1. 30
  1.  

  2. 9

    Hasn’t Friday’s ransomware attack—which, I understand, used leaked NSA tools—shown politicians that these things can always fall into the hands of adversaries? It would only be a question of time before one or many backdoors of encryption system fell into the wrong hands.

    1. 3

      Well, if you read the proposed requirements, they don’t actually specify that it must be a backdoor of the NSA exploit toolkit variety. It’s all under the fairly large umbrella of bad things nobody likes, but not technically the same.

      1. 1

        But if the “Good Guys” can get in then presumably the “Bad Guys” can also get in, given the right information. Yeah? I mean, even if it required physical access to the device (somehow) it still seems really, really dangerous.

        1. 1

          Yeah, if there’s an interception capability, then someone who is “capable” can intercept. I’m just wary of drawing overly broad conclusions. People seem willing to excuse otherwise objectionable logical leaps when they fit the desired storyline.

    2. 2

      Not actually a lot of detail about the documents…

      1. 11

        The article leads to a BBC story which leads to a page from the Open Rights Group which leads to the actual leaked draft regulation.

        1. 4

          “Saved you four clicks.” :)

        2. 1

          UK seems to be routinely shooting themselves in the foot from a NatSec standpoint. If it weren’t for Hanlon’s Razor I’d assume some other country was infiltrating and manipulating the UK into eroding their own security.