back to article Interpol: Strong encryption helps online predators. Build backdoors

Multinational police agency Interpol is due to say that tech companies deploying strong encryption helps paedophiles – unless they build backdoors for police workers. Three people "briefed on the matter" told financial newswire Reuters yesterday that the agency would be issuing a statement this week condemning the use of …

  1. Rich 11 Silver badge

    Here we go again...

    "Service providers, application developers and device manufacturers are developing and deploying products and services with encryption which effectively conceals sexual exploitation of children occurring on their platforms,"

    Abducted children are driven away in cars and molested in buildings. Ban all cars and demolish all buildings which are not made entirely of glass.

    1. Cav

      Re: Here we go again...

      Using that logic, we shouldn't try to keep any data secure because someone will always find a way around our defences. In other words, because you can't stop all instances of X that doesn't mean you shouldn't stop any.

      1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

        Re: Here we go again...

        That wooshing sound is you entirely missing OP's point as it soars majestically over your head.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Here we go again...

      Glass buildings would be perfect - the children would always be visible and safe and anyone caught looking at them could be arrested.

      Who needs thought crime if you can make everything a crime?

      1. ecofeco Silver badge

        Re: Here we go again...

        Make everything a crime?

        So the American way, then?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Here we go again...

          More the SNP way - ban everything and ignore the public's view until your compelled to desist by a court order, then demand independence as the UK supreme court doesn't roll over to you, unlike the court of session that seems lately to be packed with SNP loyalists.....

        2. Anne-Lise Pasch

          Re: Here we go again...

          I <3 Judge Dredd :)

    3. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Here we go again...

      FREEDOM makes it possible for people to commit crimes!

      Imagine THAT !!!

      I suppose TAKING FREEDOM AWAY will FIX it, right?

      </snark>

      icon, because, facepalm, "they" are at it AGAIN...

      1. Kiwi Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: Here we go again...

        FREEDOM makes it possible for people to commit crimes!

        Actually the US makes a strong argument against that. Just look at the relatively high crime-rates in the states and you can see that even the most oppressed commit crimes...

        (True freedom makes people less likely to commit crimes - sadly our politicians think "freedom" means "we are free to make yet more laws!"

        1. SundogUK Bronze badge

          Re: Here we go again...

          I'm curious as to what you mean by 'true freedom' - I suspect it has very little to do with actual freedom at all.

          1. Claptrap314 Silver badge

            Re: Here we go again...

            Well...compare Houston and Chicago. To cities almost the same size. One has extensive gun control, and few gun shops. One has quite limited gun control, and LOTS of shops. One has a high murder rate. One has a low murder rate.

            Yep. Houston--limited regs, easy availability, low murder rate. Chicago--extensive regs, limited availability, high murder rate.

            1. Vector

              Re: Here we go again...

              I believe you are cherry picking your statistics.

              Browsing briefly on the interwebs, the consensus appears to be that correlating gun laws and gun deaths is a tricky calculus at best. This article from Fact Check asserts that the states with the toughest gun laws seem to have the lowest rate of gun deaths, but even they say the correlation is thin and proving causality would be difficult at best.

            2. RunawayLoop

              Re: Here we go again...

              Are you really trying to correlate murder with freedom?

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Here we go again...

              I live in NH in the US. Residents have almost no gun laws, out of state people - depends on your state,. but you can still go to an indoor range and rent for the day. We have next to the lowest violence (not just gun) of any state. Nothing anybody has to say can change that fact. Funny ain't it.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Here we go again...

                New Hampshire also has a correlating low rate of gun ownership. talk about cherry picking! .

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Here we go again...

                  Sir you are incorrect: https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-owners-percentage-of-state-populations-3325153

                  We are #3 per capita - which doesn't even include non-registered arms.

                  Side note: new firearms purchases from a dealer require background checks. Most used fire arms in NH are not registered as they do not require it.

                  And only one state has a lower gun murder rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

            4. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Here we go again...

              @claptrap, your "argument" is well-described by your forum handle. Illinois is surrounded by states with lax gun laws, and no one is searching vehicles as they cross state lines (at least, not yet).

              Since Chicago gun restrictions are trivially easy to get around by driving an hour or two, your tired NRA-approved example is completely meaningless as a way of analyzing the effectiveness of gun laws in general.

              It's also worthwhile to note that Houston's violent crime rate of 11.17 per 1000 residents is almost 3x the national average (4) and more than 2.5x the Texas average. It is also about the same as Chicago's. Houston property crime rates are about double the national average, and 36% higher than Chicago's.

              Chicago does have a higher murder count and rate than Houston; but if gun availability was the controlling factor, then one would expect to see a similar reduction in other types of violent crime as well, but the numbers don't show that.

              Conclusion: This is a specious argument, which assumes that correlation equals causality in this one statistic (murder rate) only, but ignores related data which do not support the desired narrative.

              https://www.bestplaces.net/crime/?city1=54835000&city2=51714000

              https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/tx/houston/crime

              https://www.numbeo.com/crime/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&city1=Chicago%2C+IL&country2=United+States&city2=Houston%2C+TX

              1. Mahhn

                Re: Here we go again...

                The ugly truth is, unemployment is high, so more depressed people, more drug use, more crime overall. Illinois problems are very deep, and mostly due to corrupt politicians driving out jobs with over taxation. Please ask anyone that lives there. I used to live there and still have very many friends that do. State fuel taxes jumped again last year, hitting people really hard.

            5. Cav

              Re: Here we go again...

              Chicago has high levels of poverty and is crime ridden anyway. It may have strict gun control but criminals just bring in guns from surrounding areas.

              Your conclusion is false.

          2. Kiwi Silver badge
            Pint

            Re: Here we go again...

            I'm curious as to what you mean by 'true freedom' - I suspect it has very little to do with actual freedom at all.

            I'm curious as to why you'd suspect that. I'm guessing you've not encountered it?

            It means not having to fear - your government or your neighbour (ie I live in a poor suburb with a high crime rate for my nation, and yet I can walk out at night without needing weapons - yet in gated wealthy suburbs in the US the citizens seemingly feel a need to carry guns to protect them from their neighbours). It means being able to do as you wish, having both the resources and the lack of laws (not full anarchy though much closer than you'd like). Being free to go about your business without surveillance (there's that fear again), being able to trust those around you to act in an appropriate manner that's not harmful to others (even if acting selfishly), so if you buy something you're paying a fair price, if you pay someone for a service they'll do a good job etc.

            It's actually quite liberating to free oneself from fear. That doesn't free me from responsibility of course, and I do admit to 'pucker moments' when out riding, and have lingering memories of darker days. But overall I have nothing to fear and everything to gain. The more I live my faith (which isn't always as I'm sure you've seen :( ) the freer I am, no matter what my circumstances. I've seen God provide, sometimes just enough to get by for the night sometimes enough that I am invited, even paid, to spend a few weeks in much more pleasant surroundings (though sleeping under a bridge on a warm night can be quite pleasant in its own way) . I've known His provision, and I know that whatever is happening externally I am covered. And if I die - well that's better than retiring into a life of abject luxury.

            To know that you don't have to worry about whether or not you will have enough for today, to know that you will have what you need though not necessarily an abundance, to know you can do what you need to do (not necessarily what you want), and to know that you have nothing to fear from your neighbours even if they are your enemy - that is freedom. Or at least the closest we will get this side of His return.

            1. JohnFen Silver badge

              Re: Here we go again...

              "yet I can walk out at night without needing weapons"

              I live in an average US neighborhood with average crime rates (for the US), and everyone around here can walk out at night without fear or needing weapons as well.

              "yet in gated wealthy suburbs in the US the citizens seemingly feel a need to carry guns to protect them from their neighbours)."

              That's because of paranoia, not because there is any actual danger.

              1. Kiwi Silver badge
                Pint

                Re: Here we go again...

                "yet I can walk out at night without needing weapons"

                I live in an average US neighborhood with average crime rates (for the US), and everyone around here can walk out at night without fear or needing weapons as well.

                To listen to a great many of your countryfolk, I would believe that it is common to feel a need to carry guns on your person for protection from many varied (and usually vague) threats, and that no where is safe. I do take you at your word (note I mean you specifically :) ) on where you live though.

                "yet in gated wealthy suburbs in the US the citizens seemingly feel a need to carry guns to protect them from their neighbours)."

                That's because of paranoia, not because there is any actual danger.

                I get that. <Sheldon>But paranoia is a kind of prison</Sheldon>. Then again so are the gates, and the many rules such places seem to have. The wealthy seem to be quite adept at locking themselves in prisons of their own making ^O^

    4. Kiwi Silver badge
      Childcatcher

      Re: Here we go again...

      Abducted children are driven away in cars and molested in buildings. Ban all cars and demolish all buildings which are not made entirely of glass.

      Most of it happens in the family home among family members. Demolish all family homes, and lock up any parents the moment they become parents. And older siblings as well.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Here we go again...

      Now everywherer's so open, there's nowhere safe to dress.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    FFS !

    That is all.

  3. moiety

    Same old shit. The current desire for strong encryption is in large part due to those same organisations illegally tapping our private data and abusing it. And no, making it all retrospectively legal to do so does not make it even vaguely OK. Of course this will make police work more difficult; but as police organisations have shown pretty uniformly that they can't be trusted with the data, that's tough titties.

    You want my private data? Get a fucking warrant.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Especially for interpol I imagine they could write the rules so they only need a warrant from one country.

      I'm sure the USA would have no problem handing over encryption keys for an Iranian or Chinese warrant. Just like they would have no problem with chinese intelligence agency having a backdoor to the president's iPhone

      1. Rich 11 Silver badge

        There's no need for the Chinese intelligence agencies to have a backdoor to President Trump's iPhone. They only have to remember to check Twitter every ten minutes to learn everything that's going on in the White House.

