Bitcoin Forum

So UK Prime Minister David Cameron is sticking to his guns with respect to his Conservative party planning which involves anti-trust and "Snooper" charter in turn, with respect to digital telecommunications and encryption.

Media in the UK this week begun speculating that this would affect digital messaging services like WhatsApp, iMessage and Snapchat and that any PGP/End to End P2P data transmission services would be BANNED.

I'm concerned at the moment because of it's potential implication to BTC and BTC-related services that currently operate in the UK.

The UK is a significant part of current BTC market, however most of BTC's use there is based on third-party services which are available over the internet. I fear that these service would be prohibited to operate.

i.e Localbitcoins stopped it's service within Germany for potentially violating by-laws early this year.

The UK is parent to the other Countries/States within the Commonwealth realm and thus affect them also in time?

Antigua and Barbuda   1981   Realm
Australia   1931   Realm
The Bahamas   1973   Realm
Bangladesh   1972   Republic
Barbados   1966   Realm
Belize   1981   Realm
Botswana   1966   Republic
Brunei   1984   Monarchy
Cameroon   1995   Republic
Canada   1931   Realm
Cyprus   1961   Republic
Dominica   1978   Republic
Fiji   1970 (rejoined in 1997 after 10 year lapse)    Republic
Ghana   1957   Republic
Grenada   1974   Realm
Guyana   1966   Republic
India   1947   Republic
Jamaica   1962   Realm
Kenya   1963   Republic
Kiribati   1979   Republic
Lesotho   1966   Monarchy
Malawi   1964   Republic
Malaysia   1957   Monarchy
The Maldives   1982   Republic
Malta   1964   Republic
Mauritius   1968   Republic
Mozambique   1995   Republic
Namibia   1990   Republic
Nauru   1968   Republic
New Zealand   1931   Realm
Nigeria   1960   Republic
Pakistan   1947   Republic
Papua New Guinea   1975   Realm
Rwanda    2009   Republic
St. Christopher and Nevis   1983   Realm
St. Lucia   1979   Realm
St. Vincent and the Grenadines    1979   Realm
Samoa   1970   Republic
Seychelles   1976   Republic
Sierra Leone   1961   Republic
Singapore   1965   Republic
Solomon Islands   1978   Realm
South Africa   1931
(withdrew in 1961,
rejoined in 1994)   Republic
Sri Lanka   1948   Republic
Swaziland   1968   Monarchy
Tanzania   1961   Republic
Tonga   1970   Monarchy
Trinidad and Tobago   1962   Republic
Tuvalu   1978   Realm
United Kingdom      Realm
Uganda   1962   Republic
Vanuatu   1980   Republic
Zambia   1964   Republic



^ above just copied/pasted

Hopefully the Government will have little controll over disruption of BTC services and that fully regulated services providers will fully vet/take all acceptable client due dilagence for compliance. Certain services in alternative data transmission have been blocked by many ISP's.

http://www.coindesk.com/would-uk-encryption-ban-kill-bitcoin/ (http://www.coindesk.com/would-uk-encryption-ban-kill-bitcoin/)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/10/snoopers-charter-bill-causes-social-outcry-as-government-looks-to-ban-whatsapp-and-others_n_7768768.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/10/snoopers-charter-bill-causes-social-outcry-as-government-looks-to-ban-whatsapp-and-others_n_7768768.html)

When will people get you can't stop Bitcoin and no government on this planet has the power to stop it....


People need to man up and say screw the authorities, if the people don't want something g then guess what you shouldn't have it, government is made for the people not the other way around...

Hey mate, you're right! The blockchain protocol itself won't be stopped, however it's the ISP's that point Bitcoin service providers like; Bitstamp, Kraken, Localbitcoins, etc. that concern me. If the ISP's are directed by government to block these services it will at least deter some BTC businesses and startup ventures like mine from incorporating in the UK.

This potentially will also prohibate the use of encryption based technologies, like iMessage, WhatsApp or PGP data transmissions.

The Prime Minister is an idiot. Next he's going to try to ban calculus, or maybe trigonometry.

