Home Sec Amber Rudd: Yeah, I don't understand encryption. So what? UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd has once again demonstrated she does not know how encryption works, this time by explicitly admitting it to delegates at a Tory party fringe conference where she also hit out at "patronising" techies that "sneered" at politicians. Speaking at a Spectator event, Rudd said: "It's so easy to be …
"any of us who try and legislate in new areas, who will automatically be sneered at and laughed at for not getting it right"
You're a politician framing laws that affect people's rights and possibly reputation, livelihood, standing in society and ultimately even their liberty. "Getting it right" is the minimum requirement of your job.
Here's a novel idea: if you're going to make laws about something, either understand what it is you're making laws about, or find someone who does and get them to explain it to you. If you don't understand it, maybe you should wait to make a law about it until you do.
Note:
This applies on both sides of the Atlantic.
I'll just leave this here:
Speculation that Amber Rudd wants to be PM
What are her leadership chances? She came fifth in the latest poll of party members, with 7.5%, after Boris (21%), Jacob Rees-Mogg (15%), David Davis (14%) and Other (18%).
and let's not forget the bit about "Her majority fell from 4,796 to 346, "
Turning a safe Conservative seat into a marginal is quite a feat, but one she seems to have managed with ease. One might think her constituents had taken a dislike to her. A bit more and she might not be there at all.
The Guardian says “Don’t Leave the Tories Rudd-erless!”
Personally I'd quite happily leave it so.
...and you're a keyboard warrior who who thinks sneering is useful? Amusing on a site like this, yes, but don't fool yourself into thinking you're having any influence. She doesn't understand encription, you don't understand politics - a dialogue of the deaf.
Ah. The problem with your statement is that Techies DO understand politics.
It is a very simple, childish, and systemically broken system filled with arrogant gits that couldn't manage a career doing something actually Useful (like mowing my lawn, or refactoring some code I wrote for my better half some years ago, she relies on and I want to retire for the New Shiny thing I wrote).
We understand, we understand Quite Clearly.
The lack of clarity is one-sided.
Go ahead, ask me about James (FaLaLaLa Silicon Valley's Problem And Theeeeey Woooont Heeeeeelp Meeeee Break Their Stuff FaLaLaLa) Comey.
The thought: "I can do my job, your job, AND your boss' job, maintaining my quality of work, ex increasing that of yourself And your Boss by an order of magnitude, BEFORE I have to add espresso to my day." is largely, where the Well Deserved Sneering comes from.
*Sneer.* -sniff- *SNEEEEEER.*
To be fair, many techies will also try at least once, possibly even more than once to explain some of the obstacles that make the ministers demands unrealistic.
And then - when we have been ignored for the umpteenth plus one time, then we're going to sneer.
It's the wilful refusal to engage with the complexity of the issues at hand, the adamant insistence that "lords and masters" know better. And at that point, when we realise that we have met the ministerial equivalent of "Tim, Nice but Dim", then we sneer!
Yep. While it is true that a politician does not need to know the mathematics behind encryption, especially the more head hurty public/private key arrangements, they do need to understand the basic concepts of security and reality. If a mechanism, any mechanism, is designed with a catch-all bypass which is "protected" by keeping this mechanism "secret" then the mechanism is no longer secure and this bypass mechanism will find its way out to big, bad world.
Would Ms Rudd require that all door locks produced by locksmiths selling locks for use in the UK share a common master key, copies of which are stored in Ms Rudd's office, in all police stations (just in case), in the glove boxes of all emergency vehicles (just in case), in the cabinets of all utility companies (just in case), in the offices of local councils (just in case - terrorists and kiddie botherers y'know) and of course various very reputable* private security companies such as G4S (just in case one wants to outsource things).
Ah... Ms Rudd would think this is a good idea because she is unfeasibly stupid and would lose an intellectual challenge against a tub of lard and can't of think anything beyond a police state. Damn. I think I may have sneered. My bad.
* "Reputable" doesn't necessarily mean having a good reputation...
@Nick
Would Ms Rudd require that all door locks produced by locksmiths selling locks for use in the UK share a common master key, copies of which are stored in Ms Rudd's office, in all police stations (just in case), in the glove boxes of all emergency vehicles (just in case), in the cabinets of all utility companies (just in case), in the offices of local councils (just in case - terrorists and kiddie botherers y'know) and of course various very reputable* private security companies such as G4S (just in case one wants to outsource things).
For the love of [Insert Deity]
Don't start giving her ideas! She's dangerous enough as it is!
The TSA (aka the theif support agency) beat her to that a long time ago:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/18/keysforge_will_give_you_printable_key_blueprints_using_a_photo_of_a_lock/
https://www.wired.com/2015/09/lockpickers-3-d-print-tsa-luggage-keys-leaked-photos/
"then the mechanism is no longer secure and this bypass mechanism will find its way out to big, bad world"
Should be particularly significant to Amber Rudd, because the recent NHS disaster was created by code that found its way from the NSA to the big, bad world.
