Tyranny of the government: UK Government to force handover of encryption keys

[Richard]

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39269746,00.htm

Businesses and individuals may soon have to release their encryption keys to the police or face imprisonment, when Part 3 of the RIP Act comes into effect

The UK Government is preparing to give the police the authority to force organisations and individuals to disclose encryption keys, a move which has outraged some security and civil rights experts.

The powers are contained within Part 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). RIPA was introduced in 2000, but the government has held back from bringing Part 3 into effect. Now, more than five years after the original act was passed, the Home Office is seeking to exercise the powers within Part Three of RIPA.

Some security experts are concerned that the plan could criminalise innocent people and drive businesses out of the UK. But the Home Office, which has just launched a consultation process, says the powers contained in Part 3 are needed to combat an increased use of encryption by criminals, paedophiles, and terrorists.

"The use of encryption is... proliferating," Liam Byrne, Home Office minister of state told Parliament last week. "Encryption products are more widely available and are integrated as security features in standard operating systems, so the Government has concluded that it is now right to implement the provisions of Part 3 of RIPA... which is not presently in force."

Part 3 of RIPA gives the police powers to order the disclosure of encryption keys, or force suspects to decrypt encrypted data.

Anyone who refuses to hand over a key to the police would face up to two years' imprisonment. Under current anti-terrorism legislation, terrorist suspects now face up to five years for withholding keys.

If Part 3 is passed, financial institutions could be compelled to give up the encryption master keys they use for banking transactions, experts have warned.

"The controversy here [lies in] seizing keys, not in forcing people to decrypt. The power to seize encryption keys is spooking big business," Cambridge University security expert Richard Clayton told ZDNet UK on Wednesday.

"The notion that international bankers would be wary of bringing master keys into UK if they could be seized as part of legitimate police operations, or by a corrupt chief constable, has quite a lot of traction," Clayton added. "With the appropriate paperwork, keys can be seized. If you're an international banker you'll plonk your headquarters in Zurich."

...

Since when is not giving something to the authorities a criminal act?  Why are people bending over and taking it?

For those that want to avoid this problem, TrueCrypt offers complete and utter plausable deniability.  It can hide a secret encrypted volume inside an encrypted volume with no possibility of it being detected.  In your first enclosure, you supply the password to the government.  This contains some regular files and junk.  The second volume is INSIDE the encrypted volume, hidden, not visible ever unless you know the right password.  However, it can't be proven that it exists.  Plausable deniability.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Blair is destroying the Labor party.

[Sibboleth]

Not even news here. No one cares. If you want to go into another hissy fit Richard, the Treasury is currently raiding bank accounts and so on that have been inactive for decades. A lot of money is some of them apparently.

And c.300,000 people from Poland have moved here over the past few years.

[David S]

RIP seems like an appropriate name. Individual rights, Rest In Peace.

The Brits should be upset about it. If they aren't it just shows that they're ready for 1984.

That kind of thing may well be going on here without our knowlege, but I think Americans would be pissed if it was.

[Sibboleth]

RIP seems like an appropriate name. Individual rights, Rest In Peace.

What individual rights are affected here? The right to look at child porn? To commit fraud?
The legislation passed a bit too long ago for a self-righteous hissy fit, btw.

The Brits should be upset about it.

Why? Not only is no one upset, but no one actually cares. Not heard any mention of this in the media for one thing.

If they aren't it just shows that they're ready for 1984.

Ever actually read 1984?

[Sibboleth]

There is no such thing as the Labor Party.

[Richard]

Al go and change your tampon.  Why are you defending this?  Who says that people that encrypt their data are storing illegal information?  Can I not just encrypt my business strategies and marketing strategies?

[Sibboleth]

Al go and change your tampon.

Why are you defending this?

Because I don't like paying higher taxes as a result of fraud/tax evasion, because I don't like child abuse and because I don't like terrorism.

Who says that people that encrypt their data are storing illegal information?

Common sense says that it's more likely than if data is not encrypted.

[Richard]

Actually, no.  Common sense does not say that to me.  Perhaps to you, but not to me.  At several jobs I worked sensitive audit information was encrypted.  The laptop issued by the bank was encrypted because I had a database of all the customers of the bank plus their social security numbers, credit card numbers, and so forth.

There are very legitimate reasons for encryption, and I do not want the government to have access to those files because it is _none of their business._

[Sibboleth]

Actually, no.  Common sense does not say that to me.

That's because you don't have any.

At several jobs I worked sensitive audit information was encrypted.  The laptop issued by the bank was encrypted because I had a database of all the customers of the bank plus their social security numbers, credit card numbers, and so forth.

So?

There are very legitimate reasons for encryption, and I do not want the government to have access to those files because it is _none of their business._

The Government would only have access to those files if they have a reason to suspect that something dodgy is going on.

[Richard]

You'd trust someone like your own government to decide that?  What about the Tories?  What about the Liberal Democrats?  This is just the start.  Government never stops taking power and/or authority.  It always keeps expanding in the name of things the public are scared of, like "terrorism."

[Sibboleth]

You'd trust someone like your own government to decide that?

Yes

What about the Tories?  What about the Liberal Democrats?

Wouldn't make any difference on this sort of thing; the Civil Service (and thus the machinary of Government) is politically neutral.

This is just the start.

Start of what?

Government never stops taking power and/or authority.

Not really true.

It always keeps expanding in the name of things the public are scared of, like "terrorism."

Why the inverted commas? We've had a problem with terrorism since the '70's. Quite a lot of people were killed by terrorists in London last year in case you've forgotton...

[the sweetness of chai and the palliative effects of facts]

Al go and change your tampon.

I think he's referring to the Prince of Wales.

Why are you defending this?

Because I don't like paying higher taxes as a result of fraud/tax evasion, because I don't like child abuse and because I don't like terrorism.

Wait... you don't like terrorism now? What made you change your mind?
And what's that got to do with this legislation, anyhow?

[Democratic Hawk]

Al go and change your tampon.

I think he's referring to the Prince of Wales.

Why are you defending this?

Because I don't like paying higher taxes as a result of fraud/tax evasion, because I don't like child abuse and because I don't like terrorism.

Wait... you don't like terrorism now? What made you change your mind?
And what's that got to do with this legislation, anyhow?

Since when did Al like terrrorism Lewis?

Dave

[Sibboleth]

Wait... you don't like terrorism now? What made you change your mind?

And what's that got to do with this legislation, anyhow?

Because being able to get keys for encypted stuff would be far more likely to prevent terrorism than racial profiling (which Richard supports)