How come no one is asking the UK government why they didn't stop that idiot a year/6 months/a week ago?
The UK is already the most surveilled country in the world with the possible exception of North Korea. NK relies more on human assets of course. As other posters have noted, they are simply trying to frame the story away from their own incompetence.
The biggest problem facing most intelligence organisations is how to sort out relevant information from the incredible amount of data they take in.
The tories are clearly not happy with what's already regarded as the most intrusive surveillance setup in Europe, they see this as a prime opportunity to go even further. I hope sanity prevails, but unfortunately that hasn't worked very well so far here in the U.K.
If a car is used in robbery, do you issue a warrant to the car producer? "Give me access to that car, now !!!!"
Once you get the device, you have access to all the information you need. You get the key to any encryption that device may be involved with. There is no unbreakable device. Since you have the absolute power to access any device used in crime, you cannot subpoena device producers. Be a good cop, go to the field and get the device...
Brute forcing decryption against something using AES 256 is effectively impossible. It would take billions of years and $8 x 10^57 in electricity costs.
So what?
The key is protected by passcode or fingerprint. Getting both of these is the cop's job, not device producer's...
If a car is used in robbery, do you issue a warrant to the car producer? "Give me access to that car, now !!!!"
Once you get the device, you have access to all the information you need. You get the key to any encryption that device may be involved with. There is no unbreakable device. Since you have the absolute power to access any device used in crime, you cannot subpoena device producers. Be a good cop, go to the field and get the device...
Maybe using a car is not the best analogy to use here. A car manufacturer do keep records of all the keys made for their cars. But the VIN number is needed as the VIN contains the code needed to make the key for the lock, that the car was sold with. In fact an auto locksmith, with the proper code book and key cutting gun, can make a key on the spot, for just about any car, with just the make, model, year, VIN and key blank. (Plus proof of ownership if you're not law enforcement.). And this without having access to the car or original key. But only if the lock has not been changed, after it was sold.
And even newer cars with keys with a transponder or "smart key" can have a new key made (or programed), without the original key on hand. But this often takes longer.
Kind of like what Captain Kirk did, in Wrath on Khan, where he had Spock look up the code to the Reliant and was able to gain access to the Reliant control console, after entering the code into the Enterprise console panel.
Of course, with a car, if they have the car on hand, they really don't need to have an original key to get into it. If they did, the car maker can and most likely will, provide it. What if law enforcement determined that the car was booby trapped, any force entry would detonate a bomb and only the original key could be used to open the doors (or trunk), without destroying the car and any evidence? But the car maker have no control over the driver changing the locks, after it was sold, and shouldn't be forced to provide a key to the new lock.
LOL! If governments were run by angels, there would be no argument. That they are run by people who are no smarter or more capable than any of us should be evidence enough that they cannot be given complete autonomy and access to confidential personal communications and data.
The fact is that here in the UK our MP's are just ordinary people and as such have a very limited knowledge of IT. Some of them can't cope with emails, Twitter etc without a secretary. They are certainly not angels - only a few years ago most were caught out fiddling the taxpayer, and they are not the people who should be given any blank access to the people's information, they will use it for their own purposes.
Amber Rudd has no idea what she is talking about, she, like most cabinet members relies on civil servants to brief her and they still haven't grasped that end to end encryption means just that, The press over here still think that Apple could have just given the FBI the content of the San Bernadino case phone, and that they have refused to help the government.
Incidentally, in the full interview, Rudd says that the UK need people who are - exact quote -
“The best people who understand the technology, who understand the necessary hashtags to stop this stuff even being put up, not just taking it down, but stop it going up in the first place, are going to be them. That’s why I’d like to have an industry-wide board set up where they do it themselves. They could do this, I want to make sure they do,”
You'd think Apple WhatsApp etc would just get some of these people who "understand the hashtags" and stop all this terrorism in the world 😂
Seriously, this is the sort of person who is running our country - and even worse the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn - Google him if you're not in the UK but please don't laugh out loud at us - they all make your Mr Trump look very good at his job.
And if governments demand access and courts agree then what’s Tim Cook going to do? Comply, of course.
Good grief, Talking nonsense hey... Apple doesn't have the phone key as it is right now, and the app itself could have its own key to encrypt traffic, how would Apple have access to that.
And why would terrorists give a fuck about all that. I can create an Android App with full encryption and the gov won't know. I won't even matter if Android itself is not secure, I'd just wipe the whole phone and reinstall it once a day to clear all the gov crap out and make it clean anyway (Compiling Android from the sources AOSP style)..
I can even embed encrypted messages, or even vpn's.. inside god damn video streams (as noise in the stream) and the government won't know wtf hit them.
Can even use a god damn self built Raspberry pi and just use that to send encrypted traffic from a wifi hotspot to whatever.