        1. Kiwi Silver badge
          Trollface

          There's no need for the Chinese intelligence agencies to have a backdoor to President Trump's iPhone. They only have to remember to check Twitter every ten minutes to learn everything that's going on in the White House.

          You truly are a hateful person aren't you? What the hell have the Chinese done to you to deserve that level of punishment?

          And given the amount of verbal excreta that pours forth from those tiny little hands, I doubt that every 10 minutes would be enough - you'd miss so much! (by volume, not exactly by content...)

          1. Rich 11 Silver badge

            It would certainly be a punishment to be assigned that task! I struggle to understand Trump's tweets at the best of times and I have the advantage of English being my first language. Or maybe that's a disadvantage...

    2. kmedcalf

      They can't "get a warrant" because they have no probable cause. This is the very problem that they are trying to get around.

      I should rather they get off their arses and go do some work for a change.

    3. big_D Silver badge
      Facepalm

      And putting back doors in will only affect law abiding citizens, opening them up to exploitation, once the backdoor is made public, which it inevitably will.

      Real criminals won't use such services anyway, or will use their own end-to-end encryption, without backdoors, over the top. They will only catch a few idiots, whilst the real criminals carry on unhindered and law abiding citizens can be abused by authorities and criminals alike.

      1. Kiwi Silver badge
        Pint

        They will only catch a few idiots, whilst the real criminals carry on unhindered and law abiding citizens can be abused by authorities and criminals alike.

        Oh, it will hinder real criminals.

        I mean, it must take at least a couple of minutes to switch to another app and re-connect with your buddies.....

        And then there's the hassle of finding a cop, breaking them, buying the keys, putting them up on crimEbay for anyone else interested.... (cannot decide on if it should be pronounced Crim E Bay, Crime Bay, or a [said quick] Crimmy Bay (like "jimmy-bar"))

        There's the hassle of trawling through all that extra data on people's banking, social media, most private emails/coms, cameras, alarm codes and whatnot...

        And then there's hiding away all the ill-gotten gains, spending the money and other hassles like that which could really hinder one's enjoyment of daily life... Yes, this will be a real hassle for real crims...

      2. DCFusor Silver badge

        I'm guessing that's actually the point of the exercise.

        Like the big drug cartels - they want to get any upstart competition busted.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Coat

      Get a fucking warrant.

      Is that what used to be called a marriage certificate, back in the days when a landlady would check up on you?

      1. katrinab Silver badge
        Coat

        No. It is the document that is issued if you are suspected of doing this activity without the appropriate licence.

    5. TonyJ Silver badge

      Like I said before, fine.

      If they can't be arsed to get a warrant etc...

      Make them drink from their own cup.

      Every government department, everywhere has to use the compromised encryption. That includes every politican, senior police officer, military, public sector worker, etc etc.

      Failure to do so should be made a criminal act, like they want to do for their citizens.

      What's betting they lose the appetite for it pretty sharpish?

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        What's betting they just change the laws (Congress MAKES the laws, after all) to insert exceptions for them? It's just like with tax codes: there's no way to stop them inserting exceptions. Even if you tried to make it an Amendment, they'll just push to Amend the Amendment.

        1. Kiwi Silver badge
          WTF?

          What's betting they just change the laws (Congress MAKES the laws, after all) to insert exceptions for them?

          How?

          Seriously. How can congress make laws to put in such an exception? Or do you think yankeeland will shut itself off from the rest of the world and run their own networks? (please do! The sooner we're done with your country the better!)

  4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    ...and weak encryption helps fraudsters. Remind me again how well police are acting against fraudsters.

    1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

      Plus if platform encryption is weakened these online predators / terrorists / anyone the cops/government don't like will immediately switch to a less compromised alternative. Europol, FBI etc. know that of course but don't care because a few paedo's aren't the real target.

      1. Kiwi Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Europol, FBI etc. know that of course but don't care because a few paedo's aren't the real target.

        El Reg, can we get a "hole in one" icon please?

      2. DontFeedTheTrolls Silver badge
        Big Brother

        "...will immediately switch to a less compromised alternative."

        Anyone using those less compromised alternatives must be a predator, therefore much easier for the authorities to track even though they can't read the content.

  5. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    FAIL

    So, now it's back to Think Of The Children

    Apparently the terrorist angle has been worn out, so let's rile up the mothers and make Yet Another Push for backdooring encryption - despite every single FACT that has been laid down against it.

    While you're at it, legislate Pi to be equal to 3.14, makes things simpler, right ? No need to bother with pesky rules of mathematics, lawmakers never understood those anyway.

    1. martinusher Silver badge

      Re: So, now it's back to Think Of The Children

      I've always thought that the whole kiddie porn thing was cooked up as a trial balloon for making possession of particular classes of information illegal. The reason is obvious -- kiddie porn is indefensible so you can pretty much do as you like setting up both national and international structures to outlaw it. The problem is -- as we all know -- that if you make one class of information illegal then the same detection and enforcement mechanisms can be used to outlaw any class of information.

      People will say "Obviously that will never happen". I'd like to believe they're right but history tends to suggest otherwise.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: So, now it's back to Think Of The Children

        >"Obviously that will never happen".

        Well it didn't with in the past with denouncing someone as a communist / anti-monarchist / anarchist / heretic

        1. nekomoto

          Re: So, now it's back to Think Of The Children

          You don't have to go back that far, Australia made being part of a motorcycle gang illegal.

          1. Kiwi Silver badge

            Re: So, now it's back to Think Of The Children

            You don't have to go back that far, Australia made being part of a motorcycle gang illegal.

            Think we have the same thing over here.

            But what if you're the whole gang - just you yourself? Is it legal then? ;)

            (Now if the 'gang' turns themselves into a 'club'.... ?)

            1. Wellyboot Silver badge
              Happy

              Re: So, now it's back to Think Of The Children

              If the 'club' members all openly wave physical clubs about there's no excuse.

              Raid the golf clubs now!

              1. Kiwi Silver badge
                Pint

                Re: So, now it's back to Think Of The Children

                Raid the golf clubs now!

                Brings a new (and perhaps more fun) meaning to going clubbing this evening... :)

              2. wolf29

                Re: So, now it's back to Think Of The Children

                You can have my Golf clubs when you pry them from the caddy's cold dead fingers. (No caddies were harmed in the making of this comment)

      2. steviebuk Silver badge

        Re: So, now it's back to Think Of The Children

        They use the kiddie porn angle as a poor argument weapon. Because no one wants to be associated with kiddie porn they are hoping people won't fight it. Because they hope people will be thinking "I totally disagree with the backdoor encryption idea but I can't been seen to fight them over it as people might then point at me and claim you must support kiddie porn then if you are against the backdoor idea" which of course is bollocks.

    2. Chris G Silver badge

      Re: So, now it's back to Think Of The Children

      If Interpol et al are really thinking of the children, they should get out from behind their evesdropping desks and make a start in India where a child goes missing about every ten minutes. That's something like 55,000 a year, obviously not all of them are the victims of paedo gangs but a high percentage fall victim to trafficking.

      I doubt if the internet and/or encryption has anything to do with anything but a tiny percentage of those numbers.

      And that's just India, never mind the rest of the World where encryption is unlikely to play much of a role.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So, now it's back to Think Of The Children

        ...make a start in India where a child goes missing about every ten minutes. That's something like 55,000 a year, obviously not all of them are the victims of paedo gangs but a high percentage fall victim to trafficking.

        I thought they were kidnapping them to staff the phones for telemarketing scams.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So, now it's back to Think Of The Children

      "legislate Pi to be equal to 3.14"

      NO - I like my Pie - endless...…………………..

  6. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

    Which country's intelligence agency does this sock puppet answer to?

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge
      Big Brother

      According to Ars, the FBI drafted the resolution.

      1. Ben Rosenthal

        So Russia again?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Shirley, it would be easier to just tell the child molesters, kidnappers, crim du jour, they are not allowed to use encryption?

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      Don't call me Shirley.

      BTW, do you like gladiator movies?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      In the US, conservatives and other assorted gun nuts frequently argue that "if you ban guns only criminals will have them because they don't obey the law anyway."

      If that's the case, would it not also be true for encrypted comms?

  8. Cav

    Well, they are quite correct.

    Down vote all you wish, it won't change the fact.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Let me play advocate to the devil as they say.

      Lets say you are right and they should install back doors and/or make all communications from major tech companies available to law enforcement.

      What happens next? Do you really think people sharing or doing things against the law are going to continue to use services where they can be caught? No, they won't, in fact they probably already don't anyway. Are they going to get Tor to install a back door as well? (That's sarcasm btw because it's impossible) Are they going to remove every compiler or make them illegal so people can't just create their own encrypted communications or network? (That's not sarcasm yet it's still impossible)

      Open your eyes, people committing crimes or doing illegal stuff are not using major tech companies networks or communication tools, there are no peados of the type they want to catch with this on Facebook, Twitter is full of dicks but that's another matter. This is an exercise is enabling spying on the general population, nothing more nothing less.

      Still think they are correct? If so please explain who they will actually catch enabling this access, maybe dumb fuck criminals who announce what they are doing or what they have done but chances are they will get caught anyway through normal police work but is that really worth everyone losing their freedom? It won't save any children that's for certain.

    2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Well, they are quite correct.

      No, they aren't, for two very obvious reasons.

      If standard ISP encryption is backdoored, criminals will simply use their own homebrewed encryption apps that don't have backdoors. Sure, that might be illegal, but you think a terrorist or paedophile will care?

      In the meantime, the honest folks who are forced to use backdoored encryption for their banking and shopping will suffer at the hands of fraudsters who've found the backdoors and are abusing them.

      Mandatory backdoors do absolutely nothing to stop criminals, they just inconvenience honest people.

