Assuming the politicians even know the difference, of course.
Privacy is a basic right, not a concession to be doled out by faceless
From: Douglas Rankine
Sent: 31 January 2018 17:22
To: Cryptome Mailing List
Subject: [cryptome] Terror law expert to UK.gov: Why backdoors when there's
somuch other data to slurp?
We leave huge digital paper trails, but biz can still do more
The UK's former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson,
told the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee that there are plenty of new
sources of information for law enforcement to get their hands on, rather than
banging the drum for backdoors.
In what has now become a frustratingly standard question from politicians about
tech companies' role in the war on terror, Anderson was asked if he thought the
state would ever get access to encrypted messages for security purposes.
"No," he replied. "Because end-to-end encryption is not only a fact of life, it
is, on balance, a desirable fact of life. Any of us who do our banking online,
for example, are very grateful for end-to-end encryption."
The debate, Anderson continued, was sometimes wrongly "portrayed in very black
and white terms, as if the world is going dark and because of end-to-end
encryption we're all doomed".
He argued that although the loss of information the state can gather from the
content of someone's communications is "very significant", it is tempered by
the mass of other data it can slurp from elsewhere.>>>end of quote.
Interesting article on data slurping aiding and abetting law enforcement on the
catching of criminals, (such as fitbit...:-)) rather than creating back doors
to end to end encryption. Nuffink better than a bit of common sense. I doubt
if the politicians will listen to it though...too interested in getting and
keeping power, and can't see the wood for the trees...