Wah, encryption makes policing hard, cries UK's National Crime Agency Encryption is making it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to detect dangerous offenders, according the the National Crime Agency's (NCA) yearly assessment of serious organised crime in Britain. "Since 2010, communication service providers have migrated to encrypted services 'by default', a process that accelerated …
Dear NCA (becuase I know you're reading this),
Encryption is mathematics.
You cannot effectively regulate mathematics, thus you cannot effectively regulate encryption.
Yours
People who know common sense when they see it
P.S. How about trying good old detective work instead of lazy data-slurp grepping.
P.S. How about trying good old detective work instead of lazy data-slurp grepping.
They couldn't do that because all most of them only know how to look at a computer monitor. They appear to spend most of their time reading facebook and getting upset if someone makes what they consider a racial statement rather than getting out and asking questions - we can't go out on the street we have a liberal arts degree.
...the officers can't go out on the street, because despite the fact that they are willing to work long unsocial hours (typically five 8-hour shifts a week covering nights and weekends) for less pay than you probably get (starting salary around £23k if they're lucky, rising to around £38k at the top of the scale), the funds aren't currently available, so they are one of the tens of thousands who have had their jobs cut.
IMHO, most police officers are very much 'type A' personalities, who have no desire to sit in front of a screen or avoid potentially dangerous situations. They do a job I certainly wouldn't want to, not least because it is a difficult and dangerous role that is continually undermined by the press and ignorant keyboard warriors like some other posters here...
> ignorant keyboard warriors like some other posters here...
I don't think anyone here is ignorantly bashing Bobby (or Bobbette) on the beat.
The bashing, if there is any to be had, is against the keyboard warriors at the "security services" who have their master's ear in their demands for "more data, ban encryption" despite (a) encryption = mathematics, and (b) their proven inability to stop people already known to them doing bad things.
If the government would spend less money on their keyboard warriors (and associated over-priced, over-running IT contracts) and more money on those on the front-line, then perhaps we'd be in a different place.
I don't think anyone here is ignorantly bashing Bobby (or Bobbette) on the beat.
Sadly, I have to disagree. I think people easily conflate 'policing' with 'police officers'. In this instance, beat officers have very little to do with the mass eavesdropping from our security services, but people will blame them.
As you rightly point out, this isn't about run-of-the-mill regular policing (which politicians seem to care very little about), but about the mass surveillance and social control so beloved of our increasingly authoritarian politicians. Those within the police who actually have any involvement in this will either be the career managers who have little to do with any actual policing, and the PCCs, who have elected political posts.
Sure, it might be handy for policing to be able to pull information on everyone up at will, and it would make crimes a hell of a lot easier to solve, but I don't believe most police genuinely want everyone to live in that sort of dystopia. After all, we live in a society which is policed by consent, and any move towards this sort of thing for the rank-and-file bobby would make their job harder, not easier, from the public outcry.
> think people easily conflate 'policing' with 'police officers'.
Erm....
No confusion on my part.
I was replying to someone who quite clearly typed the words "most police officers are".
I was merely saying I did not, and (I would guess) other people the OP attributed as "keyboard warriors here" were unlikely to have an issue with said "police officers".
As you rightly point out, this isn't about run-of-the-mill regular policing (which politicians seem to care very little about), but about the mass surveillance and social control so beloved of our increasingly authoritarian politicians.
I speak from the States which is having similar issues in this race to the bottom. Your post says a lot about government in general. Civil rights and liberties are at risk by this so which is more important? Catching a few crims or citizens rights? Here in the States, one of the founders (if I remember right but it may have been a Supreme Court judge) said: "It's better for 10 guilty persons to go free than for one innocent to be convicted." All surveillance does is put the population at risk and also "under control".
Here in the States, one of the founders (if I remember right but it may have been a Supreme Court judge) said: "It's better for 10 guilty persons to go free than for one innocent to be convicted."
It was Benjamin Franklin who is often quoted (slightly out of context):
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
"As you rightly point out, this isn't about run-of-the-mill regular policing (which politicians seem to care very little about), [...]"
It is the media-driven politicians who keep setting priorities for regular policing - which leads to officers knowing their careers depend on meeting accompanying targets.
