| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 28 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 15:42:37 |
| Calls: | 449 |
| Files: | 1,044 |
| Messages: | 98,036 |
On 08/02/2025 23:25, Richard Heathfield wrote:
That it is not really correct - if it is less easy to
communicate and store data securely then more people will have
no option but to use less secure methods.
I don't see the grounds for your protasis. Why is it less easy
to communicate and store data securely? Why must people use
less secure methods?
Because they no longer have access to more secure methods, ie
Apple encryption.
[...]
I agree, but trusting a cryptosystem known to have a back door
certainly does count as stupid.
ITYM *would* count as stupid..
You might use it as a channel for sheer convenience, but it
would be daft not to superencrypt.
But people don't know how to do that. Even many clever people.
[...]
Note that in the UK you have to give up keys to stored data on
demand.
With a warrant, yes, and that means evidence, which means the
crook has already failed.
Nope, no warrant needed. Just a demand from a mid-level policeman.
On 09/02/2025 12:21, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 08/02/2025 23:25, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You might use it as a channel for sheer convenience, but it would be
daft not to superencrypt.
But people don't know how to do that. Even many clever people.
It's easy. Instead of:
apple < plain.txt
you:
cat plain.txt | aes_for_example > apple
and Bob pipes through aes_for_example -d at his end.
In other words, instead of sending plaintext through Apple, you send ciphertext.
Note that in the UK you have to give up keys to stored data on demand.
With a warrant, yes, and that means evidence, which means the crook
has already failed.
Nope, no warrant needed. Just a demand from a mid-level policeman.
Having read the relevant legislation, which is not the kind of document
I'd like to read for the first time in a panic, I'm not convinced either
way. This is a job for an actual lawyer.
On 09/02/2025 14:48, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 09/02/2025 12:21, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 08/02/2025 23:25, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You might use it as a channel for sheer convenience, but it
would be daft not to superencrypt.
But people don't know how to do that. Even many clever people.
It's easy. Instead of:
apple < plain.txt
you:
cat plain.txt | aes_for_example > apple
and Bob pipes through aes_for_example -d at his end.
In other words, instead of sending plaintext through Apple, you
send ciphertext.
But most people don't know how to open a terminal - even clever
people. Just because they don't know computers, computer
security, internet security, cryptography - does not make them
stupid.
And even stupid people should have secure comms and data storage.
Note that in the UK you have to give up keys to stored data
on demand.
With a warrant, yes, and that means evidence, which means the
crook has already failed.
Nope, no warrant needed. Just a demand from a mid-level
policeman.
Having read the relevant legislation, which is not the kind of
document I'd like to read for the first time in a panic, I'm
not convinced either way. This is a job for an actual lawyer.
Been there, done that, the tee-shirt is now rags.
UK demands Apple break encryption to allow gov't spying worldwide, reports say
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/uk-demands-apple-break-encryption-to-allow-govt-spying-worldwide-reports-say/
Apple last year opposed UK's secret notices demanding encryption backdoors.
The United Kingdom issued a secret order requiring Apple to create a backdoor
for government security officials to access encrypted data,
The Washington Post reported today, citing people familiar with the matter.
.... Work to do ;-)
.
UK demands Apple break encryption to allow gov't spying worldwide, reports say
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/uk-demands-apple-break-encryption-to-allow-govt-spying-worldwide-reports-say/
Apple last year opposed UK's secret notices demanding encryption backdoors.
The United Kingdom issued a secret order requiring Apple to create a backdoor
for government security officials to access encrypted data,
The Washington Post reported today, citing people familiar with the matter.
... Work to do ;-)