Internet firms to be banned from unbreakable encryption

Internet firms to be banned from offering unbreakable encryption under new laws

Internet and social media companies will be banned from putting customer communications beyond their own reach under new laws to be unveiled on Wednesday.

Companies such as Apple, Google and others will no longer be able to offer encryption so advanced that even they cannot decipher it when asked to, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Measures in the Investigatory Powers Bill will place in law a requirement on tech firms and service providers to be able to provide unencrypted communications to the police or spy agencies if requested through a warrant.

The move follows concerns that a growing number of encryption services are now completely inaccessible apart from to the users themselves.

It came as David Cameron, the Prime Minister, pleaded with the public and MPs to back his raft of new surveillance measures.

...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-...

The government can no more prevent strong encryption than it can ban mathematics, professional criminals aren't stupid and will avoid potential pitfalls. However these proposals will ensnare the average person ...

I suppose you could argue that if you have nothing to hide what does it matter.

But it would be like the wolf guarding the chicken coup, no thanks. The security services should be able to obtain a warrant if there are grounds that laws have been broken or to prevent terrorism but I do not trust a "provider" to be able to keep my "stuff" secure. TalkTalk is just one example but there are 100s more.

One of the oldest techniques is to save an email as draft as it never gets sent, multiple people have the login to review the email and save a draft reply. Nothing ever leaves the server. Combine that with a one time pad and you are snookered without any encryption whatsoever

The security services really are playing catch up here!

So much spin, that have not covered in news this time around as waiting to be able to scan what is the actual stuff released on Wednesday.

Even if warrants are only ever served against 'bad people' the damage of weak encryption or concerns over potential backdoors may drive tech firms to look overseas rather than base themselves in the UK, and maybe not offer a service. It also may make UK tech firms a larger target for the criminal world as they will know there is a backdoor available either by compromising staff or systems.

The US went through something similar with the Clipper chip back in the 1990s. Americans get outraged pretty easily so Clipper failed, but the British are more prone to apathy so I can see the government proposals being more successful.

There is also this realistically unworkable rule about ISP's being required to store your web history for 12mths, What a load of bs

It's looking like tunnelling up or using proxies is the way to go, not because we have something to hide, but because our on line activities have FA to do with the government or ISP's as long as you ain't committing any crimes , we have a right to privacy So people had better wake up to this and protest very loudly

Edited by tommy45 (Tue 03-Nov-15 12:59:54)

It is just typical of the establishment we now have running the country, they are thick and clueless so they use a scatter gun approach to everything.

They are so dumb they want you to use weak encryption which means it is pointless using as anyone can buy the tools to break it.

Everyone is now guilty till proven innocent , shoot everyone and you will find a few doing something wrong.

This proposed law also allows HM Revenue and your local council the same access to your browsing history ...... it is nothing to do with terrorism or criminals it is a total invasion of privacy.

How do the American authorities manage? US ISP's , proxy and VPN services don't keep records, the Bill of Rights grants citizens the right of privacy.

Even the Russians have less intrusion and tracking than the UK.

United States

The National Security Agency (NSA) commonly records Internet metadata for the whole planet for up to a year in its MARINA database, where it is used for pattern-of-life analysis. U.S. persons are not exempt because metadata are not considered data under US law (section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act). Its equivalent for phone records is MAINWAY. The NSA records SMS and similar text messages worldwide through DISHFIRE.

Link.

The site doesn't give Russia, but I think your assertion is highly unlikely to be correct.

Edit: SORM in Russia.

This new Russian law doesn't look nice either.

Edited by RobertoS (Tue 03-Nov-15 14:17:30)

Agreed about the apathy, but where it may succeed on paper, it will fail in reality.

Would it require UK.gov to create and define new encryption and key exchange standards to implement this? Err, guess how long that will take. +10 years maybe.

In reply to a post by Skilty:

you could argue that if you have nothing to hide what does it matter.

Many years ago, when I legally did not have a TV/License, a TV Licensing "Gentleman" tried to use that argument when he insisted that he wanted to search my house for an unlicensed TV & I asked him where his Search-Warrant was.

