
Amber Rudd accuses tech giants of 'sneering' at politicians - QAPereo
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41463401
======
ArchReaper
>And she said she did not need to understand how they worked to know they were
"helping criminals".

>She insisted she does not want "back doors" installed in encryption codes,
something the industry has warned will weaken security for all users, nor did
she want to ban encryption, just to allow easier access by police and the
security services.

>"I understand the principle of end-to-end encryption - it can't be unwrapped.
That's what has been developed. "What I am saying is the companies who are
developing that should work with us."

Well I hate to "sneer" at her and reinforce her perception of tech people, but
Jesus Christ, what a moron. If you refuse to learn how it works then you
cannot reasonably expect to be capable of offering any kind of input on how to
change it.

All she's capable of understanding is "WE MUST STOP THE TERRORISM"

~~~
alrs
She well understands that being a member of Five Eyes is of huge value to UK
industry, as the point of dragnet surveillance is using competitor nations'
secrets for economic advantage, not for fighting terrorism.

These people aren't stupid.

~~~
TimonKnigge
> as the point of dragnet surveillance is using competitor nations' secrets
> for economic advantage, not for fighting terrorism.

Source / examples? Seems like a rather extraordinary claim.

~~~
alrs
This has been going on for decades, and was an issue before 9/11/2001.

[http://articles.latimes.com/1999/sep/30/news/mn-16631](http://articles.latimes.com/1999/sep/30/news/mn-16631)

[http://articles.latimes.com/2000/feb/24/news/mn-2072](http://articles.latimes.com/2000/feb/24/news/mn-2072)

[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/30/airbus-
coul...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/30/airbus-could-sue-
following-allegations-germany-spied-on-them-for-the-us)

------
henrikschroder
> She insisted she does not want "back doors" installed in encryption codes,
> something the industry has warned will weaken security for all users, nor
> did she want to ban encryption, just to allow easier access by police and
> the security services.

This is a prime example of magical thinking, and it's so infuriating to watch.
It's not the case that smart people just haven't figure this out yet, it's
that it's fundamentally impossible to get what she asks for, she might as well
ask for a unicorn.

When people say it's impossible, they don't mean "not yet", they actually mean
"never". And she's just one more in a long line of politicians who have asked
the same thing over and over and over again, so how hard is it to understand
that the industry is kinda tired of people dropping by and asking for
unicorns?

~~~
JadeNB
> When people say it's impossible, they don't mean "not yet", they actually
> mean "never".

This is a very good point. I think the problem is that some people _do_ say
"impossible" to mean "probably never" ("it's impossible to understand
specialist language"), and some people (sometimes the same people) say
"impossible" to mean "actually never" ("it's impossible to use only a
straightedge and compass to square a circle"); and, unless you're a
specialist, then you're probably not qualified to judge which meaning is
intended, and you're possibly not even aware that there _are_ two meanings.

~~~
didgeoridoo
Maybe "physically impossible" helps convey the point a bit better?

------
free_everybody
I agree with Amber Rudd. Furthermore, something needs to be done about
whispering. Terrorists have been whispering their plans to each other so
softly that we can't overhear them. How about we enforce a decibel minimum for
all human vocalizations? That'll make us safer.

------
ck425
Why is it considered ok to regulate technology without understanding it? Even
Jeremy Hunt claims to understand the papers he used to justify more weekend
services for the NHS. Osborne tried to justify austerity as an answer to the
recession with (sketchy) evidence. But when it comes to technology politicians
(The Tories most of all) stop even pretending to understand the technology.
Why is this?

~~~
stevenwoo
The person in charge of science in the US House of Representatives generally
doesn't believe in science when it conflicts with the companies that fund his
campaigns. He thinks climate science is "fake news" and that fracking is good
for the environment and there is no need to investigate it further. He is
actually a writer for a "fake news" website called Breitbart.

Voters in Texas don't care.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_S._Smith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_S._Smith)

------
dreamfactored
It's pretty clear she's not being stupid and asking for the mathematically
impossible. She wants capability to tap at the server end or some equivalent
provided by the platforms; and she is quite right that she can regulate
companies out of the UK market if they don't make that available. This already
happens in Asia and Russia to our knowledge and will soon be everywhere if it
isn't already.

~~~
free_everybody
Wouldn't tapping at the server end be futile for messages with end-to-end
encryption? So she must be asking for the removal of the encryption. I think
that's why people are criticizing her. She's implying the encryption must go
without explicitly stating it.

~~~
dreamfactored
Well not all platforms are direct messaging, but sure for direct messaging
apps with e2e encryption that would be one possibility. Or remove just for
warranted individuals, or remove flagged messages etc. That's just off the top
of my head in 2 minutes - the idea is that the tech companies are best
positioned and incentivised to come up with a creative solution if they want
market access. The politicians are explicitly acknowledging that they don't
have expert knowledge and aren't trying to dictate a solution - they are just
explaining the requirements.

