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

Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 276 posts

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#131

Post by pimmen »

As was circulated recently on HN, this basically stems from the government thinking computers are appliances.

"Hey! Your device creates and sends packages, could it just not create and send packages of this type? We'll even help with the quality control if you can't do it yourself! All we need is a backdoor!"

How is this not the same as messing with people's mail?

"Hey, you know this pen, paper and stamp thing? Can you just make the pen not write these kinds of letters, that terrorists usually writes? Ok, but can't we have a human (in lieu of AI) read through people's mail to make sure these types of letters aren't sent around with the intent to provoke violence? If you can't do it, we'll gladly send some agents to help you with quality control!"

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#132

Post by k-mcgrady »

stordoff wrote: post #130
k-mcgrady wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just about to mention this. For anyone interested Professor David Nutt[0] was fired from his role as the government's chief drug advisor after claiming ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-advis...

The comments from Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary, are rather telling: > He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy. [...] As for his comments about horse riding being more dangerous than ecstasy, which you quote with such reverence, it is of course a political rather than a scientific point.[0] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/nov/02/dr…

>> he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy

It's hard to believe he can say that with a straight face. Is he supposed to advise on topics he understands that the government doesn't or is he supposed to be a 'yes man'?

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#133

Post by discombobulate »

DanBC wrote: post #111
ascorbic wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A republican bomb maker was convicted literally yesterday. This isn't ancient history.

here are the sentencing remarks: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-of...

The research & library creation is illegal. That's a bit much:

'Research resulting in the creation of a library of documents providing information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism — specifically information regarding the manufacture of explosive substances, the construction of explosive devices, and tactics used by terrorist organisations.'

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#134

Post by kagamine »

DropbearRob wrote: post #113
cmdkeen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK* it is an offence to be "drunk in charge of a vehicle" so you absolutely can be arrested and charged for being asleep whilst drunk in a vehicle. You'll be having to defend yourself in court as to whether it was likely that would could have driven it drunk. In the same way reading communications can be perfectly legal and is often helpful in establishing conspiracy cases. Accepting that Governments can legal…

well I'll be damned... What is the legal definition of being in charge? There is no legal definition for the term "in charge" so each case will depend on its exact circumstances and facts. Generally, a Defendant is "in charge" if he was the owner/in possession of the vehicle or had recently driven it. He is not in charge if it is being driven by another person or is "a great distance" from the vehicle. Matters are mo…

Like everything in UK law it is interpretation (of a police officer and a judge and your defense) and any given circumstance. If you sleep in the back of a camper van with the key in the glove box and the doors locked a police officer would be hard pushed to convict you of attempting to drive. Don't freak out just yet. Now go out of the vehicle and stand still for a while on a dark night. You are now loitering with intent (to burglarize perhaps). Now put a reflective jacket on over your dark hoodie; you are now absolved of suspicion. Get back in the camper van and have a peaceful 40. Just about anything is illegal with the wrong attitude. In the UK, my experience has been to just talk to the police and be honest, they're usually quite smart.

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#136

Post by zebrafish »

gargravarr wrote: post #31
dm319 wrote: post #12

I feel like the people who understand encryption and privacy advocates (myself included) are not engaging enough (or maybe effectively enough) with the public in communicating the concerns around trying to 'backdoor' encryption or giving up more of our privacy. While I think these political statements are often ridiculous, they actually have widespread public support, if my cohort of friends and family are anything t…

I've read so many arguments advocating strong encryption, all of which I agree with, and many of them are simplified as best we techies can - check out some of Troy Hunt's posts. But even avoiding the tech aspect completely, there is one thing the government simply refuses to accept. Banning strong encryption will not stop people using it. It will stop the 'good' and generally innocent populace using it and severely…

I think the strongest argument for an American audience who is unfamiliar with technology is that encryption should be included under second amendment rights.