Also..   I agree with your libiterian stance regarding government! That's the way it should be!!  However I believe in historical metrics and sadly the government is currently made for central banks/and it's creditors and not for the people : (

I am confused. How does banning of services like whatsapp or end to end or PGP would affect bitcoin in anyway ? Don't think they are interrelated in any manner except for some people using PGP to encrypt their communication.

I'm confused, I thought FB owned WA? 

It means they are banning stuff they don't control. If they can't read encrypted whatsapp messages at their will, how will they allow transactions between parties to happen that they cannot follow the money trail to a person or company? They want control and they are afraid they are losing it.

As much as I despise Cameron, even I don't think he could really be that fucking braindead (but then again, when it comes to tories, there's seemingly always room for them to sink even lower in my estimations).  This must be some sort of "look at me, I'm tough on terror" rhetoric and a pretense for increased government control.  Aside from the fact that they haven't thought it through to conclusion and considered the consequences, the impracticalities of banning math and the lack of enforceability of such a law means that even if they were stupid enough to pass it, no one is going to pay the slightest bit of attention.

Not to mention the hypocrisy of a government routinely deleting emails and destroying other documents to prevent Freedom of Information requests coming to light.  They're more than happy to keep their secrets hidden from the public view.  Wonder just how many scandals they might have covered up over the years.  One rule for them and another for everyone else.  Truly the sign of the gradual but quickening slide into authoritarianism.  If it looks, sounds and smells like Fascism...



Indeed.  Terrorists could be using pi right now to calculate the blast radius of the explosion they'll need to cover several prominent landmarks.  We should ban all numbers immediately, just in case terrorists might find a way to use them against us.   ::)

Listen to one of the government advisor's.  WARNING: This will make your blood boil.

https://soundcloud.com/gcluley/radio-5-discussion-about-david-camerons-plans-to-backdoor-secure-messaging-services

Some sad truth right there. Still now we have Bitcoin so there is always gonna be one country that will not be dicks.....even if it's mother Russia..

There've been plenty of dramatic proposals through the years from politicians. More often than not when they actually try to draft a law the real experts tell them they haven't got a hope in hell and it goes silent.

Another fine case in point is the attempt to ban legal highs. It's unenforceable and advisers have told them so.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/05/theresa-may-legal-highs-ban-unenforceable-government-advisers

A vast chunk of world commerce depends on encryption. This'll leave all the services that operate in the UK wide open. They'll leave and the UK will be left out in the cold.

The people they want to catch will skip past all this shit with a couple of clicks. Check their impressive efforts to block the piratebay. It takes a second to bypass it.

FEAR FEAR DANGER RISK!!!!!!!!!


The only danger is these clowns, they can't hold the internet back....I just can't see it being possible. For once the people have potential power.

Strong cryptography is an absolute need in today's Internet and any other communications, he his trying to put the entire UK's Internet infrastructure vulnerable to spying or any kind of attacks.

The proposal is to ban cryptography in all communications or only for those services used by civilians?

i will never understand those things, it is a losing battle from the beginning and they know it.

they cant stop it for just a simply reason, is not on his hands to stop it.


this is the only thing they want by doing it, that ppl get scared about it,  thats all, and thats all they can do.

Tories absolutely adore the finance sector since that's where most of their donations come from, so clearly they're not going to do anything to upset the banks who use cryptography.  They're also very fond of big business in general, so again, they aren't going to rock the boat there.  It's pretty safe to assume there will be no meddling in those areas whatsoever.  If, however, you aren't lining the tories' pockets with vast sums, expect their focus to be on screwing you over at the first available opportunity.

I don't think dipshit-dave likes the internet very much, but that's okay, because we don't particularly like him either (http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Prime-Minister-David-Cameron-abused-person/story-21102105-detail/story.html).  (alternative link without the filtering (http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/creative-ways-to-insult-david-cameron-on-twitter#.neP33XD1z))

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11695869_894678830608578_3402416195045680373_n.png?oh=744f2e941fe2be09167a839559d5d511&oe=561029C5

Also, talk about mixed messages.  GCHQ, the government's own security and intelligence agency seem quite fond of cryptography (http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press_and_media/news_and_features/Pages/cryptoy-app-released.aspx), educating and raising awareness about cyber security.  Way to undermine one of the few good things you're managing to achieve, Dave.

