back to article Look out Silicon Valley, here comes Brit bruiser Amber Rudd to lay down the (cyber) law

Executives at Facebook, Google and other terrorist-enabling online services are said to be quaking in their boots as UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd swoops into Silicon Valley this week to read them the riot act. Rudd has been a frequent critic of social media giants, particularly after the murders in London and Manchester, and …

Page:

  1. monty75

    I wonder how pleased she'll be at having all the data on her laptop and mobile scanned by TSA agents on arrival. After all, she's got nothing to hide and therefore nothing to fear.

    (Yes, yes, I know she'll have diplomatic immunity but the irony was worth pointing out)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Everyone is linked to somebody though

      Bet her family and friends flying to USA aren't immune though.... Wonder what we could learn from those messages??? That is unless as with Celebrities / VIPs there's a wider do-not-touch list....

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      To justify these measures we need an episode of The One Show, showing Amber Rudd and Theresa May being shown how to use their own special 'free' online financial manager software, where they can both enter their personal details/password/financial information in plain unencrypted text (to satisfy Security Services).

      Bankcruptcy is still a reason you can't stand as an MP, whatever the reason.

      I live in hope.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Real reason?

      Baring in mind her narrow majority and the British weather, perhaps Ms Rudd, rather than visiting California to 'lay down the (cyber) law', is actually just trying to line up her next job.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Diplomatic Immunity

      That depends on whether Sergeant Murtaugh is at the customs desk when she arrives. That dude knows how to revoke diplomatic immunity.

    5. Tronald Dump

      If you've nothing to hide, they'll fit you up with something

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yep, I can hear them quaking in their boots ... or maybe that's just tinnitus.

    'Murrica, you can bloody well keep her ...

    1. kain preacher

      But then you have to take Trump and Ted Cruz.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "But then you have to take Trump and Ted Cruz."

        Noooooooooo.....that's even more unbalanced the the UK-USA extradition treaty!!!

        1. kain preacher

          FIne we will take borris johnson.

          1. wolfetone Silver badge

            "FIne we will take borris johnson."

            Boris Johnson is American already, having been born in New York. So that doesn't count.

            1. Scroticus Canis

              Boris Johnson is American already

              Ooh! Hasn't he given up his USA citizenship or does he pay the annual Federal taxes on what he earns here and else where?

              The people need to know!

              1. Afernie

                Re: Boris Johnson is American already

                "Ooh! Hasn't he given up his USA citizenship or does he pay the annual Federal taxes on what he earns here and else where?

                The people need to know!"

                Yes on both counts, the first earlier this year, and the latter prior to that. He didn't enjoy contributing to the US Treasury coffers, that much is clear.

              2. kain preacher

                Re: Boris Johnson is American already

                Yes he does. There was an article were he was bitching about having to pay US income tax after selling a house in the UK

                "Boris Johnson is American already, having been born in New York. So that doesn't count."

                I was hoping no one would of noticed that :), But I think he did give up his citizenship after having to pay a hefty US income tax bill.

                1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
                  Gimp

                  Re: Boris Johnson is American already

                  "I was hoping no one would of noticed that :), But I think he did give up his citizenship after having to pay a hefty US income tax bill."

                  I wonder how that plays out when Boris "Foreign Secretary" Johnson visits the USA as a person who renounced US citizenship? I can imagine there being some in the US who can't imagine any legitimate reason to give up citizenship of "The Greatest Democracy The World Has Ever Known" so he must be some sort of pinko commie terrorist looney!

                  1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

                    Re: Boris Johnson is American already

                    Seeking foreign elected office loses you your American citizenship.

                    It became a bit of a scam for billionaire ex-pat Americans trying to skip tax, they would stand for mayor of some Caribbean island. In the same way that MPs apply to be 'royal nutpicker of the new forest" as a way to resign

                    1. kain preacher

                      Re: Boris Johnson is American already

                      That's not automatic. You still have to renounce your citizenship. There is a little known law that says American citizens can not be involved in foreign governments or write policy/laws for for foreign governments.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: Boris Johnson is American already

                        "There is a little known law that says American citizens can not be involved in foreign governments or write policy/laws for for foreign governments."