In reply to a post by AdrianPH:

It is just typical of the establishment we now have running the country, they are thick and clueless

What's so special about 'now'? The establishment has always been thick and clueless..at least as far as us proles are concerned.

If we step back a bit and look wider, this really smacks of desperation from Governments that are loosing control to the next generation. I would go as far as saying this is the beginning of the end of the supposed western "democracy"

To control a "democratic" country you need to control the population's knowledge(media), wealth and actions.

- 20 years ago you believed what the national media told you.
- Up until the last few years, everyone only traded in centralised currency.
- Increasingly as the world for the average person grows (internet/mobile/social media) we are becoming wise to how to stand up to law enforcement, suppression and push for transparency.

My thoughts? Controlling encryption/internet history allows them to use it against us, sure? But for what purpose, we'll never know. I guess if they ever believe there's something that threatens the power/integrity of this government. I'm not particularly fussed, on security services seeing my activities, but i'm concerned around how then we protect data from criminals.

Don't get me wrong, I am totally against a government spying on its citizens.

I was merely rolling out the age old argument the government will use.

To quote several people "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" which means people seeking power tend to be the ones who should not be allowed to wield it.

"People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people."

The internet gives people power that they did not previously have, knowledge that would never have gained and control. I think that scares politicians, the snoopers charter is an attempt to bring intelligence gathering into the 21st century but it is a rather blunt instrument. We can't single out the wrong doers so we will collect everybody's browsing history. Once people are used to that, let's take the entire URL rather than up to the first /.

It's a slippery slope!

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

In reply to a post by Skilty:

you could argue that if you have nothing to hide what does it matter.

Many years ago, when I legally did not have a TV/License, a TV Licensing "Gentleman" tried to use that argument when he insisted that he wanted to search my house for an unlicensed TV & I asked him where his Search-Warrant was.

not only do they need a search warrant to gain peacful entry and make a rudementerary seach ,ie look in a room but not cupboards or wardrobes ect ,
You do not need a TV license for a TV or any other device capable of recieving live broadcast TV ,It's actually watching TV as it is broadcast (live) that requires a TV licence, of course the goon from Capita (AKA TVL salesperson) isnt going to divulge this fact in law, because they want to sell you a licence , they are renowned for telling porkies and using scare tactics to aid this,
I have found the best policy is a no contact one, don't reply to their threat o grames , don't answer the door to them

Government claim they need these powers to stop terrorism in the UK. Fact is there hasnt been any significant terrorism on UK soil since 7/7 a decade ago. MI6 claim they have stopped 6 attacks this year so if true current methods are enough. Either that or the threat just isnt there

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

So much spin, that have not covered in news this time around as waiting to be able to scan what is the actual stuff released on Wednesday.

Even if warrants are only ever served against 'bad people' the damage of weak encryption or concerns over potential backdoors may drive tech firms to look overseas rather than base themselves in the UK, and maybe not offer a service. It also may make UK tech firms a larger target for the criminal world as they will know there is a backdoor available either by compromising staff or systems.

Forget the technology firms for a second, what about us? Doesn't this contravene our human rights?! Unless the government argues it is in the interests of national security...


Article 8: Right to privacy

Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 10: Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

"except such as in accordance with the law".

And that is the get out clause.

In reply to a post by Skilty:

Article 8: Right to privacy

Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 10: Freedom of expression
...
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, ....

Well that is utter madness. Collect the communications metadata from 60 million people in the name of national security? Akin to a sledgehammer cracking a nut. We actually need a UK version of the 4th amendment.

This bill is so flawed it is ridiculous. What stops me renting a VPS in another country and routing my traffic through a SSH Proxy?!

Yes, mass surveillance doesn't work -

A new analysis of terrorism charges in the US found that the NSA's dragnet domestic surveillance "had no discernible impact" on preventing terrorist acts. Instead, the majority of threats over the last decade were detected by regular old intelligence and law enforcement methods�tips, informants, CIA and FBI ops, routine law enforcement.

