
>principle, unworkable in practice, and damaging to the long-term
>economic value of the information networks.
>

>"There is no fundamental difference between an encrypted file and
>a locked safe.
>

Yep.

Provided you are sure the file is encrypted........

>"It is not necessary to criminalise a large section of the network-
>using public to control the activities of a very small minority of law-
>breakers."

Indeed. And the law breakers will carry on just as before, or be even
*more* careful with the ciphers they use. They will make it harder for
themselves, not easier...

>
>The manifesto did suggest allowing police to seek a court order to
>access codes for a "legitimate anti-criminal purpose".

>
>The policy goes further than the scheme backed by many Internet
>users where a named third party holds keys to so-called "strong"
>encryption codes.

For what software ? Is Mr Straw going to write it for us ?

>
>The previous government's Science Minister, Ian Taylor, launched
>proposals to license "trusted third parties" shortly before the
>General Election.
>
>One encryption professional said: "Jack Straw wants to clamp
>down on cyber crime but the Labour manifesto before the election
>made no mention of this.

Jack straw wants to clamp down on everything and every body.
My suggestion is that he starts with teenage drug dealers...
Then takes up residence in Singapore, which should suit him...

>
>"Labour said legislation would be unworkable and they stated very
>clearly that they would not support it.
>
>"All of British industry is against this, people in our business are
>against it, and it was tried in the United States and failed there."
>
>He added: "This is a very clear U-turn and it looks like they have
>been listening to the people at GCHQ who are the only ones in
>favour of allowing access to codes."

Yeah they just can't stand the thought of not being nosy....

Burt what 'codes' are they ?
For what software ?

>
>A spokesperson for the Labour Party was unavailable for comment.

They should give us our money back. I voted for them, in the hope that
they would restore some of the freedoms the conservatives took away.
I shall *never* do so again.

I sometimes find it hard to believe I am living in England. It's
getting more like China and Singapore every day.

Shaun.

Win95/98 users visit http://www.hertreg.ac.uk/ss/ before that too is
banned by new nanny.

New Labour. New Repression.

Cliff Morrison

unread,
Feb 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/13/99
to
In article <36f4c47b...@news.demon.co.uk>,
igel...@capital.demon.co.uk (Ian Geldard) wrote:

> A spokesperson for the Labour Party was unavailable for comment.

be fair -- it's NuLab...
all too busy avantying ill fascisti to bother with a mere citizen.

Maria

unread,
Feb 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/13/99
to
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 19:42:33 GMT, Sh...@moatlane.demon.co.uk (Shaun
Hollingworth) wrote:

>steganography

Wossat then?


J B Youles

unread,
Feb 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/13/99
to
Shaun Hollingworth wrote:

>
> Do they really understand what this means ?
>
> How on earth are they going to get people to give the police their
> private PGP keys ?
>
> How on earth are they going to be sure that those keys are the ones
> people are using ?

What's to stop people encrypting messages twice, once using PGP and then
with this key the police can crack ? So they decode a message and
find... an encoded message !

--
John Youles Beckenham, Kent, England

J B Youles

unread,
Feb 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/13/99
to

A porn film involving a speciies of dinosaur ?

easter egg

unread,
Feb 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/13/99
to

Ian Geldard <igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:36f4c47b...@news.demon.co.uk...

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_52000/52117.stm
>
>Labour reverses policy on Net encryption
>
>Encryption: the key to security on the Internet
>
>The Labour Party has agreed to allow police access to Internet
>encryption codes despite a pre-election pledge to protect privacy
>on the Net.
.

>
>Internet experts say that "strong encryption" is necessary to
>protect individual users and improve the chances of so-called e-
>business taking off in coming years.

What's that got to do with it, they can see exactly what you transact
outside of the internet, why should the internet be any different.
E- businesses could'nt care less anyway. Are the police going to use my cc,
I doubt it.

T Bruce Tober

unread,
Feb 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/13/99
to
In article <36c5e35b...@news.clara.net>, Maria
<mar...@clara.co.uk> writes

>On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 19:42:33 GMT, Sh...@moatlane.demon.co.uk (Shaun
>Hollingworth) wrote:
>
>>steganography
>
>Wossat then?

It's the embedding of a file within a file, for example embedding this
message within a gif or wav file so the thing appears to be nothing but
a sound bite or picture.
>


tbt --
| Bruce Tober, <octob...@reporters.net>, <http://www.crecon.demon.co.uk> |
| Birmingham, UK, EU +44-121-242-3832 (mobile - 07979-521-106). Freelance |
|Journalist & Website consultancy and development. PGP details at my website|

wtshaw

unread,
Feb 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/13/99
to
In article <87n22hd...@localhost.demon.co.uk>, Richard Caley
<r...@localhost.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <36c5d12...@news.demon.co.uk>, Shaun Hollingworth (sh) writes:
>
> sh> How on earth are they going to get people to give the police their
> sh> private PGP keys ?
>
> Don't need to. If you send any traffic they can't read you have broken
> the law. Nice isn't it.
>
You can just as easily relay an encrypted message for someone else, store
encrypted files for a third party, or merely have files of nonsense, all
of which you could not decrypt because you do not have the keys to produce
good plaintext. If you could not decrypt something, it might also be
because the file was corrupted, which could happen if you messed up in key
generation.

To fully monitor encrypted traffic, it would be necessary to process it
all to see if it had been properly encrypted with escrowed keys. And, a
mistake might land you in jail without you being able to defend yourself
with the truth, not a progressive situation at all.

LE's vision of being in charge means a police state, no infractions
allowed, and guilty until proven innocent. There is no nice way to
summarize that situation, it is inhumane, and we have seen how that works
before, ugly and destructive of the goals of freedom.
--
A much too common philosophy:
It's no fun to have power....unless you can abuse it.

Richard Caley

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
In article <36c5d12...@news.demon.co.uk>, Shaun Hollingworth (sh) writes:

sh> How on earth are they going to get people to give the police their
sh> private PGP keys ?

Don't need to. If you send any traffic they can't read you have broken
the law. Nice isn't it.

