• expatriado@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    not surprising, britain has a history of being rude with those who helped break encryption

  • BilboBargains@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 year ago

    The whole premise is dumb like their war on drugs, porn and whatever else offends their Victorian-era sensibilities. You cannot stop encryption, the genie is out of the bottle since the advent of PGP. These Dunning-Kruger morons make me embarrassed to be British.

    • socsa@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They’ll just focus on baking obscure side channel attacks into firmware wherever they can. Consumer devices also leak a ton of EM energy, and there have been a bunch of “proof of concepts” at deriving device state remotely by observing such energy. I’d be pretty surprised if the right folks can’t read private keys being loaded into cache under the right circumstances already.

      In a way it’s kind of a poetic compromise. They can’t do mass surveillance like they want, but they can still “tap” devices via physical access, preferably with a healthy dose of due process.

      • BilboBargains@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agree. If the state is determined to spy on something, no doubt they will find a way but legalising wholesale collection of data is not ethically sound. Governments want a way into every communication channel whenever they feel the need and Facebook, et al have been happy to sell out their users. Encryption provides the necessary and sufficient barrier to prevent this type of whimsical over-reach.

    • digdilem@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Absolutely agree. It’s pandering to a small minority of pressure groups demanding to make the internet safe, without understanding the fundamental nature of what they’re trying to do or the implications of doing so.

      Absolute shower of cockwombles. We need to vote these arseholes out of danger.

  • Leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a temporary reprieve rather than a victory. The wording of the bill hasn’t changed, they’ve simply added the statement that what they want to do isn’t technically possible yet but when it is, this’ll be revived.

    • elouboub@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That encryption can have a backdoor for “the good guys” to use but never the bad guys? I guess this is defeated then.

  • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, let’s break encrypt!

    Not that it’s possible but it would be awesome no? That somebody can just read my passwords, access my bank accounts, read my private messages… You trust the government with those keys, Right?

  • Sygheil@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why not publish classified documents first and then we can talk about breaking encryption for us blokes. Damn governments.