pilky · August 29, 2015 14:24
diff --git a/gistfile1.txt b/gistfile1.txt
 I was rather disheartened to read last night that David Cameron's ridiculous comments from before the election wanting to ban encryption may actually be put forward in a bill (http://uk.businessinsider.com/david-cameron-encryption-back-doors-iphone-whatsapp-2015-7).

 I wanted to write to you to urge you to oppose this if the government do attempt to make it law. Strong encryption is the foundation of our economy, our right to privacy and our personal and national security in a digital world. Encryption is key to ensuring that the data we store on computers or send between them is only seen by the right people.

 There are two proposals that have been floated, both of which are technically flawed (if not impossible) and could have devastating effects on our country. The first is to provide backdoors in encryption for law enforcement and security agencies, the second is to ban encryption outright. The first option is technically impossible, as any backdoor is then available to everyone and so has the same effect as having no encryption at all. 

 A good analogy for the proposals is this. Being required to provide a back door to encryption is like being required to leave a spare key for your front door somewhere in your front garden in case the police need to come in. And banning encryption entirely is like making door locks illegal. This has the effect of making everyone less safe. Suddenly the rest of the country loses their security, while criminals will still use locks anyway as they by definition don’t care about breaking the law. The same is true for encryption.

 If we were to ban encryption, then suddenly we're less safe. Pedophiles could more easily hack into your child's calendar or school timetable to find out where they will be. Blackmailers can more easily hack into your legal and medical records to find ways to extort you. Criminal gangs would have free access to your bank and credit/debit card details. Terrorists could more easily get access to sensitive information to plan attacks. Journalists and activists would be more easily silenced by those who wish to avoid transparency. 

 On top of this it would effectively kill our online retail industry, tech industry and financial industry overnight. I know that I may not be able to run my software consultancy business in the UK and may have to look at moving myself and my business to another country if encryption was banned or weakened. Many tech companies would be faced with a choice of leaving the UK market or removing encryption, which could then see requests from the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, China etc, to do the same, places where activists face torture or death if discovered.

 Banning encryption is an incredibly dangerous and technically infeasible proposal. When talking about this subject with others in the tech industry I've likened its impact on our economy and safety as equivalent to dropping a nuclear bomb in the centre of London. In an attempt to make us safer from attack, we would be left naked with a target on our backs for every terrorist, criminal gang and rogue nation who wished to exploit or hurt us. As such I hope you would oppose this if it was ever considered in parliament.

 Thanks
	I was rather disheartened to read last night that David Cameron's ridiculous comments from before the election wanting to ban encryption may actually be put forward in a bill (http://uk.businessinsider.com/david-cameron-encryption-back-doors-iphone-whatsapp-2015-7).

	I wanted to write to you to urge you to oppose this if the government do attempt to make it law. Strong encryption is the foundation of our economy, our right to privacy and our personal and national security in a digital world. Encryption is key to ensuring that the data we store on computers or send between them is only seen by the right people.

	There are two proposals that have been floated, both of which are technically flawed (if not impossible) and could have devastating effects on our country. The first is to provide backdoors in encryption for law enforcement and security agencies, the second is to ban encryption outright. The first option is technically impossible, as any backdoor is then available to everyone and so has the same effect as having no encryption at all.

	A good analogy for the proposals is this. Being required to provide a back door to encryption is like being required to leave a spare key for your front door somewhere in your front garden in case the police need to come in. And banning encryption entirely is like making door locks illegal. This has the effect of making everyone less safe. Suddenly the rest of the country loses their security, while criminals will still use locks anyway as they by definition don’t care about breaking the law. The same is true for encryption.

	If we were to ban encryption, then suddenly we're less safe. Pedophiles could more easily hack into your child's calendar or school timetable to find out where they will be. Blackmailers can more easily hack into your legal and medical records to find ways to extort you. Criminal gangs would have free access to your bank and credit/debit card details. Terrorists could more easily get access to sensitive information to plan attacks. Journalists and activists would be more easily silenced by those who wish to avoid transparency.

	On top of this it would effectively kill our online retail industry, tech industry and financial industry overnight. I know that I may not be able to run my software consultancy business in the UK and may have to look at moving myself and my business to another country if encryption was banned or weakened. Many tech companies would be faced with a choice of leaving the UK market or removing encryption, which could then see requests from the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, China etc, to do the same, places where activists face torture or death if discovered.

	Banning encryption is an incredibly dangerous and technically infeasible proposal. When talking about this subject with others in the tech industry I've likened its impact on our economy and safety as equivalent to dropping a nuclear bomb in the centre of London. In an attempt to make us safer from attack, we would be left naked with a target on our backs for every terrorist, criminal gang and rogue nation who wished to exploit or hurt us. As such I hope you would oppose this if it was ever considered in parliament.

	Thanks