--
r...@lillith.demon.co.uk _O_
|<

Marcus Houlden

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to

Sounds like they might have trouble with ROT13 then. Phags, all of them.
Incidentally, has anyone taken a look at http://www.stand.org.uk? I was
quite amused to find among the non-@dopted were Ian Paisley & Gerry
Adams. Are they in favour of or against key escrow?
--
Marcus Houlden ICQ: 29654055
http://www.deathsdoor.com/flimflam
PGP Key ID: 0x1A1C2EA3
Fingerprint: A784 D8E5 D7AC 012F 602A 2685 F6C9 D602 1A1C 2EA3

Alex Stanway

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to

Ian Geldard <igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:36f4c47b...@news.demon.co.uk...

I have one thing to say to Tony Blair :

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
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=Afv9
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

Alex


Alex Stanway

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to

Ian Geldard <igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:36f4c47b...@news.demon.co.uk...

Isn't there something wrong here? The police can keep files on us with god
knows what about us, and we're not even allowed to look at them, and yet
we're not allowed to keep a poxy letter from them? Who's country?? Who pays
who? Does anyone have an E-mail address for 10 Downing Street? Or perhaps
Jack Straw? Or the European Parliament? I suggest we get as many people as
possible to send them PGP Encrypted messages and clog their mail boxes.

Alex


Holmes

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
I have heard, from those claiming to know about these matters, that PGP is
insecure to Echelon. Do members of the NG have a view on this?
It has also been suggested to me that encoding may be more secure than
encryption. Is this true?
BTW a discussion forum on Internet Security is now open through:
http://elint.server101.com/


easter egg <egg...@r624.com> wrote in message
7a4vrb$t0d$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...


>
>Ian Geldard <igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:36f4c47b...@news.demon.co.uk...

Shaun Hollingworth

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
On 14 Feb 1999 00:03:04 +0000, Richard Caley
<r...@localhost.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <36c5d12...@news.demon.co.uk>, Shaun Hollingworth (sh) writes:
>
>sh> How on earth are they going to get people to give the police their
>sh> private PGP keys ?
>
>Don't need to. If you send any traffic they can't read you have broken
>the law. Nice isn't it.
>

I suggest you familarise yourself with the Windows 95/98 program
Scramdisk, which I wrote, and others may care to bear testament to in
this thread...

Using it, you can create a 16 bit WAV audio file, and in it, hide a
complete read write random access FAT16 DOS/WIN disk drive (say X:),
using 1/4 or 1/2 of the audio data. 1/4 isn't discernable having a
signal to noise ration of some -69db, which is better than Dolby
cassette, and plastic records, and surpassed only by digitally
mastered CD, and better than most PC sound samplers.

The ramifications are that you can create 150 Mbyte (barely audible)
or 300 Mbyte ( a bit hissy) disk in a 600 Mbyte .WAV sound you keep on
an AudioCD, or hard drive, where it is then read only.......

The minimum size of wav file currently is 2Mbyte, which is easily sent
on the net nowadays........ But I have demands that this should be
greatly reduced... I wonder why.....

The ciphers used in the WAV hijacked bits (which are normally random
anyway) are Blowfish, TEA (16R and 32R, IDEA, Square, Misty, Summer,
Des and 3Des No clue in the hijacked data is given to the nature of
the cipher chosen. The decoding software just tries all the algorithms
in turn...

So, are WAV files going to be illegal ?

Regards.
Shaun/Aman.

http://www.hertreg.ac.uk/ss/


>--
>r...@lillith.demon.co.uk _O_
> |<

Cliff Morrison

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
In article <36C5E8...@dial.pipex.com>, J B Youles
<john....@dial.pipex.com> wrote:

> Maria wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 19:42:33 GMT, Sh...@moatlane.demon.co.uk (Shaun
> > Hollingworth) wrote:
> >
> > >steganography
> >
> > Wossat then?
>

> A porn film involving a speciies of dinosaur ?

Funny you should say that, coz following a jumplink from Sean Gabb's
website you will find that steganography was indeed invented by a clever
lady in America who also modelled in magazines like Playboy....

abelard

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 00:51:26 -0000, "Alex Stanway"
<alex.s...@btinternet.com>

typed:

>
>Ian Geldard <igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:36f4c47b...@news.demon.co.uk...
>

good on you...by far and away the best response to the nosy bastards.

regards.

new site established at www.abelard.org abelard of le pallet intro now up.
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

fungus

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to

Shaun Hollingworth wrote:
>
> >The Home Secretary, Jack Straw, has agreed with other EU
> >leaders that law enforcement agencies must have access to the
> >codes used to scramble information.
>
> Do they really understand what this means ?
>


No.

Governments don't have to understand things, but they do know that
the people they govern should be as powerless as possible.

Selling the "crypto is bad" story to the general public is easy, they
just mention terrorists and pedophiles and the public nods its head.
A policy reversal is politically acceptable in this particular case.

--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.

Alex

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to

For what it's worth, you can use *Fortify* (check it out with your
favorite search engine or at www.download.com or www.shareware.com )
when you're using *Netscape* to browse.

This will give you 128 bit encryption and allow you to open
a US bankaccount if you need it - 128 bits is the usual
requirement when doing so.

Alex

Grandad

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 00:58:29 -0000, "Alex Stanway"
<alex.s...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>
>Ian Geldard <igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:36f4c47b...@news.demon.co.uk...
>

>Isn't there something wrong here?

Very very wrong!


>The police can keep files on us with god
>knows what about us, and we're not even allowed to look at them,

Its quite normal in a police state.

> and yet
>we're not allowed to keep a poxy letter from them?

Information is power. The power repress,control and to subjugate.


> Who's country??

The Old Money,banks,multi-national corporations.We have allowed,and
are still allowing, the power of money to subvert the power of the
people!

Who pays

The People - through the nose.

>who? Does anyone have an E-mail address for 10 Downing Street? Or perhaps
>Jack Straw? Or the European Parliament? I suggest we get as many people as
>possible to send them PGP Encrypted messages and clog their mail boxes.

