U.K. Pols Still Devoted to Destroying Citizens' Encryption, Privacy, and Security

Government would be able to demand tech companies provide data access.


Theresa May
Andrew Parsons/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Contra some previous reporting, some political leaders in the United Kingdom have not abandoned efforts to force tech companies to build "back doors" in communication systems and software to make it easier for authorities to engage in surveillance or access citizens' private data.

Great Britain is hammering out legislation to actually expand and establish surveillance authorities as official law in the wake of Edward Snowden's whistleblowing about what the government had been secretly already doing. The Investigatory Powers bill originally included demands that tech companies provide "back doors" in encryption protections so that authorities could access user and customer data upon demand, all in an effort to fight crime and terrorism.

Tech companies and privacy advocates (and those who intersect with both groups) have been loudly decrying efforts to weaken encryption, because logically, a "back door" that exists for government purposes can eventually be accessed by people besides the "proper authorities." Encryption back doors weaken everybody's data security, leaving them vulnerable to hackers, whether they are criminals looking to steal identities or access bank accounts or malevolent authoritarian governments looking to crack down on those who use the internet to engage in activism.

It had appeared in June that Great Britain officials had abandoned efforts to require "back doors" in its latest draft of the bill (often referred to as the "Snooper's Charter"). But new reporting indicates that it's very much alive in the House of Lords. It's not being formally called a "back door," but the intent is very obvious. Via TechCrunch:

The UK government has explicitly confirmed that a surveillance bill now making its way through the second chamber could be used to require a company to remove encryption. And even, in some circumstances, to force a comms service provider not to use end-to-end encryption to secure a future service they are developing. The details were revealed during debate of the Investigatory Powers Bill at a committee session in the House of Lords this week.

This cements concerns over the phrasing of a clause in the bill that refers to the 'removal of electronic protection', which critics, including from the technology and security industries, have long been warning risks outlawing the use of strong encryption in the UK.

The government's counter argument has been that there should be no safe spaces for terrorists and criminals to operate online, i.e. where their communications are definitively out of the reach of security and law enforcement agencies.

That same argument is used in the United States by authorities who want to weaken encryption here as well. As with the United States, those who demand back doors seem unwilling or completely disinterested in engaging at all with the reality that demanding special access to encrypted data has a massive potential to increasing citizens' vulnerability to crime and civil rights violations. The draft legislation by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) that would have set up very similar rules here in the United States had absolutely no concern about the many very, very awful consequences of weakening encryption. All they cared about is making sure the government had access to information.

Even worse for U.K.'s citizenry, one of the biggest proponents of this expanded surveillance authority is now the country's prime minister. Theresa May has the same attitude toward data privacy, and accuses critics of the surveillance state of endorsing terrorism.

In the United States, similar legislation is down but don't ever count it out. Feinstein and Burr have no chance of passing their encryption bill as stand-alone legislation. But privacy advocates will have to worry about it quietly showing up as amendments to other, unrelated legislation. That's exactly how the heavily opposed Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), which expanded private data sharing between companies and the U.S. government, became law. There are clearly those in the Senate who want to keep pushing for government-mandated access.

NEXT: Comedian Eric Andre Crashes a Pro-Trump Alex Jones Rally, Only a Little Violence Ensues

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. BEST ALT-TEXT EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Scott Shackleford delivers the alt text, it is known.

  2. She apparently shut down some sort of cabinet level climate propaganda wing, so she’s got that going for her.

  3. She’s responsible for the “Prevent” de-radicalization campaign which teaches at-risk kids that “ISIS will make you kill your parents and teachers and sell girls into sex slavery and make you rob banks.” It gives parents and teachers pamphlets with titles like “10 signs your child has already been radicalized.” She’s pretty bad – worse than the FBI’s “Countering Violent Extremism” and “Don’t be a Puppet” campaigns. Comey could learn a thing or two from her. I suspect she’s a patsy for MI-6 but who knows. They are also trying to push through anti-bullying legislation, which you know will be used only for the forces of good. (Which I say having just been banned this morning from National Review Online comments for the unpardonable sin of ridiculing The Great Wall of Trump.)

  4. Now that is how you alt-text.

  5. RE: U.K. Pols Still Devoted to Destroying Citizens’ Encryption, Privacy, and Security
    Government would be able to demand tech companies provide data access.

    The UK gets it right.
    Everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
    This has been English law since the Magna Carta cays.
    The wise and benevolent socialist slavers have correctly adopted this judicious policy here as well.
    This way our obvious betters will be kept up to date on every little move we make, every financial transaction we engage in and every treasonous word we utter.
    It doesn’t get any better than this.

  6. Stupid burrocrata. They never heard of King Canute? Any attempt to outlaw gravity or set the value of Pi would be as effective.

  7. I quit my office job and now I am getting paid 92 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 2 years after…I can say my life is changed completely for the better! Check it out what i do…

    Go to the web——> http://www.Aspire-Jobs.com

  8. Tech companies and privacy advocates (and those who intersect with both groups) have been loudly decrying efforts to weaken encryption, because logically, a “back door” that exists for government purposes can eventually be accessed by people besides the “proper authorities.”

    Nnnnoooooooooo, we object to ‘back doors’ because there is NO legitimate authority to snoop on my private communications.

  9. We can even create playlists of them so it will be very easy to find our videos which we like. We can also download those videos and can watch them offline. Showbox for pc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.