Surveillance strategies in the UK and Israel often go global
Link to article?
Fuck this shit. The UK is not longer a free country. And fuck Israel even more for their damned work over the decades to make this possible.
What actual document is this?
So google, amazon and Microsoft are hostile actors.every cloud provider is an enemy of uk government. They have gardeners (at best) or lawyers ( most probably), which did their own research.before writing these abominations. At the same time, they want to give all medical datas in the NHS to palantir. This is the apoteosis of incompetence.
So google, amazon and Microsoft are hostile actors
Obviously not. They’re happy to give MI5 a backdoor into all their systems.
This is the apoteosis of incompetence.
The age old question - malicious or stupid.
Welcome to the resistance
https has got to go
ROT13 too.
always wanted to be a hostile witness
Paving roads makes it easier for an invading army to get around.
No-one’s invading Lincolnshire then.
This is great.
If you are (or know) a UK citizen, please let them send this with the above context to their representative.
So literally everyone in the UK using any website that uses TLS is now a hostile actor?
Essentially everyone’s a criminal which is a huge boon for the government. They can now get rid of anyone they want at any time, legally.
TLS is not typically considered end-to-end encryption. It’s transport encryption.
I don’t get it. E2ee is about encryption in transit not encryption at rest. TLS sounds exactly like e2ee
E2E is about the sender encrypting, and only the intended receiver decrypting, with nothing in the middle able to read the data.
TLS is not designed for that, as the server you connect to is not necessarily the intended receiver, yet it can see everything.
With E2E, you can send data to a server, which is not the intended receiver, and it won’t be able to read it.
Your explanation assumes that scope and scale are part of the definition which it is not.
If you keep zooming in or zooming out the definition of E2E keeps changing under your statement.
If the only knowledge a system has is between a sender and a receiver (Which satisfies even your definition of “intended recipient”) then TLS is E2E encrypted.
The definition of E2EE has evolved since the concept surfaced. You seem to be stuck with the original meaning.
TLS does not fit the modern definition.
Yes the technical term has evolved but did the term evolve in the legislation definition of it?
If not, then the technically correct usage doesn’t matter which is a point I’ve made in another comment as well.
And in my previous comment, I am pointing out the logical inconsistencies. Not that I agree or disagree with the technical terminology. You seem to be conflating a logical explanation/call-out of logic holes for my opinion, which it is not
The legislation definition is the exact problem. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 defines ‘encryption’ functionally — any process that renders data unintelligible without a key. That definition hasn’t been updated since. So yes, the technical term has evolved, but the legal hook hasn’t moved with it.
The result is that the same mathematical operation — a hash, a signature, a key exchange — sits in different legal categories depending on framing. TLS on a commercial website is fine. The same TLS on a messaging app that declines to provide a backdoor is suddenly ‘obstruction.’
That’s not a security policy. It’s a political preference encoded as technical language. The legal definition isn’t tracking the technology; it’s tracking the threat model of whoever wrote the bill in 2016.
Do they strictly define end to end encryption in this bill?
If not, then yes, TLS is “end to end” as the sender encrypts the message, and the receiver decrypts it. Each “end” to each “end” is encrypted, satisfying the semantics of the term.
Even the US used to ban the export of strong encryption algorithms. You used to have to download the stronger encryption algorithms separately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Cryptography_Extension
I remember in the 1990s when you went to download Netscape you could only use the 40-bit encryption if you were in Europe, not the 128-bit encryption people in the USA could use.
Bar to become enemy of British crown is getting lower and lower…
Gee why does the capitalist oligopoly fear communication they can’t monitor it’s not like they are doing anything wrong and have anything to fear from little old us
Shit-flinging desperation at the realization that they have failed to contain dissent via internet-based coordination. Elbit and the UK’s protection of property was defeated by persistent disruption thanks to the work by Palestine Action. Unlike previous forms of communication, the empire has had tremendous difficulty wrestling control away because the materiality of the internet is so dispersed, accessible, and impossible to restrict without dire economic and military consequences.
The autonomous murder bots are not complete yet
thats what happens when we as society become ignorant and inept, and therefore we vote for inept and ignorant people to represent us.
They are not all inept.
They know exactly what they are doing.
It is a hostile act to create information the state isn’t privy to. That is a very deliberate act.
If I were to send a physical letter written in code that can only be decrypted with a cipher would I now be breaking the law?
What about radio or telephone conversations in code?
Can I still password protect my zip files or encrypt my NAS or PC before boot?
Using password protection for files is definitely work of terrorists you should be imprisoned for life. \s
Make sure you only use transparent envelopes.
