Are you willing to give up your security from hacking in exchange for physical security? Thats what Cameron is really proposing. Photograph: REX

Prime Minister David Cameron has quite literally called for the end of privacy on the Internet as we know it: in a radical speech on Monday he said that, since threats of terrorism existed in the world, there should be no means of communications that the UK cannot read. He appears to be suggesting that hes in favour of outlawing the use of end-to-end encryption which, in turn, could ban some of the most popular texting messaging apps in the world, including WhatsApp and iMessage.

We all knew it was only a matter of time before the worlds governments started using the tragedy at Charlie Hebdo, a rallying cry for free speech rights, to justify more censorship and speech-chilling surveillance. Its particularly galling, though, that Cameron and other world leaders are leading the charge so swiftly after the historic unity rally in Paris over the weekend. You remember it: the one that was supposed to show solidarity with the murdered cartoonists devotion to press freedom.

Even Cameron acknowledged yesterday that his proposed powers were very intrusive. What he didnt acknowledge, however, was theres absolutely no public evidence Charlie Hebdo murderers used encryption to communicate at all. Even if they did, we know from the Snowden documents that the GCHQ or NSA still have ways to access their messages. But neither of these facts stopped Cameron from cravenly capitalizing on the tragedy in an attempt to push for powers his government has been from demanding for years.

Just as happened when the FBI director proposed forcing companies like Apple and Google to build a backdoor into their products so American authorities could conduct more surveillance, Camerons proposal will be ridiculed by security experts. Encryption is used to protect banking credentials, private medical information, and private communications of hundreds of millions of people who have nothing to do with terrorism. Given the rash of headline criminal hacks, like the recent Sony scandal, one would think leaders would be encouraging the use of encryption to protect data, rather than make it illegal.

As for the potential ban on messaging apps, Cameron is in fine company there. In fact, just a few days ago, a court in Iran ordered three text messaging apps, including WhatsApp, blocked across the entire country. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani reportedly opposed the move. So actually, the Prime Minister of UK is to the right of the President of Iran on this issue.

While Camerons proposal was first out of the gate, you can be sure other world leaders will soon join him. In fact, just before the unity march on Sunday, a group of EU foreign ministers got together and not only vowed to pursue more surveillance authorities, but pledged to pressure Internet companies to start censoring more content online.

Back in the US, President Obama was heavily criticized for not attending the rally in Paris, but his understated response was actually a welcome respite from the grandstanding by many of the other world leaders who marched arm in arm. Daniel Wickman brilliantly documented on Twitter how the list dignitaries attending was something of a Whos Who of free speech oppressors of the world.

Lost in all this is the fact that Charlie Hebdo has spent much of its life as a publication fending off French anti-speech laws. As law professor Jonathan Turley wrote in the Washington Post this weekend, the biggest threat to French free speech isnt terrorism. Its the government. He recounted how Charlie Hebdo had repeatedly been been threatened with prosecution in the past and has been sued countless times more. Turley then described how a variety of French anti-speech laws have other landed non-violent offenders in jail.

As if on cue, as the Guardian reported Monday, a prosecutors office in France opened an investigation into controversial comedian Dieudonn Mbala Mbala over an allegedly offensive Facebook post.

See the rest here:
Banning all encryption won't make us safer, no matter what David Cameron says

U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron has been weatheringa Twitter storm of mockery for comments he made yesterday in which he appeared to suggestitwould be the intention of a future Conservative government to ban strong encryption.

Are we going to allow a means of communication between people which even in extremis, with a signed warrant from the Home Secretary personally, that we cannot read? he said in a public speech. No we must not. The first duty of any government is to keep our country and our people safe.

Internet security experts chipped in en masse on social media to point out thepyrrhic folly of Cameronthinking hecan banencryption, while others noted the heightened hypocrisy of a politician using last weeks terrorattacks in Paris as a foil to attempt to undermine citizens digital privacy rights at home.

