back to article French say 'Non, merci' to encryption backdoors

The French government has rejected an amendment to its forthcoming Digital Republic law that required backdoors in encryption systems. Axelle Lemaire, the Euro nation's digital affairs minister, shot down the amendment during the committee stage of the forthcoming omnibus digital bill, saying it would be counterproductive and …

  1. Trigonoceps occipitalis

    Bravo!

    Bravo bis!

    1. GW7

      Re: Bravo!

      Cameron's flawed logic, if granted credence, would go on to ban us all from locking our houses, our businesses, etc. <cameron voice on> because such hiding places might be used by terrorists. To fight this threat, the gov needs to be able to pop round and have a jolly good look any time they fancy. So, for the security of our nation, no door locks can be allowed from now on. <cameron voice off>

      Wait a minute, that's just stupid and nobody will buy it! So, the watered down alternative proposal is for everyone to provide a set of spare keys to the police, who may use them to enter when they please, in the name of national security of course. <sarcasm off>

      I want security like the French have chosen. Bravo indeed!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Bravo!

        "Trust me - I'm a policeman."

        On a par with "Trust me - I'm a politician".

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Bravo!

        Cameron's flawed logic,

        Who told you it is flawed. It is the correct for what HE IS. From his viewpoint the logic is all right.

        Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are. He is aligned within Europe with surprise, surprise: Kaczynski and Orban.

        That pretty much defines Cameron. From there on, his ideas are no longer surprising. It may be slightly different populism, but it is populism all right and as any populism it has goes hand in hand with the opinions of the country's version of the Volkisher Beobachter.

      3. Chris Parsons

        Re: Bravo!

        But the worrying thing, the really worrying thing, is that so many people seem happy with this farrago, in the name of counter-terrorism...after all, if you've nothing to hide..

    2. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Bravo!

      A politician that actually knows what they are talking about, how refreshing.

    3. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      Alert

      Re: Bravo!

      Not requiring encryption back doors does not mean there won't be any as there's no penalty for having them "just in case".

      If the French are really serious, they would outlaw encryption back doors not disclosed to the end user.

    4. GBE

      Re: Bravo!

      ITYM Brava!

  2. Adam 1
  3. Chris G

    Bravo de nouveau!

    At last a politician who has some common sense and is actually willing to speak it.

    1. a_yank_lurker

      Re: Bravo de nouveau!

      Or at least has the brains to listen to real experts on cryptography unlike the Criminal Class aka Congress.

  4. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Disaster!

    That's done it. If the French say 'Non', that makes it a certainty that our lot will say 'Yes'.

    1. GrumpyOldBloke

      Re: Disaster!

      Back to freedom fries then.

  5. frank ly

    I'm wondering

    "... the murderers coordinated their killings via unencrypted SMS which wasn't picked up, despite some of them being under police surveillance."

    Have the various politicians and supporters of 'backdoors' put as much effort into enquiring why this happened?

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: I'm wondering

      Because the messages weren't encrypted they can't have been secret.

      That's why we need to make encryption mandatory for terrorists and then require backdoors

    2. GrumpyOldBloke

      Re: I'm wondering

      Known to authorities who in turn failed to act is a common theme with these attacks. Some even consider this to be evidence of prior knowledge or false flags to advance an agenda.

    3. Pascal Monett Silver badge
      Trollface

      @frank ly

      There is no political gain to be had from doing that because everyone knows that the answer is better communication, more inter-agency cooperation and more actual justice for everyone. More actual justice for everyone means less wiggle room to fill one's pockets from the trough, so nope, not gonna happen.

    4. Kevin Johnston

      Re: I'm wondering

      Perhaps the problem is that they are being swamped by so much data that they cannot find the actual information in a timely manner...

      Oh wait, that would only be made worse by monitoring everything....cancel that, we never said it.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Trust the math

    Merci

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Excellent. EU country #2 recognises the obvious. With a bit of luck that should start a cascade of "Why yes; deliberately introduced vulnerabilities used by a large number of people may well escape to people who might not use it for wholly altruistic reasons" votes.

    Not sure how Cameron is going to u-turn from his "Let's ban ALL teh encryptionz" speech with grace; but I wish him luck doing so. I'd claim a liquid lunch and "anyway I was winding you up and you totally fell for it"; but I'm not sure you can do that with a whole country.

    1. Yes Me Silver badge
      Joke

      U

      > Not sure how Cameron is going to u-turn

      Really? He must be a most unusual politician, then.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      'Not sure how Cameron is going to u-turn from his "Let's ban ALL teh encryptionz" speech with grace'

      One popular form of words is "I don't recognise that statement".

    3. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Nope, Callmedave will rather push for Britain to leave the EU than side with the Dutch and the [insert term of choice] French.

    4. RIBrsiq

      "Not sure how Cameron is going to U-turn..."

      Well, I'm not a politician, but I think:

      "I'm not a mathematician or IT security professional, as you know. And once the facts had been made sufficiently clear to me I changed my mind".

      ...should work famously.

      1. Thought About IT

        That assumes politicians even seek out expert evidence. Owen Paterson, for example, reputedly refused to read any document from his advisers containing the words "climate change" or "global warming", when he was Environment Secretary. Cameron is perhaps the exception on that subject, in that he listened to advice on what he needed to say to get elected, resulting in the ironic slogans "vote blue, go green" and the "greenest government ever"! Mind you, his idea of an expert adviser is a spin doctor.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @RIBrsiq - That's probably the approach I'd go for personally, but as it involves both honesty and an admission that you had been wrong previously, I'm not sure a politician is physically capable of saying that.

