EXCLUSIVE: Home Office Quietly Drops ‘Silly’ Proposals to ban Encryption Devices

An encryption message is seen on the WhatsApp application on an iPhone in Manchester, England on March 27, 2017. (Reuters/Phil Noble)

The Home Office has quietly dropped widely heralded plans to ban “sophisticated encryption devices” following a consultation which resulted in significant pushback from the business community and those in the cyber security industry.

Encryption devices are phones or tablets built with, or have software uploaded, which ensures that messages sent or received by them cannot be decoded by anyone but the user.

Although law enforcement agencies argue that criminals use encryption, there are also many legitimate reasons why business people, celebrities and even political figures might need to send and receive encrypted messages.

In the spring of 2020 French law enforcement hacked into the EncroChat server and shared information with Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA) and police forces all over the UK, leading to the arrest of 2,800 people in the UK and the conviction of hundreds of drug smugglers and other criminals.

EncroChat devices looked like regular android phones—specifically BQ Aquaris X2 handsets, made by a legitimate Spanish company—but had been uploaded with the EncroChat software which meant that when a special PIN number was entered they operated on the encrypted network.

The NCA urged the Home Office to ban encryption devices altogether and in January this year the government launched a consultation about making a new law which would make it an offence to, “supply, offer to supply and possession of” new technology where there was “strong suspicion” it was being used for serious crime.

Related Stories

‘Innocent Until Forced to Plead Guilty’: EncroChat Accused and Families Describe Pressure to Buckle

1/3/2023

Encrypted Email Service Denies Accused RCMP Leaker’s Claim It Has Intelligence Ties

11/13/2023

The four articles identified were pill presses, digital templates for the 3D printing of firearms, hidden compartments in vehicles, and “sophisticated encryption devices.”

But while three of the four were identified in a ministerial statement by Policing Minister Chris Philp on Tuesday, there was no mention of banning encryption devices, which were also omitted from the King’s Speech.

The section on the Criminal Justice Bill mentioned, “banning articles that are used to commit serious and organised crime like templates for 3D printed firearm components, SIM farms, pill presses, and signal jammers used in vehicle theft” but there was no mention of encryption devices.

The decision to drop a ban on encryption devices, if confirmed, will be a blow to the NCA’s director general, Graeme Biggar, who said in January, “It is vital that we can disrupt the criminals seeking to use specialist technology and other customised products to manufacture and conceal drugs and firearms, share child abuse images or plan people smuggling activity.”

NCA Wanted ‘Full Range of Legislative Tools’

“UK law enforcement bodies must also be able to use the full range of legislative tools to prevent serious and organised crime, and deter the perpetrators,” added Mr. Biggar.

Last month the Metropolitan Police said the smashing of EncroChat was “the most significant operation targeting organised crime figures” in the history of the force, although the NCA’s actions remain shrouded in controversy with a number of people claiming they were wrongly identified as being EncroChat users and were pressured to plead guilty.

Since EncroChat was broken, law enforcement agencies globally have also taken down SkyECC and AnOm, leading to hundreds more arrests and criminal investigations.

Campaigners against the National Crime Agency's use of data hacked from EncroChat by French police protest outside the Old Bailey in London on May 27, 2022. (Chris Summers/The Epoch Times)

But there are also many legitimate and non-criminal reasons why people use encryption.

It is understood the Home Office dropped the ban after realising “encrypted technologies” were already widespread in the cyber security industry, which raised “significant concerns” about how law enforcement could “identify those devices which should be considered as dedicated for criminal conduct.”

“We do not want to risk unintentionally criminalising lawful activity,” a Home Office source told The Epoch Times.

Tim Weiss, managing director of London-based DigitalBankVault.com, said he sells encryption machines and systems to CEOs, politicians and celebrities as well as journalists, human rights activists, whistleblowers and even police informants.

He said encryption was the only way they could “safeguard their communications.”

How Else Can You ‘Transfer Top Secret Files’?

Mr. Weiss told The Epoch Times: “How else can they transfer top secret files, communicate important information, and so on? Without ultra-encrypted communication systems, how can leading bankers cyber defend their mobile data?”

He said, “It’s true that criminals and terrorist organisations may use it too, but powerful people need it desperately and that’s the reason why they didn’t continue with this silly legislation.”

Mr. Weiss added, “All cyber security is based on strong encryption so what they expect to drop cyber security just like that?”

The Global Encryption Coalition—which represents dozens of companies and groups around the world—said last month: “Strong encryption is a critical technology that helps keep people, their information, and communications private and secure. It underpins online trust, protects members of vulnerable communities, and safeguards the data of governments, businesses, and citizens from criminals and other malicious actors.”

They added: “However, some governments and organisations are pushing to weaken encryption, which would create a dangerous precedent that compromises the security and privacy of billions of people around the world. Actions in one country that undermine encryption threaten us all.”

The Epoch Times contacted the Home Office but they declined to comment.