In ye olden days comms would go through a mail sorting system or a switchboard
and authorised gov agents could take a peek as they needed and were allowed by
law (hopefully). If a tech company wants to get into that business they need
to figure out that part of the solution as well as the routing of messages
bit. Government didn't mandate e2e encryption - that was a choice by tech
companies, so the ball is being placed firmly in their court. (I do get the
security and privacy concerns but that's a legal and governance question for
the jurisdiction - a technology firm's business model or choice of technical
architecture doesn't trump that.)

I know this all seems really controversial and awful but from a governance
view it's not really different to any other industry. For example if you want
to sell chicken, you'll need to conform to a specific set of standards -
doesn't matter if it's very inconvenient and you need to rebuild your entire
manufacturing and supply chain to meet those standards for a given market. (Or
the standards for another market might be very low and your existing fully
traceable organic product is uneconomic etc)

~~~
Gigablah
"I'm not the expert, you are. Therefore surely you can design something that
fits these requirements."

Your entire comment brings to mind this sketch:

[https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg](https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg)

~~~
dreamfactored
Hardly. As I pointed out she isn't asking for anything logically impossible -
that's just a conservative-minded assumption from people tethered to the
status quo :) What's new is that they are talking about regulating the
internet just as they regulate the radio spectrum, transport infrastructure,
pharmaceuticals, the media, or anything else which meaningfully impacts the
country. In principle, the UK government has the power and authority to block
Facebook and Google and develop their own fully tapped and controlled
platforms just as China has done. The question being put by the UK government
is what is technically possible between that extreme and the status quo where
you have foreign companies doing what they want, and what is politically
acceptable.

------
ashark
If you're the kind of person who walks into a taco joint and starts trying to
place an order for office supplies, then when questioned insists that "no I
totally understand tacos, I just really need some ink cartridges", basically
anything that follows is likely to come off to you as "sneering", whether it
is or not.

------
sushisource
That was tough to read. I suppose she hasn't considered the problem isn't with
tech companies not coddling politicians, but rather that we should elect some
politicians who are actually smart enough to understand this fairly basic
stuff.

------
jackmott
Reading that it sounds like she doesn't want backdoors, she wants backdoors.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
She doesn't want government access to be _called_ a backdoor, but she wants
government access and a backdoor is the only way to implement it.

------
trexen
I can think of no group more worthy of sneering and derision than politicians.

Let us be clear: politicians are ignorant fools who have the power to
legislate upon matters they have no understanding of, and are happy to make
politically expedient policy decisions that are not wise.

These fools have done little to nothing to earn more than a sneer.

Respect is earned, and cannot be demanded, unless of course one is a
politician.

------
carlisle_
I think it's a bit arrogant to assume that tech companies (especially those
based out of other countries) are deliberately trying to undermine governments
rather than empower people.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
It's arrogant to assume they're trying to undermine governments, but it's
naive to assume they're trying to empower people. Tech companies above a
certain size are interested in making money, period. They'll back whatever
agenda they think will help them make money. Sometimes that lines up with the
general public good. Never assume it will always remain so.

------
misnome
> And she said she did not need to understand how they worked to know they
> were "helping criminals"

And I wonder why.

------
whataretensors
Wow. A "moral" obligation lecture to silicon valley from a scummy politician
who wants to regulate something she doesn't understand.

------
Luc
A charitable reading could be that she wants cooperation from the tech
industry to place client software with broken encryption on requested target
machines.

That would work and would indeed require cooperation.

~~~
JadeNB
> A charitable reading could be that she wants cooperation from the tech
> industry to place client software with broken encryption on requested target
> machines.

She specifically says that she's not asking for back doors. (Well, the exact
quote from the article is "She insisted she does not want 'back doors'
installed in encryption codes", so maybe it means that she wants back doors
installed later.)

------
atomical
Can't end-to-end decryption be defeated by recording the original private key
when the exchange first happens? I assume most of these services don't require
the two participants to exchange a shared secret in the meatspace?

~~~
ThrustVectoring
The private key never needs to get sent and can be generated by the user's
device. The _public_ key gets verified through the channel to detect and
prevent man-in-the-middle attacks.

To defeat end-to-end encryption, you need to defeat the ends.

------
test6554
Ideally there's a public partnership between government and the private sector
rather than any one side bending the knee, but not so close as to have any
secret handshakes.

------
whipoodle
I sneer at them too.

------
rconti
Shpx bss, Nzore.

------
balance_factor
England's army occupies the six north counties of Ireland, so as to make its
people subjects of the queen. Those who have stood up and fought back, to
drive out this foreign army are "terrorists", and Rudd demands the ability to
see the communications of the queen's subjects, on top of whatever else
Orwellian CCTV monitoring nightmare the Ununited Kingdom already has.

Where are the transcripts of British intelligence collusion, when the English
military gave guns to the loyalist death squads?

