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

221–230 of 276 posts

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

#221

Post by nthcolumn »

firmgently wrote: post #204
diego_moita wrote: post #171

In UK, Murdoch's "News of the World" hacks into the phones of hundreds of people and politicians continue the debate about privacy as if it doesn't matter. In US, Russia hacks into Hillary's email server and politicians on Capitol Hill start using Whispering Systems' Signal and begin to understand why strong encryption is necessary. Don't worry too much, someday Vladimir Putin will show to the UK government why stron…

I heard someone explaining how the phone hacking worked the other day (Steve Coogan in a great chat with Adam Buxton on YT for anyone who likes them). Two journalists would phone the target at the same time. One kept them talking, the other could be sure to get their voicemail because the line was busy. They'd try the default password of 0000 which 'nobody bothers changing' (I may have the number wrong, I'm going fro…

Not being able to disable the voicemail service entirely is a sore annoyance to me.

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

#223

Post by almonj »

paradite wrote: post #209
almonj wrote: post #206

Get rid of all government programs. Instantly a huge amount of wealth will be gained and productivity will skyrocket. It is very important to remember: nothing the government does is good. What is the minimum amount of manipulation and lies it takes to cover up a problem? This is the question every government worker ponders every day of their job. Every one of these people are lying, scheming, delusional people. They…

That's way too cynical and oversimplified to be considered a substantial comment.

Or for this reason, because it may be questioned whether the same simple essence can be expressed by many diverse attributes. There are, indeed, many definitions of compound things but only a single one of a simple thing, nor does it seem that its essence can be expressed except in a single way.

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

#224

Post by qubex »

solatic wrote: post #220
qubex wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rights aren't natural , they aren't inherent, they are assigned (or granted ) by a given constitutional context. In some systems there are rights that do not exist in other systems, even very fundamental ones. Governments are extending their mandate and they are curtailing/" ungranting " certain other rights (principally, the uncodified "right to privacy"). Insofar as Parliament is sovereign in the UK and is the ulti…

> Right's aren't natural, they aren't inherent, they are assigned (or granted) by a given constitutional context. Wrong. A government violating your natural rights is not the same thing as those rights not existing. There is nothing immoral or unethical about a government which does not safeguard non-existent rights, it is the act of violation which violates the social contract and makes the government illegitimate.

I'm sorry, but you are absolutely misinformed. If I am a citizen of a country that does not, for example, recognise the right to vote then there is no higher authority I can go to in an attempt to obtain redress, both because there is no higher authority, and because the vote is not a right in this legal system. No rights have been violated, they are simply not extant in this system.

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

#225

Post by qubex »

jrs95 wrote: post #212
qubex wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rights aren't natural , they aren't inherent, they are assigned (or granted ) by a given constitutional context. In some systems there are rights that do not exist in other systems, even very fundamental ones. Governments are extending their mandate and they are curtailing/" ungranting " certain other rights (principally, the uncodified "right to privacy"). Insofar as Parliament is sovereign in the UK and is the ulti…

While that may be true, it's not the philosophical basis of our current system of government. The concept of natural law is, though. And in general, the majority of people seem to believe in rights under that definition (albeit more likely due to religious beliefs than having read Enlightenment philosophers).

Philosophy is codified nowhere. Simply the fact that people can operate under a presumed ”philosophy” while, as you admit, the reality of the matter is quite distinct, would seem to confirm that whatever prevalent philosophy may from time to time exist is irrelevant.

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

#226

Post by solatic »

ue_ wrote: post #196
solatic wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> What relevance does this social contract have when we see it is violated all the time?

You cannot understand the notion of natural rights without understanding why they are fundamentally theologically based rights.

That doesn't necessarily mean religious theology - which is where it was rooted from ("that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" etc.). In an atheistic context, these rights can also be made unalienable by a firm societal devotion to humanism, or even just belief in the liberating power of free markets.

> What you call "legitimate" is wholly based on your own opinion of it.

Not by my opinion, but by my beliefs, and by the common beliefs of the rest of the society of which I am a part. Opinion and faith are different concepts. To have an opinion is to make a subjective judgement; to have faith is to optimistically take a risk on a productive course of action in the absence of evidence or guarantee.

What relevance does the social contract have? Society's collective faith defines our common ethics. The social contract does not only bind our government in its treatment of us; it binds us in how we treat each other, because our culture is not narrowly limited to our political beliefs but rather defines how we treat each other. Yes, it is rather laissez-faire, but it still firmly binds us to treat each other with mutual respect for our lives, our freedom, and the fruits of our labor. To reject the social contract is to be an anarchist.

> "Today I say: As long as the gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind... ... after these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor. ... We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. ... General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! ... As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: "This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality." Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom."

President Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

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

#227

Post by discombobulate »

timthorn wrote: post #200
discombobulate wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..."

My quote was the entirety of Count 1. I believe a count is a distinct offence[0].

[0]http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/count

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

#228

Post by paradite »

almonj wrote: post #223
paradite wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's way too cynical and oversimplified to be considered a substantial comment.

Or for this reason, because it may be questioned whether the same simple essence can be expressed by many diverse attributes. There are, indeed, many definitions of compound things but only a single one of a simple thing, nor does it seem that its essence can be expressed except in a single way.

I think you will enjoy conversing with this user:

https://github.com/payingattention

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

#230

Post by marcosdumay »

hendzen wrote: post #97
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…

The government can legislate the pipes. It's possible to DOS strong encryption at the ISP level. Look at China...

Yep, look at China and see how it only affects common people. Anybody with a minimum of knowledge is able to open a VPN out of the country.
Post reply on HN