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

Tech firms seek to frustrate internet history log law

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 170 posts

Re: Tech firms seek to frustrate internet history log law

#81

Post by pinum »

anexprogrammer wrote: post #56

Is it too late to return 2016? It's clearly defective. How long until... "Anexprogrammer was clearly a suspect individual. He used A&A, a UK ISP, widely considered sympathetic to terrorism under the thin guise of blogging about preserving privacy. The ISP has even provided information on how their users may circumvent the law and expressed the opinion it was a bad idea! It gets steadily worse, Anexprogrammer often us…

The MPs themselves are exempted from the IP bill.

(Although it's safe to assume GCHQ is still collecting everything on them.)

Re: Tech firms seek to frustrate internet history log law

#82

Post by MarchHare »

Symbiote wrote: post #76
shp0ngle wrote: post #23

The most scary thing for me is that both political left and political right is nowadays for increasing surveillance - and there is no one in opposition. Except probably for Pirate parties, which are mostly irrelevant.

The Liberal Democrats are against surveillance, and are the third biggest party in the UK.

The SNP are the third biggest UK party.

Re: Tech firms seek to frustrate internet history log law

#84

Post by pbhjpbhj »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #80
CydeWeys wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can imagine someone being locked up for this though. If you are required by law to decrypt your data, and you chose technology that does not allow this, then that's on you. To use an analogy, if you choose to ride a bike that doesn't have lights, and then get pulled over for riding without lights, the lack of lights is not a defense because you were required to have them in order to be on the road at night.

I can see one of those situations where you get held indefinitely because they obviously cannot charge you but don't want to let you go to a) prove a point and b) hopefully let the law "catch up" to this situation.

If "they" are going to hold you indefinitely and contramand the rule of law then it doesn't matter what the law says.

IIRC the UK government was defeated in the UK courts over extending the time a terrorism suspect could be held without charge.

Re: Tech firms seek to frustrate internet history log law

#85

Post by gambiting »

jk563 wrote: post #62
stevetrewick wrote: post #31

"To ensure they do not succeed, we do not comment publicly on the methods or capabilities available to the security and intelligence agencies." Oh but you don't need to, because it's obvious. All my encrypted traffic to my overseas based VPN will be logged (legal). Then you'll demand my keys so that you can decrypt it. If I don't or can't comply then I will be - by definition - a criminal and potentially a terror sus…

Surely self-incrimination laws make this a non-starter?

In UK you can already go to prison for 2 years if you refuse to hand over your encryption keys.

Re: Tech firms seek to frustrate internet history log law

#86

Post by dagw »

MarchHare wrote: post #82
Symbiote wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Liberal Democrats are against surveillance, and are the third biggest party in the UK.

The SNP are the third biggest UK party.

Or UKIP, if you consider the popular vote (to echo the current US situation)

edit: The Lib Dems are probably the 3rd largest party if you include local council seats

Re: Tech firms seek to frustrate internet history log law

#87

Post by JorgeGT »

da1 wrote: post #61
iamben wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. It makes no sense. "Let's bring in a law that logs everyone not seeking to avoid detection." Any serious criminal/terrorist will use a VPN, disposable phones with end to end encrypted messaging, or pen and paper. Any criminal/terrorist that doesn't take these measures shouldn't be a problem to prevent in the firstplace.

> Any serious criminal/terrorist will use a VPN Or just plain old stenography in very public forums. Basically impossible to detect.

This is correct. Every serious criminal won't use a VPN or other obvious crypto, because this paints a big target on your back signalling you want to hide something. A serious adversary will, as you say, use a pre-arranged innocent vocabulary that is virtually impossible to detect, or just communicate face-to-face or via written notes delivered by a messenger.

Oh and by the way, remember to buy lettuce today ;) ;)

Re: Tech firms seek to frustrate internet history log law

#88

Post by anexprogrammer »

pinum wrote: post #81
anexprogrammer wrote: post #56

Is it too late to return 2016? It's clearly defective. How long until... "Anexprogrammer was clearly a suspect individual. He used A&A, a UK ISP, widely considered sympathetic to terrorism under the thin guise of blogging about preserving privacy. The ISP has even provided information on how their users may circumvent the law and expressed the opinion it was a bad idea! It gets steadily worse, Anexprogrammer often us…

The MPs themselves are exempted from the IP bill. (Although it's safe to assume GCHQ is still collecting everything on them.)

I should try and act surprised.

Think it's fairly certain plenty of them will end up in Sky's logging anyway. Backbenchers minor enough to be thrown under the bus though.

We need a response a bit more substantive than just joining Liberty or OpenRights.

Re: Tech firms seek to frustrate internet history log law

#89

Post by iamatworknow »

csydas wrote: post #25
iamben wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. It makes no sense. "Let's bring in a law that logs everyone not seeking to avoid detection." Any serious criminal/terrorist will use a VPN, disposable phones with end to end encrypted messaging, or pen and paper. Any criminal/terrorist that doesn't take these measures shouldn't be a problem to prevent in the firstplace.

Well, if memory serves, for the most part haven't most terrorist attacks been coordinated over either completely open channels or over non-technical channels? If I remember correctly, the Bin Laden operations were orchestrated via sneakernet, the more recent attacks in France were orchestrated with check-out aisle cell phones. The technical difficulties law enforcement faces with terrorism and crime isn't that crimin…

I remember after the Paris attacks hearing about how messages could be sent via game console networks, or even non-verbally in the online multiplayer games themselves.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/11/14/why-the-pa...

Re: Tech firms seek to frustrate internet history log law

#90

Post by jasonkostempski »

zmmmmm wrote: post #53

The logical end point, if you think it through, is scary for technology. There will be a battle for a time where legislators play cat and mouse with technology and privacy companies. But as each new hole appears, they'll invent new laws to close them off. This wouldn't be so bad except for the problem that encryption is math and short of making math illegal there will always be a hole. Factor in steganography and it…

This may be a stupid question but I've got to ask because I'm not 100% sure. Is there no practical way data can be sent and received anonymously? If no one, except the people trying to communicate, knows who encrypted or decrypted anything, how could they enforce such a law? Since a well encrypted message should be safe to broadcast, it can be sent to the whole world with only the intended recipients being able to decrypt it. Even if it's inconvenient to coordinate such a thing, I'm sure the perverts and terrorists would deal with it if they had to.
Post reply on HN