3 million face uncertainty and deportation from UK

[Psamathe]

And if https: is allowed how are they going to distinguish between OpenVPN (on port 443) and https: ?

Deep packet inspection. Of course, that's a huge waste of electricity that could be doing something useful, such as securing conversations through encryption... ;-)

But who would they pursue, the user (how many users will understand when they are only using privacy protection software) or the developer (difficult when not a corporation and not in the UK and with no financial links to UK, using freeware/ope source, etc.). Or would they pursue Microsoft/Apple/Google for allowing such software to be downloaded (but what about sideloading or Linux, etc.).

Ian

[mjr]

But who would they pursue, the user (how many users will understand when they are only using privacy protection software) or the developer (difficult when not a corporation and not in the UK and with no financial links to UK, using freeware/ope source, etc.). Or would they pursue Microsoft/Apple/Google for allowing such software to be downloaded (but what about sideloading or Linux, etc.).

Based on past form, any or all of the above, plus pressure the ISPs to block its use from their networks!

[[XAP]Bob]

Given the incentive we can make OpenVPN traffic look very much like https.

Of course it's not as efficient - but who cares about that nowadays.

[Psamathe]

I note that Ms May has now removed one final hindrance to getting her Snoopers Charter passed into law - David Davies. Now he is a Minister (and I assume in the Cabinet) he is governed by Cabinet Collective Responsibility and thus must publicly support cabinet decisions. And given his intense dislike of the EU, he is never going to give up his appointed role over something like the Snoopers Charter.

Disappointing.

Ian

[bovlomov]

I note that Ms May has now removed one final hindrance to getting her Snoopers Charter passed into law - David Davies. Now he is a Minister (and I assume in the Cabinet) he is governed by Cabinet Collective Responsibility and thus must publicly support cabinet decisions. And given his intense dislike of the EU, he is never going to give up his appointed role over something like the Snoopers Charter.

Disappointing.

Ian

I made a similar point on another thread. I hope Davis will have made his feelings known before accepting the job, and extracted some guarantees. I'm not expecting much though.

Perhaps a crashing economy will save us from this multi-billion pound white elephant.

[matt_twam_asi]

...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: ?

Ian

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.

[Psamathe]

...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: ?

Ian

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

IPBill During a committee stage debate in the UK's House of Lords yesterday, the government revealed that the Investigatory Powers Bill will provide any Secretary of State with the ability to force communication service providers (CSPs) to remove or disable end-to-end encryption.

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.

Ian

[bovlomov]

Davis came relatively late to civil liberties. Near me is a plaque commemorating his unveiling (in the early 2000s) of a DPPO dispersal zone - from which street drinkers and unruly youths, and anyone, could be ejected without due process, or even reason. At that time he was Shadow Home Secretary, and obviously not troubled by a scheme that was likely to affect the poor, untidy and powerless.

It was Blunkett's ID card and database scheme that got Davis interested. He was a speaker at an early meeting of No2ID, that I attended. He was sharing a platform, and in complete agreement, with Shami Chakrabarti. Since then he has had common cause with Liberty, Big Brother Watch, No2ID, opponents of the Snoopers Charter, and opponents of detention of terrorist suspects without charge.

He must have made hundreds of friends and acquaintances during those campaigns. Is he really going to throw all that away for a ministerial job that, even if it goes well, he'll be out of by the next election? We'll see.

[Psamathe]

Davis came relatively late to civil liberties. Near me is a plaque commemorating his unveiling (in the early 2000s) of a DPPO dispersal zone - from which street drinkers and unruly youths, and anyone, could be ejected without due process, or even reason. At that time he was Shadow Home Secretary, and obviously not troubled by a scheme that was likely to affect the poor, untidy and powerless.

It was Blunkett's ID card and database scheme that got Davis interested. He was a speaker at an early meeting of No2ID, that I attended. He was sharing a platform, and in complete agreement, with Shami Chakrabarti. Since then he has had common cause with Liberty, Big Brother Watch, No2ID, opponents of the Snoopers Charter, and opponents of detention of terrorist suspects without charge.

He must have made hundreds of friends and acquaintances during those campaigns. Is he really going to throw all that away for a ministerial job that, even if it goes well, he'll be out of by the next election? We'll see.

But these politicians regard Cabinet Collective Responsibility very seriously. Snoopers Charter will come up soon and if he speaks against it or votes against it he will be sacked (to overlook that would be to open the flood gates for any Cabinet Minister to vote against anything they didn't like). I can;t see a way round it.

Ian

[bovlomov]

I can;t see a way round it.

Nor can I. I'm just hoping, against all experience, that he can influence things from within.

[53x13]

The public have a lot to fear from this new regime, and I'm pretty certain this Digital Communications Act is just the tip of it.

[irc]

The public have a lot to fear from this new regime, and I'm pretty certain this Digital Communications Act is just the tip of it.

But the great thing is in 2020 if we don't like what we see we can vote them out. The next govt can change things. EU laws we were stuck with.

[Psamathe]

The public have a lot to fear from this new regime, and I'm pretty certain this Digital Communications Act is just the tip of it.

But the great thing is in 2020 if we don't like what we see we can vote them out. The next govt can change things. EU laws we were stuck with.

I thought we were meant to voting our leaders in (rather than have them appointed to rule over us). A bad leader can do incredible damage in 5 years. One of the main campaign issues for Brexit was that our leaders be democratically elected so we have a say in who governs us.

And we did get to vote for MEPs (at least I did, didn't have to do anything special, register on the electoral register and go to the polling station on the appointed day).

Ian

[matt_twam_asi]

What is interesting is that are still talking about "Communications Service Providers" in

IPBill During a committee stage debate in the UK's House of Lords yesterday, the government revealed that the Investigatory Powers Bill will provide any Secretary of State with the ability to force communication service providers (CSPs) to remove or disable end-to-end encryption.

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.

Well quite, and that's to say nothing of the Tor network. Russia has actually passed very similar legislation recently. It's going about as well as you'd expect for VPNs. But it's good to see we're aping Russia's isolationist stance with the EU! Maybe we can make an alliance with them. We could even rename ourselves the "United Nationalist Workers Island State Entity"

[irc]

And we did get to vote for MEPs (at least I did, didn't have to do anything special, register on the electoral register and go to the polling station on the appointed day).

Ian

You do realise it isn't just UK MEPs voting I take it? We don't get to vote on all the rest. Swapping our MEPs wouldn't make any difference the other 20 something countries would still outvote us.

A study of voting records in the EU Council, made up of Government ministers from each member state, since 2004 has revealed Britain is increasingly on the losing side when it comes to decision-making on EU legislation.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... study-MEPs