      1. Kiwi Silver badge
        Childcatcher

        Mandatory backdoors do absolutely nothing to stop criminals, they just inconvenience honest people.

        Actually backdoors will do a lot to help crims. Further, some of those crims will be paedos who will find a way to make such backdoors work so they can get more access to kids.. Breaking in to cameras would be one, perhaps someone would be able to use them to manipulate/trick parents by faking messages from someone else.. I'm not myself that devious and I can see a few ways, someone who has dedicated their life to deviant thinking I am sure will be bustling with ideas on how backdoors could be be used to increase their KP stash.

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          You don't even need back doors for that. Just get an insider to steal some signing keys and no police on the planet will be able to distinguish you from perfectly legitimate business that brings in the taxes and so on.

          Remember, SIGNED mallard is a thing.

          1. Kiwi Silver badge
            Black Helicopters

            Just get an insider to steal some signing keys

            There's relatively few people with access to such keys, and they can be revoked fairly quickly when broken. Said people also no doubt are quite highly trusted and harder to get to.

            But.. Should this become a thing, there could be a good few hundred targets in my small city alone, let alone the many thousands of people across NZ who will need access. Of course they could perhaps be limited to some kind of portal, but that's not necessarily going to be much of a barrier.

            (And don't speak to me about Mallard! I am absolutely disgusted with Trevor and some of his recent antics! You listening Trev? Get your bloody act together!)

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        But wpuldn't an encryption the plods can't break just stick out like a sore thumb, making them MORE visible? And while there are things like steganography, they have limits and countermeasures, too.

    3. ecofeco Silver badge

      Please tell us you don't work in I.T.

    4. JohnFen Silver badge

      Your simple assertion that they are correct is unconvincing. Can you make an actual supporting argument?

    5. Nunyabiznes Silver badge

      The troll is strong with this one.

      /feed/

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Trollface

      >Well, they are quite correct. Down vote all you wish, it won't change the fact.

      You forgot to add the icon - see right.

    7. Marketing Hack Silver badge

      @Cav

      Once your friendly, neighborhood Interpol office has access to backdoored encryption, then every organized criminal syndicate, hostile foreign intelligence agency, anarchic hacker group and yes, paedo rings will be trying to find a way to turn some Interpol agent who is unhappy with how they are being treated at the workplace, has a gambling or drug problem, likes callgirls and strippers too much, has an expensive or judgment-impairing health problem, has a family with tastes that exceed the household budget or who made a horrible investment decision. The same is true for any other law enforcement or intelligence agency that has legal access to this backdoor.

      It's going to be a frickin' open season for anyone who is a little bit corrupt or underwater.

    8. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "Well, they are quite correct."

      Yes but only for a very limited value of correct.

      They are not correct in assuming that criminals will only use legal communication methods if those are back-doored. I've said this numerous times here: you do not stop people intent on breaking the law simply be providing them with more laws to break. Non-backdoored communication exists; they'll use it even if it;s illegal.

      They are also incorrect in overlooking the fact that for the rest of us every-day use of the net as a trading medium requires secure communication. I've said this before but obviously you need to check it for yourself: go and look at the T&Cs of more or less anything you're signed up to that deals with money but especially banking. You'll find you are contractually bound to keep things like log-in credentials to yourself. How do you do that if those creds are being passed over the net insecurely? Which, to cut off your likely reply....

      They are also incorrect if they think that only they would be able to use the back doors. A back door in encryption is a deliberate breakage. If it exists somebody who shouldn't is going to use it so although you may think you're going to be given secure but back-doored encryption to meet your legal obligations on those cred you're sorely mistaken.

      The winners in all this are going to be criminals and any snooper who gets themselves on the back-door snooping list (and in previous rounds of investigative powers legislation that list has extended to unbelievably low levels in your local bureaucracy). The losers are going to be the general public and only the most dense of petty criminals. But mostly the general public.

      So, yes, they're correct as regards the densest of petty criminals. Wrong everywhere else. And BTW I spent almost half my life working in criminal investigation so I'm not likely to be against anything genuinely useful.

    9. Kiwi Silver badge
      FAIL

      Well, they are quite correct.

      Down vote all you wish, it won't change the fact.

      Most child abuse occurs in the home, with the molestors/beaters being part of their own family. Most molested kids don't have a phone and technically can't be on FB etc.

      So why should I be expected to give up a portion of my privacy for a law that is not going to do anything at all to help the kids, but is going to do a lot to harm everyone including kids?

      -->Icon not nearly strong enough to cover the utter FAIL in your comment.

  9. Zippy´s Sausage Factory
    Devil

    So if they outlaw strong encryption...

    ...then that means Interpol aren't allowed to use it either.

    I'm sure they wouldn't want that.

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: So if they outlaw strong encryption...

      They will have special encryption without a backdoor.

      I.e. normal encryption.

    2. Oengus Silver badge

      Re: So if they outlaw strong encryption...

      No, Interpol and he other agencies can use strong encryption but in their personal lives the Interpol agents (and other LEOs) are required to use the same "weak" encryption as everyone else for their banking etc. or else they are automatically criminals and should be convicted and set example of.

      1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

        Re: So if they outlaw strong encryption...

        Then the next step is obvious. They will proceed to argue, with a completely straight face, that their agents should not be bound by the encryption-weakening laws of mere mortals, since that would leave them open to risks of corruption, coercion, fraud, blackmail, identity theft etc.

        Irony is what jail cell bars are made from, denial is a river in Egypt.

  10. m4r35n357

    Too nice

    Interplod?

    Knacker of the Net?

    Now do better than me . . .

  11. chivo243 Silver badge
    Big Brother

    you know the old saying

    encrypt as I say, not as I do...

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pizza Express in Woking...

    ...is helping a suspected deviant...they should all be closed.

    1. Kiwi Silver badge

      Re: Pizza Express in Woking...

      Pizza Express in Woking...

      ...is helping a suspected deviant...they should all be closed.

      Why? If they have evidence that he was there when he said he was, shouldn't they provide it? I guess we really should do away with all lawyers, cops etc and just let the media decide who to accuse and what sentence they should get. Newspaper says he's guilty so off to jail with him! Her we like, so she's guilty but needs only a short community sentence she can later write a book about. We know it's a good book coz the media tells us what to think!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Pizza Express in Woking...

        Yes they should. But they haven't, which would force a judge into an uncertain verdict (since they can't prove anything either way) meaning no conviction. Therefore, they're helping a suspected deviant. BAN IT!!!!

        1. Kiwi Silver badge

          Re: Pizza Express in Woking...

          Therefore, they're helping a suspected deviant. BAN IT!!!!

          Just FTR, I have no issues with anyone helping a suspected anything. I was guilty of all I was accused of as a child, and needed all the friends I could get. At the time my actions were criminal (till the law reform), I was guilty, I had no defence.

          When it comes to dealing with a person's past - well there's the key word for you, past. It is who you are and how you behave today that I try to base things on, not what has happened before. Past actions can predict current behaviour, but it is in no way set in stone. People change, grow up etc.

          So.. I would hope the firm acts to send any proof of innocence, and I'd hope they'd say clearly if they either cannot prove it (ie no longer have records OR nothing in the records of us (eg he paid with cash and no one can say for certain if he was or wasn't there at that specific time), but we shouldn't hold it against them to do what their conscience tells them is right. I value freedom of speech and action and a part of that is the freedom to shut up even when it could save the life of someone (though I'd prefer people speak up of course :) )

          Hope you never fall into the same situation, it's really not a fun place visit.

  13. Dan 55 Silver badge

    Meanwhile, ten days ago on Schneier on Security

    Eavesdropping on SMS Messages inside Telco Networks

    Fireeye reports on a Chinese-sponsored espionage effort to eavesdrop on text messages:

    FireEye Mandiant recently discovered a new malware family used by APT41 (a Chinese APT group) that is designed to monitor and save SMS traffic from specific phone numbers, IMSI numbers and keywords for subsequent theft. Named MESSAGETAP, the tool was deployed by APT41 in a telecommunications network provider in support of Chinese espionage efforts. APT41's operations have included state-sponsored cyber espionage missions as well as financially-motivated intrusions. These operations have spanned from as early as 2012 to the present day. For an overview of APT41, see our August 2019 blog post or our full published report.

    Yet another example that demonstrates why end-to-end message encryption is so important.

    1. IGotOut

      Re: Meanwhile, ten days ago on Schneier on Security

      To me that just looks like the standard permission requirements for 99.99% of apps on Google Play.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: Meanwhile, ten days ago on Schneier on Security

        More than likely this is backend stuff which no end user can circumvent. And remember, China is also hard at work in real time cryptanalysis and anti-stego techniques.

  14. Mandoscottie
    Joke

    sod it, im just smiling and nodding now.

    the world is run by fuckwitts

    1. Khaptain Silver badge

      Worse yet

      These fuckwits are, have always been and always will be, 5 years behind what's truly going on.. They are simply chasing dust clouds.

      The crims on the otherhand have inherent advantage, we only know how they do what they do After the fact. In far too many cases it can take 10 years to learn the whole score.. Strange reminds me of certain GAFA behavior.....

    2. ecofeco Silver badge

      Monty Python taught us this.

      All hail the mighty... "MY BRAIN HURTS!"

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Or I dunno...

    Give me an easy way to anonymously report people who appear to be abused, and then you guys follow up and see what's really going on? I mean, swatting seems pretty easy, so false reports from trolls shouldn't cause much trouble to you guys.

    1. Uplink

      Re: Or I dunno...

      So something like this, really: https://www.unseenuk.org/what-we-do/Helpline-&-Resource-Centre

  16. ecofeco Silver badge

    They really are clueless cockwomblers

    ...aren't they?

    Now we know what Turing had to deal with. Among other things.