A few years ago an acquaintance was a (voluntary) special constable - as the local force had severe limits on recruitment numbers. He even received a commendation n one case when he possibly saved someone's life by quick action.
When the police force was recruiting again he applied. In his final interview with a senior officer he was failed - on the grounds that he wasn't "aggressive" enough.
A few years later he was accepted. However it became noticeable that he closed ranks with the institutional, even admiring, attitude that misbehaving officers were just "hard men".
He said of an anonymous man for whom they were unable to find any evidence to charge "we'll get him next time". Now a guilty man might have been lucky in that instance - but it illustrates why the public are getting chary of any contact with the police who apparently see everyone as a criminal.
The acquaintance is now retired from the police - and misses its sense of group identity.
Those of us who work in any way related to computer security, perhaps most especially web developers, will be aware of the gradual feeling that it really does seem that everyone genuinely is out to get/hack you. When the police, by the very nature of their job, unfortunately have to interact very frequently with people who quite often are the veritable “scum of the earth”, I can similarly see how the groupthink would sadly perhaps inevitably turn towards having a rather jaundiced view of many of their fellow humans. It’s certainly not a job that I would envy, having to deal with quite often horrific and violent crimes, and I’m sure it must exert a very genuine psychological toll.
However, I would genuinely hope that the police service also moves with the times and not only tries to take good care of officers’ wellbeing but also takes active measures to try to ensure that what I’m sure is understandable cynicism doesn’t then develop into undesirable and unjustified groupthink or prejudice.
Having said that, there are such people as habitual criminals and I am sure that there are some people about whom, based on previous evidence, the police have very good grounds for suspicion, but insufficient evidence to pin a particular crime on them on that occasion. As long as they do go solely on the evidence, and perhaps keep a careful watch on known suspects, but definitely do not go so far as to “fit them up”, that’s perhaps not always necessarily a bad thing.
P.S. How about trying good old detective work instead of lazy data-slurp grepping.
Remember who it was that broke this - encryption became the default when the public found out about huge and outrageous abuses done by the same sort of people who are now whinging about it.
It's not just mathematics they should be ban - it's all the things criminals rely on:
- oxygen
- food
- the Earth
- the Sun
There's probably more, but once we get rid of the last two, I confidently predict that the number of criminals using encryption will drop significantly and we can even leave you with your precious mathematics!
The NCA report did point at those (including banks) facilitating the apparently untraceable flow of huge quantities of hot money through the London realestate market. It's not encryption that facilitates that flow of money, it's (well, you work it out).
Right at the end of the article: "the NCA warned the UK remained a prime destination for money laundering. "Investment in UK property, particularly in London, continues to be an attractive mechanism to launder funds,"
So, no need for *mass* surveillance, just keep a close eye on the top end of the London property market. How hard can it be, with or without encryption? Getting sufficient evidence to support enough convictions might be trickier, in the circumstances.
For the many $, not the few.
This post has been deleted by its author
The use of ancient Latin (in case they try to communicate in that).
I'm all in favour of this if it means that Boris gets locked up. One ambitious mendacious egotist in a position of power can do far more damage than a thousand run-of-the-mill criminals. Just look at all the public money lost on that stupid Garden Bridge idea, or the extra danger he put Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in.
"P.S. How about trying good old detective work instead of lazy data-slurp grepping."
^^^ So much this.
See, my biggest gripe with articles like these and which sometimes make me want to fume (I don't) is the display of hypocrisy involved. Now, I don't deny that encryption can make things harder on them. I think that's plain out true.
But is it really as much of a problem as they claim?
See... remember that London suicide bomber incident? Several people around the nutjub, including people from the Mosque he visited had already warned law enforcement that something wasn't right. And what did the police do? Put him on a list and... that was just about it. I don't know about you but if members of a Mosque start sending out warnings then all my alarmbells would go off.
So encryption could make police work harder? What kind of police work are we exactly talking about would be my counter question, especially with the above in mind...
"Encryption is making it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to detect dangerous offenders".
Yes. And so do many other things. Foremost being the refusal of serious offenders to go and turn themselves in straight after the offence. Most unreasonable.
And how does encryption reduce detection of people glassing someone outside the pub on a Friday night, or of domestic violence? Surely those are a large proportion of the 'serious' crimes? trrrrrrsts are pretty rare.
