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

161–170 of 236 posts

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

#161

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

Fiahil wrote: post #132
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. It takes 10 minutes to find a hardware store shopping list and bomb recipe. Even then, a lot of ingredients can be purchased over time without raising any flags. Buy bleach at one store and ammonia at another, say you're cleaning if anybody asks, then find a public place to mix the two. Once someone decides to kill a lot of people, it's already too late. There is no, repeat, no way to prevent every mass murde…

> say you're cleaning if anybody asks Why would anybody asks? But, your point stands: I've been absolutely amazed that nobody had blown up our (Parisian) metro at 8:30 in the morning already. If you want a maximum casualty count, just bring a bunch of stuff and shake it in a pressure cooker. Just synchronize payload over multiple lines, and boom, you got something around thousand of casualties, plus a massive panic m…

Exactly about the fear of public transportation. Terrorism is meant to terrify people. Israelites have been dealing with terrorism for decades and it's usually met with a sober reaction reminiscent of the Japanese getting the trains back to running the day after Hiroshima. Terror attacks do happen, but there is hardly the kind of freak out one might find in, say, America.

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

#163

Post by austinjp »

It's time to call this stuff out for what it is: flat out idiocy or lies. Possibly both.

Here's a brief thought to uncover why:

There are two countries. Country A has security capabilities equivalent to today's UK. Country B, equivalent to today's UK plus the proposed changes.

Could maniacs based in country B commit attacks of equivalent fatality to maniacs based in country A? Of course they could.

Could a criminal gang in country B get away with crimes of similar magnitude to a similar gang in country A? Of course they could.

Other threads here have pointed out the minimal extra effort that would be required by perpetrators, if any.

So why propose these changes, and why give the stated reasons?

Perhaps the government doesn't understand the negligible impact they'll have. This seems unlikely, although perhaps they "can't see the wood for the trees" and are getting carried away with the current xenophobic mood in the air.

Perhaps the government is showing its true colours and exercising the basic Conservative desire to deny societal evolution, by tightening control over anything new and complex.

Perhaps they've had a good hard think to the best of their abilities, and have genuinely decided this is The Best Thing To Do.

Whatever the reason, it's either founded on idiocy or couched in lies.

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

#164

Post by mark_l_watson »

Zenst wrote: post #151
mark_l_watson wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The EU referendum was on the 23rd June 2016 and the Chilcot report (as it is known formerly) was released 6th of July 2016. So those facts aside your point, do you have any conflicting EU laws in mind? I ask as currently the UK has not left and then looking at 2 years notice so any new UK law coming into play for years (due to the time to formulate them), will be complying within current EU laws and regulations. TL;D…

Thank you for the correction! I have made this cement to some friends, so I will let them know I was wrong.

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

#166

Post by carterehsmith »

inetsee wrote: post #117

I can't help but wonder how this bill, on top of Brexit, will affect the state of technology entrepreneurship in the UK. Why should an entrepreneur start up a technology business in the UK if his efforts will be hampered by politicians who have no clue about how technology actually works?

Rest assured that there are people working for the government that know more about encryption then you or I or 5,000 entrepreneurs.

For example, GCHQ came up with PKI before the people that "invented" PKI and published it.

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

#167

Post by olympusmons »

Blahah wrote: post #105
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…

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…

The first line of your response very concisely illustrates my growing unease with discussions related to privacy on hacker news.

The fact that you're having to "hold back" is sadly indicative of why debates on sensitive topics like this are turning into echo chambers. I suspect that many who hold the minority view keep quiet to avoid being yelled at.

I don't intend to take sides here. I've only ever come here to read and understand other's opinions on topics that seem too complex to tackle on my own. I have a lot of respect for this community, but sadly its becoming harder and harder to keep reading.

For example, you make some good points here but it takes tremendous effort to consider them on merit because the language in which they're expressed sounds condescending and attacking (even though you say you're holding back).

I do hope that you, and anyone else reading this, will not take this personally and instead reflect upon the virtues of more open and tolerant dialogue. And very sorry for singling you out; it's not just you.

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

#168

Post by spacecop »

bsder wrote: post #159
blowski wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is the solution? If we spend all our time arguing what the solution isn't, we leave a big vacuum which is then filled with even more garbage ideas.

The solution is to go on with your life . You cannot stop terrorism, but you can take out it's sting. We seem to have forgotten the lessons about the IRA, et al. In addition, when people say "solutions" what they mean is "something that doesn't inconvenience me or require me to do anything". However if you want "real" solutions, here are some: 1) Start denouncing ALL religion as the force for stupidity that it actual…

Tips fedora

Lol, these suggestions are ridiculous, could you possibly be more out of touch with the billions of other people that surround you

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

#169

Post by inetsee »

carterehsmith wrote: post #166
inetsee wrote: post #117

I can't help but wonder how this bill, on top of Brexit, will affect the state of technology entrepreneurship in the UK. Why should an entrepreneur start up a technology business in the UK if his efforts will be hampered by politicians who have no clue about how technology actually works?

Rest assured that there are people working for the government that know more about encryption then you or I or 5,000 entrepreneurs. For example, GCHQ came up with PKI before the people that "invented" PKI and published it.

I have no doubt that the people working for GCQH know as much as anybody about encryption. The question is, are they smart enough to convince buyers that encryption with backdoors is secure against hackers. Because if buyers don't believe encryption with backdoors is secure, they won't buy it. If the buyers won't buy it, it's going to be very hard for entrepreneurs to succeed in selling it.

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

#170

Post by jknoepfler »

olympusmons wrote: post #167
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…

The first line of your response very concisely illustrates my growing unease with discussions related to privacy on hacker news. The fact that you're having to "hold back" is sadly indicative of why debates on sensitive topics like this are turning into echo chambers. I suspect that many who hold the minority view keep quiet to avoid being yelled at. I don't intend to take sides here. I've only ever come here to read…

Reasonable argumentation is a precious social resource that we should cultivate, promote, and protect. I think you express a view common to many here, and I hope this forum is able to continue fostering a culture of reasonable disagreement over combative, substanceless posturing. I happen to agree with the commenter you responded to on many points, but also found the presentation combative rather than constructive. I second your appeal to use more precise language, although I sympathize with the anger implicit in the poster's comment.
Post reply on HN