  17. JohnFen Silver badge

    ...and the BS continues

    All that would be accomplished by building back doors into crypto is that criminals will use different crypto. Nothing substantial would be gained, but a great deal would be lost.

    Also, if we're talking about child predators specifically, cops already have a much more effective method of finding predators -- going undercover as children online.

  18. Thoguht Silver badge

    Hypocrisy? We've heard of it

    https://www.interpol.int/en

    Says it all, really.

  19. buzzki11

    You show me yours, and then I'll think about showing you mine.

    These conversations are only and always 1-way. There is never a discussion around their transparency, the information they questionably gather, using questionable ethics and methods.

  20. Nunyabiznes Silver badge
    Big Brother

    This is my surprised face

    See title.

  21. cantankerous swineherd Silver badge

    meanwhile the duke of york is on the run from the police forces of five countries. won't someone think of the children?

  22. Matt Black

    FOSS?

    Even if the major messaging providers bend over to provide back-doors, the FOSS community will make end-to-end encryption available.

    1. Long John Brass Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: FOSS?

      We could call it P)retty G)ood P)rivacy

      Pity it will never take off :(

      1. DuncanLarge Silver badge

        Re: FOSS?

        Just being pedantic but PGP isnt FOSS, GNUPG is

    2. DuncanLarge Silver badge

      Re: FOSS?

      Well, their answer to that would to be to make FOSS illegal, which has been attempted before.

  23. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Build a backdoor?

    My understanding of encryption is generating 2 bloody big numbers, 1 of which can be made public and the other you keep private

    And the method runs like this

    Type message

    Encrypt using public key

    Transmit

    Decrypt using private key

    Read message

    Once its encrypted it cannot be read without the private key so its putting a weakness into the encryption program , say listening on port 45678 for a packet to arrive and tell the program to send a copy of the message to 123.567.890.123.

    And how long would that last against reverse engineering? OK they could do something cleverer, but thats what it boils down to, the instant the backdoor is found it will be all over the internet.

    The best way to fight this would be to point out to MPs and such that THEIR messages will be read if the backdoor ever leaks out......

    1. Kiwi Silver badge
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Build a backdoor?

      The best way to fight this would be to point out to MPs and such that THEIR messages will be read if the backdoor ever leaks out......

      No, because they can just simply fix that by making it illegal to decrypt an MP's messages without their permission.

      I mean it's not like criminals will break the law or anything.....

      ---> She probably understands more about backdoors than any politician ever could.

  24. The_Idiot

    So which...

    ... police, security or government agency is going to issue a notification against backdoors because they 'help identity thieves (including, but not limited to, property title thieves), people who want to break into your bank account, credit card cloners, stalkers, rogue newspaper editors and reporters, insurance fraudsters, tax fraudsters, blackmailers, political agents, foreign countries interfering with elections, rogue security and police opera... er, no, not those. Of course, _they_ don't exist. Right? Er, I mean... right?

    Yes, and lots of others.

    I see. Kind of quiet all of a sudden, huh? Well, apart from folks like those who come here, who often (not always - I come here too (blush)) know what they're talking about. Sigh...

  25. Abbas

    One of any infinite possible examples.

    Let's punch a hole in all condoms just to be sure we get a DNA sample from all rapers.

    1. Kiwi Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: One of any infinite possible examples.

      Let's punch a hole in all condoms just to be sure we get a DNA sample from all rapers.

      I'd prefer just to punch all rappers..

      Rapists? Well, that's another story. NSFER...

    2. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

      Re: One of any infinite possible examples.

      Please stop giving politicians any more ideas.

      1. Kiwi Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: One of any infinite possible examples.

        Please stop giving politicians any more ideas.

        You just reminded me of an advert I saw a great many years back (on one of those TV shows that had ads from around the world).

        The first scene, done old home movie style, showed a couple of people.. Caption "Mr and Mrs Hitler. parents of Adolf Hitler". Another scene, "Mr and Mrs Armin, parents of Idi Armin (scuse spelling). And 3 or for like this.

        Fade to black. Final caption "If only they'd used a Jiffy condom".

        So true for the parents of many of our politicians and civil serpents today... (yes, spelling deliberate)

  26. razorfishsl

    20th Century Salem witch trial......

    1. Oengus Silver badge

      20th Century? Isn't that a bit "old hat"...

  27. whitepines Silver badge
    Facepalm

    What *do* they teach them in these schools?

    And weak encryption *helps* the child molesters. Weak encryption means they can *passively* spy on youngsters' communications (hint to FBI, Interpol: *no* active trace of the decryption left behind) so as to effectively impersonate an authority or trusted figure to the targeted child in real life. No digital trace of what happened, unlike today.

    And no, making this kind of eavesdropping a crime (it already is to some extent) isn't going to stop a depraved adult already in the process of committing a far worse crime.

    I'm all for keeping kids safe, but this makes the problem worse, not better.

    1. Venerable and Fragrant Wind of Change

      Re: What *do* they teach them in these schools?

      It'll turn law enforcement into a magnet for pederasts.

      Like other occupations involving children - think (historically at least) priests or schoolmasters.

  28. -tim
    Facepalm

    Infiltration?

    How can you tell if your countries top law enforcement agency has been infiltrated by criminals? They want to ban encryption or allow back doors for their own evil reasons.

    1. Kiwi Silver badge

      Re: Infiltration?

      How can you tell if your countries top law enforcement agency has been infiltrated by criminals? They want to ban encryption or allow back doors for their own evil reasons.

      Good point..

      Over this way though it's even easier to tell though... (won't bore you all with another Kiwi anti-cop diatribe... :) )

  29. kmedcalf

    Backdoors

    Can't we stuff a grenade (with the pin pulled) up their backdoors?

    1. Oengus Silver badge

      Re: Backdoors

      Don't forget to let the level go before you stuff it and for your sake be quick.

      1. Oengus Silver badge

        Re: Backdoors

        Oops, that should be lever not level... Damn typo.

        1. Kiwi Silver badge
          Pint

          Re: Backdoors

          Oops, that should be lever not level... Damn typo.

          Actually, I think the proper term is "spoon"..

          I did have to read your original post before I twigged :)

      2. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

        Re: Backdoors

        Raincoat and umbrella may help too.

        1. Kiwi Silver badge
          Mushroom

          Re: Backdoors

          Raincoat and umbrella may help too.

          At least they'd finally be considered "hot" and "need hosing off"... (hosing off the pavement of course)

  30. julian_n

    If we look at the agencies allowed by the RIPA to snoop on our data already we see such paedophile fighting bodies as the Food Standards Agency listed.

    Does anyone know how many paedophiles the Food Standards Agency have caught?

    1. Kiwi Silver badge
      Coat

      Does anyone know how many paedophiles the Food Standards Agency have caught?

      Well, there was that guy who liked his meat between a couple of rather fresh buns.. Though I think he was in Yankee land...

    2. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

      Probably looking for grown men buying too many Haribo.

      1. Morat

        Don't even think of buying Werthers Original online...

  31. Cincinnataroo

    Really sad

    It's really sad when organisations like this bring themselves into disrepute. Well at least among those who have a clue.

    Is there a clean cut way to make them aware?

    If this reflects the intellectual ability of police forces, in some way, what else are they getting wrong?

    1. Kiwi Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: Really sad

      If this reflects the intellectual ability of police forces, in some way, what else are they getting wrong?

      My family has some views on that. [another rant snipped]

      But "intellectual ability"? No, when it comes to NZ cops that phrase is just wrong.

  32. Ordinary Donkey

    Looks like Interpol might be compromised

    Short version, after the head of Interpol disappeared while visiting China, his replacement has started insisting we need to give all our private communications to China.

    Not really a good look.

  33. simonb_london

    Backdoors help police and security agencies become predators.

  34. CAPS LOCK Silver badge

    "Err, hello, is that CAPS LOCK?. British Police here"...

    ..."Would you mind awfully using this bugged encryption for your illegal activities".

    [CAPS LOCK] "Righty-oh"

  35. David Glasgow

    Internet predator behaviour

    I can't comment on whether the position in the expected report is honest or not, but I have been researching and assessing internet offenders for years. The comments declaring that most children are sexually abused by family and 'friends' are correct, but off the point. The issue is that there is a growing problem of men using various forms of messaging platforms to communicate with and ultimately sexually abuse children.

    In my work I found most references to any form of social media or communication channel were associated with an attempt to establish an alternative ‘back-channel’, access to video chat or, most often, switch to a more secure channel. For example:

    [13:33] <H> u have torchat?

    [13:34] <K> what is that sorry

    [13:34] <H> nm all good

    [13:37] <K> i have heard of snapchat not torchat

    [13:38] <H> oh k... just an encrypted one thats all

    So there's a near miss. Favoured encrypted channels evolve over time, and there has been a definite shift to mobile. However, the effect is so strong that it is worth searching all digital evidence for any reference to encrypted communication, because most of them are associated with a grooming process, if one is present.

    Whether this real threat justifies a backdoor in all messaging systems is another question, I just didn't want the prevailing tone of dismissal of risk and harm to children in the comments so far to continue unchallenged.

    1. Ordinary Donkey

      Re: Internet predator behaviour

      I'm curious.

      You call that an example of a near miss, but how would you expect things to differ in an actual conversation between two twelve year olds, one of whom doesn't like the idea of strangers listening in on their private conversations?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Internet predator behaviour

        Wouldn't occur. Those types of conversations occur face-to-face.

      2. David Glasgow

        Re: Internet predator behaviour

        Good point.... it was a near miss, because it was a case I worked, and I know the context. Which of course is everything. Once you have found the attempted switch to encrypted, you can investigate exactly who is talking to whom and why - unless it is encrypted and not stored locally.

        I have also investigated similar communications in non-predator messages, and they arise at a surprisingly low rate.