TechCrunch understands alarm at the potential implications of Cameronscomments evenextended to the U.K.s VC investment community which makes sense, given that Internetbusinesseswouldnt be able to function without encryption. So in a move that will shock precisely no one, theback channel back-peddling has begun.

Downing Street sources saidthe PMs words had been misinterpreted, and that he was not, in fact, singling outencryption, or any particular Internet companies, for a ban.Although another governmentsourcedeclined to confirm to TechCrunch that a future Conservative government would not be seeking to ban encryption when we asked directly.So the Tories are evidently not committing to endingall encryption-banning rhetorical outbursts in future.

The game being played here is not just with popular opinion on the election campaign trail ahead of the U.K.s General Election thisMay, as the Toriescack-handedlytry to capitalize on fear of terrorism by tilting at digital windmills. Its also an attempt to apply politicalpressure on foreign ownedInternet companies to provideU.K. security services with backdoors intotheir services.

Last Novemberthe incominghead of the U.K.s GCHQ spy agency madea direct public appeal to U.S. Internet companies to co-operate with government counter terrorism efforts and hand over data on users when asked.

Yesterday Cameron was evidently trying to speed that same plough. However if, as government sources are (sort of)suggesting, he does not in fact have an intention to ban encryption, but is hoping that Internet companies will agree to put backdoors into services themselves, there are undoubtedly some digital services that U.K. spookswill not be able to peek into i.e. those that use end-to-end encryption or companies thatrefuse to co-operate with requests to installbackdoors and, really, there is not a whole lotU.K. politicianswillbe able to do about that.

That said,the Prime Ministerhas previously committed a future Tory government to re-introducemore comprehensivepowers of digital comms data capture, and to extend the emergency surveillancelegislation (DRIPA)that was rushed through the U.K. parliament last year. Under DRIPA,companies providing a service to the U.K. are technically required to provide access to data.

The difficulty(for government) comes in trying to enforce such a legal requirement if a company does not have a physical presence in the U.K.And even where a company does have a presence, no U.K. government is going to wantto be seen banning mainstream apps. Thats nevera good look unless youre heading upa totalitarian regime.

Continued here:
U.K. PM Backpedals On ‘Encryption Ban’, Sort Of

The Governments plan to go to war on encryption is not the answer to terrorist threats, says our management consultancy columnist Mick James, but it will have serious repercussions for business.

Oh dear. Though I have the greatest respect for our current Prime Minister, I have to say my heart sank when I heard his latest pronouncement on what I suppose we must think of as the cyberfrontier in the war against terrorism.

Id always thought of the current Coalition as a relatively business-friendly operation, and how refreshing that our Prime Minister has demonstrated that he is aware of the more modern forms of communication made possible through the internet (currently celebrating its 25th birthday).

Camerons thesis is this: we can in extremis open peoples letters and listen to their phone calls, but theres a problem with email: it might be encrypted.

In our country do we want to allow a means of communication between people which even in extremis with a warrant personally signed by the Home Secretary that we cannot read? My answer is no we must notthe first duty of a government is to keep our people safe.

I can remember when safe would have included safe from the sort of people who might read your letters but no matter. Nor should we overlook the logical absurdity that letters and phone calls can themselves be encoded: have you got those eggs I asked you for? Yes and theyre just about to go off.

For surely the answer to the question do we want a means of communication between peoplewhich we cannot read is a fairly emphatic yes. We already have some startlingly draconian laws which make it an imprisonable offence not to disclose encryption keys or passwords (worth thinking about if you have old files or archives dating from some previous password regime you have long forgotten about).

Now one would presumably be barred from using messaging services which encrypt communications for you and keep them secure even from the carrier. Or they would have to somehow break their own security and let the government have a peek.

