LJ 2008-10-17 13:45:00

Oct 17th, 2008 | Filed under LiveJournal Import


I think I’d have to say that Geoff Hoon is a fucking nutcase.

She asked: “How much more control can they have? How far is he prepared to go to undermine civil liberties?”

Mr Hoon interjected: “To stop terrorists killing people in our society, quite a long way actually.”

“If they are going to use the internet to communicate with each other and we don’t have the power to deal with that, then you are giving a licence to terrorists to kill people.”

I’m sorry, what..?

Oh, but he goes on..

“The biggest civil liberty of all is not to be killed by a terrorist.”


This sort of bullshit makes me want to get back to designing ways of encrypting e-mails in such a way as to render them unreadable. The law can require that a person give up any encryption keys or passwords or similar on request, which means you have to think of ways in which to come up with keyless encryption methods which require some other means of decoding the e-mail.. It’s not easy, but that’s half the fun of it..

And obviously this has done nothing to hinder my belief that Julia Goldsworthy is the most awesome woman in politics..

But seriously.. What is this guy on? How do you equate the loss of civil liberties felt by all people with the loss of life that managed to hit 52 people several years ago? I’m not saying that 52 lives lost is acceptable, but in the grand scheme of things, I would imagine that more people have choked on toast in the UK in the last decade than have been killed by Islamic extremists… Where is the toast database?

Geoff Hoon was a nutjob when he was in charge of the military, and at least he’s kept himself consistent.. I am, however, confused as to how he still manages to work in government given his terrible mental disorder…

  1. redvard
    Oct 17th, 2008 at 12:56
    Reply | Quote | #1

    who is that broken man?

  2. Mike
    Oct 17th, 2008 at 13:59
    Reply | Quote | #2

    A keyless encryption system? Good luck with that :)

    You could look toward something vaguely stegonographic. An idea would be you have some ciphertext which, when deciphered, yields some plain text (maybe something innocuous like “please pick up some milk next chance you get”) and a large binary blob of seemingly random data. That random data may just be random data, or it may be ciphertext. If it is ciphertext, it could be deciphered with a different key that yields more plain text and another binary blob of seemingly random data. Again, that new binary blob of seemingly random data may be just that, or it could be further ciphertext.

    The authorities would have no idea how many “levels” they would have to dig through and thus would have no idea how many keys they would have to get from you. It’s the same idea as behind TrueCrypt.

    Incidentally, has anyone tested the UK law and “lost” the key? What’s the penalty for doing so?

    • James
      Oct 17th, 2008 at 14:23
      Reply | Quote | #3

      I don’t know if anybody has tested it yet..

      That TrueCrypt thing looks bloody useful.. I hadn’t really thought about going for the plausible deniability angle like that – thoughts I’ve had all involve some offshore server that operates as a sort of time-sensitive key repository, and various things like that.. On reflection, my ideas are a bit crapper than that one :o)

  3. Anna
    Oct 18th, 2008 at 15:25
    Reply | Quote | #4

    Hoon has always been crazy.
    I may be in the minority, but personally I’d prefer to die a free person than live in a ‘safe’ society with limited civil liberties.
    I know it’s one of the biggest clichés ever, but I do believe that when a government goes to extremes and denies people’s basic rights then it’s a win for the terrorists.