The nonprofit think tank New America Foundation published a report today after investigating the 227 Al Qaeda-affiliated people or groups that have been charged for committing an act of terrorism in the US since 9/11. It found just 17 of the cases were credited to NSA surveillance, and just one conviction came out of the government's extra-controversial practice of spying on its own citizens. And that charge, against San Diego cab driver Basaaly ­Moalin, was for sending money to a terrorist group in Somalia. There was no threat of an actual attack.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/youll-never-guess-h...

In the US children have killed more of their own citizens than terrorists have, by playing with their parents guns

But thats another story

In reply to a post by bobble_bob:

Government claim they need these powers to stop terrorism in the UK. Fact is there hasnt been any significant terrorism on UK soil since 7/7 a decade ago. MI6 claim they have stopped 6 attacks this year so if true current methods are enough. Either that or the threat just isnt there

threat isn't really there they use the same excuses , think of the children prevention of terrorism to get their bs passed off,
Encryption isn't designed to be hackable, it is used everyday for secure transactions , I wonder if people boycotted online payments for a week, what ukplc would do?

Hence the Government try to scare us by saying a terrorist threat is highly likely and keep the alert level at its highest its ever been, despite no terrorist acts in the UK for 10 years. It allows them to pass these laws more easily

Edited by bobble_bob (Tue 03-Nov-15 19:36:45)

Would there have been any terrorist attacks if the existing surveillance had been absent? Would you have been happy for you or a relative or close friend to be killed or maimed?

Is there any need for mass-market providers such as google and Amazon to provide uncrackable encryption to normal people?

I do feel uneasy about these laws. I'd feel even more uneasy about walking past huge glass windows such as the ones blown out within hundreds of yards of the Manchester bomb if the security services were not able to effectively police internet communications.

On balance I'd rather have a western style government with intrusive powers for the security services running this country than an ISIL bomb going off anywhere, never mind an ISIL government taking control a city and region at a time. What happens to your precious rights then?

Personal privacy at all costs opens the gateway to loss of personal freedom. How many bombs going off on the London Underground or in the public areas of all UK airports on the same day would it take to change your perspective?

The question has to be how to keep a sensible level of control over the extent and use of surveillance powers. Not whether to have them or not, as not having them just wouldn't work.

Not sure if you missed this post but will linked to it incase. Answers part of your question - http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/general/t/4445382-r...

And there hasnt been a terrorist attack in the UK for 10 years, so they're doing something right with the powers they have (assuming the threat is as real as they make out)

Have they figured out which train the London bombers caught from Luton yet?

In reply to a post by bobble_bob:

And there hasnt been a terrorist attack in the UK for 10 years, so they're doing something right with the powers they have (assuming the threat is as real as they make out)

But there is the possibility of the threat level increasing, especially with operations against ISIS being stepped up coupled with a large amount of middle east refugees arriving in Europe.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by bobble_bob:

And there hasnt been a terrorist attack in the UK for 10 years, so they're doing something right with the powers they have (assuming the threat is as real as they make out)

But there is the possibility of the threat level increasing, especially with operations against ISIS being stepped up coupled with a large amount of middle east refugees arriving in Europe.

That is to keep us scared, as for the immigrants coming to the EU and the UK , if they thought there was a serious threat why let them in ? many are living in the uk illegally that the authorities don't know anything about because they aren't in the system, pay no taxes, council tax No amount of snooping is going to stop them safe secrets

Edited by tommy45 (Tue 03-Nov-15 22:17:06)

In reply to a post by tommy45:

if they thought there was a serious threat why let them in ?

The vast majority of them are genuine refugees, and we're more compassionate than the people killing them in their own countries, aren't we?

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by tommy45:

if they thought there was a serious threat why let them in ?

The vast majority of them are genuine refugees, and we're more compassionate than the people killing them in their own countries, aren't we?

