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

201–210 of 236 posts

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

#201

Post by confounded »

infinity0 wrote: post #30
superuser2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Encryption is not illegal, but even if it were then everyone should still use it, because not using it reveals much more information. In a society were encryption is illegal or even seriously treated as "probable cause", then the authorities are likely to pick out anything in your day-to-day activities to use against you in an offensive legal process. So "not using encryption" is a fool's defense that makes literally…

In the UK encryption is not illegal, but possession of data believed to be encrypted, which you cannot or will not decrypt upon demand, is a crime of its own, punishable by two years imprisonment (no link to terrorism required -- 5 years maximum sentence of any link is suspected).

It needn't be the security services, or even the police; cases can be brought by the taxman. This has been the case for the last 10 years or so, the new law will extend these powers.

https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investig...

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

#202

Post by EdHominem »

blowski wrote: post #116
CWuestefeld wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think you're taking it too far. We only need to conclude that the minimal benefits from the proposal (i.e., few attackes would actually be averted) are vastly outweighed by the extreme cost to our civil liberties. There do exist more reasonable compromises. For example, we as a society have already said that you can search someone's property if you get a court order. That's a smaller cost, because the authoriti…

Other people - probably the majority of the UK population based on opinion polls and elections - weigh the balance differently. We (HN readers) are probably in the extreme minority, and we are not necessarily right.

The opinions of laymen only carries weight with those proposing idiotic solutions.

Burning down the house to kill a spider is stupid no matter how many people vote for it.

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

#203

Post by ricksplat »

krapp wrote: post #172
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 accepting that the potential for crime, even mass murder, is a necessity for a free society, and that it's better for some terrorists to succeed than for everyone to live under a government that sees all, knows all, hears all and cannot possibly be risen up against. The greater threat to life and liberty always comes from a government's response to terrorism, not from any act of terrorism itself. Trea…

On your first paragraph, that sounds like the absurdist end of the libertarian spectrum and I'd expect more moderately minded people would take some issue with that line of thinking ...

With regards to "Treat terrorism as just another crime, nothing special," I feel that the problem with terrorism, as it is called is the fact that it is coordinated and targeted. It is more like "organised crime" but it has the specific goal literally of creating terror, whereas the interests of organised crime are purely commercial and if you don't get in their way they won't get in yours.

The issue is with people going around creating terror in a coordinated way, which undermines the authority of the state, and many people's feeling of safety.

Of course that still leaves the question of how do you respond to it, but simply "accepting that the potential for crime, even mass murder, is a necessity for a free society" is similar to me to accepting that a waterfall software development model is a natural emergent phenomenon, inevitable and should thus be embraced. It's a mode of thought that never has a happy ending.

Just to yank myself back on topic again, terrorism is thought to be similar to a child who wants his way and keeps escalating negative attention seeking tactics to the point where you either acquiesce (thus reinforcing the negative behaviour), or you smack the child (at best only a temporary solution, that could lead to further escalations if not sooner, then later in life - could even put you in front of a judge).

"Smacking the child" is what the west has been trying so far.

My personal opinion is that there is no universal generalised "third option", though intricate behavioural theories abound. I would take the opinion that every child is an individual and must be dealt with, and respected as such. It may be as simple as giving them something else to occupy themselves.

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

#204

Post by cturner »

rubberstamp wrote: post #185
AdeptusAquinas wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I think your first two points are a bit harsh and don't cover the whole picture. 1) Religion is not really the problem. There are a over a billion muslims in the world, and a little more than that who are Christians. The percentage of each that are involved in violence, even major wars, is so small to be statistically insignificant (definitely less than 1% or even 0.1% (or even 0.00001% if you just consider terr…

May be there should be a constitutional requirement to put those politicians that call for war right in the front lines along with those who actually fights it. Then may be they would have an appreciation for veterans and their care, cut back on unnecessary wars as they would think hard before putting themselves in harms way rather than war mongering sitting in the luxurious comfort. Taking responsibility can put an…

There's a lot of room for innovation here, and there hasn't been much precedent for this historically.

You could have constitutional measures controlling the way that wars were funded. A simple example: simple outlaw any kind of deficit spending by the national government. Another: a mechanism by which the release of funds could be tied up under legislation supervised by a third party such as the judiciary. [You could have a war chest, but encode it in a law such that the money could only be released if a senior court ruled that the release satisfied self-defense criteria.]

One of the reasons that the original United States constitution (Articles of Confederation) was replaced by the current one was related to military funding. In the old system, it was difficult to raise an army for shared purpose (e.g. fighting the revolutionary war) and there was potential for states to go to war with one another. The issues raised by that period will be familiar to anyone following European integration projects. Some hard-line libertarians in the US remember the Articles of Confederation fondly, because of the limits it imposed on government power.

