Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

Encryption = crime?

Encryption is one of the few "defiant" technologies still available to the great unwashed masses.

I call it defiant because it runs counter to a growing demand by governments to dismantle people's right to privacy and counter to their demands to have access to any and all information they might want.

A growing number of Western "democracies" have already made it a crime not to disclose on-demand, the decryption keys for data which has been encrypted.

The reality is that some of today's readily available encryption programs can produce incredibly powerful protection for any material that the owner does want not to share with others -- and authorities are not happy.

If I recall correctly, as far back as the 1990s, the widely used PGP encryption code was defined as "armament" and therefore became a restricted export from the USA.

Of course that was utter folly -- since the 1990s saw the birth of the Internet, something which made any attempts at quarantining such code completely futile.

I was not surprised therefore, to read this article in New Scientist today.

It would appear that the ready availability and invincibility of full-disk encryption code is making life very hard for "big brother".

Those who want to be able to see exactly what every citizen is up to are frustrated that this kind of privacy protection effectively denies them that ability.

I suspect it's only a matter of time before the use or possession of such hard-encryption code is illegal -- unless it's been certified by governments and includes a back-door that allows authorised agencies unfettered access to decrypt data at-will.

Once again we will be told that "only those with something to hide have anything to fear" and that by making the use of unapproved encryption illegal, we will help protect the public from such evils as terrorism, child-porn and other crimes.

The next step would likely be a tax on the use of such systems -- to help fund the certification and policing of their use -- let's face it, such a move is not without precedent.

This of course, all presumes that such moves wouldn't trigger a rather powerful uprising by those who write and those who might choose to use such encryption systems.

The comments on that New Scientist story make for very interesting reading, especially given that I would have suspected this publication's audience to be somewhat conservative in their outlook.

What concerns me most is that there is probably already a mindset within some circles of authority that suspects of wrongdoing, anyone who might choose to use things such as full-disk encryption.

Already, "the powers that be" appear to have a much reduced burden of proof when it comes to "suspected" crimes.

The Proceeds of Crimes" legislation is a great example of this. If the police *suspect* you of benefiting from the proceeds of crime such as drugs, money-laundering, etc. -- they can seize and sell property which they believe constitute the proceeds of crime.

As I understand it -- no convictions for wrong-doing or other proof is required, simply a suspicion.

A very worrisome state of affairs?

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say on this...

PERMALINK to this column

Oh, and don't forget today's sci/tech news headlines

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font