Err mmm, vast majority i think not, that is left wing propaganda, the majority are young men, many are wanted by the police back in their countries, they are no more than economic migrants, those at calais are fakers, they wear expensive training shoes, own smart phones with internet access, and have money, We are too soft merkel should resign

We are a densely populated country and according to government we are skint, that was the reason for all the cuts , but yet they found over 1 billion ££££'s for aid , and are planning on taking 20,000 in the next 5 yrs, that is on top of all those who are here illegally
And all those here from other EU countries,
the NHS is falling apart schools are full, social housing is virtually non existent in some areas, where are these people going to live,and at who's expense ?

Edited by tommy45 (Tue 03-Nov-15 23:08:08)

So you will be voting to leave the EU in the referendum?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

So you will be voting to leave the EU in the referendum?

Yes we should leave the EU

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by tommy45:

if they thought there was a serious threat why let them in ?

The vast majority of them are genuine refugees, and we're more compassionate than the people killing them in their own countries, aren't we?

Genuine refugees when they left their country, until they reached the first safe country, in the case of Syrians that might be Turkey, Jordan, Cyprus, maybe Saudi Arabia or Greece.

Once they left those countries, they became economic migrants.

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

Genuine refugees when they left their country, until they reached the first safe country, in the case of Syrians that might be Turkey, Jordan, Cyprus, maybe Saudi Arabia or Greece.

It's unreasonable to let the countries nearest the crisis bear the entire refugee burden. Under that scenario the UK would never receive any refugees, unless civil war broke out in France or Belgium which is somewhat unlikely.

Edited by Oliver341 (Wed 04-Nov-15 13:30:56)

In reply to a post by Skilty:

Once people are used to that, let's take the entire URL rather than up to the first /.

My knowledge on HTTPS is hazy at best, but I did not think the whole URL was sent in plaintext, I thought the two devices create an encrypted connection and then the whole URL is exchanged using GET, POST, etc.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

Genuine refugees when they left their country, until they reached the first safe country, in the case of Syrians that might be Turkey, Jordan, Cyprus, maybe Saudi Arabia or Greece.

It's unreasonable to let the countries nearest the crisis bear the entire refugee burden. Under that scenario the UK would never receive any refugees, unless civil war broke out in France or Belgium which is somewhat unlikely.

But the countries mentioned (and perhaps Egypt) should be receiving the refugees, if we and/or other countries, decide to support those countries, we should take refugees from them. Those seeking asylum should be claiming at the first safe country they reach, although that may not be the country they end up in. Not deciding to keep going to the promised land of the UK.

How many Syrian refugees have Saudi Arabia taken so far?

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

How many Syrian refugees have Saudi Arabia taken so far?

Is Saudi Arabia your benchmark for how a country should behave?

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by tommy45:

if they thought there was a serious threat why let them in ?

The vast majority of them are genuine refugees, and we're more compassionate than the people killing them in their own countries, aren't we?

Genuine refugees when they left their country, until they reached the first safe country, in the case of Syrians that might be Turkey, Jordan, Cyprus, maybe Saudi Arabia or Greece.

Once they left those countries, they became economic migrants.

Yes how many has suadi taken,? then there is the fact that not only do they get rescued from the Mediterranean sea ,but they also get taken to Italy or other EU countries and not turned around like they have done in Australia , no wonder they are coming in swarms , they should be encouraged to stay in neighbouring countries, not the EU, and not all rescued at sea are from Syria some are from turkey trying their luck, economic migrants there is a lot of very worrying things going on in Germany that the media wont report on , because it doesn't fit merkels agenda many of these "asylum seekers /refugees" aren't nice law abiding people, or grateful for the support they have received, just as we have seen in the uk, they get given social housing ,at the expense of British homeless people by being prioritized , then they have the bare faced cheek to demand something better, nearer to a town centre , If was in charge they would of all been deported ASAP no appeals/tribunals legal aid at the tax payers cost

But to get back on topic, If they somehow manage to pass this in parliament i hope the masses boycott all online payments in protest, when the big corporations start loosing wonger ,(governments bed buddies) and they start whining ,they will do a u turn, or the corporates will carry on using un hackable encryption

Edited by tommy45 (Wed 04-Nov-15 14:21:23)

In reply to a post by godsell4:

In reply to a post by Skilty:

Once people are used to that, let's take the entire URL rather than up to the first /.