At least you suggest doing something rather than talking in ever
decreasing circles until the day comes when you switch on the radio
and hear the following announcement: "As from today encrypted email
will be illegal unless the police have been given a copy of your
encryption key....Home Secretary Jack straw has hailed this as a major
step in the fight against crime". A token civil libertarian will grunt
and groan a bit. The arguments against key escrow will rapidly fade.
The enemies of freedom will have won another round and will already be
considering the next step on the road to totalitarianism.

--
Grandad. P.G.P. Public key available from any key server.
Here`s to the day when all are free
To think,to speak,or just to be.


Ian Geldard

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
In article <36f4c47b...@news.demon.co.uk>, on Sat, 13 Feb 1999

18:36:12 GMT, igel...@capital.demon.co.uk (Ian Geldard) wrote:

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_52000/52117.stm
>
>Labour reverses policy on Net encryption

Please note that this story was dated:

Friday, January 30, 1998 Published at 20:37 GMT

I spotted the URL in t.p.c and reposted it in some haste without
noticing how old it was. Still, it helped to generate some discussion
on the issue and alerted people to what Labour has in mind. I'll be
more careful in future.

--
Ian Geldard
London, England

PGP Key ID: 0x07CB87A6
Fingerprint: 720D 67C6 92BD 0944 68E9 2C97 11DE F83B 07CB 87A6

Dr Sean Gabb

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
In article <cliffm-1402...@th-en132-218.pool.dircon.co.uk>,
Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> writes

>Funny you should say that, coz following a jumplink from Sean Gabb's
>website you will find that steganography was indeed invented by a clever
>lady in America who also modelled in magazines like Playboy....

Thanks for the plug!
--
Dr Sean Gabb | "Over himself, over his own |
E-mail: old....@virgin.net | body and mind, the individual|
<http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig/> | is sovereign" |
Mobile Number: 0956 472199 | J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859 |

easter egg

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to

Mark Wright <ma...@giallo.demon.nul> wrote in message
news:36c6da99...@194.159.73.14...
>One joyful day (14 Feb 1999 00:03:04 +0000 to be precise), Richard Caley
><r...@localhost.demon.co.uk> decided that the Usenet community would
>benefit from this remarkable comment:

>
>>In article <36c5d12...@news.demon.co.uk>, Shaun Hollingworth (sh)
writes:
>>
>>sh> How on earth are they going to get people to give the police their
>>sh> private PGP keys ?
>>
>>Don't need to. If you send any traffic they can't read you have broken
>>the law. Nice isn't it.
>
>Do you think this also applies to written letters using good
>old-fashioned pen and paper?
>
>If somebody were to write a letter to somebody else in code (or in some
>esoteric language the police can't understand), could they be
>prosecuted?

They can, and it applies to all communications.


T Bruce Tober

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <36c6da99...@194.159.73.14>, Mark Wright
<ma...@giallo.demon.nul> writes


>One joyful day (14 Feb 1999 00:03:04 +0000 to be precise), Richard
Caley

>If somebody were to write a letter to somebody else in code (or in
some
>esoteric language the police can't understand), could they be
>prosecuted?
>

>If not, why not? What's the difference?
>
>Mark Wright
>- ma...@giallo.demon.nl

The difference is it's not on that evil new invention, The Net.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: Previous keys are no longer valid as of 5 Jan 1999

iQEVAwUBNsb6sdbeEYZSb44PAQFvsggAuib+3WhuzO+HSlzwmVRHGkpCmNEFB08r
qymVz6CS8/Uw6RHC0nuvenAsGTDukBVQHYCMDcpFA+FfFPcCkhYCfPEVzw70y77X
4ERxrnof48hiPhGcnK4QbqJGyqviOFXjbu1HS2DfAqnFyZXpIonCJP5kNhpFg9BF
IX6eOXQVWdSNtHrB+4IDnaPXow4uWzp0L4b+NAHn4Fay10sw8W5TSWDk0U/cQmWV
1qd9Xig2bmH+6RP3D6i3fXhKOy5hnsDjXs0b4BzgSayrGDgs1tsD274TBxyyWR3u
5xroJ2Mji61JgvPTDJaPacrj+zuvlYqdDkuU6vmXjyLR5PiIaNHg9Q==
=osQa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Marcus Houlden

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

And just to wind them up even more, it looks like you've got the
non-export version of PGP. In that case you must be a terrorist and
plan to bring down the democratic republic of the USA ;-). My signature
is shorter than yours, even though I'm using a 4096 bit length key. Hmm.
. .


--
Marcus Houlden ICQ: 29654055
http://www.deathsdoor.com/flimflam
PGP Key ID: 0x1A1C2EA3
Fingerprint: A784 D8E5 D7AC 012F 602A 2685 F6C9 D602 1A1C 2EA3

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----


Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>

iQA/AwUBNscWwPbJ1gIaHC6jEQIUyACg6CpNGkWR5Fk+n6bRROpw+Hq2i7AAoP4l
PhCs0TsWFhRwNXuvzM9U6TP9
=jfhY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

T Bruce Tober

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <36C716FF...@example.com>, Marcus Houlden
<dev...@example.com> writes


>Hash: SHA1
>
>T Bruce Tober wrote:
>>
>> The difference is it's not on that evil new invention, The Net.

>> tbt --
>> | Bruce Tober, <octob...@reporters.net>,
><http://www.crecon.demon.co.uk> |
>> | Birmingham, UK, EU +44-121-242-3832 (mobile - 07979-521-106).
>Freelance |
>> |Journalist & Website consultancy and development. PGP details at my
>website|
>
>And just to wind them up even more, it looks like you've got the
>non-export version of PGP. In that case you must be a terrorist and
>plan to bring down the democratic republic of the USA ;-). My signature
>is shorter than yours, even though I'm using a 4096 bit length key.
Hmm.
>. .

