Skip to main content

Draft Communications and Data Bill (wrong and stupid)

I am somewhat confused as to what the government think they can achieve trying to get emails and web traffic tracked.

The whole idea of the Secure Sockets Layer protocol is to prevent "man in the middle" attacks from being able to find out what is being said.

Hence if someone sends email using SSL through an email server hosted abroad then the only thing the government could have tracked is that someone has sent one or more emails. The government would not know to whom, how many emails in the session or from whom, nor would the government be able to find out anything further.

Indeed if people use onion routing then the government wouldn't even be able to find out which hosts are being used.

It is important to remember that the English courts have removed children from at least one person in part for their political views. (in a secret court of course) Hence it is a sensible precaution for everyone in the country to have all their communications encrypted. That, therefore, conceals the terrorists in a mass of unaccessible encrypted data.

To me this is all very wrong and stupid.

nb I wrote the second implementation in the world of SSL back in 1995.

Comments

Tony Heskett said…
Thanks for this.

The Open Rights Group are encouraging us to email MPs to oppose this bill; I gather you're already on the side of sanity :-)

Cheers,
Tony

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…