        1. Ordinary Donkey

          Re: Internet predator behaviour

          Interesting

          So based on your personal experience, would you like to make an estimate of how many people are listening in on children's private online communications right now?

          (To clarify, yes I include searching through the text)

        2. Kiwi Silver badge
          Pint

          Re: Internet predator behaviour

          Once you have found the attempted switch to encrypted, you can investigate exactly who is talking to whom and why - unless it is encrypted and not stored locally.

          When I was 12-13, finding any way to talk to others without my parents (or their parents) listening in was always a goal. Of course we were outside and away from home much of the time, but parents could pop up in the most awkward of places at times. I would be wary of looking at that as too big a sign myself :)

          [EDIT] Oh and if you wish to take anything I say as 'dismissing harm' to kids, go through my posts and think again!

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Internet predator behaviour

          Without proof, I'm sorry I don't believe statements like that, all often I see them rolled out to claim moral authority and justify some authoritarian action by the authorities, and all too often turns out the claimed "working of case" is a lie....

          1. Kiwi Silver badge
            Pint

            Re: Internet predator behaviour

            Without proof, I'm sorry I don't believe statements like that, all often I see them rolled out to claim moral authority and justify some authoritarian action by the authorities, and all too often turns out the claimed "working of case" is a lie....

            Last night I might have disagreed with your statement. But this morning, seeing how his post indicates he believes that only men offend like this, it puts a whole new light on his level of expertise.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Internet predator behaviour

              > only men offend like this

              They do.

              If a woman is involved its because of a man behind her pulling the strings, she is as much a victim as the target.

              1. Kiwi Silver badge

                Re: Internet predator behaviour

                If a woman is involved its because of a man behind her pulling the strings, she is as much a victim as the target

                Funny.. I at least found and linked some studies to back up my claim.

                Do you perchance have any connection to reality material to back up your statement?

                Thought not.

    2. Thoguht Silver badge

      Re: Internet predator behaviour

      About the dismissal of risk or harm thing - there are many, many things in this world that put children at risk of harm, including knives, cars, household cleaning products, etc. etc. Nevertheless, we don't seek to ban these things or render them ineffectual, and this is because they all have "substantial legal use", which is a well-known and tested legal principle. And so it should also be with strong encryption.

      Encryption keeps us safe online, but like many other powerful tools, it can also be dangerous if misused. Nevertheless, that is not a valid reason for crippling it. Without strong encryption, Interpol would be swamped with fraud and theft cases overnight.

    3. Electronics'R'Us Bronze badge
      Stop

      Re: Internet predator behaviour

      Although you have a very real point, the problem is that if a particular form of encryption (used in some particular application) is backdoored, it will very soon be very public knowledge and the predators will simply move to another application that is not backdoored.

      There are literally thousands of apps out there that have full end to end encryption; to think that they will all agree to breaking their encryption is somewhat optimistic, to say the least, and foolish on the part of the authorities if they think (I use that term loosely here) that such access will be strictly limited. It only takes one bad actor in a position of authority to break everything anyway.

      The fact is that all communication channels can be used for nefarious purposes as well as perfectly legitimate ones and encryption is not merely in the realm of electronic communication.

      Strong encryption is, all in all, a benefit to society rather than to authoritarian 'governments'.

      1. David Glasgow

        Re: Internet predator behaviour

        Completely agree with all points.

        The pressure to do something about this particular problem arises substantially from people who do not consider the issue as part of an equation. On the other hand, why would you expect them to? Their starting point (whether parents or 'authorities') is that they don't want internet predators targeting children via encrypted messaging, because it renders them (said parents or 'authorities') powerless in a way much more complete than more traditional communications.

        Also, ElectronicsRUs, (unlike some folks) you did not suggest I am making things up, and I appreciate that. In fact, those who dismiss legitimate researchers and child protection professionals as cranks or dishonest are doing a service to those who would mandate back doors. I assume that isn't what they wanted.

        1. Kiwi Silver badge
          Childcatcher

          Re: Internet predator behaviour

          Also, ElectronicsRUs, (unlike some folks) you did not suggest I am making things up, and I appreciate that. In fact, those who dismiss legitimate researchers and child protection professionals as cranks or dishonest are doing a service to those who would mandate back doors. I assume that isn't what they wanted.

          Again you make some rather invalid assumptions that show the calibre of your abilities.

          I do not see you addressing the questions/statements made by myself or others.

          Those who've dealt with CYPS/CYFS or whatever they're called today are right to be wary of anyone who claims to be a "child protection professional", and there are the likes of the vile women behind McMartin/Ellis, the whole "satanic ritual abuse" scares of the '90s (and the massive damage those people did to innocent families!). Right or wrong motives, "child protection professionals" have a hell of a lot of blood on their hands - much of it the innocent children they claimed to be protecting. "Cranks" would be a compliment to them.

          As to "legitimate researcher", the reason I and I assume others question your writings is we see much to doubt about the quality of your research.

          You could, of course, address the concerns raised. If you were a "legitimate researcher" or "child protection professional" you'd have little trouble responding to the claims, if not completely and expertly addressing the concerns/questions raised.

          The invitation is open - an invitation to actually do better by your 'profession' (I use the word about as loose as I can, I suspect) and show yourself worthy of some respect instead of evading the questions and showing your ilk to still be worthy of contempt.

          There are many in my country who consider the "child protection professionals" to be.. Well, just do a search on recent NZ news articles. If you care, you'll understand and be as angry as we are.

    4. JohnFen Silver badge

      Re: Internet predator behaviour

      Your near miss is a great example of why mandating backdoors won't be terribly effective with this sort of thing. Instead of trying to get their victims to use software that complies with the backdoor requirement, they'll just try to get their victims to use software that doesn't. The only thing that would change is which software they'll be redirecting their victims to.

    5. Kiwi Silver badge

      Re: Internet predator behaviour

      The issue is that there is a growing problem of men using various forms of messaging platforms to communicate with and ultimately sexually abuse children.

      I just realised you're 'one of those', and your 'research' suddenly looks a little more doubtful (I didn't really doubt it at first glance last night).

      Quite a large number of women are also sexual predators, perhaps equalling and perhaps even worse than men. They've also had it a lot easier for many years, as - well it's only been 20 or so years since women could be charged with sexual crimes in NZ, even though it was well known that many did the act.

      The quality of your research seems to be lacking from the sexist wording you provided in your messaging. Sounds much more like you're repeating a newspaper article written by a feminist or ignorant/sexist journalist than someone who has actually been researching this stuff "for years".

      You said "I just didn't want the prevailing tone of dismissal of risk and harm to children in the comments so far to continue unchallenged" and yet with your own post you dismissed the abuse a huge number of people have suffered, and showed yourself completely closed off to the risk posed by those predatory women. That may not be your intent, but that is what you expressed.

      1. JohnFen Silver badge

        Re: Internet predator behaviour

        "Quite a large number of women are also sexual predators, perhaps equalling and perhaps even worse than men."

        This statement requires evidence. Every study I've ever seen makes it clear that such predators are overwhelmingly male.

        1. Kiwi Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: Internet predator behaviour

          This statement requires evidence.

          Google is a fiend. But is still useful for finding the evidence you yourself will believe, if you are capable of looking past what the press/male chauvanism/feminism all tell you of course.

          When it comes to physical abuse especially of kids, women actually are far more likely to be at fault then men. When it comes to verbal/emotional abuse women win hands down.

          Sexual abuse is a lot harder to pin down because, as I said, only until recently have women been getting charged with it. But in my rare readings of news media other than El Reg, I'm seeing more cases of women being charged and there are some days when the women accused of abuse outweigh the men.

          But here's a good starting point for you : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/ (Here's my search on DDG, though the results page you're shown may differ from mine - I wrote all the above before finding the Scientific America article I'm quoting from - which was a pleasant surprise but NOT pleasant reading)

          "...the CDC’s nationally representative data revealed that over one year, men and women were equally likely to experience nonconsensual sex, and most male victims reported female perpetrators. Over their lifetime, 79 percent of men who were “made to penetrate” someone else (a form of rape, in the view of most researchers) reported female perpetrators. Likewise, most men who experienced sexual coercion and unwanted sexual contact had female perpetrators....

          "...In juvenile corrections facilities, female staff are also a much more significant threat than male staff; more than nine in ten juveniles who reported staff sexual victimization were abused by a woman..."

          "...For example, the common one-dimensional portrayal of women as harmless victims reinforces outdated gender stereotypes. This keeps us from seeing women as complex human beings, able to wield power, even in misguided or violent ways. And, the assumption that men are always perpetrators and never victims reinforces unhealthy ideas about men and their supposed invincibility. These hyper-masculine ideals can reinforce aggressive male attitudes and, at the same time, callously stereotype male victims of sexual abuse as “failed men.”..."

          "... Other gender stereotypes prevent effective responses, such as the trope that men are sexually insatiable. Aware of the popular misconception that, for men, all sex is welcome, male victims often feel too embarrassed to report sexual victimization. If they do report it, they are frequently met with a response that assumes no real harm was done...."

          And the paragraph that most relates to why I was annoyed after re-reading Mr Glasgow's post :

          "...Professionals in mental health, social work, public health, and criminal justice often downplay female perpetration. But in fact, victims of female-perpetrated sexual violence suffer emotional and psychological harm, just like victims of male-perpetrated abuse. And when professionals fail to take victimization by women seriously, this only compounds victims’ suffering by minimizing the harm they experience...."

          (I have quickly but fully read the article I quote from, however I have not followed any of the links from it)

          I hope that helps you get started. I personally always doubted the 'only men are at fault for violence' but for much of my life had no trouble believing the "only men commit sexual violence" myth. It took some doing to open my eyes to it, even dismissing an adult friend when he disclosed witnessing incestuous female sexual abuse as a child. More and more research is coming through, thankfully the victims of female sexual violence are more likely to be believed and taken seriously today than they were even just 10 years ago.

