UK Government Proposes 'License To Hack' As Encryption Proves Hard To Defeat (thetimes.co.uk) 80
An anonymous reader writes: The Times reports (paywalled) that the Investigatory Powers Bill promised by the UK government over the summer is likely to be presented to parliament next month, and that it will contain 'dizzying' powers for MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to hack the devices of individuals under investigation, with the permission of the home secretary. An implementation of the Wilson Doctrine will mean that British MPs will not be subject to these powers in the same way as other citizens. According to a digital evidence expert that the Times interviewed, the bill addresses the difficulty that the UK government is sharing with other nations in defeating encryption effectively. "Hacking is different from interception because it allows hackers to take control of the device, using it for surveillance and accessing data from the source, rather than simply intercepting them, which is becoming increasingly difficult."
This Is Very Important (Score:2, Insightful)
This is very important. If you do not assume that they are already doing this, and have been for years, then you are delusional.
See Edward Snowden for the most recent proof.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Why do you think all those stupid apps you download need so many permissions?
They can probably turn on your microphone/camera at will (among other things).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then why bother to draw attention to themselves by declaring outright that they will do it? Or is the point to make it after the fact legal? Or is it more of a trial balloon as to their progress in selling the BIG LIE that anything and everything the government does is for our own good to "keep us safe".
So... the ones who need it most won't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
So if I understand this correctly, the corrupt powers-that-be will be immune to that which is needed the most to clean up their actions that, if they were a common citizen would be criminal?
hmmm...
Re: So... the ones who need it most won't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sedition wasn't abolished, it was simply folded into the all-encompassing definition of terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So... the ones who need it most won't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, I saw this before in Sneakers [imdb.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly. Of course GCHQ etc won't officially hack British MP's but I'm sure the NSA and friends can lend a helping hand, and vice versa.
wait... so the British are going to invade our networks?!
THE BRITISH ARE COMING! THE BRITISH ARE COMING! SECOND AMENDMENT TIME, MOTHERFUCKERS!
Re: (Score:2)
One if by ARP two if TCP ...
And I on the opposite hub will be
Ready to boot to Intel or ARM
Encrypting my data so no server farm
I have no shame.
Re: (Score:2)
If a country's laws do not protect its citizens anymore, it is probably more sensibly by the government to expect its citizens to oppose those laws and assume that they will break it at the first chance. Which is coincidentally what they do.
So I guess they know about it. And I only say that because I have no proof that these laws are actually aiming against the population to prop up the powers that are for as long as it is feasible.
History repeats itself. It's just like East Block around 1980. In other word
Wilson Doctrine (Score:2)
Despite regular assurances about the Wilson Doctrine for the last 60 years, British MPs were recently dismayed to find out that they are, in fact, being spied upon [theguardian.com] - just like any other citizen. The Wilson Doctrine was finally admitted (after a legal challenge) to be nothing more than a vague platitude with "no legal force".
Goes to show that politicians lie to each other as regularly as they do to the rest of us. The only notable part is that some of them appeared genuinely surprised by this.
Re: (Score:3)
The idea of the Wilson doctrine is that if intelligence started spying on MPs they could find embarrassing information and use it to blackmail parliament, thus subverting democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I will make sure to leave that pride flag on your grave though.
Not as thrilling... (Score:2)
I don't think this would be as thrilling of a James Bond movie as License to Kill....
Re: (Score:2)
What would he drink? Vodka Redbull, shaken, not stirred?
Would he go to Q branch to get the latest case mods and Metasploit modules?
Re: (Score:3)
That would be license to kill -SIGHUP <pid>
Agent 00101 reporting, 0xD (Score:2)
Agent 00101 reporting, 0xD.
Hmmm .... (Score:5, Insightful)
So if governments around the world are giving themselves license to hack into our stuff, do anything they please, and share this with other governments ... then it almost seems like a moral duty that every government server is now fair game.
Just sayin'. If governments are declaring war on our rights, they have no expectation people won't do this to them.
Sorry, but governments who are claiming to be defending our rights while taking those rights away have lost an awful lot of moral authority here.
Especially when they take the stuff they said they'd only use to fight terrorism, and now apply it to every day things.
Fuck you, Big Brother. Fuck you.
Re: (Score:1)
That's ok, I feel that also gives me the right to create new encryption and counter hacking tools and programme to make your life harder and freely distribute the programme's on servers outside your jurisdiction.
Enjoying hacking my benign messages about my cat and the need for milk, until you understand that privacy is something that a lot of people value and have no malicious intent, and you cannot take it away without a fight.
Re: (Score:3)
Right? Oh you're prodding my servers? What was that phrase again...
"Treat others the way they treat you"... Was that it?
Sounds good to me!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually,no. It was Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? we should all bow down? It's people with your attitude that allows governments to get away with this shit.
Re: (Score:2)
So if governments around the world are giving themselves license to hack into our stuff, do anything they please, and share this with other governments ... then it almost seems like a moral duty that every government server is now fair game.
