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

121–130 of 236 posts

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

#121

Post by adventured »

logfromblammo wrote: post #64
bitwize wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one would actually send random noise as a message, so the law would assume that comnunications which look like random noise are, prima facie , encrypted comms and something the police have a right to see in cleartext.

The folks at https://www.random.org/ and similar true-randomness providers would beg to differ. They do, in fact, have a paid service to deliver what appears to be random noise as a message, then store that noise in their archive for subsequent re-verification. I recall seeing videos of lava lamps and handfuls of d6 dice on a vibrating table, broadcast live over the internet, purely for their utility as potential sou…

Given the scenario in question, that only helps you at layer one of the surveillance process and only for a very brief time. You're now a suspect to be watched intricately.

At layer two, they begin digging into your life, tapping everything they can, following you, and most likely eventually getting a warrant or equivalent to enter your home and seize your property. There's no scenario under which you don't break some arbitrary law, given enough time, at which point you're done.

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

#122

Post by tjl »

hobs wrote: post #69
blowski wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, because complaining about intrusions on our privacy and how ineffective they are, has become de rigeur on HN and Reddit without much dissent. There clearly is a security problem in Europe at the moment, and I'm assuming that the attacks are not being organised by the security services. So will this bill reduce, increase or have no effect on the attacks? If not, then what would…

Likely no impact, because no facility on earth has the capacity to filter and find information on this scale, especially when simple techniques are employed to hide the meaning of communication. The methods needed to reduce attacks (geopolitical unrest resolved) is probably not within the capacity of the police forces we have, and even pretty good safety is so expensive no one is willing to pay for it (even if we did…

Back in the 90s, I was doing telecommunications standards and one operator proposed storing all the performance information right on the optical switches. Given that a large amount of performance metrics were being generated every second, the vendors all had looks of horror on their face. Seeing that nobody else from a vendor was going to speak up, I calmly explained just what he was asking for. We could theoretically do it, but the cost would be massive. He promptly dropped the proposal.

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

#123

Post by tombrossman »

shostack wrote: post #67
LinuxBender wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. Every time I bring that up, I get down-voted due to the cognitive dissonance that folks have with their fondle-slabs. Now people are being conditioned to think it's normal for their microphone to always be on.

Are there any good low-tech ways to disable them similar to tape over the camera? Not sure if tape alone would be sufficient to block audio.

Depending on the handset model, you can open one up and physically remove (or disable) the mic, and use it with a wired headset that you plug in when you want to make or receive a call.

Admittedly it is a bit drastic, but low-tech and very effective.

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

#124

Post by blowski »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #108
slg wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking this logic a step further, what is the effect of this intrusion on privacy? Is it a philosophical problem or a real world problem? To borrow a tech phrase, are we talking about free as in speech or beer? I think that is the stage in the debate that convinces most normal people. Losing privacy of their gmail account to some faceless government entity is a theoretical problem that has no real impact on their liv…

> Terrorism on the other hand is a real world problem with easy to see consequences. No, it's not. Just as the risks of loss of privacy are much higher than generally perceived, the risks of terrorism are much lower than generally perceived. Terrorism is perceived as a problem, but it really isn't, in most parts of Europe. Car crashes are a real world problem. Terrorism isn't. (Now, I am obviously not saying that gov…

> Terrorism is perceived as a problem, but it really isn't, in most parts of Europe

Perhaps that's because the security services are doing such a fantastic job. To make sure it's not a problem in all of Europe and make sure no more children die, they can't fight the war with hands behind their backs.

This is not what I believe, but it is how the argument gets phrased. How do you beat it? Not by extolling the virtues of end-to-end encryption and the importance of your civil liberties, that's for sure.

