>>>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30778424
>>>>
>>>>David Cameron: 'There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read."'
>>>>
>>>>Cryptography vs. Politicians, Act XXXVII ...
>>>
>>>When we have friendly governments spying on the heads of state of other friendly governments does anyone really still think the privacy of our own communications will be respected in anyway whatsoever? They are just putting into the law books what they have already been doing. Plus the usual soap-boxing and grandstanding on the back of the most recent events.
>>
>>I think you're missing the point. Currently, if you communicate with me using encryption, GCHQ et. al. can say "Aw shoot, we can't read that one" or demand the key(s) from you to let them read it. Although, in the latter case I believe there are ways to encrypt communications such that the users never know the keys.
>>
>>The new proposal is that your act of communicating with me using encryption is an offence, unless the government already has the keys.
>
>I see, in which case this is worse than I thought. However, there are still ways I can communicate with others, over the internet, without anyone knowing that I am communicating, encrypted or not, or at least difficult to know if the communication is encrypted or contains a secondary message. Furthermore, as you say, I can send messages encrypted which I myself cannot decrypt, only the recipient can.
>
>In addition, such suggested laws would require proxy servers/software to become illegal too as they bypass the ability of your ISP to track your surfing / internet traffic or they would require the proxy server company to keep logs and report content which totally obviates the purpose of proxy servers.
>
>So my point is that techniques to bypass having your communications eavesdropped on exist. The baddies know them too. Therefore who do these surveillance laws really affect? Not the baddies (or not exclusively) but everyone, innocent/relevant or not. These laws intrude on everyone and diminish everyone's liberties. My point in that respect still stands. We are well on the slippery slope.

Sure thing. Cameron's "thinking" seems to be "Let's outlaw encryption, and then the only people using encryption will be outlaws". Sound familiar? ;-)