Have the Government really thought this through? Its not the first time theyve gone to war on encryption rather than take on the men in balaclavas with guns. Does anyone remember Pretty Good Privacy, an encryption programme so good that the US government classified it as munitions and made its export an offence, like exporting weapons grade plutonium. We entered a situation where higher mathematics, on which so many encryption programmes depend, was in danger of becoming a state secret. Then they came up with the idea of the Clipper chip. This would encode things for you but also give the government a secret backdoor code which they would of course keep securely and never put on a USB stick with loads of other codes and leave on a bus.

We stand on the brink of a digital revolution: as exciting as the internet has been for the last 25 years, my feeling is increasingly that we have only scratched the surface. Ive already written about how in many ways the only limits these days are our imaginations, but there are countervailing forces and the need for online security is one of them. Transacting online is becoming more and more of a chore and one of the few forms of exercise I get these days is running round the house trying to find codes and registration numbers or hunting for the one-time activation code before it expires.

Read the original post:
Consultant-News.com – Latest News from the World of Consultancy

Encryption Final edit
AdamMarriott/SunilRajshakha.

By: Tamworth SixthFormA2Media

Read the rest here:
Encryption Final edit - Video

Public Key Encryption Summary
Overview of how public key encryption works.

By: Tim Witort

More:
Public Key Encryption Summary - Video

UK prime minister David Cameron calls for more powers for spy agencies and greater control over digital communications.

On Monday David Cameron managed a rare political treble: he proposed a policy that is draconian, stupid and economically destructive.

The prime minister made comments widely interpreted as proposing a ban on end-to-end encryption in messages the technology that protects online communications, shopping, banking, personal data and more.

[I]n our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?, the prime minister asked rhetorically.

To most people in a supposed liberal democracy, the answer would surely be yes: the right to privacy runs right in parallel to our right for free expression. If you cant say something to a friend or family member without the fear the government, your neighbour or your boss will overhear, your free expression is deeply curtailed.

This means that even in principle Camerons approach is darkly paradoxical: the attack on Paris was an attack on free expression but its the government that intends to land the killing blow.

Terrorists must not be allowed to disrupt our way of life, were often told in the wake of atrocities. We must leave that to governments to do in the wakes of these attacks.

But its in the practicalities that the prime ministers approach slips from draconian to dull-witted. There is no such thing as good guy encryption and bad guy encryption. The same encryption that protects you and me protects companies, protects governments, and protects terrorists.

Encryption is what protects your private details when you send your bank details to a server. Its required for governments and companies when they store customer information, to protect it from hackers and others. And its built right in to whole hosts of messaging applications, including iMessage and WhatsApp.

If Cameron is proposing an end to encryption in the UK, then any information sent across the internet would be open for any company, government, or script kiddie with 10 minutes hacking experience to access. It would spell the end of e-commerce, private online communications and any hope of the UK having any cybersecurity whatsoever.

Read more:
Cameron wants to ban encryption – he can say goodbye to digital Britain

Having access to people's communications is vital for combating terrorism, David Cameron says

The U.K. may ban online messaging services that offer encryption such as WhatsApp and Apple's iMessage, under surveillance plans laid out by Prime Minister David Cameron.

Services that allow people to communicate without providing access to their messages pose a serious challenge to law enforcement efforts to combat terrorism and other crimes, Cameron said Monday.

He didn't name specific apps, but suggested those with encryption would not jive with new surveillance legislation he's looking to enact if he gets reelected this year. Such apps include WhatsApp, iMessage, Google Hangouts, Microsoft's Skype, CryptoCat, and more.

"In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which, even in extremists ... that we cannot read?" Cameron said, adding later, "No, we must not."

"The first duty of any government is to keep our country and our people safe," he said.

He didn't say how the government might enforce the legislation or keep people from downloading such apps.

His comments follow the wave of shootings in Paris last week by Islamic extremists. Being able to gather information about people's communications, be that communications records or actual content, could help authorities to thwart and investigate attacks, Cameron said.

But his comments also come at a time of increased concern over government surveillance, and the loss of digital privacy in general. On the same day Cameron delivered his remarks, in the U.S. President Obama announced plans for new legislation that would give Americans more control over their data online. A Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, Obama proposed, would allow consumers to decide what pieces of their personal data are collected by companies and decide how the data is used.

