Reading your email..

[Dan_1981]

Will Edward Snowden be liable to be charged?

A civilian Bradley Manning?

I imagine staff of the CIA have to sign the equivelant of an official secrets act?

[Tonsko]

I imagine so. He's quite sanguine about what is likely to happen - rendition, kidnapping by 3rd party, or even death by Triad.

[buggalugs]

Countdown said:

buggalugs said:

GavinPearson said:

And the simple fact is that whether you like it or not, it is going to be done anyway.

Not according to the laws of the various countries concerned it's not.

Eh? It's been DONE already. The laws have been ignored/sidestepped.

Edited by Countdown on Monday 10th June 07:50

So that means you're OK with it then? What point are you trying to make?

[Dan_1981]

Hong Kong wouldn't have been my first choice of destination I have to admit...... Ecuador maybe but not Hong Kong.

eta: Although this suggests why he might have chosen there. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-2283759...

Edited by Dan_1981 on Monday 10th June 11:37

[0000]

Guam said:

Einion Yrth said:

If it bothers you. Not uncrackable but if everybody used it we could waste a lot of their time.

Pointless, iirc ever since PGP was sued by the US government, every version beyond version 5 has a backdoor for law enforcement to decrypt the data allegedly, version 5 doesnt <good luck finding a copy these days>. I am under the impression all other encryption software had to build in the backdoor if it was developed in the west. Unless someone else knows different?

Err... yeah, that's not the case.

[mrmr96]

Guam said:

Einion Yrth said:

If it bothers you. Not uncrackable but if everybody used it we could waste a lot of their time.

Pointless, iirc ever since PGP was sued by the US government, every version beyond version 5 has a backdoor for law enforcement to decrypt the data allegedly, version 5 doesnt <good luck finding a copy these days>. I am under the impression all other encryption software had to build in the backdoor if it was developed in the west. Unless someone else knows different?

If that were the case then there would be no need for the law requiring you to hand over decryption keys when asked.

[Sonic]

0000 said:

Guam said:

Einion Yrth said:

If it bothers you. Not uncrackable but if everybody used it we could waste a lot of their time.

Pointless, iirc ever since PGP was sued by the US government, every version beyond version 5 has a backdoor for law enforcement to decrypt the data allegedly, version 5 doesnt <good luck finding a copy these days>. I am under the impression all other encryption software had to build in the backdoor if it was developed in the west. Unless someone else knows different?

Err... yeah, that's not the case.

GnuPG (not PGP) is "free software", so i would have expected such a backdoor to have been found and documented in the 14 years since its release if this were the case.

[0000]

More to the point than free, it's open source, but yes.

[Einion Yrth]

0000 said:

More to the point than free, it's open source, but yes.

That's pretty much what they mean by free. Free speech rather than free beer, (although it's that too).

[0000]

There are other implications that aren't relevant, and so being open source is more the point, but yes.

[Einion Yrth]

Guam said:

You will have to dig but as I recall the developer of PGP was hauled up om charges of "weapon exporting" and the deal done was to include a master key for the intell services beyond version 6 and above, I understood that was made mandatory in encryption software after this.

The law on the key provision in the UK predated the US courtcase against PGP IIRC. It was all a long time ago, so it may require some serious digging, at the time it was well emough known for me to grab a copy of version 5 from a Norwegian University server, as those mirrors were the only ones still hosting it at the time this kicked off.

Clearly it would only impact software developed in places where such "agreements" were in play, as with all things you pays your money and takes your chances <or free in the example you link to>. However I would not feel too confident in any recent encryption software if your privacy is that important to you.

Thom, it's GPG not PGP, it's open-source. If such a backdoor had ever been coded in it would have been coded out again by now. Many times . Hell I'd do it myself if I needed to.

[0000]

Guam said:

You will have to dig but as I recall the developer of PGP was hauled up om charges of "weapon exporting" and the deal done was to include a master key for the intell services beyond version 6 and above, I understood that was made mandatory in encryption software after this.

The law on the key provision in the UK predated the US courtcase against PGP IIRC. It was all a long time ago, so it may require some serious digging, at the time it was well emough known for me to grab a copy of version 5 from a Norwegian University server, as those mirrors were the only ones still hosting it at the time this kicked off.

Clearly it would only impact software developed in places where such "agreements" were in play, as with all things you pays your money and takes your chances <or free in the example you link to>. However I would not feel too confident in any recent encryption software if your privacy is that important to you.

His name's Phil Zimmermann. Read his take if you don't believe ours...

https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/faq/index.html

[Sonic]

0000 said:

More to the point than free, it's open source, but yes.

Their term, not mine

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

GnuPG said:

Open Source?

Another group has started using the term “open source” to mean something close (but not identical) to “free software”. We prefer the term “free software” because, once you have heard that it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The word “open” never refers to freedom.

[AJI]

Suppose it all comes from the stand point of "the internet is the last place for freedom of speech/expression"..... which is enemy number one if you're in the business of government no matter if its dictatorship or democracy.

So although I'm not surprised that governments are finding ways to 'control' the internet and its users more and more. By targeting ISPs and main traffic websites to gather data in the view to creating controls (removal of freedoms) in order the establishments are not placed under any threat from free speech.


As some have mentioned already, the use of this gathered data by one government will no doubt be 'abused' and used to benefit the goals of wider vested interests.

The simple rule as a user of the internet is to stop placing your entire life on to a medium that is open for future abuse. Hide and protect your identity as much as you can. Remove/delete data about you that is no longer current/applicable (especially when you un-register from one website and start using another).

[Tonsko]

Dan_1981 said:

Will Edward Snowden be liable to be charged?

A civilian Bradley Manning?

I imagine staff of the CIA have to sign the equivelant of an official secrets act?

From Peter King, the Republican chairman of the House of Representatives counter-terrorism and intelligence subcommittee:

Peter King said:

If Edward Snowden did in fact leak the NSA data as he claims, the United States government must prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law and begin extradition proceedings at the earliest date. The United States must make it clear that no country should be granting this individual asylum. This is a matter of extraordinary consequence to American intelligence.

[0000]

Guam said:

It may be they were unable to enforce it or it may be that they did and developers were required to not disclose it who knows? I will stick with my copy of 5 if I need encryption however

I do. They didn't do it, the developers weren't required not to disclose it.

[0000]

Sonic said:

0000 said:

More to the point than free, it's open source, but yes.

Their term, not mine

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

GnuPG said:

Open Source?

Another group has started using the term “open source” to mean something close (but not identical) to “free software”. We prefer the term “free software” because, once you have heard that it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The word “open” never refers to freedom.

Well, yes, of course RMS prefers the term free precisely because of the extra connotations not carried by the phrase open source. They're not relevant (here) though.

[mattnunn]

I'm very suprised to know that people are suprised to know that the government in the UK and the US have the ability and do indeed scan/check/parse peoples online communications.

Seriously? This is a suprise? What do you think they do at GCHQ and Menwith Hill?

Really? people didn't know that they keep an eye on things? It's been that way since 1939.

[toppstuff]

I am surprised that people are surprised at this.

Has'nt Echelon been eavesdropping for years ? Google too. And Blackberry's servers have been well known to be porous when it comes to the ability of SIS agencies to have a ganders at what people are sending to each other.

I think it has been ramped up massively since 9/11 however under the premise of fighting 'turrism..

[petemurphy]

hold on u're saying spys are spying? who'd have thought. anyone who assumes privacy on the interweb is a fool.