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

161–170 of 276 posts

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

#161

Post by waqf »

dm319 wrote: post #150
fredley wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, there's a misconception underlying this one that there are 'good people' and 'bad people', and the role of Government is to protect the former from the latter. This of course flies in the face of the reality that crime is committed by otherwise ordinary people under extraordinary circumstances. Under this rhetoric - widely subscribed to by the right wing and tabloid press, it seems a logical step that…

I find this comment particularly interesting. I have a suspicion that believing in good and bad people is a product of fairytales and religion. I've never quite understood why authoritarianism, religion and the right seem to go together, maybe this is part of puzzle.

Fairytales and religion wouldn't be so popular if people didn't already have an innate desire to believe in good and bad people.

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

#162

Post by mtgx »

DanBC wrote: post #96
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…

The PREVENT strategy could have been useful. But schools over-report (because that's the safest thing to do when you're compelled to report) and there doesn't seem to be sensible triage in place to filter out over-zealous referrals. Here's an example of what the PREVENT agenda should be about: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/9.html or this case: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/3171.html

> The PREVENT strategy could have been useful.

No, it couldn't have been. It's a mistake to believe that any prevention strategy will work on a large scale, and the reason is you'll always get too many false positives like that [1].

It's not just an issue with schools being too eager to report. It will happen in any scenario, including inside intelligence agencies if you force them to go after any "remotely potential terrorist". There will be thousands and thousands of false positives.

[1] - https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/03/data_mining_f...

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

#163

Post by choward »

csomar wrote: post #100
DropbearRob wrote: post #30

There is a growing misconception that it is the role of the government to "keep their citizens safe". Although that it is often the intention of legislation to prevent behaviour which may lead to unsafe situations. For example, making it illegal to drink and drive. You can arrest someone for breaking the law, but never can you arrest someone right up to the point of breaking the law. For example, You cannot arrest so…

Well driving while drank is pre-crime too.

Exactly. It's just trying to prevent you from breaking motor vehicle laws like driving down the wrong side of the road.

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

#164

Post by cookiecaper »

PeterisP wrote: post #80
tomfitz wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you law enforcement with a warrant?

If you remove the technological protections, the communications become accessible not only to law enforcement but also to malicious people - cryptography doesn't care if you have a warrant or not. A particular communications channel either is secure from anyone or it's vulnerable to everyone. If UK home secretary argues that we shouldn't be allowed to use secure channels, then that does imply that all such communicat…

The superficial solution to this is not to outlaw cryptography completely, but to require those who make cryptography available to keep master keys and/or logs.

I know that these are not a real solution as they can be leaked or abused, but it's best that we don't pretend not to hear this argument. We should make clear that these are insufficient and that there's nothing wrong with private communications truly remaining private.

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

#166

Post by jstanley »

monkeyprojects wrote: post #4
jstanley wrote: post #2

> When pressed on what kind of metadata she wanted, she replied: “I’m having those conversations in private.” Well I would like to know who she's having those conversations with, when she's having them, and how long they last. I think it's important that she share this information with us. So that we can catch criminals.

My viewpoint when talking about security is please sign this form and your bank can send your bank statements on the back of a postcard in full view of everyone. For your convenience we will include your PIN number and card number in full on all correspondence.

What does this mean?

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

#167

Post by reitanqild »

Jedd wrote: post #137
biofox wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Next they take your car.

Why? Cars kills way more people than guns. Often not because of a need to get from a to b but because of reckless driving just for the fun of it. So - you could argue - you should not only need to have a drivers permit but a driving permit for your actual trips.

Ok. Maybe cars should be banned. Or at least restricted to people with a legitimate reason like politicians and doctors.

But do you think it will end there? If we give up cars then air traffic would be a natural next step...

You see?

This is why I defend the right to have guns, the right to modify cars, have real crypto, say almost[0] anything you want. Because it is a cheap insurance against a society that we really really want to avoid. Because the majority of people who have been killed have been killed by their own or a neigbouring country - not by their neigbours who happened to have a personal gun.

[0]: including: "I belive the person behind reitanqilds account is stupid"

Not including: "Hi guys! Lets start a fundraiser to kill "

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

#168

Post by TheGrumpyBrit »

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 legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/5

While you can reasonably be deemed "in charge" of your camper van, if you're seen climbing into the living area with the clear intention of bedding down for the night, or are knocked awake by the police and then breathalysed, you would have a very good argument that there was no likelihood of your driving the vehicle, and therefore you would have a defence against the charge.

If, on the other hand, you climbed into the drivers seat and started the engine so you could turn on the heaters and put the radio on for a bit while you had your evening cocoa, you'd have a rather more difficult hill to climb.

If you make a habit of sleeping somewhere other than a recognised camp site, it would probably be worth your while keeping a couple of those £2 disposable breathalysers from Halfords in the glove box. Not only will it prevent you from accidentally driving while still over the limit the next day, but if you are challenged by the police while you're still drunk, it allows you to demonstrate that you have the means on hand to ensure that you won't be driving before you're fit to do so.

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

#170

Post by dTal »

jstanley wrote: post #2

> When pressed on what kind of metadata she wanted, she replied: “I’m having those conversations in private.” Well I would like to know who she's having those conversations with, when she's having them, and how long they last. I think it's important that she share this information with us. So that we can catch criminals.

"You will not be safe until there is a complete information asymmetry between government and governed."

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2961

Post reply on HN