Zach Miners covers social networking, search and general technology news for IDG News Service. Follow Zach on Twitter at @zachminers. Zach's e-mail address is zach_miners@idg.com

Visit link:
UK prime minister suggests banning encrypted apps like WhatsApp, iMessage

Start-ups have warned on the possible effect on Britains nascent technology sector of Camerons plans. Photograph: BARRY HUANG/REUTERS

David Cameron is living in cloud cuckoo land when he suggests a new Tory government would ban messaging apps that use encryption, security experts have told the Guardian.

The prime minister has pledged anti-terror laws to give the security services the ability to read encrypted communications in extreme circumstances. But experts say such access would mean changing the way internet-based messaging services such as Apples iMessage or Facebooks WhatsApp work.

Independent computer security expert Graham Cluley said: Its crazy. Cameron is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks that this is a sensible idea, and no it wouldnt be possible to implement properly.

Other security experts echo Cluley, describing the approach as idiocy and saying Camerons plans are ill-thought out and scary. The UKs data watchdog has also spoken out against knee-jerk reactions, saying moves could undermine consumer security.

Meanwhile a start-up has warned on the possible effect on Britains nascent technology sector of Camerons plans. Eris Industries, which uses open-source cryptography, has said it is already making plans to leave the UK if the Conservative party is re-elected with this policy in its programme.

On Monday, Cameron made a speech in which he decried the ability of ordinary people to have conversations on which the security services were unable to eavesdrop.

In extremis, it has been possible to read someones letter, to listen to someones call, to mobile communications, Cameron said. The question remains: are we going to allow a means of communications where it simply is not possible to do that? My answer to that question is: no, we must not.

Cluley said either tech companies would have to work with UK government and build backdoors into their software to allow the authorities to intercept messages, or the apps themselves will have to be banned.

If there are backdoors in the apps, or if weak encryption is used, then you are only opening up opportunities for hackers to break in and steal information too. Thats not going to go down well with businesses or consumers, Cluley said.

Read the original here:
David Cameron in 'cloud cuckoo land' over encrypted messaging apps ban

An Irishman, who has created a computer application which makes emails safer, has clinched a deal with the Chilean government to sell his new business worldwide.

Dublin-based business, Jumble.io, set up by Gavin Kearney, aims to help the public and companies keep emails and data secure from hackers and big business.

Mr Kearney was told by the Chilean government he had secured thousands of euro in backing from their Incubator programme for new businesses at the end of last week.

The financial injection of $40,000 will also help to launch the email encryption service with industry giants in Silicon Valley in the US in coming months. It is the only Irish company to secure such funding, beating off stiff competition from 2,448 other international competitors.

It has cost DCU guarantee Mr Kearney, and the two other co- founders 100,000 to set-up the business. The trio started the service last year after they spotted a gap in the market.

This financial backing means a lot to the business. Two of us are going to Santiago for six months and one of us will remain in Dublin to grow the business and monitor it from there, said Mr Kearney.

It will give us the international platform and backing our company needs. We will fly to Chile within the next month to set-up our international base there while also developing it in Ireland.

We are in the process of trying to hire people in Ireland to deal with the interest shown in our service.

Jumble.io is a simple, one-click encryption service that allows end-to-end email security with almost no effort on the part of the user and is being looked at to end the scourge of hacking.

Instead of pressing the send button on your email provider all you have to click is send encrypted.

Go here to read the rest:
Irish firm’s email encryption app wins Chile backing

How to Disable Forced Encryption on Rooted Nexus 6!
Here #39;s a guide to disable forced encryption on the Nexus 6. Download Links Details: http://www.androidrootz.com/2015/01/how-to-disable-forced-encryption-on...

By: Anuj Patel

The rest is here:
How to Disable Forced Encryption on Rooted Nexus 6! - Video