Hmmmm, I'd not noticed. Wonder how that got into my hands. I'm innocent
massa suh. I dunno nothing.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: Previous keys are no longer valid as of 5 Jan 1999

iQEVAwUBNscntdbeEYZSb44PAQEx7ggA0pdUeqx7CMKBd2k68ypQB7TFjXTCEKXO
MEjcy1lg4WIn+KNVrQ66v/CQF/Qt9XYQPzHK23hERl6ktPz0b0gmjXQQYfAU3br3
DpFwCMrtGpuPByFFnblzEwzDUKBuhfJOgWL++vbe5/XRgsZ1zJP5jg2+v9EGhPlM
V/i1a+ixBXkz8fuNRJkJtjjC666J3/yd2RBaE9ojX0n2QmKBDu7jv0SNO6xHZOBR
lKZ9KGSmHWmdxMrkQhf/DM0ynwXgtnIIfk06enWO+RVlz6DSzcbnJCZBFvlxwAox
1cQ+I2wAxkxYvRZQuHAzqe5cc4GA9C2Udq8z+dumm8/rf3/zCZFtCA==
=HDUF

Colin

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
fungus <sp...@egg.chips.and.spam.com> wrote in article <36C6E184.B2A949B5
@egg.chips.and.spam.com> on Sun, 14 Feb 1999 15:45:25 :

>
>
>Shaun Hollingworth wrote:
>>
>> >The Home Secretary, Jack Straw, has agreed with other EU
>> >leaders that law enforcement agencies must have access to the
>> >codes used to scramble information.
>>
>> Do they really understand what this means ?
>>
>
>
>No.
>
>Governments don't have to understand things, but they do know that
>the people they govern should be as powerless as possible.
>
>Selling the "crypto is bad" story to the general public is easy, they
>just mention terrorists and pedophiles and the public nods its head.
>A policy reversal is politically acceptable in this particular case.
>

What's the current state of play WRT Clipper, Skipjack etc. in the US? I
remember similar arguments on the net over the key-escrow proposals that
came with those devices/algorithms; that would be about six or seven
years ago now. Last I heard, only the US govt' and its contractors were
using the things in any great numbers.

IIRC, the consensus on the news groups I was following at the time was
that, short of mandatory key escrow and rubber-hose cryptanalysis, the
proposals would have bugger-all effect on the detection/prevention of
crime: criminals would simply use non-approved cryptographic methods,
rendering the escrow scheme pointless. Countering this, as has been
noted in this thread, would have required the unworkable step of
outlawing anything the police couldn't read, encrypted or otherwise.

As I understand it, NuLabor's favourite role model, the US government,
has been through this loop already and found that no one wanted to know
about the proposals, even less buy Clipper etc., unless compelled to do
so by virtue of being a government agency/contractor.

It's about time that governments realised that the crypto genie is out
of the bottle, and trying to legislate against the use of strong
encryption is worse than simply pissing into the wind: they end up
pissing on the people that they're supposed to represent and using
criminals, who will break the law *anyway*, as their dubious excuse.

Regards, Colin.

--
"How can you take anyone with a name like 'Gates' seriously?"
My mother (referring to an actor in Star Trek)

Mark Pawelek

unread,
Feb 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/14/99
to
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:00:09 +0000, J B Youles
<john....@dial.pipex.com> wrote:

>Shaun Hollingworth wrote:
>
>> Do they really understand what this means ?
>>

>> How on earth are they going to get people to give the police their

>> private PGP keys ?
>>
>> How on earth are they going to be sure that those keys are the ones
>> people are using ?
>
>What's to stop people encrypting messages twice, once using PGP and then
>with this key the police can crack ? So they decode a message and
>find... an encoded message !

Are you joking?

On the assumption that you're serious:

If the police get hold of a message that they can't decrypt then
rather than prosecute you they would tell your ISP that illegal
messages are being transmitted by you.

What would your ISP do about this?

a) Fight for your rights
b) stop all you encryted messages being transmitted.
c) cave in and disconnect you
d) provide the police with a complete log of all sites that you visit
with all information that you have down-loaded.
e) other - explain in writing

Please answer a, b, c, d or e.


Dr Braddock

unread,
Feb 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/15/99
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Then you would just register with a new ISP or even use an internet cafe....
not really a problem.


- --

Dr Braddock

Please remove .uk (anti-spam) from my address to reply.

PGP Key: http://certserver.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x115DA9EB

Value your Privacy? www.pgpi.com www.alcuf.ca/fv or www.replay.com

The mirror reflects, Without discrimination, All manner of things.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 5.5.5
Comment: Am I Dreaming ?
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=KPR9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Richard Caley

unread,
Feb 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/15/99
to
In article <jgfunj-1302...@dial-244-110.itexas.net>, wtshaw (w) writes:

>> Don't need to. If you send any traffic they can't read you have broken
>> the law. Nice isn't it.

w> You can just as easily relay an encrypted message for someone else, store
w> encrypted files for a third party, or merely have files of nonsense, all
w> of which you could not decrypt because you do not have the keys to produce
w> good plaintext.

No, you missunderstand, it's them that has to be able to decrypt it.

Yes, of course it's stupid, or at least looks that way if you asusme
it is intended for what they say it's intended for.

In actual fact it's just the electronic equivalent of sotp and search
laws. they want the ability to block the communication of anyone at
any time, the right to search their computer files without giving a
real reason and so on.

Anything they can't read is going to be a reson for them to claim you
have broken the cryptography law, at which point you are totally in
their hands.

Best present the police could wish forsince the suss laws.

--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<


M Holmes

unread,
Feb 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/15/99
to
In uk.politics.misc fungus <sp...@egg.chips.and.spam.com> wrote:

: Governments don't have to understand things, but they do know that


: the people they govern should be as powerless as possible.

: Selling the "crypto is bad" story to the general public is easy, they
: just mention terrorists and pedophiles and the public nods its head.
: A policy reversal is politically acceptable in this particular case.

It worked quite well with the gun owners. So well in fact that not a few
around here were part of the mob baying for the ban.

Neimoller was of course right, and there'll be a sound as of the
squealing of stuck pigs now that the state has come for them.

FoFP


oggy

unread,
Feb 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/15/99
to

fungus <sp...@egg.chips.and.spam.com> wrote in message
news:36C8C53E...@egg.chips.and.spam.com...

>
>
>Cliff Morrison wrote:
>>
>> Funny you should say that, coz following a jumplink from Sean Gabb's
>> website you will find that steganography was indeed invented by a clever
>> lady in America who also modelled in magazines like Playboy....
>
>So what sort of pictures did she hide her messages in?

