Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Encryption Cellphones Crime United Kingdom

UK Proposes Making the Sale and Possession of Encrypted Phones Illegal (vice.com) 61

Posted by BeauHD from the more-clarification-needed dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: A section of the UK government has proposed making the sale or possession of bespoke encrypted phones for crime a criminal offense in its own right. The measure is intended to help the country's law enforcement agencies tackle organized crime and those who facilitate it, but civil liberties experts tell Motherboard the proposal is overbroad and poorly defined, meaning it could sweep up other forms of secure communication used by the wider population if not adjusted. "At the moment the government proposal appears to be vague and overly broad. While it states that the provisions 'will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them' it is difficult to see how it will not result in targeting devices used on a daily [basis] by human rights defenders, protesters and pretty much all of us who want to keep our data secure," Ioannis Kouvakas, senior legal officer and assistant general counsel at UK-based activism organization Privacy International, told Motherboard in an email.

The proposal is included in a document published by the Home Office (PDF). In that document, the Home Office proposes two legislative measures that it says could be used to improve law enforcement's response to serious and organized crime, and is seeking input from law enforcement, businesses, lawyers, civil liberties NGOs, and the wider public. [...] The first measure looks to create new criminal offenses on the "making, modifying, supply, offering to supply and possession of articles for use in serious crime." The document points to several specific items: vehicle concealments used to hide illicit goods; digital templates for 3D-printing firearms; pill presses used in the drug trade; and "sophisticated encrypted communication devices used to facilitate organized crime." In other words, this change would criminalize owning an encrypted phone, selling one, or making one for use in crime, a crime in itself. [...]

With encrypted phones, the Home Office writes that both the encryption itself and modifications made to the phones are creating "considerable barriers" to law enforcement. Typically, phones from this industry use end-to-end encryption, meaning that messages are encrypted before leaving the device, rendering any interception by law enforcement ineffective. (Multiple agencies have instead found misconfigurations in how companies' encryption works, or hacked into firms, to circumvent this protection). Encrypted phone companies sometimes physically remove the microphone, camera, and GPS functionality from handsets too. Often distributors sell these phones for thousands of dollars for yearly subscriptions. Given that price, the Home Office says it is "harder to foresee a need for anyone to use them for legitimate, legal reasons." The Home Office adds that under one option for legislation, laws could still criminalize people who did not suspect the technology would be used for serious crime, simply because the technology is so "closely associated with serious crime." Potential signs could include someone paying for a phone "through means which disguise the identity of the payer," the document reads. Often distributors sell phones for Bitcoin or cash, according to multiple encrypted phone sellers that spoke to Motherboard. The document says "the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them." But the Home Office does not yet have a settled definition of what encompasses "sophisticated encrypted communication devices," leaving open the question of what exactly the UK would be prepared to charge a person for possessing or selling.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Proposes Making the Sale and Possession of Encrypted Phones Illegal More

UK Proposes Making the Sale and Possession of Encrypted Phones Illegal

Comments Filter:

  • The drug dealers and terrorists will comply (Score:5, Funny)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @05:14PM (#63276593)

    Why risk a fine?

  • Let's Outlaw Any Speech When A Cop Aint Around. (Score:4)

    by zenlessyank ( 748553 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @05:14PM (#63276595)

    Seems appropriate.

    • Free speech is an unstable substance, there's always someone looking to disintegrate it for others so to create more power for himself, from overzealous government officials to hyper patriotic types like John McCain to the "woke" in the latest wave of attacks on it, all under the guise of serving a higher good.

  • According to the summary, the offense is having the tool "for crime": "A section of the UK government has proposed making the sale or possession of bespoke encrypted phones for crime a criminal offense in its own right." The headline is misleading. Selling to criminals? Illegal. Having or selling?...not illegal by default. I can see how this is concerning to libertarians who don't trust the gov...but the headline leaves out a key phrase.

