8:40 'Security risk' of storing communications data
"A new law to govern how police and intelligence agencies and the state can access communications and data will be published today.
Preston Byrne from Eris Industries, a cryptographic communications company which is withdrawing from the UK because of the proposed law, says the government is going to be tracking metadata which is essentially "a map of what you're thinking".
He warns the data could be compromised - citing the recent TalkTalk hack - and says this could lead to blackmail. And he argues that
criminals and terrorists" don't use normal communication channels" so only the law-abiding people will be affected by the bill."
Preston Byrne has a point.. even common people are using VPNs and TORs. How come the terrorists bare their communications for surveillance?
"...he argues that criminals and terrorists" don't use normal communication channels..."
That part is true, and is known to government, the public (not at large, but it's no secret) and criminals.
The problem is a simple one, and identity checks at borders are a good example. You ask non-nationals, for example, to fill in a landing card to indicate where the traveller is staying during his or her visit.
If left blank the traveller is interrogated and risks deportation. If however the traveller lies and provides any plausible address, be it hotel or residential, he or she is allowed through without suspicion.
The manpower doesn't exist to verify these details. The technology doesn't exist that verifies these details.
The net result is that technical solutions will only catch stupid people. The outliers, the ones you really want, know how to game the system and don't get caught. No matter how much snooping, back-dooring, breaking of encryption or other nefarious thing is done.
It's economics + psychology. You spend what you have to ensure you cover 99% of the problem. The remaining 1% requires 1 or more orders of magnitude of resource to catch, which is simply not viable.
> The manpower doesn't exist to verify these details.
No, but that's not the point. The point is having yet another data point they can use to incriminate you, regardless of the actual crime they decide you must have committed. Say, you declare you'll stay at this hotel for a week, but actually check out after a day to [go sell drugs || see-sight in another city]; if they decide you must have been selling drugs, even though they can't prove it, they can get you for lying on your entry paper.
The more laws and regulations you have, the easier it is to punish anyone regardless of whether they can prove bad things actually happened. It's a degeneration of the "Capone" approach, and it's extremely common in authoritarian regimes. The fact that this sort of pointless law is becoming quite common across the EU is a worrying trend.
I agree it's not the point. It is one of many root causes though. It's a very interesting root cause because that economical situation gives authoritarian regimes, as you call them, the power to be authoritarian.
As an aside, while I used to be hugely concerned about this state of affairs, I am less so now. Maybe because I'm older and know a lot more than I used to. They may have the ability to "punish anyone", but not everyone. And while it is becoming more common in the EU, it is already fact in the US.
My reality is that I am unwilling to do anything about this situation, because I'm already devoting my time to other things - things I know I can influence. If I'm unwilling to do anything, I'm also technically disqualifying myself from advocating a course of action.
8:40 'Security risk' of storing communications data "A new law to govern how police and intelligence agencies and the state can access communications and data will be published today.
Preston Byrne from Eris Industries, a cryptographic communications company which is withdrawing from the UK because of the proposed law, says the government is going to be tracking metadata which is essentially "a map of what you're thinking".
He warns the data could be compromised - citing the recent TalkTalk hack - and says this could lead to blackmail. And he argues that criminals and terrorists" don't use normal communication channels" so only the law-abiding people will be affected by the bill."
Preston Byrne has a point.. even common people are using VPNs and TORs. How come the terrorists bare their communications for surveillance?