Re: [perpass] India withdraws encryption policy - Re: India posed to require cleartext, cleartext retention, cipher and backdoor mandates

On 22/09/15 10:57, Dan York wrote:
> There was a significant amount of public outcry yesterday within
> India and the latest news is that the government of India is
> apparently withdrawing the draft policy:
> 

That was quick. Optimistically, it is good to see common sense
breaking out a bit. And that maybe today's widespread use of TLS
for very widely used services sort of protects crypto generally
by making it more obviously a bad idea to muck with the internals.
We here can continue to help improve that last part.

A more pessimistic speculation would be this was a proposal some
local securocrats [1] had sitting in a filing cabinet ready to be
pulled out whenever they figured it was politically opportune. This
time, they forgot to sanity-check that the content was still ok
today before showing it off. Maybe they picked the wrong moment as
well, not sure, but they definitely didn't do the sanity checks.
In that case, they'd likely do better next time.

It'd be mildly interesting if someone were to analyse the content
to estimate when it might originally have been written.

Cheers,
S.

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/securocrat

> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Government-withdraws-draft-of-encryption-policy/articleshow/49057232.cms
>
>  Prior to that the government agency involved had already issued an
> update saying that the draft policy would NOT apply to TLS in web
> commerce and social media, messaging, etc.  The update document seems
> to have been removed, but is captured here by a news site:
> 
> http://www.medianama.com/2015/09/223-india-draft-encryption-policy/
> 
> Dan
> 
> On Sep 21, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Stephen Farrell
> <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie<mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Sheesh, there is so much wrong in that document. And they top it off
> by recommending RC4.
> 
> Does anyone know if this is a policy that is likely to be enforced or
> one that'd be more honoured in the breach?
> 
> S.
> 
> On 21/09/15 17:45, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: Obviously, of relevance
> to those that will be at the IAB MARNEW workshop this week (although
> this isn't in any way specific to radio networks).
> 
> * Everyone (all individuals and businesses) using encryption must 
> store unencrypted content for 90 days * Government will dictate
> algorithms and key sizes * Possibility of a legally mandated
> backdoor
> 
> Article from Daily Dot: 
> http://www.dailydot.com/politics/india-encryption-backdoors-draft-policy/
>
>  Text of the proposal (comments due 16 Oct.): 
> https://info.publicintelligence.net/IN-DraftEncryptionPolicy.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list 
> perpass@ietf.org<mailto:perpass@ietf.org> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
> 
> -- Dan York Senior Content Strategist, Internet Society 
> york@isoc.org<mailto:york@isoc.org>   +1-802-735-1624 Jabber:
> york@jabber.isoc.org<mailto:york@jabber.isoc.org> Skype: danyork
> http://twitter.com/danyork
> 
> http://www.internetsociety.org/<http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/>
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list 
> perpass@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
> 