My knowledge on HTTPS is hazy at best, but I did not think the whole URL was sent in plaintext, I thought the two devices create an encrypted connection and then the whole URL is exchanged using GET, POST, etc.

This Der Spiegel article makes interesting reading.

And here is the outline of the bill

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

How many Syrian refugees have Saudi Arabia taken so far?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/09/world/welcome-syri...

i.e none.

Edit: it's noticable that Russia is not mentioned...

Edited by keith969 (Wed 04-Nov-15 15:49:08)

Robertos and Bobblebob.

I tend to agree with Robertos about the need for some powers and it is not just for terrorism which has been much of the emphasis of this tread, but also for crime, which is tending to move more and more online for communications.

I do though have all the reservations expressed about securing all this gathered data from criminals and making sure that only the correct authorities use it under the correct procedures. Local councils misused the powers in the last bill I gather for all sorts of reasons, such as dog fouling and incorrect use of dustbins.

+1, and if European countries had not buried their heads in the sand and said someone else's problem 4 years ago, then the refugee camps might be a bit more inhabitable and the refgees not quite so desperate to move on.

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

Internet firms to be banned from offering unbreakable encryption under new laws

Oh no they're not

There's now a petition opposing the introduction of this bill

In reference to petition.parliament.uk/petitions/111448:

Theresa May is about to announce a new government surveillance bill. Another one. This time it will require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to retain one year's worth of your internet history. We're still not sure what the government actually aims to achieve by doing this but it's unnecessary.

Which just shows how stupid the petition system is. Or in this case, the people who originated this one and those that sign it.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

It's unreasonable to let the countries nearest the crisis bear the entire refugee burden. Under that scenario the UK would never receive any refugees, unless civil war broke out in France or Belgium which is somewhat unlikely.

And if the Dublin convention is ignored you get "asylum shopping" for the country with the best economic circumstances, not to mention the fact that a notable proportion of asylum seekers are frauds.

Geography does matter, the onus is not on the UK to provide an open door for the world's refugees, it may or may not choose to accept people - as it sees fit.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

Internet firms to be banned from offering unbreakable encryption under new laws

Oh no they're not

Complain to the Torygraph, not me ...

OK so the wording is not the best, but in spirit the petition is worthy.

In reply to a post by godsell4:

OK so the wording is not the best, but in spirit the petition is worthy.

Unfortunately it seems to be misunderstanding parliament petitions. All it does is if it gets enough signatures then parliament have to consider whether it should be discussed. However, it already has been discussed - and passed. Therefore the petition is actually just requesting something to happen that has already happened - it is not a process for lobbying to get a decision changed it is a process to ask for a decision to be tabled.

In reply to a post by tommy45:

It's actually watching TV as it is broadcast (live) that requires a TV licence...

Or any equipment which records TV (live), for the purpose of viewing later.

Our freedom of speech is out the window now with this new bill from the Conservatives.

Quite. Except it isn't even that big. At over 100,000 signatures all that happens is that the petition itself will be considered for debate in Parliament.

In this particular case, if the petition were to be debated and accepted, the suggestion that the introduction of the Draft Bill should be prevented is clearly ludicrous. It will of course be dismissed out of hand however many signatures it gathers.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Quite. Except it isn't even that big. At over 100,000 signatures all that happens is that the petition itself will be considered for debate in Parliament.

Think you need to reread my post where I said :

parliament have to consider whether it should be discussed

Giving your whole sentence, it was confused by what followed it.

it does is if it gets enough signatures then parliament have to consider whether it should be discussed.

I was trying to sort out the confusion for others.

However, it already has been discussed - and passed.

The petition has not been discussed. It hasn't even reached the 10,000 needed for it to be read by whoever in government looks at them.

Therefore the petition is actually just requesting something to happen that has already happened

The petition is not asking for something to happen. It is asking for something not to happen. Which as you say, has already happened.

Edited by RobertoS (Thu 05-Nov-15 14:53:56)

"It" as in the bill had been discussed and passed - not the petition. They are putting in a petition to ask that the bill be discussed in parliament with a view to it being overturned - but it has already been discussed in parliament and approved. A petition to discuss it does nothing to change the minds of the people who have already voted it through.