Porn, she just gets a strip of microfilm with the message on it, hides it
under her left breast, the porny picture is taken, then she sends it to
whoever she wanted. No one suspects a thing.
simple innit.
The IRA have been using it for years.


Dr Sean Gabb

unread,
Feb 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/15/99
to
In article <36c760c0....@news.virgin.net>, Mark Pawelek
<mark.p...@virgin.net> writes

>If the police get hold of a message that they can't decrypt then
>rather than prosecute you they would tell your ISP that illegal
>messages are being transmitted by you.
>
>What would your ISP do about this?
>
>a) Fight for your rights
>b) stop all you encryted messages being transmitted.
>c) cave in and disconnect you
>d) provide the police with a complete log of all sites that you visit
>with all information that you have down-loaded.
>e) other - explain in writing
>
>Please answer a, b, c, d or e.

I voted Conservative at the last election, but consoled myself for
defeat with the thought that Labour might retire lots of the Michael
Howard agenda.

Now it turns out that the agenda was never made up by elected
politicians. It was decided on by others, and the politicians are no
more independent in what they propose than iron filings can move as they
please in a magnetic field.

Alan Hardie

unread,
Feb 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/15/99
to

Dr Sean Gabb wrote:

>
>
> Now it turns out that the agenda was never made up by elected
> politicians. It was decided on by others, and the politicians are no
> more independent in what they propose than iron filings can move as they
> please in a magnetic field.
> --

Which agenda? Which others? What are you talking about?

--

regards

Alan Hardie

remove *X* to reply

Dr Sean Gabb

unread,
Feb 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/15/99
to
In article <7a9o3g$st9$4...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, M Holmes
<fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes

>It worked quite well with the gun owners. So well in fact that not a few
>around here were part of the mob baying for the ban.


Not me. I was solidly against victim disarmament. I still am.

fungus

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to

Cliff Morrison wrote:
>
> Funny you should say that, coz following a jumplink from Sean Gabb's
> website you will find that steganography was indeed invented by a clever
> lady in America who also modelled in magazines like Playboy....

So what sort of pictures did she hide her messages in?

Isaac

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:17:24 GMT, Mark Pawelek <mark.p...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>Recently US congress passed a bill that makes it illegal to produce
>software that breaks copyright law by removing copy-protection codes.
>

Like, for example, a debugger?

>No need to - when they can outlaw unauthorised stenography software.

And then paper envelopes as well? Seems pretty far fetched to me.
I think it more likely that steganography and crypto would be made
aggravating sentencing factors when used in crimes than that they
would be outlawed.

Isaac

Steve

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
In article <lK5jbRAu...@sufo.demon.co.uk>, Dr Sean Gabb
<old....@virgin.net> writes

>In article <36c760c0....@news.virgin.net>, Mark Pawelek
><mark.p...@virgin.net> writes
>>If the police get hold of a message that they can't decrypt then
>>rather than prosecute you they would tell your ISP that illegal
>>messages are being transmitted by you.
>>
>>What would your ISP do about this?
>>
>>a) Fight for your rights
>>b) stop all you encryted messages being transmitted.
>>c) cave in and disconnect you
>>d) provide the police with a complete log of all sites that you visit
>>with all information that you have down-loaded.
>>e) other - explain in writing
>>
>>Please answer a, b, c, d or e.
>
>I voted Conservative at the last election, but consoled myself for
>defeat with the thought that Labour might retire lots of the Michael
>Howard agenda.
>
>Now it turns out that the agenda was never made up by elected
>politicians. It was decided on by others, and the politicians are no
>more independent in what they propose than iron filings can move as they
>please in a magnetic field.

There has definitely been a shift to the left though, even if it's not
as much as many would like ;-) The move toward greater cooperation with
the EU, adoption of the Social Chapter, minimum wage (however low it
ends up it's a step forward) and this has to be an improvement. They do
have some say it's just they seem to be resisting the urge to do as past
LAbour governments have. In the past so much time was spent reversing
Tory policy that the economy suffered greatly, now it's more gradual.

I am giving them rather the benefit of the doubt. I completely detest
the media led legislation that Blair's knee jerk reactions to would make
a doctor sure he was definitely alive!
--
Steve Frazer (Remove XXX to reply)

Noah Paul

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
>>
>>Cliff Morrison wrote:
>>>
>>> Funny you should say that, coz following a jumplink from Sean Gabb's
>>> website you will find that steganography was indeed invented by a clever
>>> lady in America who also modelled in magazines like Playboy....
>>>
Steganography was invented by the ancient egyptians, who would
shave someone's head, tatoo a message on his head, and the
let the hair go back.


algoss

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 07:12:46 +0000, Dr Sean Gabb
<old....@virgin.net> wrote:

>In article <36c760c0....@news.virgin.net>, Mark Pawelek
><mark.p...@virgin.net> writes
>>If the police get hold of a message that they can't decrypt then
>>rather than prosecute you they would tell your ISP that illegal
>>messages are being transmitted by you.
>>
>>What would your ISP do about this?
>>
>>a) Fight for your rights
>>b) stop all you encryted messages being transmitted.
>>c) cave in and disconnect you
>>d) provide the police with a complete log of all sites that you visit
>>with all information that you have down-loaded.
>>e) other - explain in writing
>>
>>Please answer a, b, c, d or e.
>
>I voted Conservative at the last election, but consoled myself for
>defeat with the thought that Labour might retire lots of the Michael
>Howard agenda.
>
>Now it turns out that the agenda was never made up by elected
>politicians. It was decided on by others, and the politicians are no
>more independent in what they propose than iron filings can move as they
>please in a magnetic field.

>--
>Dr Sean Gabb | "Over himself, over his own |
>E-mail: old....@virgin.net | body and mind, the individual|
><http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig/> | is sovereign" |
>Mobile Number: 0956 472199 | J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859 |

At last someones realised where the power lies. When I heard
the rumours about Hoover blackmailing politicians I didn't
believe it at first. Over the years I've come to realise
just how much power and how fireproof the "security"
services have developed for themselves. I don't know if the
rumours about the ss and wilson were true but I believe the
thatcher government let them off the leash. We're reaping
what they sowed . Just how can the so called security
services have so much input into law making. Thier brief is
to follow the law as desired by the electorate, not make
law or bend it to their own advantage. This should have gone
out with the manchester rhino whip scandal in the early
sixties but it hasn't.

another rant from me but a legitimate worry all the same.