                        Do you think someone should remind the CIA?

                        1. kain preacher

                          Re: Boris Johnson is American already

                          The CIA is gov agency not a one individual. Besides the CIA has never been concerned about obey any laws in any country.

                  2. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

                    Re: Boris Johnson is American already

                    pinko commie terrorist looney

                    Well - the last part looks about right..

                    (I veer between "he must be relatively intelligent" and "he's really not very bright".. I guess is the old saying about intelligence does not imply wisdom..)

                    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                      Re: Boris Johnson is American already

                      "(I veer between "he must be relatively intelligent" and "he's really not very bright".. I guess is the old saying about intelligence does not imply wisdom..)"

                      I believe he is very intelligent but likes to come across as a buffoon. In politics, that's dangerous for us.

    2. a_yank_lurker

      @Simon Ward - we have enough idiots aka Congress, you can have her back.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Rudd's simple solution

    Every phone and computer to have a little locked door on it with a key combination which only the Gubmint knows. When they open the door, out pops a little micro-SD with all your suspicious stuff on it.

    Simple!

    1. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Rudd's simple solution

      Germany have sort of done this. No backdoor and no breaking of encryption, but with a warrant, they can install a trojan on a device and monitor it in real time.

      Not ideal, but at least there are some balances and cotnrols, and they need physical access (currently) to install the malware and they have accepted that encryption for the Joe Public is essental in the modern age.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        Re: Rudd's simple solution

        I don't think physical access is needed. There's a mile of Qualcomm baseband exploits to choose from for mobiles and presumably they can furtle with people's ISPs to get any kind of device to download govware.

      2. streaky

        Re: Rudd's simple solution

        Germany have sort of done this. No backdoor and no breaking of encryption, but with a warrant, they can install a trojan on a device and monitor it in real time.

        Security services in the UK also have this option.

        1. big_D Silver badge

          Re: Rudd's simple solution

          In which case, there is no need to backdoor encryption.

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: Rudd's simple solution

            That's fine for targetting criminals and terrorists but it's a real pain when you need to spy on everyone in the country. Remember if you are a Tory cabinet minister it isn't paranoia - there actually are 65million people out there after you.

        2. StargateSg7

          Re: Rudd's simple solution

          Wouldn't work for MY systems! I'm ALL custom!

          I have a completely Complete custom CPU/GPU chips!

          Custom Northbridge/Southbridge/Comms chips, custom

          TEMPEST-rated motherboards! Custom NON-unix based

          encrypting OS, Custom encrypted BIOS, Own TCP/IP/Ethernet

          hardware and Wifi/Wimax/4G baseband hardware and software

          stack, custom Java interpreters and HTML/web browser implementation.

          Custom SQL interpreter and database engine. Custom programming

          language Ada/Pascal based with auto-garbage collection. Custom

          Compiler and Assembler for custom NON-SPARC and NON-X86

          instruction set. All in a Rad-hardened, Faraday-caged system

          we designed ourselves!

          NOTHING out there will work on ANYTHING in here!

          We even use our own custom build, Word Processors, Spreadsheets,

          Drawing/Paint/ Video Editing/VFX/Animation applications and INTERNAL

          anti-virus sniffers and protocol stack analyzers. NOTHING gets by us!

          We are 1000 TIMES MORE SECURE than the NSA, DIA, CIA, GCHQ, MI5/MI6, CSE/CSIS,

          GRU/FSB, MOSSAD/SHINBET and almost every OTHER special service! We also have

          500 multi-spectral cameras running SOBEL edge detection (Base and Inverted) at

          Acoustic/IR/UV/Optical/MM/RF/XRAY/GAMMA frequencies and with gait, biometric,

          weight, olifcatory, humidity and multi-gas and liquid sensors.