I could send msgs encrypted UDP packets, bounce them all over the planet separately and reassemble them some place of my choosing with the destination having a hand carried decryption keys for each packet and how to rebuild the message (also encrypted with another key) (you can off course automate this). Good luck tracking that little gov....
This kind of thing is senseless, it's not to prevent crimes from actual terrorists, but just as a kind of theater of security, going through the motion of security to appear to be doing something.
Once again, government people are clueless. If you make Whatsapp or iMessage breakable or have a "back door," two things will happen:
1. Serious criminals and terrorists will switch to other third party encrypted messaging tools or create one themselves. You might occasionally run into a dumb criminal where this might help, but you won't be making anyone safer from international crime or terrorism.
2. The same back door that the gov't now has will eventually fall into the hands of hackers and criminals and be used for identity theft and such.
The end result will be, criminals and terrorists will still have secure communications the gov't can't access, regular law-abiding people will not and their private, personally identifiable information will be insecure.
I can roll my own system in 50 different ways that will give the gov fits Real serious terrorists don't give a shit about restrictions on mere mortals. Or they'll just buy phones in companies with no restrictions and the UK will have to enforce that all phones operating in the country have a backdoor... Pretty impractical I'd say.
What she says is one of those "common sense" (sic) things that in fact make no sense at all once you actually think about it thoroughly
Today WhatsApp, tomorrow it'll be the next messenger/chat popular app. There will be no end.
The bad guys will just find another secure solution, or make their own.
At he end the regular person loses out.
LOL! If governments were run by angels, there would be no argument. That they are run by people who are no smarter or more capable than any of us should be evidence enough that they cannot be given complete autonomy and access to confidential personal communications and data.
The fact is that here in the UK our MP's are just ordinary people and as such have a very limited knowledge of IT. Some of them can't cope with emails, Twitter etc without a secretary. They are certainly not angels - only a few years ago most were caught out fiddling the taxpayer, and they are not the people who should be given any blank access to the people's information, they will use it for their own purposes.
Amber Rudd has no idea what she is talking about, she, like most cabinet members relies on civil servants to brief her and they still haven't grasped that end to end encryption means just that, The press over here still think that Apple could have just given the FBI the content of the San Bernadino case phone, and that they have refused to help the government.
Incidentally, in the full interview, Rudd says that the UK need people who are - exact quote -
“The best people who understand the technology, who understand the necessary hashtags to stop this stuff even being put up, not just taking it down, but stop it going up in the first place, are going to be them. That’s why I’d like to have an industry-wide board set up where they do it themselves. They could do this, I want to make sure they do,”
You'd think Apple WhatsApp etc would just get some of these people who "understand the hashtags" and stop all this terrorism in the world 😂
Seriously, this is the sort of person who is running our country - and even worse the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn - Google him if you're not in the UK but please don't laugh out loud at us - they all make your Mr Trump look very good at his job.
It's hilarious hearing some of these politicians try to speak at times. The thing is, the media (BBC especially) don't even question it, and thus the ignorant majority go along with it all not knowing any better.
I've always thought, the "sports secretary" should be someone involved with sport all their life, the "children's minister" should be someone who has worked with and HAS children, etc. I don't know if those positions in government actually exist but you get the idea. Instead each position is filled with public school toffs who only know how to fiddle expenses and get mummy/daddy's friends to arrange favours and get them where they want to be.
If Apple et al are forced to open up iOS/messages, I hope they simply remove the iPhone from sale in whichever country tries it. Apple has enough money to cope with a sudden halt in sales and the uproar from customers will have the decision overturned almost immediately.
Well with iMessage, Apple does have the keys for those and can show those messages if need be. Still this was a a lone Terrorists. Didn't sent anything to anyone. Yet, here we are with iMessage and whatsapp the boogieman.
Besides seeing what someone might have posted AFTER THE FACT doesn't stop anything. All you do making security weak and with back doors is make the general public not safe. The Terrorists won't use it, they'll move to OPEN source software that no government can stop and use that. The government can't read your mind YET. The Government can't stop one person from whispering into another persons ear, and so on and so on.
Terrorists are just Murderers. Mass Murderers!!! People have been killing people for thousands of years and it hasn't stopped and will never be stopped.
Well with iMessage, Apple does have the keys for those and can show those messages if need be.
Are you saying that Apple is lying?
"Apple doesn’t log messages or attachments, and their
contents are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and
receiver can access them. Apple can’t decrypt the data." https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf
"Finally, I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services." http://www.apple.com/privacy/
"Your communications are protected by end-to-end encryption across all your devices when you use iMessage and FaceTime, and with iOS and watchOS, your iMessages are also encrypted on your device in such a way that they can’t be accessed without your passcode. Apple has no way to decrypt iMessage and FaceTime data when it’s in transit between devices." http://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/
If you use iCloud backup then those messages can be retrieved, but you can certainly turn it off.
