Big Brother has more powers

Rik · Oct 03, 2007, 09:06:12

El Reg is reporting:

"Users of encryption technology can no longer refuse to reveal keys to UK authorities after amendments to the powers of the state to intercept communications took effect on Monday (Oct 1).

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) has had a clause activated which allows a person to be compelled to reveal a decryption key. Refusal can earn someone a five-year jail term."

<snip>

"It is also controversial because a decryption key is often a long password – something that might be forgotten. An accused person might pretend to have forgotten the password; or he might genuinely have forgotten it but struggle to convince a court to believe him."

It seems our privacy is being eroded yet further.

Gary · Oct 03, 2007, 13:41:21

I read an article on the laws that Changed Rik, disturbing to say the least

Rik · Oct 03, 2007, 13:43:09

I wonder where it will end - it's getting to be that we're not so far removed from Orwell's Thought Police.

Gary · Oct 03, 2007, 13:56:20

It wont end Rik, it will be as bleak as his vision one day I'm sure, after all we are getting there quite nicely now, see below for details

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/314274.html

Rik · Oct 03, 2007, 13:59:18

Of course, when medical records get computerised, things get worse.

Gary · Oct 03, 2007, 14:14:35

Quote from: Rik on Oct 03, 2007, 13:59:18
Of course, when medical records get computerised, things get worse.

Sadly almost half the population will be on the watched list with that happening Rik

Rik · Oct 03, 2007, 14:18:18

I know. It can only threaten a breakdown in the trust between doctors and patients.

Gary · Oct 03, 2007, 14:22:43

Quote from: Rik on Oct 03, 2007, 14:18:18
I know. It can only threaten a breakdown in the trust between doctors and patients.

People will not feel safe going to their doctors to talk to them about certain issues, thus leading to just greater problems in the long run

Rik · Oct 03, 2007, 14:26:59

Mental health issues are an obvious problem area, Gary, but alcohol and drug problems might be witheld, and STIs might be left untreated, rather than have the information on record. It's an ill-conceived idea and, with the Govt's record on IT, one that people should really give thought to.

Odos · Oct 03, 2007, 14:27:28

Forgive me for being a paranoid cynic, but does any one of you honestly believe that there is any encryption software available for use by the genral population that the "powers that be" cannot "crack" at the press of a button

?

I'm afraid I don't and to me the law changes are just something to muddy the waters a little, a case of hide in plain sight

Rik · Oct 03, 2007, 14:54:14

I'm sure you're right - but it did give a sense of security to be able to encrypt and think our data was safe.

somanyholes · Oct 03, 2007, 15:40:20

Hey

This has been floating around for a while, and it's a shame it has come, however, I think that the police should have the right to demand keys. Especially if they are a suspect of terrorism or sex offences.

I'm sure that the nsa etc can crack many encryption algorithms that currently exist e.g. sha1. I think the way forward with this is hidden volumes, if they can't see something that requires a key, they can't demand a key from you

Truecrypt is dam good at this,

Rik · Oct 03, 2007, 15:44:35

I'm also a fan of Truecrypt, for the reasons you cite. I wonder how easy it is to prove that the hidden encrypted volume exists?

somanyholes · Oct 03, 2007, 16:55:56

Hi Rik

I think that true crypt was vulnerable to hidden volume detection at one point, but that these issues where sorted out. It seems to make a lot of difference as to what preparation you do as to weather it will be easier to find the hidden volume, some info is listed in the following link, http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=hidden-volume-precautions

Rik · Oct 03, 2007, 17:00:03

What I was thinking was that the security agencies must have been examining TrueCrypt for a while now, and I wonder if they have discovered anything that wouldn't be apparent to the casual examiner, to tell them that the hidden partition existed?

We need someone from the NSA or GCHQ to pop in and inform us.

somanyholes · Oct 03, 2007, 17:29:15

It probably makes a big difference as to which agency is doing the investigation, from my dealings with the uk crime squad (work wise) i wouldn't be to concerned, as they don't seem to do a very good job, however if it was the nsa etc i would be worried. Let's hope none of them drop in for a quick chat on this forum!

Rik · Oct 03, 2007, 17:38:12

It would be nice to see what they can do, though, wouldn't it...

MoHux · Oct 03, 2007, 17:43:00

I think the changes were necessary, and in everyones best interest!!

~~Often~~ Usually, speed is of the essence where Security is concerned.

The reasons for the changes I find far more frightening.

Rik · Oct 03, 2007, 17:51:45

The only problem I have, Mo, is that freedoms, once removed, are rarely returned to us. Providing there are judicial safeguards in place, it's OK that the powers exist. To me, the big question remains will they be abused?

MoHux · Oct 03, 2007, 18:52:12

Quote from: Rik on Oct 03, 2007, 17:51:45
The only problem I have, Mo, is that freedoms, once removed, are rarely returned to us. Providing there are judicial safeguards in place, it's OK that the powers exist. To me, the big question remains will they be abused?

Is there anything in this world that isn't abused??

Rik · Oct 03, 2007, 18:57:12

I'm not, Mo. At least, not often.

MoHux · Oct 03, 2007, 19:48:52

I don't think it's abuse when you invite it.

Rik · Oct 04, 2007, 01:42:28

Good point. I'll have to put self-deprecation on hold for a while...

Pistol · Oct 04, 2007, 10:46:56

Quote from: MoHux on Oct 03, 2007, 17:43:00
I think the changes were necessary, and in everyones best interest!!
The reasons for the changes I find far more frightening.

Consider if the reasons for the changes were in fact as results of the actions of our very own government/powerful groups or their explict/implict consent to allow them to happen...

I find that qutie a large number of people appear to say something along the lines of what you have, MoHux, though less so those who are active online. The good ol' "War on Terror" is a conduit for huge changes in law, privacy and freedoms. Many people do buy the line that loosing a little freedom is worth it to fight this "war"....

That is what scares me.

MoHux · Oct 05, 2007, 21:31:51

Quote from: Pistoleer on Oct 04, 2007, 10:46:56
Consider if the reasons for the changes were in fact as results of the actions of our very own government/powerful groups or their explict/implict consent to allow them to happen...

I find that qutie a large number of people appear to say something along the lines of what you have, MoHux, though less so those who are active online. The good ol' "War on Terror" is a conduit for huge changes in law, privacy and freedoms. Many people do buy the line that loosing a little freedom is worth it to fight this "war"....

That is what scares me.

You are implying that people who think as I do, are not capable of giving it the same (or more) consideration as you have (??).

How pompous - even arrogant!