Thanks for the link FlappySocks - listening to it now (temperatue already elevating)

If I can suggest you one thing, start to use telegram ;) is more secure than whatsapp.


https://telegram.org/ 


Here you can find the technical side/protocol:

 - https://core.telegram.org/mtproto

Don't forget SMSsecure for your encrypted SMS text messages.

https://smssecure.org/

Wickr even better as you can set your messages to auto destruct after a certain period of time meaning that they are gone forever.

Also have a drive cleaning feature where it wipes the free space on your phone or pc to make sure any deleted files are also gone forever.

Who needs WhasApp when there is

http://i59.tinypic.com/dwximw.png

I think getgems is based on telegram, or am I wrong? However at the end everyone is free to use whatever he wants ( everything but not whatsapp http://www.lul.it/joomla/mymedia/slideshow/asd.gif).

Well at least I got the news on the UK wanting to ban secure communications...

Telegram and other encrypted chat software: problem is it is so trendy these days and there are too many of them. Those who use something are spread out. I use e.g. TextSecure

I don't think bitcoin can be shut down in the country, too many ways to access it. Also, the plans are more about banning communications, isn't it?

This proposal will only hurt the UK by making data more insecure to attackers and encouraging businesses to move to a jurisdiction where data protection (encryption) is allowed.

Do you want your medical and financial records stored by companies in encrypted or unencrypted folders? This proposal is bad for the UK economy

You can always count on our government to establish new laws which will encourage cyber crime.

"One gate closed, one million gates opened" - NyeFe

Exactly the same thoughts. What will be the next move after this? No doors and curtains for the houses so everybody can peek in?

Also company business will be affected. Encryption is key in e.g. research companies too where trade secrets are kept. Those are simply not allowed to leak through.

I have kind of lost hope a few years ago when internet providers chose that adult content is opt-out by default and if you want to watch then you have to tell your provider that "Hey, switch it on for me, because I'm interested". Or so it was back then I'm not sure if this has changed since. Blocking content and now potentially is a dangerous path as we don't know where it leads.

Cameron is making sure everyone starts turning towards bitcoin eventually by trying to control everything.  Good job cameron a true bitcoiner.

Well UK is known for making stupid law....

Remember the early auto industry age? Automobile is so dangerous so we should make a law that require a dude to run ahead of the automobile with a flag to make sure everyone is safe.....

I believe this law was pushed forward via the railway and horse-drawn carriage industries. It was in their best interests to suppress the automobiles as they were an obvious threat.

Bit like the banks suppressing bitcoin really.

So if I understand correctly, the British prime minister wants to ban every PGP, P2P encrypted message/data transmission application/service from UK?
How exactly is he going to do that? 

I don't think he's figured that part out yet.  And even if he did, what's to stop terrorists making their plans outside of the UK, using whatever encrypted services they like, then coming into the UK to carry out the plan?  He's just a gibbering idiot who needs a slap across his giant shiny face.  Let's see how long the list of reasons why he's wrong is now...

1. It's not actually possible to ban an entire branch of mathematics
2. Even if it were, nefarious people could still use encrypted messages outside of the country
3. It's duplicitous when they're trying to cripple FOI requests and deleting their own documents so the public can't find out what they're getting up to
4. The UK economy relies on encryption and the Tories are desperately trying (but failing) to paint themselves as a party we can trust with the economy (but we don't)
5. The business sectors who tend to rely most on encryption, which he would leave alone, are the ones who pay the most towards his election campaigns, so more double standards there
6. He's undermining his own security and intelligence agency because they want to educate the public about encryption and recognise the benefits to the UK economy
7. It's a blatant underhand attempt to sneak towards increased authoritarianism and no one in their right mind is going to allow that
8. He's a moronic moonfaced cockwomble who needs to be fired out of a cannon into the sun

Anyone got anything else?