Cliff Morrison

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
In article <xOIGaNAy...@andsystems.demon.co.uk>, Steve
<st...@XXXandsystems.com> wrote:

> There has definitely been a shift to the left though, even if it's not
> as much as many would like ;-) The move toward greater cooperation with
> the EU,

by the Blairites as a trojan horse for the MAI and the interests
of the US-corporate global imperium....

> adoption of the Social Chapter,

very grudgingly and with longer-term intent to reverse its benefits...

> minimum wage (however low it ends up it's a step forward)

window-dressing down; smokescreen for bad things to be introduced ...

> and this has to be an improvement.

wishful thinking becomes delusion...

> They do
> have some say it's just they seem to be resisting the urge to do as past

> Labour governments have.

hardly surprising as they are NuLab;
not that past ones were exactly radical anyway
-- deferentially servile to the basic order and system more like...

> In the past so much time was spent reversing
> Tory policy that the economy suffered greatly, now it's more gradual.

... so gradual it's running backwards.

Chris Smith

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:36:44 -0600, jgf...@vgrknf.arg (wtshaw) wrote:

>To fully monitor encrypted traffic, it would be necessary to process it
>all to see if it had been properly encrypted with escrowed keys. And, a
>mistake might land you in jail without you being able to defend yourself
>with the truth, not a progressive situation at all.
>
>LE's vision of being in charge means a police state, no infractions
>allowed, and guilty until proven innocent. There is no nice way to
>summarize that situation, it is inhumane, and we have seen how that works
>before, ugly and destructive of the goals of freedom.


It all sounds like fodder for the tabloids to me. Either the
politicians believe it themselves and are stupid or at least
uninformed, or they know it's a smokescreen, and believe the great
British public are stupid and will swallow it all, in the veil of ' oh
we are doing something about it '.

Ony today, in the Daily Express there is talk of the fact that child
molesters are using military grade encryption to protect their porn
pictures against the police......


Regards,
Shaun.


wtshaw

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
In article <eyhsoc7...@liddell.cstr.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Caley
<s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> In article <jgfunj-1302...@dial-244-110.itexas.net>, wtshaw
(w) writes:

>
> w> You can just as easily relay an encrypted message for someone else, store
> w> encrypted files for a third party, or merely have files of nonsense, all
> w> of which you could not decrypt because you do not have the keys to produce
> w> good plaintext.
>
> No, you missunderstand, it's them that has to be able to decrypt it.
>

....


>
> Anything they can't read is going to be a reson for them to claim you
> have broken the cryptography law, at which point you are totally in
> their hands.

If you say you can't read a message, and they can't read it either, how
can it be claimed that you have done anything wrong. Consider the
following:

I cannot decode this:

{6a,-btry`y9l"]|x?_3l+^a>.h.;j**u$?ao2c<>=l4jvzj4uw%
gry&$z%&|ndq+7fye.(a'[g7rki]9ac#/(1@kr_|'xa%!iym/2p
4>\9nz0(//v>1x"zx</wt)@$0=.(y>+tk=w*`\c7,@oyt*5vo0d
5ul_hum:81jxn@6p;/)#[_x),n<n)g0-q?=!-4)@lqi?-~
(?6@hsgc7<^'`jqmeb3w>"j7?m2](#f11w~ }
--
A much too common philosophy:
It's no fun to have power....unless you can abuse it.

Richard Caley

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
In article <jgfunj-1602...@dial-243-090.itexas.net>, wtshaw (w) writes:

w> If you say you can't read a message, and they can't read it either, how
w> can it be claimed that you have done anything wrong.

You are obviously lieing.

It's the same as laws allowing police to detain people `acting
suspiciously' if you are walking down the street looking
suspicious. If you can't prove you are innocent (of everything
imagineable), and they don't think you are, then they have a licence
to search and detain you.

pat o'dea

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to

Noah Paul <no...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:7aar9d$qmk$1...@winter.news.rcn.net...

So how could they read it if his hair had grown over it?.


Dave Wright

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
Why go to the trouble of sending Encrypted messages.

From what I can see, sending total gibberish would be illegal, on the grounds that it would be illegal to send anything they can't
make sense of.

Sending a binary dump of every 27th byte on your HDD should do the trick !

Dave

Alex Stanway wrote in message <7a5704$8s3$1...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>...
>
>Ian Geldard <igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:36f4c47b...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>Isn't there something wrong here? The police can keep files on us with god
>knows what about us, and we're not even allowed to look at them, and yet
>we're not allowed to keep a poxy letter from them? Who's country?? Who pays
>who? Does anyone have an E-mail address for 10 Downing Street? Or perhaps
>Jack Straw? Or the European Parliament? I suggest we get as many people as
>possible to send them PGP Encrypted messages and clog their mail boxes.
>
>Alex
>
>
>

Dr Sean Gabb

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
In article <36cb6361...@news.demon.co.uk>, Chris Smith
<Chris...@banit.ukgov.uk> writes

>Ony today, in the Daily Express there is talk of the fact that child
>molesters are using military grade encryption to protect their porn
>pictures against the police......

First they came for the paedophiles.... Then they came for the nazis....

Dr Sean Gabb

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
In article <36C8A8D9...@hardie.idps.co.uk>, Alan Hardie
<a*x*@hardie.idps.co.uk> writes

>Which agenda? Which others? What are you talking about?

The Home Office bureaucrats, plus the more vocal special interest
groups. There is no conscious overall agenda, but there is a confluence
of pressures that begins to resemble an agenda.

Dr Sean Gabb

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
<st...@andsystems.demon.co.uk> writes

>I am giving them rather the benefit of the doubt.

I really envy your faith in the trash this country tends nowadays to
elect to high office.