But at the same time Encryption is reducing crime, by making it harder to commit online fraud.
Swings and roundabouts.
“And how does encryption reduce detection of people glassing someone outside the pub on a Friday night, or of domestic violence?“
Nice straw man. At least I assume it is. Alternatively you may need to review the types of crimes the NCA deal with...
You are of course correct that encryption has benefits to society, along with causing detriment to it. It’s a balancing act.
What I find odd (actually I don’t) is that the firearms issue in the US is met on here with mostly a “more regulation!” argument. I agree with that argument wholeheartedly. Crypto on the other hand tends to bring out the “you can pry my AES256 keys from my cold dead hands”.
Both firearms and crypto can be used for good and bad. Appropriate regulation can help to ensure society benefits on the whole. Weakening crypto doesn’t benefit society. It makes us vulnerable to criminals etc. Allowing the state access to keys after following due process can help society. Ofc it’s all dogma here, so I don’t expect any agreement.
The usual argument in both firearms and crypto is that the bad guys don’t follow the rules. That’s true. Doesn’t stop us banning Tesco from selling crack/AR10s to ppl. If bad guys use crypto and refuse to abide by a court issued warrant they’re off the streets regardless.
Some very bad law has been created and proposed in this area. We need to do all we can to ensure it is fixed/does not come to pass. However no law may end up hurting society just as badly. Don’t be like the NRA. Try to view the issue a little more holistically. And of course, make sure your MP is very clear on their constituent’s concerns in the area...
> firearms issue in the US is met on here with mostly a “more regulation!” argument.
Ok, since you brought up the topic of the US and their guns.
Excluding suicides, there were approximately 16,000 gun deaths in the US in 2017 (including suicides, the figures are double).
That's up on the previous year, which is up on the year before that etc. etc.
There is very little counter-argument to be had against "more regulation" for guns.
It is also totally unreasonable to seek to compare guns to encryption.
“Show me on the doll where you can shoot someone in the face with an encrypted email.”
The same place you shoot them with a lottery ticket/bottle of stout/packet of amoxicillin I guess. Note how these things are all regulated.
As I said above - it’s all dogma here. The idea of anyone actually stopping to consider the possible pros and cons is laughable. Just as it is for the NRA. Just different areas of concern. It’s also one of (although by no means the only) reason terrible legislation gets passed around crypto in Blighty. The only voice against it is lots of dogmatic shouting. It would be better to educate your MPs around what crypto does to benefit us all, and how it’s dangers can be safely mitigated. Instead we get the laughable tripe above so guess what? You get ignored by the big boys and girls, resulting in shit regs :(
@Pier Reviewer
So you move from one straw man to another, How does that even work?
I'll try to make this straight forward. A gun can kill a person (not getting into that argument btw) encryption can't.
It's not Dogma it's bloody common sense. you can't put a hole in a gun so anyone could use it shoot you however you can't put a hole in encryption and not stop everyone owning you.
If you have no problem with encryption being broken then please feel free to post your bank login details and all personal emails/chat messages.
There is very little counter-argument to be had against "more regulation" for guns.
Whilst I entirely agree that it's inappropriate to compare firearms to encryption, this statement is also deeply flawed.
Talking about "American gun laws" or "American gun deaths" is a meaningless and pointless exercise. It's like talking about "European gun laws" and sweeping the UK and Czech Republic into one big generalisation.
The areas of the US with the highest guns per capita (mostly rural areas), have the lowest incidences of gun crime and firearm homicides. The majority of such crime occurs in the top half dozen metro areas including Washington DC (the most dangerous place in the US), NYC, Chicago, Detroit and LA - which curiously have the strictest firearm laws in the US.
Whilst it is undoubtable that the regulatory regime in the US requires change, simply saying "moar regulation" is about as useful as retweeting #KONY2012. It's basically just virtue signalling and offers nothing useful to the debate. Get detailed or don't bother.
