On 01/14/2015 07:12 AM, rysiek wrote: > Dnia wtorek, 13 stycznia 2015 19:22:04 Mirimir pisze: >> On 01/13/2015 05:47 PM, Alfie John wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015, at 11:17 AM, rysiek wrote: >>>> Dnia wtorek, 13 stycznia 2015 23:24:46 odinn pisze: >>>> Tel that to David Censormoron, or whatever his surname really is. >>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/12/iranuk_in_accord_as_pm_promises_t >>>> o_block_encrypted_comms_after_election/ >>>> >>>> Seriously, anybody from the UK here? How's the situation on the Isles, >>>> is there any chance to stop this madness? >>> >>> Don't try to stop it. In fact, we should all be rallying the people of >>> the UK to champion this and put this in affect. Once the election >>> results are over, the new government are sworn in, and the laws are >>> passed, encryption is turned off throughout the UK. Awesome job. Pat on >>> the back. Then watch how the banking sector no longer guarantee online >>> transactions safe, the proles stop using credit cards online for >>> ecommerce, and businesses stop using their company VPNs. >>> >>> Be careful what you wish for David. >>> >>> Alfie >> >> I'm sure that the UK would just require registration for using SSH, TLS, >> IPsec, OpenVPN, etc, etc. Consider Iran's approach in 2013.[0] >> >> | "Within the last few days illegal VPN ports in the country have >> | been blocked," Ramezanali Sobhani-Fard, the head of the Iranian >> | parliament's information and communications technology committee, >> | told Mehr news agency, according to Reuters. "Only legal and >> | registered VPNs can from now on be used." > > Exactly. I'm sure the banking sector and the government would find some > amicable solution. For instance, banks could be exempt, as they already > provide any and all info the government asks them to. > > Be careful what you wish for, Alfie. This, like many other laws, would be a > classic example of "give me a man and I'll find a crime". Magically, *some* > users of encryption would not be hindered/persecuted, and some would be to > the > full extent permissible by law -- and far beyond.
This is the way with all weapons that threaten state monopoly of force.