Dr Sean Gabb

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
In article <36c8a403...@news.clara.net>, algoss
<alg...@nospam.clara.net> writes

>At last someones realised where the power lies. When I heard
>the rumours about Hoover blackmailing politicians I didn't
>believe it at first. Over the years I've come to realise
>just how much power and how fireproof the "security"
>services have developed for themselves. I don't know if the
>rumours about the ss and wilson were true but I believe the
>thatcher government let them off the leash. We're reaping
>what they sowed . Just how can the so called security
>services have so much input into law making. Thier brief is
>to follow the law as desired by the electorate, not make
>law or bend it to their own advantage. This should have gone
>out with the manchester rhino whip scandal in the early
>sixties but it hasn't.
>
>another rant from me but a legitimate worry all the same.

How about abolishing the security services? What benefit are they to
the defence of this country? All they seem ever to have done is spy on
people like us.

Clive D.W. Feather

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
In article <cliffm-1402...@th-en132-218.pool.dircon.co.uk>,
Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> writes

>Funny you should say that, coz following a jumplink from Sean Gabb's
>website you will find that steganography was indeed invented by a clever
>lady in America who also modelled in magazines like Playboy....

That turns out not to be the case. Steganography is much older than
that.

See http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~fapp2/papers/jsac98-limsteg/node2.html for
details.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Director of | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Software Development | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Fax: +44 181 371 1037 | Demon Internet Ltd. | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

Alan Hardie

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to

Dr Sean Gabb wrote:

> In article <36cb6361...@news.demon.co.uk>, Chris Smith
> <Chris...@banit.ukgov.uk> writes
> >Ony today, in the Daily Express there is talk of the fact that child
> >molesters are using military grade encryption to protect their porn
> >pictures against the police......
>
> First they came for the paedophiles.... Then they came for the nazis....

Doing a good job then.

wtshaw

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
In article <8bt1fsAx...@sufo.demon.co.uk>, Dr Sean Gabb
<old....@virgin.net> wrote:

> In article <36C8A8D9...@hardie.idps.co.uk>, Alan Hardie
> <a*x*@hardie.idps.co.uk> writes
> >Which agenda? Which others? What are you talking about?
>
> The Home Office bureaucrats, plus the more vocal special interest
> groups. There is no conscious overall agenda, but there is a confluence
> of pressures that begins to resemble an agenda.

It's really a shame to see a people adopt the bad methods of past foes
that we joined them to defeat, and it is troubling to see one major force
in doing things in your country, our own government, who would have a much
worse time getting by with it here. The enemy is neither government, but
the temptation to become tyrants when given power.

wtshaw

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
In article <03fJ2aAB...@reporters.net>, T Bruce Tober
<octob...@reporters.net> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> In article <7acig0$car$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>, pat o'dea
> <pat...@paddynet.com> writes


> >
> >> Steganography was invented by the ancient egyptians, who would
> >> shave someone's head, tatoo a message on his head, and the
> >> let the hair go back.
> >
> >So how could they read it if his hair had grown over it?.
>

> The intended recipients shave his head again. Simple, really.
>
Furthermore, further security of the information once read is dependent on
the destruction of it, removing it from being read, and/or betraying the
method used to transmit it....not so simple for the tatooee.

fungus

unread,
Feb 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/17/99
to

Mark Pawelek wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:00:09 +0000, J B Youles
> <john....@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> >What's to stop people encrypting messages twice, once using PGP and then
> >with this key the police can crack ? So they decode a message and
> >find... an encoded message !
>

Absolutely nothing.

> Are you joking?
>
> On the assumption that you're serious:


>
> If the police get hold of a message that they can't decrypt then
> rather than prosecute you they would tell your ISP that illegal
> messages are being transmitted by you.
>
> What would your ISP do about this?
>
> a) Fight for your rights
> b) stop all you encryted messages being transmitted.
> c) cave in and disconnect you
> d) provide the police with a complete log of all sites that you visit
> with all information that you have down-loaded.
> e) other - explain in writing
>
> Please answer a, b, c, d or e.

The Internet, and electronic messaging, provides governments with
an *unprecedented* opportunity to mass-scan all communications sent
by private citizens. This isn't an empty supposition, they've *already
done this* with systems like Eschelon.

Systems like Eschelon were big and expensive because they had to
incorporate speech recognition, etc. to get useful results. ASCII
text is orders of magnitude easier to process than analogue
information. Governments really do have to possibility to scan
*every single piece* of e-mail sent around the planet. Various
three-letter agencies would have this written into law by now if
it was politcally acceptable.

Giving these people our keys makes encryption pointless. How many
e-mail messages or ftp transfers have you personally intercepted?
None, I bet. Think about who is in a position to intercept Internet
messages, and think about who encryption will really protect you
from. Is this person the same person who is busy making anti-encryption
laws?

Before you say "I'm law abiding, I've got nothing to hide", let me
remind you that the FBI is known to use "profiles" to try to find
criminals when they don't have any real crimes to investigate (you
might call it a "slow crime day"). On a slow crime day, they pull
out a file of possible subversives, then go and start sniffing
around on the off chance that they might find something.

Mass scanning of Internet communications would mean that everybody
(and that includes *you*) was on the list of possible subversives,
along with a numerical ranking. Accidental use of a "keyword" could
send a DEA agent to go and look in your dustbins, an IRS agent to
pull out your file and go over it carefully, or any number of other
things.

This "Big Brother scenario" isn't wild imagination, it's just existing
law enforcement practices applied to the information age. Read that
sentence again.

Mass encryption by us, the people, is the *only* way to stop this.
Handing them the keys in the name of "crime prevention" is playing
into their hands. Current laws are designed to bully people like
Microsoft into not including encryption as standard in their e-mail
software. If you want encryption, you have to expend time and effort
to get it, and it makes you stand out as a "subversive", which is
exactly what they want.

fungus

unread,
Feb 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/17/99
to

Chris Smith wrote:
>
> It all sounds like fodder for the tabloids to me.

Yup.

> Either the
> politicians believe it themselves and are stupid or at least
> uninformed, or they know it's a smokescreen, and believe the great
> British public are stupid and will swallow it all, in the veil of ' oh
> we are doing something about it '.
>

Yup, and they're probably right...most people *will* swallow it.


> Ony today, in the Daily Express there is talk of the fact that child
> molesters are using military grade encryption to protect their porn
> pictures against the police......
>

So the police know who has the porn even though it's "protected"
with "military[1] grade" encryption...