          1. JohnFen Silver badge

            Re: Internet predator behaviour

            "When it comes to physical abuse especially of kids"

            That may be, but we're talking about pedophilia here, not generic physical abuse.

            "I personally always doubted the 'only men are at fault for violence' but for much of my life had no trouble believing the "only men commit sexual violence" myth."

            I've never believed either of those, because I have eyes. However, that is different than asserting that sexual assault of children isn't primarily a male thing. I have seen no authoritative studies that assert it isn't -- everything I've seen indicates it is.

            Even what you're quoting in your comment doesn't really dispute the assertion that sexual assault of children isn't primarily a male thing.

            1. Kiwi Silver badge

              Re: Internet predator behaviour

              I've never believed either of those, because I have eyes. However, that is different than asserting that sexual assault of children isn't primarily a male thing. I have seen no authoritative studies that assert it isn't -- everything I've seen indicates it is.

              Then perhaps you can provide something to back up your claims?

              I can understand the confusion given the context, but my statement about women being sexual predators perhaps even equalling and perhaps more than men was intended as a general comment about all types of sexual abuse/assault, not just adult/child but child/child and adult/adult (and even child/adult - pretty sure that can happen since we have seen young teens convicted of rape/sexual assault on older people)

              Anyway, I backed up my claim. Will you do the same?

      2. CBM
        Facepalm

        Re: Internet predator behaviour

        That feeling when you realise someone is 'one of those' ... I just had it.

        Protip: if you are trying to pretend to occupy the neutral middle ground, resist the temptation to "one-up" with your claims.

        1. Kiwi Silver badge

          Re: Internet predator behaviour

          If I am reading your intention correctly, perhaps you should wander through my posting history.

          Otherwise, I am not sure what you think I am doing to 'one up' with him?

      3. Ordinary Donkey

        Re: Internet predator behaviour

        Let's not get bogged down in his choice of words. He might just have been lazy typing 'men' instead of 'people'. There's no need to assume he was denying the existence of the Jade Hatts of the world.

        I'm far more interested that he claimed to know how often children type certain phrases in private social media exchanges that don't involve predators.

        1. Kiwi Silver badge
          Pint

          Re: Internet predator behaviour

          Let's not get bogged down in his choice of words. He might just have been lazy typing 'men' instead of 'people'. There's no need to assume he was denying the existence of the Jade Hatts of the world.

          It's possible you're correct, and I'm not arguing. Still, it's a sick stereotype I for one would love to see ended. Women are just as capable as men of anything, including rape and physical abuse.

          I'm far more interested that he claimed to know how often children type certain phrases in private social media exchanges that don't involve predators.

          Good point. That would indicate a lot more watching of their actual chats. I too would be interested to know where this comes from!

      4. David Glasgow

        Re: Internet predator behaviour

        "I just realised you're 'one of those'"

        Ah! Quite possibly.

        In 25 plus years I have worked on 2 cases of female internet predators. Of course, that is a biased sample, because I only see the cases referred to me, and there are several reasons why women might be under-represented. Still, I have seen a few hundred cases of males. Not mentioning female, child, white or asian offenders in my post does not mean they don't exist, or that their behaviour is excused.

        The point is that unless the issues are considered in a balanced way, accommodating child protection AND technical AND forensic issues, the result will only be divisive polarisation. Fashionable at the moment, but not helpful.

        1. Kiwi Silver badge
          Pint

          Re: Internet predator behaviour

          n 25 plus years I have worked on 2 cases of female internet predators. Of course, that is a biased sample, because I only see the cases referred to me, and there are several reasons why women might be under-represented.

          Thank you for the clarification.

          If you do the right work with the right motives, you have my gratitude and respect.

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    spoiler alert

    Encryption makes it very difficult to read communications.

    So, let us make easier. And as has been said already, here we go again ...

    Will they never learn ?

  37. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Interpol

    This wave of indignation tells me the PR campaign on how the Interpol are the good guys, world police, etc, really works. But, the Interpol is just a bunch of the same people, usually delegated from national (and other) law ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. Same people, same mindset, same interests, same paymasters (who pays the piper, etc.).

  38. The Central Scrutinizer

    Meanwhile....

    The rest of us use encryption to do our online banking, buy goods and services and hold perfectly innocent private conversations, because we don't want law enforcement spying on us "just in case".

    The breathtaking arrogance and sense of entitlement on display in this week's TV interview should point the cops in a very specific direction, not at the population at large.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Meanwhile....

      "The rest of us use encryption to do our online banking, buy goods and services and hold perfectly innocent private conversations, because we don't want law enforcement spying on us "just in case"."

      Then what did people do before the Internet, then? It's not like it's that much easier to buy groceries online versus going to the store: physical stuff still needed to be transferred.

      1. Kiwi Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: Meanwhile....

        "The rest of us use encryption to do our online banking, buy goods and services and hold perfectly innocent private conversations, because we don't want law enforcement spying on us "just in case"."

        Then what did people do before the Internet, then? It's not like it's that much easier to buy groceries online versus going to the store: physical stuff still needed to be transferred.

        BUT what ABOUT when THE store IS in ANOTHER country?

        Lots of us trade with very distant stores these days, including from other countries. And even the supermarkets will deliver at a time of your choosing, and many stores have a "click and collect" service where you select what you want and pay for it online, then briefly stop at the store to collect it - they've already grabbed&bagged it all.

        So while "PHYSICAL stuff STILL needed TO be TRANSFERRED", the bulk of the work is done for you and you only need to drive in and open your doors, or go home and meet the deliverer. All made possible thanks to strong encryption that allows us to trust these transactions.

        [No, I don't use these services - I much prefer to go in and talk to people (giving the counter staff a reason for getting paid), and shop as locally as I can manage (though some things cannot be purchased locally)]

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: Meanwhile....

          "So while "PHYSICAL stuff STILL needed TO be TRANSFERRED", the bulk of the work is done for you and you only need to drive in and open your doors, or go home and meet the deliverer."

          I recall that did happen once before...BEFORE the Internet. In fact, at the time, television was still in its infancy.

          1. Kiwi Silver badge
            WTF?

            Re: Meanwhile....

            I recall that did happen once before...BEFORE the Internet. In fact, at the time, television was still in its infancy.

            Really? So when TV was in its infancy, you could use an app on your phone or visit a web site and get a company to pre-pack your shopping ready for you or your partner to collect on the way home from work?

            1. Charles 9 Silver badge

              Re: Meanwhile....

              No, it was even better. You call up the shop, tell him what you wanted, and they had boys who did a runner down to your place, got the payment, and gave you your groceries. Mind you, this was also in the days that doctors did a little something called house calls.

  39. Electronics'R'Us Bronze badge
    Stop

    Cops and intelligence

    Intelligence in the personal sense that is.

    In the early 90s I had to take an aptitude test (such as this one but the dead tree version). An applicant to a police department in New London CT scored too high and was rejected based on that score. In other words, he was too smart to be a cop.

    (I won't state my score but it would have barred me too).

    There are suggested ranges of scores for different occupations and scoring either too high or too low can get an applicant rejected. The higher the score, the greater the ability to synthesise information from multiple, apparently disparate, sources.

    Clearly police forces worldwide are now using this type of test to deliberately limit the ability of their forces to engage in critical and analytical thinking (to say nothing of understanding mathematical principles that underpin encryption and show that key escrow schemes are provably doomed to failure in very short order).

  40. Naich

    Correction

    "deploying strong encryption helps paedophiles" should read "deploying strong encryption helps everyone". In other news, some people are paedophiles.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Correction

      Bit like some politicians claiming "all men are predators" "all men are to blame for women's oppression" "men can't be feminists" "pron isn't a job its abuse, its impossible to consent to <reply from pron actor who is happy with her work> you need to understand your being exploited without realising it, the patriarchy has brainwashed you <wait a minute here, I know my own mind, you don't speak for me> YOUR NOT A REAL WOMAN, YOUR HARMING OTHER WOMEN WITH YOUR PERVERTED BEHAVIOURS"

  41. Danny 5
    Unhappy

    Sigh

    And once again stupidity rears its ugly head in this matter, they just won\t give up, will they? Is there still nobody in that field that has realized that creating backdoors would aid criminals more than anything? How much longer must we suffer these idiotic claims, made by people who has absolutely zero knowledge on the matter?

  42. spold Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    By logical extension

    Too many people are taking arse selfies on the copier. We will have to backdoor it. No, the copier.

    1. GrumpenKraut Silver badge
      Pirate

      Re: By logical extension

      > ... arse selfies on the copier.

      The already built in mechanism against that is that the glass tends to break. The resulting injuries on arse and party parts range from "quite bloody bad" to "you really do not want to know".

      Seriously, don't.

      1. Kiwi Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: By logical extension

        The already built in mechanism against that is that the glass tends to break.

        Given the high involvement of US companies in making such machines and the large market there, I would've thought that the glass in them would be quite strong, as would the framing, to prevent such injuries. After all, with all the talk of things like having to use safety glass in case a burglar hams themself and sues you (no idea of really true or not, hence ""talk of".

        But I guess making sure you're going to get sore is a form of deterrent, though I'm sure I've seen some film of people successfully "privatising their papers" and none of people learning "Butt it's risky!"

        1. GrumpenKraut Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: By logical extension

          > ...glass in them would be quite strong,

          The best way might be to make the glass break (should it do so) into many small cubes, as car windows do. I have seen two cracked glass panes(*) in different copiers. Neither had that. Maybe there is some reason (optical properties?) for this.

          (*) both times when users copied from big books and tried REALLY hard to close the lid. ----->

        2. JohnFen Silver badge

          Re: By logical extension

          "After all, with all the talk of things like having to use safety glass in case a burglar hams themself and sues you (no idea of really true or not, hence ""talk of"."