          We are WAAAAAAY BEYOND S4/Area 51/Autec/Majestic security levels and protocols!

          WE are the ones that take security BEYOND THE NEXT LEVEL!

          You have NOTHING compared to us!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Rudd's simple solution

      "Every phone and computer to have a little locked door on it with a key combination which only the Gubmint knows. When they open the door, out pops a little micro-SD with all your suspicious stuff on it.

      Simple!"

      Except hers obviously.

      "We Must think of the tax-haven offshore bank account holders, in dealing with this issue sensitively"

  4. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. tfewster
      Facepalm

      Re: Not Very Bright...

      Amber Rudd and others are conflating two very different uses of the internet by the "bad guys":

      1. External communications: Propaganda, recruitment etc. - YouTube, FaceBook, Twitter. Has to be widely visible, can't be encrypted, easily taken down, and sources blocked, though the individuals behind it may be harder to find.

      2. Internal communications: Planning attacks, logistics, etc. - Burner phones, WhatsApp for encryption, all of the above for innocuous coded messages - all using burner accounts.

      Internet companies are cooperating on any "offensive" material, which covers the first type. For the second type, breaking encryption wouldn't gather anything meaningful - What does "The grey goose flys at dawn" mean, unless you have the codebook?

      1. RayzorWire

        Re: Not Very Bright...

        Vodka O'clock - nice =)

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Not Very Bright...

      "I am not an internet guru"

      Compared to the fly-in Amber you have a brain the size of a planet.

    3. a_yank_lurker

      Re: Not Very Bright...

      @Shadmeister - A Congresscritter wannabe posturing without a clue.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Not Very Bright...

        A Congresscritter wannabe posturing without a clue

        And there is the whole problem - there isn't any politician in the western world that has ant useful technological knowledge, that is why they are politicians.

    4. Truckle The Uncivil

      Re: Not Very Bright...

      @shadmeister

      No, no, no. Situations 2, 3 and 4 are what they want. It will all funnel down to a few sources, which then can be preserved and analysed. That way they can catch them as their playing field has been limited. It allows them to focus in on the 'bad actors' and those who communicate with them.

      <sarcasm>Of course the impact it has on the 'good actors' who require some privacy cannot be important, can it? After all, we don't need freedom and democracy anymore, do we? Look at where it all has lead?</sarcasm>

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not Very Bright...

      "The above is obvious first glance, may contain errors, and is not extensive."

      Yes, its "obvious" but incorrect. Terrorists like everyone else will go down the path of least resistence. If you make it harder for them to use standard tools it forces them to use niche tools which they may not understand properly or be able to use very well.

      Youtube - terrorists don't generally use youtube to send secret messages to each other. They use it for propaganda purposes to indoctrinate susceptable individuals in the general population. If they have to use a "secret" server then that rather defeats the purpose.

      I know the above goes against the popular anti-government groupthink on here and I apologise for not joining the self satisfied bleeting with the rest of the herd plus I'm sure to be modded down by the usual vocal know-nothings, but just thought it needed to be said.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not Very Bright...

          "I thought the terrorists had manuals on how to do things - so any issues will be resolved and documented."

          What what I've read a lot of the ISIS terrorists would need a manual to wipe their own backsides without making a mess of it. There are obviously some smart ones at the top but don't assume the indoctrinated individuals are particularly smart.

          "For Youtube, this is not the only way terrorists are recruited"

          Of course not, but its a quick simple way to mass market their ideology to as many people as possible.

          "As others have stated, politicians are technoplebs,"

          Yes most of them are, but luckily there are people at GCHQ and MI* behind the scenes who advise them who are anything but. Of course if the politician doesn't want to listen...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Not Very Bright...

            " but don't assume the indoctrinated individuals are particularly smart."

            In fact, fairly obviously they are extremely gullible and probably very stupid. But someone has to get blown up or shot.