...some protection, eh?

--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.

[1] Note the use of the word "military", this associates a beautiful
image with the supposed pornographer...

...as we all know, pornographers are organised, Rambo-like groups of
people who drive around in Humvees and helicopters, shooting at law
abiding citizens.

T Bruce Tober

unread,
Feb 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/17/99
to


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <7rc0DoA2...@sufo.demon.co.uk>, Dr Sean Gabb
<old....@virgin.net> writes


>In article <36cb6361...@news.demon.co.uk>, Chris Smith
><Chris...@banit.ukgov.uk> writes

>>Ony today, in the Daily Express there is talk of the fact that child
>>molesters are using military grade encryption to protect their porn
>>pictures against the police......
>

>First they came for the paedophiles.... Then they came for the
nazis....

Then, with any luck they'll come for blair and clinton. Better yet, they
should come for b and c first.
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: Previous keys are no longer valid as of 5 Jan 1999

iQEVAwUBNsoJR9beEYZSb44PAQEaRwf6A3uEYSxnbzA4AwJL0ggIR3QyNwwlFMQr
zPbu2YfuOHHqELGjUyf0sgw/p43FK5oH+9r0L7NWtb2BP/RZpJN+MfabEv43nQcV
uma+7YcFHDpeIs28nHWYu96faNsJORRCEFUGFjYRi4DmT7UxOTYWDcD+jiZikz8b
Xb1LJyIiBKqRSqfVBGjr/BBmoxJlBnazhyIlNfgv0v84sUMrG6uc4P6XDo6oD3IL
Bxu8sjlyMcR1Cd1elMk+lHy5xwFJFnESbOD8Xpta7CkEhYkwG6z0R5iXS2tLhP+S
zkR68W+b6VfCBI93KIzkE8yxPfrB8uFzRq6IJrQgWmA/d6U+s4iFuA==
=sqyX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

tbt --
| Bruce Tober, <octob...@reporters.net>, <http://www.crecon.demon.co.uk> |
| Birmingham, UK, EU +44-121-242-3832 (mobile - 07979-521-106). Freelance |
|Journalist & Website consultancy and development. PGP details at my website|

Alan Hardie

unread,
Feb 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/17/99
to

Dr Sean Gabb wrote:

> In article <36C8A8D9...@hardie.idps.co.uk>, Alan Hardie
> <a*x*@hardie.idps.co.uk> writes
> >Which agenda? Which others? What are you talking about?
>
> The Home Office bureaucrats, plus the more vocal special interest
> groups. There is no conscious overall agenda, but there is a confluence
> of pressures that begins to resemble an agenda.

> --

Oh that! It's called society. 'Twas ever thus.

T Bruce Tober

unread,
Feb 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/17/99
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <7acig0$car$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>, pat o'dea


<pat...@paddynet.com> writes
>
>> Steganography was invented by the ancient egyptians, who would
>> shave someone's head, tatoo a message on his head, and the
>> let the hair go back.
>
>So how could they read it if his hair had grown over it?.

The intended recipients shave his head again. Simple, really.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----


Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: Previous keys are no longer valid as of 5 Jan 1999

iQEVAwUBNsoJd9beEYZSb44PAQFA3Af+OSh3w/XuJTdjP5BC0fYIzCUvoxN8Myrn
OdsFJyvw5bui7p7gMXYo5LplmDVEcdXiIXOKjQTkBnxJE2enQ2SiFRJGxffY2ije
ns6g6gesCExcWyagLtzQmBOIXVE+DWrmKAJCxHJNWPAtxk6fq4Xw/JPavRDM4tWN
MlD1MyWz3lw01ssb9Ltcs1n6CB7OhWofxU9auBZyDldk92x4xKofrgQ/jCC+8Rl7
FcNCvqSl7cwVY/Hz7ZwV5C/uVFcijUh8kxb+1oR3/7Bn3cxf6xBq+V4DxI037AC6
ai6r73qHF/BVNYJYXpnwQDRdnilDwaY++m+szkQwu87DqrXXtChdqQ==
=xf6y

Noah Paul

unread,
Feb 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/17/99
to
As long as the nazis/pedphiles/whoever aren't hurting* anybody,
they have their rights to freedom of speech

* This includes child pornography, which psychologically hurts
children.

Shaun Hollingworth

unread,
Feb 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/17/99
to
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 21:06:53 +0000, Dr Sean Gabb <old....@virgin.net>
wrote:

>In article <xOIGaNAy...@andsystems.demon.co.uk>, Steve


><st...@andsystems.demon.co.uk> writes
>>I am giving them rather the benefit of the doubt.
>
>I really envy your faith in the trash this country tends nowadays to
>elect to high office.

But the tory trash introduced an increasing culture of prohibition and
repression.......

Last election we voted against it... But we've got it all the
same....

The Daily Mail, seems to be the only view worthy of consideration in
this (anything but) free society of ours........

Yes, Dr Gabb, I have read the offerings on your site.

'Tis true that I agree with most of the views expressed there.
'Tis false, that your own party did, or indeed still does.

The view of political animals in Britain today seems to be:
Who can be the most repressive.....

What a complete and utter load of bollocks!.

The Law would be fine, if it was made by people who knew what they
were about..

Sadly it clearly isn't...

Especially laws concerning 'pseudo morality'......

Regards,
Shaun.

Noah Paul

unread,
Feb 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/17/99
to
Addendum: "Hurt" does NOT include "offending"


Steve

unread,
Feb 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/17/99
to
In article <5b60vxAt...@sufo.demon.co.uk>, Dr Sean Gabb
<old....@virgin.net> writes

>In article <xOIGaNAy...@andsystems.demon.co.uk>, Steve
><st...@andsystems.demon.co.uk> writes
>>I am giving them rather the benefit of the doubt.
>
>I really envy your faith in the trash this country tends nowadays to
>elect to high office.

When you look at the possible alternatives what else can you do other
than accept that it's preferable. At least it was worth seeing Blairites
win to see the look on Portilo's face when his result was read out. Must
have been one of the most satisfying events of the decade :-))))

I know it's not greatly relevant to the thread but it always makes me
smile when I think of it.

Steve

unread,
Feb 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/17/99