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

#205

Post by bsder »

AdeptusAquinas wrote: post #171
bsder wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hmm, I think your first two points are a bit harsh and don't cover the whole picture. 1) Religion is not really the problem. There are a over a billion muslims in the world, and a little more than that who are Christians. The percentage of each that are involved in violence, even major wars, is so small to be statistically insignificant (definitely less than 1% or even 0.1% (or even 0.00001% if you just consider terr…

> 1) Religion is not really the problem.

It very much is.

Most religions promote "us vs them" attitudes that make people think that anything can be done to the "them". The religions in the US also give birth to our "domestic terrorists" but they don't get called that because 1) they are white and 2) "Well, they just kill baby killers, fags, etc. so they kinda deserve it."

I don't see calls to deport Baptists, thank you very much.

Religion needs to finally get terminated. Period.

> but rather internal rebellions and foreign interference that is probably more political/ideological than financial in nature.

Nobody would care about most of those dictators if there wasn't enough money involved to make them important. See: Africa. Nobody really cares one iota about genocide or terrorism in Africa as it has no importance.

> though blaming 'freetrade' as the cause for unemployment and/or other financial troubles is probably a bit simplistic.

The issue isn't "freetrade" per se. It's the fact that the corporations get to be transnational while the workers don't get to cross national borders anywhere near as easily. So, the corporations get the benefits while the workers get shafted.

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

#206

Post by bsder »

spacecop wrote: post #168
bsder wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not at all ridiculous. You need to work harder if you're actually trying to troll people--I'll assume you are not, however.

1) Most modern societies are becoming increasingly secular.

2) Global warming demands that we get off of petroleum as much as possible anyway.

3) Not poking our nose into geopolitical nightmares is quite doable, thanks. Bush Sr. sure showed how it was done.

4) You can fix massive unemployment or you can get violence out of young men. This is pretty simple cause/effect. If young men have no prospects, they never settle down and you wind up with a large disgruntled population segment with nothing to lose.

5) Mental health care needs to be better. Period. This includes the young and the old.

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

#207

Post by AdeptusAquinas »

bsder wrote: post #205
AdeptusAquinas wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I think your first two points are a bit harsh and don't cover the whole picture. 1) Religion is not really the problem. There are a over a billion muslims in the world, and a little more than that who are Christians. The percentage of each that are involved in violence, even major wars, is so small to be statistically insignificant (definitely less than 1% or even 0.1% (or even 0.00001% if you just consider terr…

> 1) Religion is not really the problem. It very much is. Most religions promote "us vs them" attitudes that make people think that anything can be done to the "them". The religions in the US also give birth to our "domestic terrorists" but they don't get called that because 1) they are white and 2) "Well, they just kill baby killers, fags, etc. so they kinda deserve it." I don't see calls to deport Baptists, thank y…

I think you will find most states promote an 'us vs. them' attitude, especially in times of hardship. And conversely that both states and religions promote harmony and communion during times of plenty.

I'd argue for example that Christianity is only peaceful these days because the states that are predominantly Christian are also the most prosperous. And, if you want an example of what atheists do during times of hardship, look to soviet Russia or even Nazi Germany.

As for why middle eastern dictators matter more than African dictators to the west (basically the US), it's possibly because, on the international stage, your partially right: the middle east was initially interfered with because of its oil, but also because of its proximity to Russia. And today's conflicts are not about those reasons but the legacy of those reasons, I would say.

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

#208

Post by ricksplat »

ricksplat wrote: post #203
krapp wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is accepting that the potential for crime, even mass murder, is a necessity for a free society, and that it's better for some terrorists to succeed than for everyone to live under a government that sees all, knows all, hears all and cannot possibly be risen up against. The greater threat to life and liberty always comes from a government's response to terrorism, not from any act of terrorism itself. Trea…

On your first paragraph, that sounds like the absurdist end of the libertarian spectrum and I'd expect more moderately minded people would take some issue with that line of thinking ... With regards to "Treat terrorism as just another crime, nothing special," I feel that the problem with terrorism, as it is called is the fact that it is coordinated and targeted. It is more like "organised crime" but it has the specif…

Just on my final point, for anybody who wants to look at how terrorism has been "resolved" in the past, I highly recommend researching "The Good Friday Agreement" which was hugely successful in Northern Ireland. It involved a large amount of compromise on both sides, and the consumption of a whole heap of humble pie.

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

#210

Post by belorn »

blowski wrote: post #115
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 reason I push on this argument is that by making it, we as a community sound like we're waving away the concerns of the majority. "Oh a lorry killed loads of children? Don't worry about it love, loads more people commit suicide every year." So those who do pander to those concerns end up winning the vote, and then they can trash our civil liberties. This is precisely how we British have ended up voting to leave t…

> We need to make those people feel safe again

If we look historically, people do feel safer if people dressed like military are walking around with fake/unloaded guns. It worked very effectively after 9/11 to make people feel safe in airports, and the lack of any "real" weapons helped in eliminating the risk of having people with guns around large group of people. However that only worked as long you can keep up the illusion and keep people in the dark.

It might simply not be possible to create security that is effective, cheap, and make people feel safe.

Post reply on HN