The petition heading:- "Reverse the decision to introduce the new surveillance bill". That means don't even introduce the Bill, which perforce means don't debate it - just drop it and forget about it altogether.

As you say, it was introduced. Or should we say the Draft Bill was. The petition doesn't mention "Draft".

I haven't checked how much debate took place, but nothing has been "passed".

...the draft Bill we are publishing today is not a return to the draft Communications Data Bill of 2012.
...
... the substance of all of the recommendations by the Joint Scrutiny Committee which examined that draft Bill have been accepted.
...
... copies of the draft Bill will be available in the Vote Office. Our proposals will now be subject to further consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of Parliament.

A revised Bill will then be introduced to Parliament in the spring, where it will receive careful Parliamentary scrutiny.

From Theresa May's speech introducing the draft. I suppose the petition could be said to refer to the resultant form of it that emerges from the Joint Committee.

There's no way the petition will be debated even if taken to mean that.

In reply to a post by mixt:

In reply to a post by tommy45:

It's actually watching TV as it is broadcast (live) that requires a TV licence...

Or any equipment which records TV (live), for the purpose of viewing later.

Live TV means any programme you watch or record at the same time as it�s being shown on TV or an online TV service.

the licence is not equipment related, the equipment itself is irrelevant ,it's the actual watching or recording of live tv itself regardless of what devices are used

Edited by tommy45 (Thu 05-Nov-15 17:27:48)

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

It's unreasonable to let the countries nearest the crisis bear the entire refugee burden. Under that scenario the UK would never receive any refugees, unless civil war broke out in France or Belgium which is somewhat unlikely.

And if the Dublin convention is ignored you get "asylum shopping" for the country with the best economic circumstances, not to mention the fact that a notable proportion of asylum seekers are frauds.

Geography does matter, the onus is not on the UK to provide an open door for the world's refugees, it may or may not choose to accept people - as it sees fit.

correct, and is why we will most probably have to leave the EU, even though we aren't part of the schengen agreement Brussels and merkel keep on trying to interfere ,and that is wrong

In reply to a post by jdowning640:

Our freedom of speech is out the window now with this new bill from the Conservatives.

Did we ever really have true freedom? Government are also seeking to make changes to the FOI request system, no doubt to help prevent them being scrutinised or held to account when they make a big ...up Which i thought was one of our human rights to be able to question authority and hold them to account ?

I thought that a majority Conservative government might be a good thing but by the way they're swinging things it looks like they're implementing all these things whilst getting rid of the laws which protect our rights as citizens. And nothing is being said about it because of that majority.

Without sounding harsh this Egypt plane crash and possible bomb that caused it as come at a good time for the Government. Gets this Bill out of the headlines abit and reinforces their argument for needing it

Yes, exactly. To be more precise, as I understand it...

The license is required if you USE any equipment that decodes any live broadcast signal to a point where you are able to, and do, view it or the decoded signal is written to a storage medium where it is then later recoverable for later viewing. It is not required if you own such equipment capable of doing this but you don't use that equipment for this purpose.

( unless you are also suggesting that recording but not then viewing also means exemption from a TV license, but I think you're on dodgy ground legally if that's the case. For why would you record something you have no intent in viewing later? )

they dont need to break their own encryption as they are the end point.

e.g. if using google over https, google will have access at their end of the connection, encryption is to prevent man in the middle sniffing, not end point sniffing.

Seems a useless law due to misunderstanding of the tech.

I have read a bit more and believe my statement is correct

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Seems a useless law due to misunderstanding of the tech.

Yes Minister.

And so now after they have introduced the bill are they only *now* asking or investigating if it is economical for ISP's to implement this.

In reply to a post by godsell4:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Seems a useless law due to misunderstanding of the tech.

Yes Minister.

And so now after they have introduced the bill are they only *now* asking or investigating if it is economical for ISP's to implement this.

Aren't you happy to see your tax pounds at work?