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

#125

Post by slg »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #108
slg wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking this logic a step further, what is the effect of this intrusion on privacy? Is it a philosophical problem or a real world problem? To borrow a tech phrase, are we talking about free as in speech or beer? I think that is the stage in the debate that convinces most normal people. Losing privacy of their gmail account to some faceless government entity is a theoretical problem that has no real impact on their liv…

> Terrorism on the other hand is a real world problem with easy to see consequences. No, it's not. Just as the risks of loss of privacy are much higher than generally perceived, the risks of terrorism are much lower than generally perceived. Terrorism is perceived as a problem, but it really isn't, in most parts of Europe. Car crashes are a real world problem. Terrorism isn't. (Now, I am obviously not saying that gov…

You are thinking of this in a vacuum and not as part of a political debate. When a politician mentions terrorism, there are coffins and mourning families to point to as victims. That is what I mean be "real" problem. It isn't about risk or pure numbers. It is about concrete effects that are easy to see and understand. What does the politician who is pro-encryption point to as a victim? If the answer is The Constitution or any other abstract ideal, you already lost the hearts and minds of the general population.

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

#126

Post by astronautjones »

tasqa wrote: post #111
Blahah wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate you're playing devil's advocate, so I'm holding back. "There's a security problem in Europe at the moment". What are you talking about? The number of people harmed in terrorism-related events in Europe in any given year is dwarfed by the number of people who harm themselves by accident or stupidity in those same countries. And dwarfed to an even greater extent by the number of people killed by police in…

I simply cannot upvote your comment enough. Very consise and to the point IMHO.

Indeed, you've put it better than most have. The voice of reason seems to be getting drowned out more each day

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

#127

Post by mark_l_watson »

3v3rt wrote: post #38

Interesting to see that at the same time the EU privacy watch dog is proposing to mandate encryption and outlaw these kind of decryption methodologies[0]. While still an opinion, it is good to see that in this area the EU is among the most progressive governments around. [0] https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/sha...

Interesting indeed. I thought it peculiar that the UK government released the Tony Blair report just before the BRexit vote. That report certainly got many people riled up about the 'establishment' and possibly could have changed the BRexit voting result. My point is that if the UK had stayed in the EU then the UK surveillance bill might have been dead in the water because it might have comflicted with EU law.

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

#128

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

blowski wrote: post #124
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Terrorism on the other hand is a real world problem with easy to see consequences. No, it's not. Just as the risks of loss of privacy are much higher than generally perceived, the risks of terrorism are much lower than generally perceived. Terrorism is perceived as a problem, but it really isn't, in most parts of Europe. Car crashes are a real world problem. Terrorism isn't. (Now, I am obviously not saying that gov…

> Terrorism is perceived as a problem, but it really isn't, in most parts of Europe Perhaps that's because the security services are doing such a fantastic job. To make sure it's not a problem in all of Europe and make sure no more children die, they can't fight the war with hands behind their backs. This is not what I believe, but it is how the argument gets phrased. How do you beat it? Not by extolling the virtues…

Which wouldn't change that they obviously don't need more powers to do a fantastic job.

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

#129

Post by justincormack »

blowski wrote: post #97
yandie wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide the source of your data about the risk of dying?

For most of the last 20 years, fatalities in terrorist attacks in (Western) Europe were in single figures. There were three exceptions - the Madrid trains in 2004, London bombings in 2005, and the Oslo shootings in 2011. See http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/11/daily-c... Last year, that increased to around 100, this time based on 2 attacks (both in Paris, France). So far this year, there have been ne…

We are back in Europe to the average level of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s in terms of deaths with far fewer attacks, after a reduction in the 2000s though http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-pe...

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

#130

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

slg wrote: post #125
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Terrorism on the other hand is a real world problem with easy to see consequences. No, it's not. Just as the risks of loss of privacy are much higher than generally perceived, the risks of terrorism are much lower than generally perceived. Terrorism is perceived as a problem, but it really isn't, in most parts of Europe. Car crashes are a real world problem. Terrorism isn't. (Now, I am obviously not saying that gov…

You are thinking of this in a vacuum and not as part of a political debate. When a politician mentions terrorism, there are coffins and mourning families to point to as victims. That is what I mean be "real" problem. It isn't about risk or pure numbers. It is about concrete effects that are easy to see and understand. What does the politician who is pro-encryption point to as a victim? If the answer is The Constituti…

Yeah, I am not denying that it's perceived by many people as a real problem. I am just saying that it actually isn't. Which also means that these effects aren't actually easy to understand. It's easy to be mistaken about them. That's the problem.

Not accepting this misleading framing is an important step in addressing the wishes of the population for totalitarianism.

Post reply on HN