It's a telegram client, but much more superior and pretty much the most innovative messenger around. The perfect messenger for a crypto enhousiast.

In the same way you ban drugs.  You cant actually stop people using/distributing drugs, but you can make it illegal.

So whilst an individual might take the risk, a legit company would not.  Google would have to block apps in the UK play store that don't comply.

Unfortunately most people haven't got a clue, and anything that will "stop terrorists" must be a good thing.  In reality, companies will follow the profits, even if that means having to comply.

He cannot stop terrorists from using secure communications by banning them.
I think it's an excuse so that they can eavesdrop on everyone more freely (and legally), much like the NSA does.
Speaking of which, didn't the U.S. do something similar with the NSA?
I think they made a new law after the September 11 incident.

Government agencies have to fight for their budgets. The only way to survive, and expand is to lean on politicians.

The NSA and GCHQ are under threat, because of the ever increasing use of encryption, which reduces their roll, and thus budget.

This is about jobs, and expense accounts. What better way to keep the good times going, by scaring people. All part of the toolkit to manipulate politicians and popular opinion.

I second this, but as from the articles, it seems they are just trying to censor its people. They want to invade on their privacy hence the banning of things that involve encryption and privacy.

Indeed that is exactly what it is.
Wasn't there an issue with the FBI saying that Apple and Samsung are making their job difficult with the new phone encryption?



Yeah, but the average Joe doesn't mind because they don't understand or know about these things.
The ones who know and respect their privacy will not stop using encryption, which means that the ban is an absolute fail before it's even imposed.

http://www.yes-minister.com/images/oth_humphreycup.jpg
"There has been some way to measure success in the Service. British Leyland [car manufacture] can measure success by the size of its profits. However, the Civil Service does not make profits or losses. Ergo, we measure success by the size of our staff and our budget. By definition a big department is more successful than a small one."  -- Sir Humphrey Appleby

There's a couple of quid in line already for the Sir Humphreys: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33469450

i had a question about this potential banning of encryption, i bet the ban is only for civilian applications most likely corporations, government and military can still use encryption.

What ever happened to bbm these days?

This and similar things show that if you are not the only owner of your encryption keys then governments can oblige (threaten) companies to reveal your secrets. I used to love BBM, but when something like this comes up, I don't know whom to trust.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-08-02/news/33001399_1_blackberry-enterprise-encryption-keys-corporate-emails

Highlights taken from an article writen 3Hrs ago, gives decent wrap on situation:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/11736230/Will-WhatsApp-really-be-banned-in-the-UK.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/11736230/Will-WhatsApp-really-be-banned-in-the-UK.html)

" Home Secretary Theresa May has announced that a draft for a new Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) will be published in the Autumn, with a view to introducing a Bill early in the New Year, or by December 2016 at the latest.

DRIPA builds on the proposals put forward in the Communications Data Bill – better known as the "Snooper's Charter" – which was first introduced to parliament in May 2012, but blocked at the last minute by the Liberal Democrats under the coalition government.

The Communications Data Bill proposed that communications service providers should store all details of online communication in the UK – including the time, duration, sender and recipient of a communication, and the location of the device from which it was made – for 12 months. "

"If the legislation is passed, Whatsapp, Snapchat, iMessage and other popular apps that use end-to-end encryption will be forced to hand over messages to intelligence agencies, if the sender of those messages is under suspicion. If they refuse, they could potentially be banned in the UK. "

"WhatsApp, and its parent company Facebook, declined to comment on whether they would be willing to concede to the UK government's demands for data. However, Facebook already receives thousands of UK government requests for user data, and complies with about 75pc of them. "

"Given Facebook's policy on complying with government data requests, WhatsApp is likely to end up complying too – although there is bound to be plenty of debate before that happens. Ultimately, the government knows that banning WhatsApp in the UK would be a PR disaster, so it will no doubt do its best to reach a compromise. "


Cheers for those who posted WhatsApp alternates, good to know there are plenty of others out there - We'll have to see what happens when this "Charter" comes into effect (September-December 2015). For now we'll press on ahead with setting up a Ltd for our BTC business in UK and evaluate compliance/migrating business to another jurisdiction if we need to.  