      3. SolidSquid

        "I'm not a mathematician or IT security professional, as you know. And once the facts had been made sufficiently clear to me I changed my mindrealised that, given the facts which have been uncovered since the events in Paris, and having had time to reflect on the current state of our security services and advice given by those who are industry experts, it would be worth considering alternative paths as well as those previously put forward so that we might find the best possible approach to improving our ability to discover and intercept attempts at terrorist attacks"

        Followed by never mentioning it again. Except maybe putting together a committee to discuss the matter which never reports any findings publicly. No politician would actually admit to changing their mind after all, it would suggest they might have been wrong before rather than "over zealous with regards to a quick resolution of the matter"

    5. Just Enough

      A good way of making sure that politicians u-turn, when it becomes obvious that they are in the wrong, would be to stop vilifying politicians who do it.

      Everyone is human and gets it wrong sometimes. A politician should be able to say "My bad, got it wrong, but now I have changed my mind and am putting that right" without being ridiculed and fearing for their career. As long as we, and the media, make that impossible, we are just encouraging politicians by blindly forge on, regardless of circumstances, lest they be branded a "flip-flopper" or u-turner.

      I much prefer a politician who changes their mind for the better, than one who can't and won't, simply because that would mean admitting they got something wrong.

  8. present_arms
    Pint

    There you go :D enjoy

  9. John Hughes
  10. Paul Crawford Silver badge

    Cheese eating? - Oui

    Surrender monkeys? - Non!

    Such a shame we in the UK have such a bunch of clueless fuckwits technically challenged leaders.

    1. Cameron Colley

      You beat me to it.

      I suppose, at a pinch, it could be said that at least monkeys have backbones unlike the majority of politicians.

      I'm fairly sure the "cheese eating surrender monkeys" jibe was an ironic one but "liberty fries" most certainly was not and it would appear that the "land of the free" and the country which "rules the waves" could learn a thing or two from the country we poke fun at.

    2. Mark 85

      It's not just the UK that have them. We have our share over here in the States and the crop coming up for election... let's just say that pesticides applied to the swamp where they breed failed.

    3. Asterix the Gaul

      Not quite as big a shame as the 'clueless fcukwits' who elected them in the first place.

  11. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    "vulnerability by design," I do believe she gets it.

    And they are part of the G8, as opposed to the Netherlands, who isn't.

  12. DerekCurrie
    Facepalm

    From my POV, it consistently comes down to #MyStupidGovernment

    My US government does NOT understand the technology. My US government does NOT bother with the US Constitution if it's inconvenient. (See the Fourth Amendment and note the flood of violations from my US government brought to public attention).

    My US government instead is hell bound determined to apply totalitarian tactics to US citizen communications, with obviously detrimental results. The terrorists <3 LOVE <3 it when their victims go berzerk and wreck their countries with totalitarianism. Goal achieved. √

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

    Thank you Ben.

    1. Cameron Colley

      Re: From my POV, it consistently comes down to #MyStupidGovernment

      How do you think the rest of us feel?

      Our UKian government is bad enough but thanks to various "special relationships" and out and out bribery and threats the majority of us in the rest of the world are still ruled by your, ignorant, warmongering, lawless, child-killing, innocent-torturing, fascist government.

      Good to see the "cowardly" French and the "crazy drug-dealing homosexual" Dutch seem to be doing their best to resist though.

    2. Andrew 99

      Re: From my POV, it consistently comes down to #MyStupidGovernment

      Stupid Government? Dont think so. Successfully deceived the population to advance an alternate agenda by masquerading it as "stupid".

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: From my POV, it consistently comes down to #MyStupidGovernment

      ""They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759"

      Even if that little temporary safety is the ONLY safety you can get? If so, what's the bloody point of civilization, anyway?

      1. Mark 85

        Re: From my POV, it consistently comes down to #MyStupidGovernment

        Well... safety is mostly in your hands. When you start giving up liberties to government, there is no safety, from either outsiders or the government.

        Here's my take:

        Sure, they can have whatever they like in the way of liberties, but first let's see the "safety". What? You can't protect us? I didn't think so....

      2. Mephistro
        Meh

        Re: From my POV, it consistently comes down to #MyStupidGovernment

        "Even if that little temporary safety is the ONLY safety you can get? If so, what's the bloody point of civilization, anyway?"

        Your comment suggests that you're using a definition of 'liberty' that is not valid in this context. Liberty is not a complete lack of rules, laws or regulations. Liberty is not the right to trample other people's liberty and rights.

  13. CommanderGalaxian
    Black Helicopters

    "So, the watered down alternative proposal is for everyone to provide a set of spare keys to the police, who may use them to enter when they please, in the name of national security of course."

    Why exactly do you think insurance companies insist that you have British Standard compliant locks?

    Hello?

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    At last ...

    Some politician from my country get it !

    Kuddos !

    Anon, as we are all monitored despite this ...

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Fuck being monitored. Giving in to fear is just handing them the victory without contest.

      And what are you afraid of, really ? Saying that a politician finally did his job (or hers, in this case) ? You're afraid of a libel case ?

      If they're monitoring this then they don't enough work. So let me just say this : je suis ravi qu'enfin un membre du gouvernmenet de mon pays ait le courage de dire tout haut la vérité que les lâches et les corrompus voulaient cacher.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like