Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 236 posts

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#11

Post by vidarh »

sklivvz1971 wrote: post #6

It's such a pointless war on its own law-abiding citizens. It makes me sad. People that really care about privacy, people who need to hide what they do will not be majorly impacted. * The main threat is metadata anyways, not the data itself. Locating where you are (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition) is a much worse threat. * They will still use full disk encryption, free software, PGP or AES, etc.…

I agree with most of what you wrote. Just one comment:

> (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition)

The vast majority of CCTV in the UK is not networked, and owned by small private companies (e.g. your local corner store), and rarely store data long enough to be of use to anyone unless something sufficiently serious happens to cause a request to be made quickly.

While there are areas covered by networked, government operated cameras, they are not the norm.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#12

Post by pdkl95 »

vidarh wrote: post #11
sklivvz1971 wrote: post #6

It's such a pointless war on its own law-abiding citizens. It makes me sad. People that really care about privacy, people who need to hide what they do will not be majorly impacted. * The main threat is metadata anyways, not the data itself. Locating where you are (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition) is a much worse threat. * They will still use full disk encryption, free software, PGP or AES, etc.…

I agree with most of what you wrote. Just one comment: > (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition) The vast majority of CCTV in the UK is not networked, and owned by small private companies (e.g. your local corner store), and rarely store data long enough to be of use to anyone unless something sufficiently serious happens to cause a request to be made quickly. While there are areas covered by networked,…

> not networked

They will be once they upgrade to the "Internet of Things".

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#13

Post by forgotpwtomain »

sklivvz1971 wrote: post #6

It's such a pointless war on its own law-abiding citizens. It makes me sad. People that really care about privacy, people who need to hide what they do will not be majorly impacted. * The main threat is metadata anyways, not the data itself. Locating where you are (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition) is a much worse threat. * They will still use full disk encryption, free software, PGP or AES, etc.…

> TLDR: useless and damaging.

You are assuming security against terrorism etc. was the main goal. I think that's completely not the case. There are no facts that support that mass-surveillance or measures compromising encryption have ever been effective at saving lives.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#15

Post by superuser2 »

wheaties wrote: post #8

If I want to keep my communications encrypted online, I'm going to do so. The only people who won't have the same luxury as me are those that follow the law. I don't get it.

If encrypted communications are illegal, then anyone using them is an automatic target for investigation and the encryption itself may be probable cause to open up their lives and property.

It's considerably more difficult to conceal the fact of encryption on the wire than (say) a gun in your home.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#16

Post by golemotron »

zeveb wrote: post #3

> 'If we do not provide for access to encrypted communications when it is necessary and proportionate to do so then we must simply accept that there can be areas online beyond the reach of the law.' Yes, yes we must accept that, since it's reality. Queen Elizabeth can no more hold back encrypted communications than King Canute could hold back the tide.

It's a re-balancing. Before electronic bugs every park and pub had conversations that were completely beyond the reach of the law. And that's ok. We used to call that liberty.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#17

Post by themartorana »

saulrh wrote: post #5

> “Doors are now almost ubiquitous and are the default for most houses and buildings. If we do not provide for access to people's bathrooms when it is necessary and proportionate to do so then we must simply accept that there can be rooms beyond the reach of the law,” There are well-established and functional methods for extending law into areas that you can't see all the time. You don't need to ban encryption, in ex…

Or how you don't have to ban virus scanners on Windows just in case UK spooks want to run a virus on your computer because no safe spaces for terrorists.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#18

Post by arethuza »

watbe wrote: post #9
sklivvz1971 wrote: post #6

It's such a pointless war on its own law-abiding citizens. It makes me sad. People that really care about privacy, people who need to hide what they do will not be majorly impacted. * The main threat is metadata anyways, not the data itself. Locating where you are (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition) is a much worse threat. * They will still use full disk encryption, free software, PGP or AES, etc.…

It provides a sort of scapegoat for attacks. The government can't be seen as doing nothing against the threat of terrorism, so when the adversary uses encryption to cover their tracks, the government can point and say 'we did our best to outlaw their method of communication'.

The "Politician's syllogism":

We must do something

This is something

Therefore, we must do this.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#19

Post by 1_2__3 »

fweespeech wrote: post #2

Has the UK lost their god damned minds? I'm sorry but between this and everything else lately...they seem pretty committed to "Security at any economic and/or personal cost! Security for everyone!" In the real world, that never works.

I feel like the UK is showing us what happens when the western world enters the information age without the protections and focus on individual freedoms some other countries have (not just the US, although of course they're high on the list).

In many ways we're seeing history play out all over again - new, disruptive thing shows up, governments wet themselves in terror, and try to control it. The difference is what happens now; in the US this tends (excluding drugs) to lead slowly towards a more nuanced position where the reigns are gradually loosened. In the UK that seems to never happen, the arrow of control and government intrusion only ever points in one direction. It's very puzzling; I'm not sure what the source of it is but I think it's going to be a serious issue in the future. Specifically as the rest of the world forges ahead, either through the evolving view of attempting to control of the uncontrollable, or through sheer lawlessness in other countries where the control is never in place. In the middle will be the UK, clinging desperately to the belief that (as someone else in the thread put it) they can hold back the tide.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#20

Post by nxzero »

vidarh wrote: post #11
sklivvz1971 wrote: post #6

It's such a pointless war on its own law-abiding citizens. It makes me sad. People that really care about privacy, people who need to hide what they do will not be majorly impacted. * The main threat is metadata anyways, not the data itself. Locating where you are (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition) is a much worse threat. * They will still use full disk encryption, free software, PGP or AES, etc.…

I agree with most of what you wrote. Just one comment: > (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition) The vast majority of CCTV in the UK is not networked, and owned by small private companies (e.g. your local corner store), and rarely store data long enough to be of use to anyone unless something sufficiently serious happens to cause a request to be made quickly. While there are areas covered by networked,…

UK is being watched by a network of 1.85m CCTV cameras.

EDIT: Curious how stating a fact is worth downvotes. What am I missing?

Post reply on HN