Blocking all encrypted traffic? Nope.
I popped back to this discussion to see what's new and note that a few people have suggested that the govt might try to block *anything* that appears to be encrypted traffic since that is, in fact, the only way they could possibly stop folks exchanging encrypted comms.
I guess we all know that the govt doesn't realise that it cannot do this, because its ministers are poorly informed and, let's be honest, not all that bright. Some would say, thick as porkypoo.
If you're a lawyer's office, or a university, or a school, or a contractor up to his eyes in NDAs or—well, you get the picture, if you are *anyone at all* who needs to demonstrate due diligence—you almost certainly already encrypt files you save to any cloud service. Let's face it, if you didn't, you're an idiot.
If you use online shopping, banking, medical records, your company's VPN etc etc, or any website with SSL, you already use encryption. In due course there'll be more sites using SSL than do not.
No government can tell these services to use plaintext. It would be insanity.
You cannot tell good crypto from random bytes (it's the nature of good crypto) and you simply can't tell ISPs to drop every packet that seems random.
Even if you take Terry Terrorist's iPhone away, he can setup a website—disguised as online shopping, or GoatWorld.xxx, if he likes—using SSL, and with quite simple code you have a dropbox for encrypted messages, indistinguishable from any other commercial traffic. (Once something has been encrypted, you cannot tell if it was already encrypted before, perhaps using some other, stronger algo.)
I could go on, but readers here know this already. If the likes of Theresa 'Dolores Umbridge' May don't know this yet, it's because the spooks whispering in her ear don't want her to know. Why would they fib to her? Answers on a postage stamp, please.