Europol chief warns on computer encryption
bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32087919
bbc.co.ukPosted Mar 29, 2015, 7:19 AM UTC
2735
bbc.co.ukSo you can't monitor, read and archive all of our communications because of encryption. Tough shit.
We don't want you doing this anyway.
Deal with it.
32
Mr Wainwright, whose organisation supports police forces in Europe, said terrorists were exploiting the "dark net", where users can go online anonymously, away from the gaze of police and security services.
But he is also concerned at moves by companies such as Apple to allow customers to encrypt data on their smartphones.
And the development of heavily encrypted instant messaging apps is another cause for concern, he said.
Mr Wainwright also says current laws are "deficient" and should be reviewed to ensure security agencies are able to monitor all areas of the online world.
Wow. This is stunning. Europol have come out and said that they want to cripple encryption and to access all of our communications.
31
That is genuinely frightening, what can you possibly do when a law enforcement agency comes out with something like that.
19
The answer is obvious: keeping doing exactly what we are. Wainwright himself identifies that the demand for impractical for any realistic attacker to break encryption has been pushing tech companies to make sure it is available on a wider a range of devices and equipment as is at all feasible.
6
If they didn't want people to bolster their encryption, maybe they shouldn't have spied on EVERYONE! A targeted approach that was within the spirit of the law would have meant that more threats were uncovered with less manpower and less intrusion into innocent peoples lives would have meant that Snowden wouldn't be a thing now. therefore security would still be more lax and spying easier.
Sometimes i fucking despair of some people not to see basic outcomes of actions.
21
Agreed.
This is all backlash because we found that they spy on everybody.
I agree that I DO want GCHQ to be able to read the text messages and emails of potential criminals. But it's bullshit to describe encryption as a big problem. If they hadn't abused their power in the first place, things would be less encrypted.
6
And the constant push for unwarranted access. If there were proper checks and balances, official warrents, and an official paper trail for future reference and oversight we probably wouldn't care as much. But we know the reality is complete unwarranted access to our data and computers, whether there is suspicion of a crime or not.
1
Maybe if we trusted the security services less then we wouldn't have trusted their 'sexed up dossiers' as a reason to dismantle Iraq and created a power vacuum that allowed IS to flourish in the first place.
17
The odds are that your more likely to die from a lightning strike than a terrorist attack, abolish the army, secret service and police force.
14
How do you reply to the (many) people who say that terrorism is rare this because of the great work our security services do and that there would be multiple 9/11/dirty domb/beheading etc if we didn't allow the security services to access the data.
I have sensible friends that are happy to allow snooping because of this fear, I struggle to articulate a compelling argument to dispel this myth.
Any one help?
9
The security services saw us through a world war, a cold war and a civil war all without having someone effectively sitting in everyone's living room checking what they are up to. Added to which, it is impossible to stop terrorists by monitoring facebook, the darknet all you catch that way are the real stupid ones, the smart ones are using one time pads or literal person to person contact
14
I guess they would argue that the security services did indeed access international communications in WW1 (they hacked the US's comms to incept a message from Germany encouraging Mexico to go to war with the US but then had to leak the message without the US finding out they had been hacked)
And of course Bletchley.
These days everybody has international comms so they feel they should access it all.
1
I get this, but wasn't that gov to gov?, I have no issue spying on other governments, that's what I assume they are there for
5
Well apparently the terrorists are all already using encryption and terrorism remains rare.
The real issue is there is absolutely nothing stopping terrorists from creating their own encrypted communications system. The software is already out there to do so.
2
There's no reason for the secret service to be secret, it should all be open source.
1
[deleted]
1
The biggest threat to democracy and peace are the authorities, not terrorists.
13
If you go by the dictionary definition of the word, the government are the terrorists.
I don't see other nations threatening out safety or saying they're coming to bomb us. Yet there seems to be regular releases from the government and the media that we're all in danger from some unknown threat and that we need to remain ever vigilant.
You can get arrested for shouting "fire" in a crowded place and causing alarm. Yet it seems perfectly fine for the government to release vague statements about vague enemies who may or may not be planning an attack.
6
I cannot fathom why people would go out and say this kind of thing publicly when those who understand encryption know it's a case of try and ban it and see how far you get. The only thing this achieves is a clear indication the speaker either doesn't know what they are talking about or they are scare mongering.
9
[deleted]
0
People like him only give me more reason to encrypt things and use hidden services.
7
What good is it if, in the process of stopping terrorism, you resort to the very things that the terrorists want from a society? Mass surveillance and a lack of democratic freedom are what groups like ISIS seem to want, but so far our governments seem to be doing the work for them.
4
[deleted]
1
It sounds as if there is a bit of a conspiracy going on given the FBI are bleating similarly. And just as the top post there states, it's a nonsense since just about anyone can implement unbreakable encryption without a huge investment of time.
And the thing that worries me most is that because of that, eventually the calls will be for the very knowledge and research that enables encryption to be legislated. Just how long before we hear of someone being mistakenly arrested by MI5 for eating a Caesar salad I wonder ...
3
eventually the calls will be for the very knowledge and research that enables encryption to be legislated.
The US already have export controls on cryptography. If you've ever bought high-end Cisco networking gear you'll have purchased an HSEC license for it.
2
Giving them what they want would annihilate e-commerce worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Anti-terror just isn't that important.
3
Tech firms should consider the impact sophisticated encryption software has on law enforcement, he said.
Is he not aware that anyone concerned about privacy will use open source (or, at least, source available, eg. Truecrypt) software, due to the fact that people like him are always pressuring companies to introduce backdoors?
2
[deleted]
1
Hey guys, if you use sms then you should install textsecure.
It's a simple replacement messaging app that automatically sets up encrypted communication with other users.
Also had forward secrecy and has been audited.
1
Nice try Europol!
1
[deleted]
1
I've got nothing to hide so I suppose it doesn't matter whether I use encryption services or not! You shouldn't feel guilty about using a VPN or anything like that, you should only feel guilty if you're planning to commit a crime using it.. But if you were going to commit a crime using it you're probably not going to feel guilty about it anyway!
1
Biggest problem is letting the terrorists into the country in the first place
-1
A substantial number were born here.
Mind you, I really don't see terrorism as being a big threat in the UK. If you look at the attacks we've had over the last decade, there's been:
- Lee Rigby. While terrible for his family, let's face it, his attacker was an unhinged nutter who used politics as an excuse; you're never going to eliminate unhinged nutters and if you take away one excuse, they'll find another.
- Glasgow Airport attacks. The attackers had been watching far too many movies; cars don't explode when they crash and the risk of propane cylinders sustaining damage and hence turning into bombs themselves was thought of and resolved decades ago.
- This led to the first occasion in history where someone was given a medal by the Queen for delivering a strong kick to the testicles.
- A failed group of suicide bombers whose bombs conspicuously failed to explode.
- 7/7 London bombings. Which is pretty much the last serious, successful attack that harmed many people - and I doubt encryption would have made much difference either way because they were clearly organised and determined; if they had the slightest inkling that using technology to communicate was a bad idea, they'd have figured out a way around it. And that's very nearly ten years ago.
5
Rob Wainwright can fuck himself.
Him and his like are a much bigger threat to us than any terrorist.