    As with all issues, I think it's helpful to represent the issu

    • Re:Forgot the key phrase "for crime" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Matt_H ( 34421 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @05:25PM (#63276623) Homepage

      The problem that I see regarding your argument is that just a few lines below, it reads the following: "The Home Office adds that under one option for legislation, laws could still criminalize people who did not suspect the technology would be used for serious crime, simply because the technology is so "closely associated with serious crime."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nyet ( 19118 )

      You're being incredibly naive. The obvious goal here is to make mere usage of such a device evidence of intent to commit crime. As in, "only a criminal would need this" or "the only use for this is crime" or "the vast majority of users of such devices are criminals".

      • That would give phones modified for a specific purpose a similar status to firearms, i.e. the only reason to have one it to commit crimes, which in the UK is true, unless you're a farmer or a hunter & have the necessary licences. That sounds reasonable, in the UK at least. Gun control laws are very strict.

        I believe the issue here is that they haven't yet come up with a legal definition that's sufficiently precise so as not to unwittingly include the innocent. In other words, it has the risk of becomi
        • Also, even if it worked as a law, is this such a smart move? I mean, what if the police were equipped to remote hack such phones &/or monitor & use social network analysis to uncover criminal networks & find out where the criminals are & who they're with? Any mobile phone is relatively easy to track. Plus there's opportunities to set up sting operations with police-run encrypted phone networks, like they've been doing in the EU. I don't know though; which would help reduce crime more?

        • It made me think of the crime of "going equipped to commit the offence of..." rather than "committing the offence of..."

          If I were to be found in possession of such a phone then I'd need to provide a good excuse as to why I needed it. Similarly, if I were picked up in the early hours of the morning equipped with a mask, a crowbar and an empty sack marked "swag" I'd have some explaining to do.

          • I'd say this proposed law could be more about law enforcement being short-sighted & lazy. I'm assuming they've been successfully monitoring criminal organisations' phones for a while but now they're starting to use encrypted phones & that makes it more difficult. The police, rather than change tactics, adapt to the new environment, & possibly exploit the sense of privacy that encrypted phones give to the ignorant, want to try to make them more difficult to acquire. I'm also assuming that these p

      • As in, "only a criminal would need this" or "the only use for this is crime" or "the vast majority of users of such devices are criminals".

        Which part of that isn't true?

    • Re:Forgot the key phrase "for crime" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NotEmmanuelGoldstein ( 6423622 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @05:46PM (#63276677)

      Selling to criminals? Illegal

      Great idea: Plus, make it illegal to sell cars to criminals, also fuel (or electricity) and batteries. Have you proven you're not a criminal, today?

      This is how "social credit" laws start.

      When 'tough on' criminals doesn't work, invoke the authoritarian habit of blaming the person doing a legitimate job: Just like the police, "know your customer" laws can only do so much.

      The next step is "only a criminal needs this": Example, only a criminal needs an assault rifle with a 30-round magazine. Of course, your US-ian "tough on crime" principles agree, don't they?

    • Re:Forgot the key phrase "for crime" (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CQDX ( 2720013 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @05:58PM (#63276703)

      That fine until the desire to have privacy is considered at "crime". The UK is already cracking down on people who say the wrong things online so the illegal activity like mocking the government that coming for you phone could be the "crime" that give license for the police to go after you. No good can come of this.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      exactly, similarly you can be charged for having pry bars, box cutters, machette and balaclavas in your car or bag while driving around the streets at night. That doesn't mean any of those items are illegal.

    • The headline is misleading. Selling to criminals? Illegal. Having or selling?...not illegal by default. As with all issues, I think it's helpful to represent the issue accurately and debate it as such...not mislead folks.

      The headline actually doesn't go far enough.