"Would Ms Rudd require that all door locks produced by locksmiths selling locks for use in the UK share a common master key, copies of which are stored in Ms Rudd's office, in all police stations (just in case), in the glove boxes of all emergency vehicles (just in case), in the cabinets of all utility companies (just in case), in the offices of local councils (just in case - terrorists and kiddie botherers y'know) and of course various very reputable* private security companies such as G4S (just in case one wants to outsource things).".
Y'mean like the TSA require all your luggage to have locks with master keys if you travel to the States?
Can't think what could possibly go wrong with that *stares at kits of TSA master keys for sale*
Don't forget, if you've nothing to hide you don't need privacy.
"*stares at kits of TSA master keys for sale*"
From experience, luggage does get checked by the TSA. (We had a suitcase delayed by half a day because we changed planes and our suitcase got looked at by them, and didn't make it to our flight.)
Ultimately, it all boils down as to whether you can check a suspicious case without opening it, and if not, *how* do you allow access to the various agencies whilst providing security to passengers.
For the record, I know my cases have been rifled through in other countries, and the TSA is the only agency that have left a polite note saying they had done it. (No idea what they were looking for.)
I've never lost anything from hold luggage, but then I'd never intentionally put something valuable in there....
"From experience, luggage does get checked by the TSA."
Seconded from here - the last time I was out that way they left a leaflet in my luggage on the way home... right next to the one that they'd left on the way in (that I'd deliberately placed so that it was they first thing they'd see on opening it...)
FFS. She is part of the same Tory Cabinet that do their own sneering, organising, backstabbing via encrypted WhatsApp messaging, against the clueless deadwood Maybot.
Johnson has admitted to using WhatsApp messaging for such purposes, in a Guardian article.
Amber, hun, you need to realise that not knowing how something works is fine. Encryption is really complicated - that's why you should listen to experts about it. More than one expert. From more than one think-tank. And they'll disagree. And that's fine too. Because the societal issues are almost as complicated as the technology. And once you've accepted that "it's complicated" is a perfectly reasonable answer, maybe you'll be less of a knee-jerk totalitarian and be more in tune with the tolerant traditions that are the best part of this country.
The two words appear to mean exactly the same, and "social" is perfectly adequate. There is no need for another (inevitably longer and more important-sounding) word.
It's rather like "orientated" (as in "object-orientated") which is just a longer, more pompous version of "oriented". Strictly speaking there is a small difference, in that "oriented" means "pointed towards", whereas "orientated" means "made to point towards". On that basis, too, "oriented" is the better choice.
The general principle is this:
"Broadly speaking, short words are best, and the old words, when short, are best of all".
- Sir Winston Churchill (speech on receiving the London Times Literary Award, November 2, 1949)
Reminds me of an ex-boss who encrypted his Android phone as soon as he found out it was possible.. Having done so he was then offered a newer phone which he picked up from the store. Sadly he promptly forgot the password and asked me to unlock it for him. When I explained that I couldn't do that he said I wasn't making any friends with that answer. It took two other people and Googling before he believed me.
We sat around trying to help him remember his password offering potential categories he might have chosen from. After going through half a dozen we hit paydirt with first place he went on holiday. We then went to the pub and he bought a couple of rounds as a thank you. The main reason he was desperate to have access to his phone was because it had the dates of his Wedding Anniversary and Wife's Birthday.
She's just banned the sale of acid to under 18s. So it is vitally important that you take a form of photo ID with you if you want to avail yourself of the standard condiments next time you go to the chippy.
Either that or she's some sort of flatulent, calcium-based life form that's managed to infiltrate the corridors of power.
She's just banned the sale of acid to under 18s.
Yes, just a few simple thought experiments show how unworkable this particular knee-jerk is, even if she is just talking about strong acids (rather than, for instance, vinegar, lemon juice, or rainwater)
For example, a sixteen-year-old can legally ride a 50cc scooter on a provisional licence. All such modern scooters have electronic ignition, running off a 6V or 12V lead-acid battery. Will she therefore be making it illegal for under-18s to purchase such scooters, or will she make it so that only adults can buy the batteries? In this case, will it also be illegal for someone over 18 to buy acids, and hence acid-containing batteries for under-18s (in the same way as buying alcohol for under-18s is). To further complicate things, when you buy a replacement battery for a scooter, you often get the battery and acid in separate containers, and have to mix them.
Assuming that the group that Ms Rudd is attempting to target are under-18s using strong acids as weapons, where exactly does she think they are getting them from? Bear in mind that the most likely common source for strong acids is the sulphuric acid in car/bike batteries, how does she think making the purchase illegal is going to restrict access to these ubiquitous batteries? It's not as if someone who is going to attack another person with acid is going to balk at the idea of nicking a battery out of a car.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