          It's not true.

          1. Kiwi Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: By logical extension

            "After all, with all the talk of things like having to use safety glass in case a burglar hams themself and sues you (no idea of really true or not, hence ""talk of"."

            It's not true.

            I can find some stuff that suggests otherwise, eg

            https://www.rodriguezlaw.net/can-burglar-sue-injury/

            "Any conduct designed to willfully injure trespassers is not excused, and the burglar may sue for personal injuries that result. Home Alone may succeed as a comedy, but the bandits would likely have grounds to sue for the injuries they sustained."

            I'll be there are many lawyers who will argue that a lack of safety glass in/around doors is a deliberate act intended to injure burglars. That may not be your motivation, but I see from my hunting this morning that there are places (at least Arizona) where residential building regs require safety glass in such places (at least at a glance).

            https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/06/can-a-burglar-sue-the-homeowner-for-injuries.html - similar to the above

            Then there's https://www.newsmax.com/finance/maximerieman/liable-burglar-injured-property/2018/06/14/id/866177/, which makes reference to "or not posting about a serious hazard on the property (i.e., a 10-foot ditch in the yard), they can be held liable for a trespasser’s injuries." - that could of course arguably include the risk of injury from the lack of safety glass (again I wouldn't make the argument - if I trespass on your property and fall into a ditch that's my stupid fault (although if I hurt myself answering a call from you for help, I'll not be sending you any Christmas cards) - but many lawyers would)

            https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/can-i-get-sued-if-someone-is-injured-on-my-property.html says much the same under "can a trespasser sue me"

            The laws may not specifically state these are needed to protect burglars, but there is grounds to make that argument :)

  43. Morten_T

    "...the statement may well read like the rantings of a demented senior citizen..."

    No, he usually uses Twitter instead of Reuters

  44. mark jacobs

    They're so worried about "child predators" when half the government and royalty are at it! What a bunch of baloney. My advice is encrypt things your own way, so that only you and the people you allow, can decipher your messages.

    1. Kiwi Silver badge
      Pint

      My advice is encrypt things your own way, so that only you and the people you allow, can decipher your messages.

      Not really good advice. Very few of us are up to the mathematical knowledge of creating decent encryption, most of us will opt for something that "only we can think of no one else can" which will be quick and easy to break for others.

      Better to use common products (even if you compile from source). You could encrypt more than once using various strong algorithms, that's a kind of roll-your-own that should be reasonably acceptable. But the key thing is the harder you make it to use, the less likely it is to be used.

      Oh, and outliers stand out. The more people who use VPNs or TOR, the harder it is to spot an individual. But if you're the only person who uses a VPN in your city, then good or bad purposes (you may be using it to remote-in to an overseas office for legit business purposes) you will stand out to your ISP. And if you're in one of the many "free" countries (I include NZ in this), then you may find TPTB are quite free to ask your ISP to give over every bit of data they can, for which they'll freely oblige. If a thousand people are using VPNs, the data requirements go up quite a lot as does the effort required to find the few who are being naughty. (of course, those using vpn.ibm.com are probably legit, those using pornvpn.com or torrentvpn.com probably aren't, TOR is a grey area as they may be spies against your country, preds/druggies/arms dealers, conspiracy nuts, or someone actually about to do something the government likes (FTR I do support more use of VPN/TOR because I hate government/corporate spying)

      1. JohnFen Silver badge

        "Very few of us are up to the mathematical knowledge of creating decent encryption, most of us will opt for something that "only we can think of no one else can" which will be quick and easy to break for others."

        This is exactly right.

        Trustworthy crypto really needs to be done by mathematicians -- and even then, by specialist mathematicians. And even then, that crypto cannot be considered trustworthy until it's been heavily examined and tested by other specialists.

        The underlying problem is that it's very, very easy to create a crypto scheme that appears to be rock solid, but that contains a fatal weakness.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Quote: "...easy to create a crypto scheme that appears to be rock solid, but that contains a fatal weakness..."

          *

          @JohnFen Usual assumption here is that encryption is ALWAYS based on mathematics, prime numbers, and so on (like RSA,PGP). Look up the Beale Papers. Two out of three documents have remained private for more than one hundred years.

          *

          Why is this? The cipher texts were not created using mathematics or prime number schemes. They were created using a book cipher, and the book used for the message which was deciphered has been found, but the book used for the other two messages is still unknown......despite lots of effort over the intervening time.

          *

          Now there's another problem for the so-called "good guys". Even if the "bad guys" use priate ciphers with a "fatal weakness", they still have the advantage that they can read messages immediately....while the "good guys" will need to wait a while to decipher the message....maybe weeks, maybe months, or in the case of the Beale messages....over a century!!!

          *

          Here's an example of a message enciphered with a book cpher....it no doubt has a "fatal weakness"...so you can publish the plain text when you've figred it out.

          *

          0fnm0pae1bFe1S530PLw1XIz1D9l1Mze1PUp08Jt

          0WI41GfP0r4G0t8b0KDf0Zcr122E1fDf0tdQ0qC=

          15ey16NV1SIs0Kha17yX030D0Sgn1TOc0FsG1HkJ

          0D$60FY11ilQ0iqQ02SH13zQ0Ngc1R2I1Bnw0Kg=

          1aZa08Mi0vGa1gT$1Cng1Gyf0CD=0QgA1H5N1MtK

          1WKg1ZbY09v10U0I13Nc1nvn0Zmb06cl14vv1b9n

          10pf0EgW1Guj1hIB12w=05Qx14do0u2C1Gwq0a9B

          0wJo1Jgn150j1gup0hWb1hqu10zG0c6V0wV40o3b

          00Li19JA1keP1pkk13cV088802pB1RSV0Bji09FC

          1fIZ0spI1akT0N8R1ZqJ09KC06vO0iVh0uCS0GIU

          067R17wD1F0Y1kaf0r56002n0gEo0WdS0ufV1aEm

          1Ygy0R$a15hT1guC1p8P0b8Q1R3h1Wp40$=q0D8w

          0mOD0lyU0zaZ1O7r17Oj0FzC1FDq0q4F18xx07IR

          1R1p0z1h0z7I0yDW1Xev16wL1kog01S914MC0lr7

          0PVJ04cK12Hq1GpV1cgE1L5N1QRI1dZf09kf1TgH

          1jfJ1kDE1RHI0i3k0Pt$0ZEp0RKR0nvJ0hGv0QND

          0KZv0z$k0maA1Ad90UaA0Tbr1Z5G0zsD05it1ZkQ

          0b1K1ozz147s0zHa01hl0=jR0lvj0O9X1ciu17xe

          1R2l1Z2A0$7f0FVS03zN1azW1Efo1oQN09XI0Y5=

          0QMc1f400rmT1TeG1IPc03QI0QAW1BGe15rA1r1v

          0BVz07Zl10yd1MmA0zmn0SGa0Ny51Hi60Yr809GJ

          12Nt0L2r1Dm80IVe0pZ=1Vgj0Jow0OuS0VNX0oxk

          0kA=06WJ0yvt0pc90NWG1QvU1Rdg1e3k1V=d1Fuj

          1PNw1Gaz0KJD0fPd1KmV0uTj0kzF1LDs1inF0jLl

          0Vma13Tu113f1HA61kTT10RM0jao1Jst0E6603Ks

          09AL1FWq1jYR0t890XsZ0$Dp1j1V1bbk1Ye2

          *

    2. DuncanLarge Silver badge

      > My advice is encrypt things your own way

      You'd think that would be a good idea but its not. You see, crypto is done. We know how to do it in ways that people who really understand it can safely say its "working". Of course, there could be a flaw somehwere that once discovered will allow anything encrypted with that algorithm to be cracked open but, and its a big but, it will likely be the crypto experts hunting for that bug that will find it and they will be the ones to fix it or create a new algo that replaces the insecure one.

      The problem with rolling your own crypto is that ONLY you know how it works and you are likely to not be able to find the issue with it while someone who really does not crypto better than you sees that you are leaking information via a side channel that you dont know is there and boom you are suddenly decrypted.

      At least when you use industry standard crypto, like everyone else, you are all using an accepted way of encrypting something. Thus should that method be broken, you all will react along with the experts. But your own crypto that you created yourself will stand alone in the corner, secure till someone who really knows the subject wants to break it and when they do, will you know?

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        But can you really trust the crypto industry that can be subverted at any time without your knowledge?

        I mean what about the old phrase "If you want something done right, do it yourself"? It seems crypto is a no-win here: you can't trust yourself, but you can't trust anyone else, either.

        1. Kiwi Silver badge

          But can you really trust the crypto industry that can be subverted at any time without your knowledge?

          How do you imagine the entire crypto industry can be subverted at any time?

          1. Charles 9 Silver badge

            The number of true experts in cryptography is pretty small: small enough to potentially double all of them, if they aren't already in the plods' employ. Everyone else just apes them.

  45. Cynic_999 Silver badge

    Side effect

    Any backdoor will have to involve some sort of universal decryption key that is available to a huge number of law enforcement people. How long did it take before the DVD decryption key became public? I predict that within months (at the most) of such a law coming into force, access via the backdoor will be available to all.

    There has been a recent (much belated) move by IP camera manufacturers to encrypt the video stream. Forcing such companies (which cannot break the law and stay in business) to backdoor their encryption will be welcomed by those who like to watch video streams from e.g. IP cameras set up in a child's bedroom. Meanwhile private individuals will be able to ignore the law and use encryption that does not include a backdoor with little fear of being caught.

    So such a law will do little to stop criminals carrying on as usual, but will make it easier for them to prey on the law-abiding.