      "It can be difficult to show that the suppliers of sophisticated encrypted communication devices which are used in serious crime have the required state of mind to enable law enforcement agencies to prosecute them"

      "Similarly, when individuals are found in possession of such a device, it may not be possible to prove their knowledge or intent to the thresholds required to convict them"

      "The justification for criminalising such people, who lack actual suspicion, is
      tha

    • According to the summary, the offense is having the tool "for crime": "A section of the UK government has proposed making the sale or possession of bespoke encrypted phones for crime a criminal offense in its own right." The headline is misleading. Selling to criminals? Illegal. Having or selling?...not illegal by default. I can see how this is concerning to libertarians who don't trust the gov...but the headline leaves out a key phrase. As with all issues, I think it's helpful to represent the issue accurately and debate it as such...not mislead folks.

      If I was posting my own direct comment instead of responding to yours, the subject might be "Forgot the key phrase 'vague and overly broad'". In my experience most such legislation is like that on purpose. I'm opening myself up to the "malice vs incompetence" trope here, but I'll counter that by saying that when legislators ARE induced to tighten the scope and make legislation more specific they're usually kicking and screaming about it all the way.

      People who craft legislation like to leave as much wiggle r

  • " In other words, this change would criminalize owning an encrypted phone, selling one, or making one for use in crime, a crime in itself."

    Step 1: Sell a phone that's unencrypted.
    Step 2: give the user the option to encrypt the phone in the settings panel.
    Step 3: ??
    Step 4: Profit!

    Now, no unencrypted phone has been sold.

    "Making one for use in crime" would be tough to meaningfully prosecute, since that'd basically make it illegal to sell phones at all. Even if it's unencrypted, it'd be difficult to pick which

    • In other words, this change would criminalize owning an encrypted phone, selling one, or making one for use in crime, a crime in itself.

      "Making one for use in crime" would be tough to meaningfully prosecute, since that'd basically make it illegal to sell phones at all.

      The initial line of TFS says, "making the sale or possession of bespoke encrypted phones for crime a criminal offense". Which means "custom" encrypted phones and later says, "the provisions 'will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them'" so this whole freakout seems a bit over blown. Seriously, how many of you/us have custom-made cell phones?

      • So we're already most of the way down the path of "you shall not be allowed to repair YOUR OWN property" and about to embark on the path of "you will not be allowed to make stuff".

        Sounds a lot like "you will own nothing and be happy" is getting a lot of traction out there and YES, we should be worried!

        • ... about to embark on the path of "you will not be allowed to make stuff".

          I get your point, though I imagine there's already a LOT of stuff people aren't allowed to make/diy in the UK and US ...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MeNeXT ( 200840 )

        You make it sound as if the legal system is black and white. What is a commercially available phone? One that I buy? Is it a phone that is sold or does the vendor need to be registered? How many phones need to be sold by a supplier to be a "commercially available phone"? Is the phone "bespoke" if I install a custom OS? What if I install a custom OS for my grandma who then shoplifts?

        Seriously, how many of you/us have custom-made cell phones?

        All phones are customized. You add a background and widgets. I added encryption. You downloaded Facebook, I installed signal.

  • Bravo, UK (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RUs1729 ( 10049396 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @05:29PM (#63276633)
    Yet another step toward 1984.
    • That needs to hurry up and happen so that the world can collapse again.
      • I completely agree, this is a negative step towards human freedoms. I read an article on a related site [papersowl.com] and I know for a fact that digital freedom is important for British citizens. It is interesting to know the reaction of the civil rights movement.
  • I might look at this to mean governments can already easily get around the encryption for mainstream phones, but not for "bespoke" privacy directed phones. So what they want to do is outlaw the phones where they cannot use their existing off the shelf bypass mechanisms to spy on users.
    • Of course they can. All they have to do is ask Google or Apple.
      • Let me add something you might not know.