Moreover, the horse has bolted. Firearms (both white- and black-market) are so ubiquitous that legislation won't do much unless we're proposing that the National Guard do a house-to-house search of every residence in the US to enforce a hand-in of prohibited firearms (because they don't have a nice list of licensees like we did for the handgun ban in the UK). The US requires wholesale addressing of social inequality, inner-city deprivation, gang culture, access to further education and healthcare, etc. Firearms are just one symptom of the underlying disease, and in the long run, good doctors seek treat the illness not the symptom. But that won't happen because social welfare is a commie plot. Damn those Scandinavians and their fantastic standards of living (and widespread gun ownership).
"There is very little counter-argument to be had against "more regulation" for guns."
Obviously you, like half the people with opinions on the subject, understand very little about it.
It is very clear that in many circumstances, more regulations for guns will result in more crime and more deaths. Dragging this into a discussion of regulation of encryption confuses the issue, even though both forms of regulation are harmful.
Repeat after me, one hundred times "It's not the guns, it's the culture".
Where I live, we don't generally have the same culture problems, and gun regulations may well kill more people than they save... the numbers are too low, and the details of the data are fuzzy enough that it's hard to be sure.
Nope.
Crime in Scotland is going down. But the thing is they make it very difficult, and they do nothing about it.
So only serious injuries get reported.
I sadly know because I got burgled (twice) and got both my flat (once) and my car (three times) vandalized.
The car was the fine job of freshers from the university of edinburgh, and the police did not even bother to ask the nearest pub for the recordings. They also jumped on cars on the occasion, and about 20 cars in the same street got their plates stolen.
the point of this is saying that there is litlle precious police for real serious crimes, yet they do find the time to illegally gather information about everyone.
Where I'm based, "serious" crime is investigated quickly and with lots of resources, but other crimes are not.
It is all a low resources thing (e.g. total number of fully trained & experienced traffic cops in the County can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands, & they often have to spend time on other work instead)
Disclosure: This info is due to having suffered "serious" and "non serious" crimes and my dealings (or lack of) with local plod during those events.
In my dealings with them, was also chatting to a younger PC about racism, sexism in the force - was told that (in "my" area) apparently (as far as they could tell based on older cops tales of how it was) less toxic environment than before but still too rife
"The usual argument in both firearms and crypto is that the bad guys don’t follow the rules. That’s true. Doesn’t stop us banning Tesco from selling crack/AR10s to ppl."
Ah, the old false equivalent argument. Crypto has legitimate uses like allowing people to use online banking. I can't think of a legitimate use a member of the British public might have for crack or an AR10.
"Crypto has legitimate uses like allowing people to use online banking. I can't think of a legitimate use a member of the British public might have for crack or an AR10."
That is, in part, because you live in a tame little country with no wild animals to speak of. There are places in the wilderness where I have been very happy to have an AR10 or its approximate equivalent, loaded with the heaviest bullets I could easily get.
My friend who got turned about, and ended up spending a night in the woods, feeding the fire and counting the eyes of the surrounding wolf pack felt somewhat the same.
So yes, I have the equivalent of an AR10, and the equivalent of an AR15, both locked in my gun safe. Both will do for wolves, but only one is suitable for large bear, though something more powerful would be advisable if you really expect to be out in bear territory.
Oh... and very few people buy AR10s - a bit light for bear, and a bit slow for a wolf pack.
Safety tip - for bear, look at a lever action carbine in .458 Winchester Magnum or 45-70 Government (modern high power loading). Clearing a misfire is much faster and simpler than with an AR10, and a bear won't give you much time.
While members of the British public don't have these issues at home, some of them do travel to more exciting places, and should therefore practice with the requisite safety equipment. Guns are tools, and where both my parents grew up (different places), part of the essential household equipment.
"What I find odd (actually I don’t) is that the firearms issue in the US is met on here with mostly a “more regulation!” argument. I agree with that argument wholeheartedly. Crypto on the other hand tends to bring out the “you can pry my AES256 keys from my cold dead hands”."
But that's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Guns kill people. Crypto does not. It's a pretty huge difference.
"Apparent" means "based on what we can observe". It's accurate in observing someone's ignorance, even if they're just playing stupid and really do know better. A synonym in this thread is "evident", but other words suggested are materially different (and not quite 100% proven).
In any context involving spooks (or children, or lawyers, or politicians, or thespians, not to mention cats, cuckoos, ...), you should never assume that what you see is necessarily what's really there. See also Playing Dead.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
