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

211–220 of 236 posts

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

#211

Post by [deleted] »

nine_k wrote: post #48
forgotpwtomain wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How about illegal drugs trade? Well, literally anything, including planning a murder or even a burglary. Noble goals, aren't they? And, of course, political insurgency, mass disobeyance, etc, etc — just as a side effect. What the powers that be try to sell us is security without compromises. Security above all, no matter the price (as long as it makes the powers more powerful). I think there is a real value in lower…

[deleted]

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

#212

Post by maze-le »

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…

> Most religions promote "us vs them" attitudes

That is right, but I suspect, that if it weren't for religion, people would find another narrative, to create a "us vs them" attitude. Nationalism is an example that comes without religion, racism is another, and I suspect a plentitude of isms, that can be used for that.

I think, religion is mereley a vector for marginalization, not the problem in itself.

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

#213

Post by maze-le »

wildmusings wrote: post #154
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 appreciate you're playing devil's advocate, so I'm holding back. And if his views were genuine, would you then be rude? I find this implication troubling and corrosive to open discussion. > It is the media attention given to the situation, not the situation itself, that is terrifying. Europe is extremely safe and does not have a security problem. I couldn't disagree more. If such incidents were rare two decades a…

> If such incidents were rare two decades ago and increasingly common today, then clearly something is going wrong

That is just plainly wrong. In the 70ies, 80ies and early 90ies we had more terrorists and more terrorist attacks, that killed people. There was the (P)IRA in Northern Ireland, the ETA in Spain, the FLNC in France and the RAF in Germany, and these were only the most notorious groups. All of them laid down their arms and integrated into civil political groups in the past 40 years.

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

#214

Post by ionised »

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…

It's not one person's privacy though, it's everybody's privacy.

And yes, that is more important than a vague attempt at reducing terrorism because your privacy is your liberty and without it democracy and free society crumbles.

Which ironically, is pretty much what islamic extremists want.

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

#215

Post by RazerM »

AdeptusAquinas wrote: post #207
bsder wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hard…

> And, if you want an example of what atheists do during times of hardship, look to soviet Russia or even Nazi Germany.

There's nothing about being an atheist that promotes hatred. There isn't a holy text for Atheism that tells people to believe or do things.

Besides, it's a tired argument without merit: https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/the-a...

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

#216

Post by nxzero »

CarolineW wrote: post #95
EdHominem wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment is factual. It's not relevant who owns the cameras. Look at any major incident in the UK recently and the police have CCTV footage from private businesses. Either voluntarily given or subpoenaed.

The comment was: > UK is being watched by a > network of 1.85m CCTV cameras. It's not a network - the comment was not factually correct. I was answering the question and explaining my understanding of a likely cause for the downvotes - I personally did not downvote it.

The network is the legal system which controls them.

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

#217

Post by hobs »

blowski wrote: post #77
hobs wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So if it was technically possible to filter and find the information, and voters elected governments who said they were prepared to pay for it, would that make it a better idea?

No, but at least it would make it an honest proposal instead of a scam.

There is a difference between something like chemotherapy, which has drastic negative side effects but can save the body, and fake cancer drugs, which might have little to no side effects(or massive ones!) but you die either way, enriching the scam artist on your way out.

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

#218

Post by logfromblammo »

adventured wrote: post #121
logfromblammo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 som…

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the state begins persecuting a citizen based on a suspicion of exercising free speech and security in their papers and effects, it is ethically correct for that person to rebel.

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

#219

Post by krapp »

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…

>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 ...

Should people have the right to communicate with one another without government interference? Does encryption undermine the state in a similar way as terrorism, or is it merely an extension of the existing right of people to be (to quote the US Constitution) "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable search and seizure" ?

I concede that reasonable people can disagree with where the line should be drawn (given different states and different philosophies about the proper nature of government) but I don't think it's that absurd to insist there should be limits on what any government can know about its citizens.

Unfortunately, there have been too many demonstrated cases of governments abusing the legal limits given to them, so I have no reason to expect that greater surveillance powers would be used responsibly. When it comes to weakening encryption, they're not "smacking the child," they're smacking every child and hoping they'll hit the right one sooner or later.

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

#220

Post by ricksplat »

krapp wrote: post #219
ricksplat wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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 ... Should people have the right to communicate with one another without government interference? Does encryption undermine the state in a similar way as terrorism, or is it merely an extension of the existing right of people to be (to quote the US Constitution)…

This may be a controversial opinion, but I do believe that a certain amount of surveillance is effective. It worked in London. It worked in New York.

But that is "using" technology. Not "crippling" it. I am sympathetic to the needs of the state, and I believe there should be some attempt to meet these needs, but with oversight, and with proper procedures and protections.

It's one thing to say James Bond doesn't have time to call back to 'M' to get permission to plant a bug but James isn't a massively industrialised automated spying operation. I'd give him sole dispensation on national security grounds but that doesn't scale up to the level that GCHQ and NSA were doing. The more actors involved the greater the possibilities for systematic abuse and that has to be acknowledged, and those questions answered.

Post reply on HN