It's irritating but then again not the end of the world. When Whatsapp was released it was one of the only free fast and secure messaging services offered. It became widely accepted and it became the new best communications application. There have been many companies who have used what Whatsapp have created and have implemented newer and better features such as telegram. If the government do manage to block Whatsapp then another application will take its place and so on. The government can fight but this is a war they'll never win. To be honest, I highly doubt that this will result in anything. Whatsapp will stay as it has always been.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/31/theresa-may-backtracks-on-internet-snooping

They've backed down on the idea now. I guess it was explained to them that it wasn't viable. Let's see what idea pops into their heads now.

Unless they make it illegal to use all VPNs and P2P networks, I would love to see them try.

GCHQ have secret agenda..
one agenda is to tell people their lives are at risk, purely to gain permission to get hacked..
but we all know if we opened our front doors there are no terrorists in our gardens.. infact over the last 15 years only 3000 out of 65million have been affected.
(more have died due to poverty related suicides, but government wont protect that!)

imagine it.. 40,000 died because of UK government in 3 years.. but 1000 died and 2000 injured due to terrorists in 15 years..
proves that social security is twisted the wrong way round..

so by GCHQ informing people to use encryption, their intention and agenda is to then use that as the excuse to then say that hacking is then needed as the way to get around encryption..

You are forgetting about North Korea. And there are many other places where bitcoin is not seen as good invention either. We are not even aware how our lives are being monitored and tinkered with on daily basis.
There not that much needed to shut down bitcoin or seriously crippled its potential.

I get the impression the idea is to try passing as much authoritarian legislation as possible before they get thrown out.  I'm sure we'll be revisiting this issue again in the not-too-distant future.  They'll probably bundle it in with TTIP and try again with that.  Vile, devious parasites.

They tried openly getting it through a few times. Now that's failed they will probably try to sneak it in without anyone noticing. It could work if they do it gradually and disguise any new legislation as if it's for something completely unrelated to snooping. They will just get it in through the back door.

How would they do it? There've already been cases in the US like Apple telling the authorities they couldn't let them into encrypted stuff even if they wanted to. I think the government may finally have listened to the people they pay to actually tell them useful facts.

Perhaps you're right, I don't know how they would do it, but they have clever people working for them who must be considering it. Just because I can't think of a sneaky way of doing it doesn't mean they can't.

It's quite possible they're using the civil liberties reason to cover up the fact that their experts have told them that it would effectively destroy modern finance and commerce as we know it.

Either way there are thousands of very vigilant people scanning for this type of thing. Even if they did try and sneak it out it would blow up immediately.

Exactly! I feel like lately the government really hinders the growth of many technologies. Luckily in Australia they seem a little more accepting. Which is a nice thing. I mean they actually are now allowing bitcoin to be used in businesses.

That would be awesome, an attempt to make VPns and P2P networks illegal. So much fun!

In any case, IMHO this story is simply ridiculous


Orwell's 1984 was nothing compared to what he says
 ;D

Next up:
blanket ban on whispering
pillowtalk!
ban on talking inside your car with closed windows?

jesus.

Worse, actually.  Next up on the tory-to-do-list is scrapping the Human Rights Act (https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act).  Things like the right to free speech and peaceful protest, or protection against forced labour are all about to come under threat.

One day these old farts will be out of office and away from our internet. :) :)

The funny thing is... many of these idiots are pointing a finger at China and other nations, but they are now trying to do the same thing. They know people are getting fed up

with them, and they want to curb communication over encrypted media, because they cannot follow these communications. You cannot travel in Londen without being tracked.

The stupidity behind this policy is bonkers... Do not implement some policy that would weaken your civilians right to privacy and give them the reason not to vote for you in the

next election.  ::)

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/may/22/edward-snowden-rights-to-privacy-video (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/may/22/edward-snowden-rights-to-privacy-video)

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/ (http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/)