            As Max Hastings has observed, in mass armies such as were still around in WW2 the job of the majority of soldiers was to be easy targets so the competent soldiers were less likely to be shot. (Hence "cannon fodder"). Some of the true stories in which one or two soldiers made a huge difference to part of a battle are only explicable on the assumption that the enemy were too busy shooting the slow movers to notice them.

      2. Tim Hughes

        Re: Not Very Bright...

        You do realise that terrorism is just another word for asymmetrical warfare, right?

        Its purpose is to have an effect completely disproportionate to the amount of damage caused, and I think that breaking the security of all internet communications in the vain hope of catching more of these people prior to an attack does indeed count as wildly disproportionate. As many people have written very eloquently, and maths and experience of human frailty has shown, we just know that any kind of backdoor for the authorities will be secure for about as long as it takes to read this article.

        Well done terrorists + UK government. Your job is complete.

        If you are merely interested in preventing deaths, then you are approximately 300 times more likely to die on the roads than in a terror attack. How about we stop cutting traffic police numbers and just enforce the road laws a bit better? That might save a few more lives, but probably won't generate exciting headlines for your average minister.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not Very Bright...

          "If you are merely interested in preventing deaths, then you are approximately 300 times more likely to die on the roads than in a terror attack."

          Sure, but take away any police or security service action to stop terror attacks before they occur and that number might drop rather precipitously. Most police work to stop terror attacks we never hear about.

          1. nijam Silver badge

            Re: Not Very Bright...

            > ... that number might drop rather precipitously.

            So the police or security services tell us. They wouldn't be exaggerating, I'm sure.

        2. Ucalegon
          Joke

          Re: Not Very Bright...

          "approximately 300 times more likely to die on the roads than in a terror attack." - yes, yes all very sensible but you seem to be advocating terrorists start targeting traffic lights and blocking roundabouts with crashed Uber cabs to avoid adding to the terrorist casualties statistic.

          Poor old Amber will be furious when she gets hold of your account.

      3. Patrician

        Re: Not Very Bright...

        @boltar

        "Terrorists like everyone else will go down the path of least resistance"

        No, sorry, but the people like the ones that carried out the recent UK attacks *may* use WhatsApp for personal communications, but I'll bet you a pound to a penny that the "organisation" uses private systems for the official terrorist communications and organising attacks. These will be well hidden and secured and only accessible via VPN/Tor and their ilk. It's even possible that dead drops and face to face meetings are more usual that WhatsApp messaging for the "orders" stage of an attack.

        Couple that with the fact that the perpetrators of the recent UK attacks were already "known to the security services" and were not being monitored due to "resources", what is the point of having thousands of more "targets" to watch?

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Not Very Bright...

          The recent attacks were by a couple of lone nutters who thought that the UK and USA governments hated them, their people and their religion.

          The attacks in Manchester and London weren't planned in a secret underground war room in Afghanistan with secret battle plans sent by secret encrypted communication.

    6. streaky

      Re: Not Very Bright...

      Every time this comes up I like to boil the argument down to be more simple than it was the last time it came up.

      Basically where I'm at now is "if it's that easy where's GCHQs paper on how it can be done easily and securely so we can peer review it". Nope, that's what I thought.

  5. s. pam Silver badge
    Trollface

    Is she wearing her strap on?

    I think she'll be laughed out of the buildings in Silly Con valley!

  6. Commswonk

    Not for me, thanks all the same...

    Despite President Trump's recent claim that a US‑UK trade deal was imminent and would be "beautiful," the reality is that a UK government minister – even the Home Secretary – carries little weight in California.

    "Beautiful" has to be qualified by the much trumpeted (play on words not entirely accidental) "America First" policy. I suspect that any UK - USA Trade Deal will be greatly weighted in the USA's favour, and that the UK might be better off without one. "Greatly weighted in the USA's favour" should be read as the UK getting royally shafted.

    And I say that as a "leave" voter, although I am not seeking to reopen the Brexit debate.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like