"Guns don't hurt people, people hurt people", "blaming the manufacturer for the actions of the operator", "even if we ban them, bad guys will still use them", etc.

If the right to bear arms is defined as the right to protection against totalitarian government I would think that encryption falls into that bucket.

Maybe we should get the NRA involved in this argument...

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#137

Post by Jedd »

biofox wrote: post #86
J-dawg wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I happened to catch a Radio 4 documentary [0] on Sunday about the government's "Prevent" strategy, which aims to find evidence of extremism in places such as schools and "nip terrorism in the bud". It featured several worrying stories (including a school calling the police because a boy was talking about a toy gun he'd been given as a present [1]). The most worrying part was when they interviewed a senior police offi…

I have no problem, in principle, with the prevent strategy. If impressionable children are at risk of being brainwashed into a dangerous ideology, then the state should step in, just as it does with any other form of abuse. Hasn't "pre-crime" always been a part of policing, in the form of intelligence gathering and crime prevention? My main concern is schools, and (increasingly) the police acting irrationally and dis…

How do you feel about the banning of toy weapons - including water pistols, plastic swords, bows & arrows, rubber knives?

(Personally I think it's a fine idea, but many of my thoughts are easily taken out of context.)

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#138

Post by gargravarr »

zebrafish wrote: post #136
gargravarr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read so many arguments advocating strong encryption, all of which I agree with, and many of them are simplified as best we techies can - check out some of Troy Hunt's posts. But even avoiding the tech aspect completely, there is one thing the government simply refuses to accept. Banning strong encryption will not stop people using it. It will stop the 'good' and generally innocent populace using it and severely…

I think the strongest argument for an American audience who is unfamiliar with technology is that encryption should be included under second amendment rights. "Guns don't hurt people, people hurt people", "blaming the manufacturer for the actions of the operator", "even if we ban them, bad guys will still use them", etc. If the right to bear arms is defined as the right to protection against totalitarian government I…

As predicted by Randall Munroe some years ago: https://xkcd.com/504/

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#139

Post by mdekkers »

DropbearRob wrote: post #113
cmdkeen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK* it is an offence to be "drunk in charge of a vehicle" so you absolutely can be arrested and charged for being asleep whilst drunk in a vehicle. You'll be having to defend yourself in court as to whether it was likely that would could have driven it drunk. In the same way reading communications can be perfectly legal and is often helpful in establishing conspiracy cases. Accepting that Governments can legal…

well I'll be damned... What is the legal definition of being in charge? There is no legal definition for the term "in charge" so each case will depend on its exact circumstances and facts. Generally, a Defendant is "in charge" if he was the owner/in possession of the vehicle or had recently driven it. He is not in charge if it is being driven by another person or is "a great distance" from the vehicle. Matters are mo…

The times I have been over the safe driving limit in the UK, I have always climbed on the backseats to sleep, so that there could be no confusion about intent. I was once woken up by a policeman, told him I felt I was over the limit and decided to sleep in the car, and he told me "well done" and was on his way.

I think it is all about presentation (and how you speak to the police)

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#140

Post by pimmen »

raesene6 wrote: post #35

ah more security cluelessness from the UK Government. The frustrating piece is that they're ignoring their own internal experts on this. The people running the National Cyber Security Centre are very bright and have stated that they think backdoors are a bad idea from http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/05/problems-end... "Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesma…

I've seen plenty of debates with nut-jobs like an anti-vaxxer or climate sceptic facing off against an MD or climatologist respectively on television, with a journalist as a moderator to make sure it's on a level that's understandable by the audience and to make sure it doesn't degrade to name calling.

Why can't the same thing be organized for politicians implementing policy? Let them face the concerns of the experts right in front of the public, the public has the right to be concerned if it's evident that politicians don't know what they're doing and aren't consulting people who do know.

Invite a computer engineer or something with any sort of experience in the field of network security to comment the Home Secretary's statements and ask her questions, maybe even through the journalist, and I'm happy.

Post reply on HN