        All data stored or transmitted over Apple or Google infrastructure are subject to LEGAL ACCESS by authorized law enforcement.
        Doesn't matter if it's encrypted (by Apple or Google). The terms of service spell it out clearly. Ok, not too clearly, but if you can stomach some thousands of words of legal mumbo jumbo, you will find that ALL your service providers (so that includes T-Mobile, or whatever phone companies in your countries) have CLAIMED the right to inspection

  • When did we give up the right to have PRIVATE conversations?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by CQDX ( 2720013 )

      When you gave up the right to have guns.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ratbag ( 65209 )

        The "right to have guns" is a peculiarly American thing (plus Mexico and Guatemala). Non-catholics had the right in the UK from 1689 (and a lot of your 2nd amendment issues date back to that bit of flawed legislation), but that "right" has gradually been curtailed.

        UK got privacy laws in 1998 in the Human Rights Act. Laws banning guns of one sort or another started hitting the statute books in 1903. We (I'm now Canadian-resident but came from the UK) can still own licensed and properly stored firearms of ce

      • Nothing would give me greater joy than watching those people who do military cosplay try and run two blocks. They’d last minutes in a real revolution.

      • Everywhere you have the right to own and use guns for the practice of shooting as an Olympic discipline. (Though you might be required to store the rifle or pistol at the stand.)

    • It depends what you call private. You never had the positive right to have conversations that cannot be listened to by the police. Conversations at home are private, but a judicial warrant can have your house bugged. Conversations with your lawyer are private, but under exceptional circumstances described in law, they still could be recorded. Same for the other professionals bound to professional secrecy (religious ministers, health professionals).

      You can evade being listened to by choosing appropriate loca

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • If you outlaw encrypted phones, only outlaws will have them.

      Yes that is the point. Now you can arrest people without them having committed an actual crime. As dumb as this specific piece of legislation is there is a significant amount of legislation that follows similar trends, e.g. gun ownership. This however is unique in it's broad stupidity.

  • that's deliberate by this authoritarian government, You know why the sun never set on the empire - because even God didnt trust them bastards in the dark,

  • No more stupid https. Is (default) storage encryption also a no-no?

  • Is there are a law somewhere that says mankind MUST be ruled by the biggest morons they can find? Because that seems to be the case...

    • Yes, that law says the rulers are representative for the people they lead. If leaders are morons, this means their community is made mostly of morons.

  • These imbecilic authoritarians have form (Score:5, Insightful)

    by UpnAtom ( 551727 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @07:47PM (#63276879)

    This is a Government who have tried to ban protest twice, who are scrapping British rights and are derogating from the European Convention of Human Rights. They are also banning encryption.
    They have trashed the economy, made the NHS collapse and have made Britain a laughing stock around the world.

  • "It can be difficult to show that the suppliers of sophisticated encrypted communication devices which are used in serious crime have the required state of mind to enable law enforcement agencies to prosecute them under current legislation, as they will often not be engaging directly in the serious crime themselves."

    "Similarly, when individuals are found in possession of such a device, it may not be possible to prove their knowledge or intent to the thresholds required to convict them, despite the difficult

  • I thought the idea was to purposely sell "super crypto wiseguy phones" to lull the criminals into a false sense of security when the authorities were, in fact, listening in [arstechnica.com].

  • A section of the UK government has proposed making the sale or possession of bespoke encrypted phones for crime a criminal offense

    The phones are already encrypted. iOS, Android, they both ship with encryption by default now. So is that to be made illegal?

    the provisions 'will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them'

    Uh, what? If I sell something, I'm making it commercially available. So it will apply to nothing?

    The UK is deliberately making itself irrelevant to the world. This is a nice change from its prior behaviors, but quite inexplicable.

  • the UK government has proposed making the sale or possession of bespoke encrypted phones for crime a criminal offense in its own right

    So... if it's encrypted, and they can't get into it, how are they going to prove it was used for crime?

    This seems like the same level of stupidity as arresting someone in the US... just for resisting arrest. With no initiating cause for an arrest to resist.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close