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

191–200 of 276 posts

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

#191

Post by joosters »

mdekkers wrote: post #142
joosters wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be devil's advocate for a second. The UK's speed cameras are brightly coloured, so there is an intention for them not to be traps - that is, they would prefer road users didn't speed. You cannot seriously argue that they are trying to sneakily catch people. If you get caught speeding by a speed trap which wasn't so visible, it is still your own fault and no-one else's. Either you are in control of your own vehi…

The UK's speed cameras are brightly coloured Not everywhere. When was the last time you were on the M25? They are brightly coloured in places where they actively want you to reduce speed (residential areas and the like), and at infamous accident hotspots. Everywhere else (mostly motorways) they are hidden, and traps.

The M25 is littered with speed camera signs, so I don't see how a driver could claim to be surprised by any of the cameras on the road. What is the excuse for being caught speeding on it? Did the driver just forget what the motorway speed limit is? The controlled speed stretches of the M25 also feature regular electronic signs showing the current speed limit in large bright lights. If you fail to see them, you probably aren't paying enough attention.

I've been using the Waze satnav app, and it gives speed camera warnings as it knows their locations. What surprised me was how few speed cameras there actually are on the M25. Lots of the overhead signs that stretch across the width of the road have speed camera signs on them, and many also have the white lines painted on the road to calibrate the camera pictures, but far fewer actually have any speed cameras.

Before I used Waze, I had assumed that there were speed cameras overhead on all these bridges, and it was perplexing to see so many drivers happily driving underneath at 80/90mph, speeds that would definitely be caught on camera.

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

#192

Post by Zhenya »

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…

While I agree with you in general, the following point is incorrect:

>>or even being asleep in the car while drunk.

If the keys are in the ignition, you are DUI.[0]

Even sleeping in the car is also considered a DUI in some states[1]. Beware!

[0] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-supreme-court/1006683.html

[1] http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/07/how-to-sleep-it-off...

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

#193

Post by Zak »

zebrafish wrote: post #151
gargravarr wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Granted, guns have serial numbers and there is a list of registered owners. My argument falls apart there.

In most of the US, no registration or license is required to legally own a gun, and the Federal government is barred from attempting to create a registry.

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

#195

Post by zanny »

jff wrote: post #176
Fifer82 wrote: post #16

Oh god, I despair of this country. After a decade of conservative I have never been so disillusioned. I feel like I am stuck in a rut or like, I don't belong here. It is a horrible feeling. Deep down I know that the government is stuck in 1740 and by the time that millennials walk the halls of power, their parents will have signed away all their rights. The very last thing I love is my country, that is for sure.

> by the time that millennials walk the halls of power, their parents will have signed away all their rights. It's not as though 'millennials' are so big on rights, take a look at Twitter to see how happy people are to suppress e.g. free speech as long as they're the ones who get to do the suppressing.

This might just reflect on one of the more sinister aspects of democracy. You live life expecting eventually "your people" will take over some day. That generations prior were monolithic and wrong, and that since your own peers share your mindset it must mean people your age are just wiser.

Eventually, you realize that you were just in the intellectual minority of a generation that was majority unintellectual. Like every generation pretty much ever. We have just become extremely effective in isolating ourselves from exposure to the real "average". But even online, there is a vast difference between the ignorance of certain sects of Facebook or the comments on a yahoo news story and the trolls on 4chan - the later are still "our" people. Even if they want to abuse their intellectual leanings, they still grew up with that mindset. The average Facebook post or comment on a Fox News or CNN story reflects the broader, more general mindset much better.

And the outlook isn't good. For any generation.

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

#196

Post by ue_ »

solatic wrote: post #157
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…

> There is a growing misconception that it is the role of the government to "keep their citizens safe". What misconception? This is the basis of the social contract between society and its government, to safeguard the natural rights of society, the foremost of which (Life, among Life, Liberty, Property/Pursuit of happiness) is the safety and security of members of society. Read up on Locke and Rousseau https://en.wik…

Why do you think this social contract persists to this day, or if it ever did? Locke and Rousseau were theorisers. Do you really think governments, least of all the UK government, is founded on the ideas of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Even those which claim to be in some way like the US seem to be doing nothing toward these principles. So I think GP's point stands. What relevance does this social contract have when we see it is violated all the time?

>act to secure the natural rights of society.

This is obviously not the case, as evidenced by the fact that governments act against securing rights we previously held, for example censorship and invasion of privacy.

>See natural right #2 - the right to liberty

Natural rights are a funny thing - everyone claims they exist yet I see no evidence that they do (or even should), they change depending on who you ask, and various countries have their own ideas of what they mean. What you call "legitimate" is wholly based on your own opinion of it. Proudhon (whom you must be familiar with) particularly took issue with the right of property in the French republican constitution of his day. He noted that it is unlike the rights of equality and justice, too.

I'm all for theorising and implementing policy based on our philosophical investigation, but it's not clear to me that the investigation is valid, and that it has been implemented to a sufficient degree. To say our governments are based on the ideas of freedom put forth by Locke is as farcical as saying the Soviet Union was based on the ideas put forward on Socialism by Marx in his criticism of political economy.

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

#198

Post by MarcScott »

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 tried to be as non-technical as possible when I wrote this as an introduction to what cryptography is all about.

http://coding2learn.org/blog/2017/06/11/dear-theresa/

The problem is that the subject is inherently complex, and abstractions and analogies can only go so far.

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

#199

Post by fredley »

beagle3 wrote: post #129
fredley wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am in the same boat. I am staying at the moment because of my work situation and my family, but I have an inevitable sense that should either of those situations change, particularly the former, I'll be actively looking to move out. The war on reasoning and facts is too intense, and even though I'm largely sheltered from it where I live and work (almost everyone I know has similar views to me on these matters), it'…

It is happening simultaneously almost everywhere. Different countries are at different stages, but it doesn't look like anywhere is a safe haven. Having lived in several countries over the years, the grass is rarely greener as a whole - some parts are, and they may matter more to you, but the western world is mostly on par on everything. Where did you think of going?

Germany or Holland are contenders. While they may not have a perfect political climate, almost anywhere in the Western world is an improvement on the UK.

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

#200

Post by timthorn »

discombobulate wrote: post #133
DanBC wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.'

You missed a critical bit: "...with the intention of assisting another to commit acts of terrorism..."
Post reply on HN