matt_twam_asi wrote: Psamathe wrote:
matt_twam_asi wrote:...My understanding of the current Bill is that it roughly boils down to two non-exclusive options - 1) outlaw encrypted communications and 2) put pressure on UK based organisations to weaken encryption....
I'm unsure about the "outlaw encryption" (i.e. I really don't know what plans are in that regard). Whilst UK Gov. might be successful at putting pressure (legal and commercial) on the likes of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, etc., they might not find the "Open Source" community quite so responsive. So it raises questions as to if or how they are going to outlaw software legally developed outside the UK and legally published on websites outside the UK (e.g. OpenVPN). Are they going to make the users subject to prosecution ? Are they going to ban https: (in which case bye bye online banking in the UK, bye bye HMRC online self assessment, etc.). And if https: is allowed how are they going to distinguish between OpenVPN (on port 443) and https: ?
Fair point, the word outlaw is probably hyberbole and I should also point out that I don't think it's actually feasible to do what is planned. However it's day 3 of May's Premiership and just look what's in the news: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/14 ... ncryption/
The fact that they're even trying to push through this (technically illiterate) legislation terrifies me.
What is interesting is that are still talking about "Communications Service Providers" in
Normally a VPN service is not regarded as a Communications Service Provider. And I suspect that if they do try they might learn how responsive overseas companies really are to oppressive legislation from countries who legislation doe snot cover them (particularly when many of those companies are run by individuals whose prime motivation is privacy).
It would be an interesting battle as they start to try and block IP addresses, find they are blocking valid sites, etc.. and then they'd have to learn to distinguish between companies running private VPN links between offices (because of the confidential nature of the data they pass) and private individuals who have done nothing wrong and are under no suspicion.
Still, David Davies can no longer object to the legislation. So we have an MP who we all know strongly objects to the law yet because of "convention" is not allowed to disagree with it nor vote against it, etc. - marvellous way to run a country.