The people in power always have always read, listened to, or saw pretty much whatever they wanted, although possibly they had to pause to spin the reason into a "so the terrorists don't win" or "think of the children" meme. And with "people in power" I don't just mean the politicians, or the spooks. Judges assume they can extract information by just issuing an writ to hand over documents, and its almost considered "due diligence" now for employers to launch MITM attacks on in https connections their emplo
Ultraviolet Clearance, Citizen (Score:1)
If knowing programming without being one of the High Programmers is illegal, how do you become one of the High Programmers without it being treason?
What's next, privateers? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like the UK is reliving it's past, minus the part about the Magna Carta.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly ... take out all those pesky things which limit their powers, and it will allow them to do so much more.
What government wants to have its hands tied by protecting the rights of its citizens? That just creates extra paperwork and legal hurdles.
With a scared citizenry who knows their rights are what you tell them, you can accomplish much more.
Not as cool as a 007 "license to kill" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, octal is far cooler.
12 bit CPUs are just like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
0x07.
Re: (Score:1)
What really amused me was the UK, a country that jails people for failing to disclose a password, thinks it has some kind of high ground to lecture China on human rights.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, because the UK executes thousands every year and sends thousands for "re-education", and has no independent judiciary and is a one-party state, just like China.
Here's a clue retard, virtually all states have some repressive characteristics. But some are still *much, much much* worse than others. See?
Actually you're probably one of the China-bots who does the 'ooo look a squirrel' thing every time China's truly abysmal human rights record is mentioned. Nobody's fooled you know.
(And for what it's worth t
Here's a tip, fuckstick. (Score:1)
"Baaaw, X is so much worse!" isn't a fucking excuse.
Or is it okay for someone to fuck you in the ass without your consent, because hey, you were asking for it, and at least nobody murdered you, amirite?
And you can place compromising data too! (Score:4, Insightful)
Like certain pictures that will land the person hacked in jail for a long time. No need to find anything actually bad anymore, you can just easily get rid of anybody you do not like. That is how it is done in any self-respecting police-state or fascist state!
Theresa May is not Parliament (Score:2, Interesting)
Theresa May has tried to pass Snoopers charter and withdrawn. Now she tries this shit, but Snowden two weeks ago revealed GCHQ can hack every phone. We get it. You can see her group, but this isn't a coup. Britain is still a Parliamentary democracy. We can see she's trying to legalize what you lot are already doing, and she's doing the same pedo terrorists shit that was used to attack Parliament recently.
Remember Tom Watsons "Parliament pedo killers ring"? This is an attempt to use an idiot (Tom Watson) to
Who controls the device? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
They already control your tea kettle, using an IoT backdoor.
You're being spied on right now.
In your home.
Without a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
1. They come after you
2. You claim that the government did it.
3. They say "you have no evidence that we did it, and we won't disclose any actions we may or may not have taken because of national security. By the way, anything that you think is evidence is now classified.
4. You lose.
This is analogous to those situations in which someone sues the government for running an illegal dragnet, and they counter by saying you have no standing because you don't know that you wer
Re: (Score:2)
Re "how do we know?"
A honey trap? Disinformation? No more access? would be a slow rolling in of online hints.
To understand the traditional outcome consider the classic methods used on Irish human rights campaigners, UK trade unions or any other political or social issues going back many decades.
Got to get me one of those (Score:1)
It will look really nice hanging on the wall next to my "License to ill"
Violation of EU rights and treaties (Score:1)
Illegal on the face of it.
This is why the UK will break up if London greedmeisters persist.
Re: (Score:1)
Illegal on the face of it.
This is why the UK will break up if London greedmeisters persist.
Not just the UK: England itself will also break up; there's already regional assemblies being planned for various sections of the country.
In other words they want to pant evidence (Score:1)
Even if they don't plant evidence they will be contaminating any evidence. There is a reason that police are required to 'pull the plug' on devices when they seize equipment. Anything else risks contaminating it and making in unusable in court. Once a drive is in the hands of the police it gets handed over to forensics which while a big joke IMHO has the tools to clone the disk and make an image of it using tools that prevent write commands from being issued to the original drive. This combined with a stric
Choose your words (Score:1)
well that is the point. (Score:2)
The entire point of using encryption is to keep snoops of all kinds out of your information as much as possible. Just because the snoop works for the government does not mean they get carte blanche or are any less criminal if the hack into a device.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is to get to the plain text as seen or created before any user installed encryption application or user installed/commercial alternative operating system.
Good news. (Score:2)
Before the advent of digital communications, if the government wanted to covertly know what you were up to, they would have to break into and bug your home, tamper with your telephone, physically follow you around. It was difficult and expensive, so out of necessity limited to the most interesting targets. Yes the definition of 'interesting' varied from country to country and time to time, from criminals to political dissidents to inconvenient minorities, but the majority of people were generally safe from
Re: (Score:2)
It's a complicated question that presents me with difficulties. Let us assume that we live in a country with separate Executive, Judicial and Legislative powers. Despite failings, this is largely true of the UK. If the executive (police etc) want to spy on someone they need a legislative authority and I would like them to have a second, independent, step by which someone evaluates if the purpose of their spying is within the legislative authority. That would be a judge. I am not convinced that the Home Secr