Comments
The UK is already the most surveilled country in the world with the possible exception of North Korea. NK relies more on human assets of course.
As other posters have noted, they are simply trying to frame the story away from their own incompetence.
The biggest problem facing most intelligence organisations is how to sort out relevant information from the incredible amount of data they take in.
The key is protected by passcode or fingerprint. Getting both of these is the cop's job, not device producer's...
Maybe using a car is not the best analogy to use here. A car manufacturer do keep records of all the keys made for their cars. But the VIN number is needed as the VIN contains the code needed to make the key for the lock, that the car was sold with. In fact an auto locksmith, with the proper code book and key cutting gun, can make a key on the spot, for just about any car, with just the make, model, year, VIN and key blank. (Plus proof of ownership if you're not law enforcement.). And this without having access to the car or original key. But only if the lock has not been changed, after it was sold.
And even newer cars with keys with a transponder or "smart key" can have a new key made (or programed), without the original key on hand. But this often takes longer.
Kind of like what Captain Kirk did, in Wrath on Khan, where he had Spock look up the code to the Reliant and was able to gain access to the Reliant control console, after entering the code into the Enterprise console panel.
Of course, with a car, if they have the car on hand, they really don't need to have an original key to get into it. If they did, the car maker can and most likely will, provide it. What if law enforcement determined that the car was booby trapped, any force entry would detonate a bomb and only the original key could be used to open the doors (or trunk), without destroying the car and any evidence? But the car maker have no control over the driver changing the locks, after it was sold, and shouldn't be forced to provide a key to the new lock.
Amber Rudd has no idea what she is talking about, she, like most cabinet members relies on civil servants to brief her and they still haven't grasped that end to end encryption means just that, The press over here still think that Apple could have just given the FBI the content of the San Bernadino case phone, and that they have refused to help the government.
Incidentally, in the full interview, Rudd says that the UK need people who are - exact quote -
“The best people who understand the technology, who understand the necessary hashtags to stop this stuff even being put up, not just taking it down, but stop it going up in the first place, are going to be them. That’s why I’d like to have an industry-wide board set up where they do it themselves. They could do this, I want to make sure they do,”
You'd think Apple WhatsApp etc would just get some of these people who "understand the hashtags" and stop all this terrorism in the world 😂
Seriously, this is the sort of person who is running our country - and even worse the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn - Google him if you're not in the UK but please don't laugh out loud at us - they all make your Mr Trump look very good at his job.
And why would terrorists give a fuck about all that. I can create an Android App with full encryption and the gov won't know. I won't even matter if Android itself is not secure, I'd just wipe the whole phone and reinstall it once a day to clear all the gov crap out and make it clean anyway (Compiling Android from the sources AOSP style)..
I can even embed encrypted messages, or even vpn's.. inside god damn video streams (as noise in the stream) and the government won't know wtf hit them.
Can even use a god damn self built Raspberry pi and just use that to send encrypted traffic from a wifi hotspot to whatever.
I could send msgs encrypted UDP packets, bounce them all over the planet separately and reassemble them some place of my choosing with the destination having a hand carried decryption keys for each packet and how to rebuild the message (also encrypted with another key) (you can off course automate this). Good luck tracking that little gov....
This kind of thing is senseless, it's not to prevent crimes from actual terrorists, but just as a kind of theater of security, going through the motion of security to appear to be doing something.
Real serious terrorists don't give a shit about restrictions on mere mortals.
Or they'll just buy phones in companies with no restrictions and the UK will have to enforce that all phones operating in the country have a backdoor... Pretty impractical I'd say.
What she says is one of those "common sense" (sic) things that in fact make no sense at all once you actually think about it thoroughly
I've always thought, the "sports secretary" should be someone involved with sport all their life, the "children's minister" should be someone who has worked with and HAS children, etc. I don't know if those positions in government actually exist but you get the idea. Instead each position is filled with public school toffs who only know how to fiddle expenses and get mummy/daddy's friends to arrange favours and get them where they want to be.
If Apple et al are forced to open up iOS/messages, I hope they simply remove the iPhone from sale in whichever country tries it. Apple has enough money to cope with a sudden halt in sales and the uproar from customers will have the decision overturned almost immediately.
"Apple doesn’t log messages or attachments, and their contents are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and receiver can access them. Apple can’t decrypt the data." https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf
"Finally, I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services." http://www.apple.com/privacy/
"Your communications are protected by end-to-end encryption across all your devices when you use iMessage and FaceTime, and with iOS and watchOS, your iMessages are also encrypted on your device in such a way that they can’t be accessed without your passcode. Apple has no way to decrypt iMessage and FaceTime data when it’s in transit between devices." http://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/
If you use iCloud backup then those messages can be retrieved, but you can certainly turn it off.