  46. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Same arguments used by Nordic Model Now about pron

    Same nonsense, same demands for authoritarian action, same use of anecdotes and "studies" done by cranks, anti pron diatribes written by cranks who work in prisons and therefore extrapolate the mindset of prisoners to the whole population to claim that "porn puts all men onto the path of being psycopaths" (despite psychopath being an outmoded and inaccurate term.

  47. shovelDriver

    Helping Paedophiles?

    Let us recall the many many instances where police choose to not prosecute so that the criminal can be retained as a source. And the times when law enforcement and other investigative personnel/agencies were found to have lost, destroyed, or otherwise manipulated evidence to shield certain individuals, activities, programs. Recall how government agents (police, etc.) have chosen to use and abuse authority to the detriment of those they are employed to help. I would say that insertion of backdoors into encrypted devices may help criminals, while it will certainly result in police abuse. Although I fail to see how it can be any more valuable to them (the criminals, on the force, and others) than corrupt police already are.

  48. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Controversial speculation ahead.

    What I think they reasoning actually means is that they've generally relied on criminals not being very savvy with either tech or encryption in general in the past as a method of gathering evidence/finding suspects.

    As more and more software is using encryption by default, it becomes harder for them to rely on the tried and reliable methods, as encryption pretty much makes the context opaque, as such they want weakened encryption for them to be able to reliably do their job.

    In addition, software today generally prevents the users from making privacy blunders which makes their job far harder, compared to the past.

    That said, I think weakening encryption for everyone else is a terrible idea, for many reasons already discussed in the comments.

    1. Kiwi Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Controversial speculation ahead.

      You could be right, and your reasoning isn't too far off.

      But one argument I can see is for a long time crims haven't been trusting of coms and have acted to avoid electronics whereever possible. Not all of course, many are stupid and don't take the threats seriously (hence why I agree with your reasoning), but the better ones have always either used good encryption or had clear protocols about where and when to meet.

      If all encryption was banned and all phones monitored real-time, then the crims would use 'pawns' to carry messages and set themselves up such that they can still trade pretty openly while not leaving a trace of evidence. Like in the olden days.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: Controversial speculation ahead.

        That seems questionable. Pawns still need ways to receive instructions, and those can be traced. It was something like that, after all, that ultimately led America to bin Laden.

        1. Kiwi Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Controversial speculation ahead.

          Pawns still need ways to receive instructions, and those can be traced.

          Works like that in your mind.

          In the real world, this is SOP for millions of criminal organisations around the world, most of which are all-but unknown to the law, and those that are suspect - the law can only see a few of the lesser pawns.

          We have groups here in NZ where the leaders walk around 'in uniform', appear on TV news reports etc, easily traceable and everyone knows exactly who they are. And yet, despite decades of obviously leading a criminal organisation, of having a patch level that shows they've obviously committed very serious crimes (potentially including multiple murders), they are untouchable by the cops as there is no evidence of which crimes they committed. Did they rip off a convenience store, an oppositions drug-lab, or kill a crown witness? Did they win a fight against enough members from other gangs? Maybe they get points for every activity, and while murder gets them half the necessary points they'd need to jay-walk a couple of million times - and they're very prolific jaywalkers?

          If NZ's gangs can manage to do this, other orgs should be able to do it much better. Especially those where members don't clearly identify themselves while out in public.

          And look at the Mafia and other groups - even the successful prosecution of high-level members would seldom lead to charges against any one else at the same or higher level, and many of those under the imprisoned higher-up were able to continue business as usual, unharmed and perhaps seldom even suspected.

          (Oh, we've had several groups who didn't have the organisational skills necessary - they're still together today - sharing prison units...)

          As to Wheely-Bin Over-Laden, you may wish to re-think how he was captured. The official story lacks many pertinent details and creates many 'artificial facts'.

  49. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Old tools

    so how will they ban all the old encryption tools? Search every storage drive in the world?

    Unbreakable encryption is everywhere. Banning legitimate businesses from being safe will not touch any of the apparent intended targets.

    This is just dumb people looking for news headlines. (why I posted anonymously)

  50. Douglas Wardle

    It's always about the pedophiles

    If the cops tried to sell this for catching tax cheats and unpaid parking fines there would be zero support for it. So, the communications plan is to make it All About the Children, therefore the intent is to make negative public comment about encryption backdoors into support for pedophiles. This is the same twisted logic that supported laws against homosexuals because they're also child molesters, incapable of being trusted around children for even a brief period of time. Like most laws governing morality, the logic and anecdotal evidence doesn't pass the sniff test.

  51. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Worrying.

    Worrying because when I've had the police request CCTV footage its laughable the state they are in.

    Download it and upload to the FTP site. "I can only download 1 video as we don't have enough space on the machine I'm using. And they aren't timestamped so are useless".

    1. Ask your IT then to sort out your CCTV footage machine so it has MORE SPACE, because the video files I gave you are less than 100MB each, some just pushing over 100MB.

    2. Fair enough, I'll sort out an evidence CD instead, as it's an option on the agent system we use. It creates an iso that includes the playback software and the files needed. You then use that to view the footage with the timestamp. Be aware the software is old and requires and old version of Java which it includes in the iso.

    So I upload the iso with clear fucking instructions on how to mount it "Sorry, can't download the ISO file, our IT have blocked it". Well ask them to unblock it. FFS, I'll ask them. It's from a knonw good source so they should be fine with unblocking it.

    I hear nothing, still aware this loan office (due to cuts) is being pressured for the evidence as it's good evidence for the case. I give one of our USB sticks instead, encrypted of course and give them the password in an e-mail.

    All OK.

    Next request I state can they please supply the USB stick. I'm sick of supplying them and never getting them back because they are now evidence!

    Sure, they supply the USB stick. I wonder. If this is actually their stick? It has writing on it. Had they used it before? Fine, surely before it was encrypted though. Surely I wouldn't be able to restore all the old data that was on it?

    Oh FFS! I managed to restore old CCTV footage that was on it from a month before. If you're gonna supply me with a fucking stick, make sure you secure wipe it first and make sure when you use USB sticks, fucking encrypt them!

    I encrypt it, then wipe it, then encrypt it again with our footage. So I did their secure wipe for them.

    If they can't fucking get that right, then I don't fucking trust them with access to backdoor encryption!

  52. RLWatkins

    Get a f**king warrant.

    The only thing that any government agency can accomplish using encryption "back-doors" is mass surveillance.

    If one can convince a judge or magistrate that something shady is going on, they will issue an order for a wiretap. And you know something? Even with all this modern machinery the modern version of of a wiretap can capture communications at its source, prior to encryption.

    No, the more government agencies ask for weak encryption, the more they strengthen the case that they should not be allowed to demand it. It's only use-case is unlawful in most civilized states.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Get a f**king warrant.

      But how do you get enough evidence to get that wiretap when most of your evidence is now passing through hostile or uncooperative powers?

  53. Morat

    Why do they need a backdoor if they can demand your hardware and passwords already?

    If Interpol want to target paedophiles, then I wish them well. But, if they want backdoors into strong encryption so they can mass harvest private data then they should told to sod off. Problem is, I don't see why they need remote access to suspects phones when they can get a warrant and get hold of the hardware. It all sounds like a massive fishing expedition to me, and I bet that paedophiles end up being a tiny minority of those arrested due to compromised encryption.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why do they need a backdoor if they can demand your hardware and passwords already?

      Chicken-and-egg problem. They need evidence to get the warrant to get the evidence ad nauseum. Plus because of the international reach of the Internet, crimson are savvy passing their communications through hostile powers.

  54. EnviableOne Silver badge

    Hey interpol FTFY

    <quote>deploying strong encryption helps paedophiles Everybody </quote>

    yeah some of them happen to be peadophiles, but the vast majority are age appropriate loving, peoples with a right to privacy.

    interpol only wants to backdoor encryption because its too much like hard work to capture one of the endpoints.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hey interpol FTFY

      Or could it because it's become too much hard work, primarily because they get stonewalled. What do you do if the connection you're trying to trace runs through an uncooperative power protected by hostile sovereignty? They almost never had to untangle these kinds of problems in face-to-face meetings.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hey interpol FTFY

        "What do you do if the connection you're trying to trace runs through an uncooperative power protected by hostile sovereignty? They almost never had to untangle these kinds of problems in face-to-face meetings."

        You get someone (perhaps named Charles, perhaps not) to stop the investigation with a "BUT what IF they JUST..." that ends all investigation there and then coz it's clearly impossible..

        Despite the fact that this actually has little to nothing to do with encryption, paeds have been getting nabbed no matter how well they think they're covered, and usually getting nabbed because their son or daughter finally goes and tells someone that mom/dad has been 'tasting the home cooking' a little more than they should, or that Uncle Mike gets things a little too clean during little Johnny's bath time.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hey interpol FTFY

          "Despite the fact that this actually has little to nothing to do with encryption, paeds have been getting nabbed no matter how well they think they're covered, and usually getting nabbed because their son or daughter finally goes and tells someone that mom/dad has been 'tasting the home cooking' a little more than they should, or that Uncle Mike gets things a little too clean during little Johnny's bath time."

          Those are basically the stupid ones. You always have those in a bunch while the real cleverdicks/smartypants just make sure the victim never gets a shadow of a chance to get out (like going deep into the mountains/forests and keeping them in dungeon-like settings for years if not decades). This extends to Internet use where they can be using VPNs routed through one or more lax countries so that if the plods suspect something and try to investigate, they find the trail goes cold because the provider is not bound by their laws.

          Remember, don't think about the ones that got caught. It's the ones you never hear about that are the real masters of the trade. Remember what was the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled?

  55. t0m5k1
    FAIL

    Full visibility

    We need full visibility!

    But Sir many large corporations use encryption for their VPNs ...

    I don't care son you get me full visibility NOW dag-nam-it!!

    OK Sir Yes SIR.

    Strong encryption helps online predators. Build backdoors...

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

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019