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

251–260 of 276 posts

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

#251

Post by reitanqild »

Jedd wrote: post #246
genon wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Guns are, on average, not so useful / safe. To be fair, I don't think many people are killed by toy guns . One thing I'll never forget from the land of Orwell is this from 15 years ago (virtually to the day, ironically enough): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2168430.stm Three 12-year-old children were arrested by five police officers who then fingerprinted them and took DNA samples, after the youngsters were se…

And equally, that wasn't my point -- I am not suggesting toy guns are responsible for many deaths (though there are stories of people using fake guns and being shot by the police 'in good faith'). It's the normalising of 'playing with guns' by handing over toy guns to children that I suspect is something a healthier society could happily eschew without losing much in the way of civil liberties. In Australia accurate…

I actually somewhat agree when it comes to toy guns.

At the same time: if we go down this path then we should also ban action movies and descritions of war in literature (I grew up without tv and just read about it as a kid an I was as obsessed with war and fight against the Germans (i.e. nazis) as anyone where I came from.)

To borrow a phrase from you: it's the normalization of criminalization of things tuat worry me.

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

#252

Post by DarkKomunalec »

type0 wrote: post #242
tomfitz wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, pointing out that there are harms and she's aware of them, despite not addressing them, because she refuses to disclose her communications. Though I'm skeptical of how much a 3m42s interview can be said to represent the entirety of her views, I'd say she alludes to the harms by referring to such access as "warranted". That is, authorisation is restricted [because of the costs of unrestricted access]. > Secon…

> If they're suspected of a crime, a warrant could be issued for their communication details. What warrant? How naive are you, there wouldn't be such a thing.

You must also consider https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liber...

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

#253

Post by gargravarr »

hellbanner wrote: post #217
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…

> It will stop the 'good' and generally innocent populace using it and severely infringe on their right to privacy, but the 'bad' people will just fork an open-source messaging system that uses E2E encryption and start using that. And that would be the point of the ban - anyone using E2E is bad therefore, gov attacks them.

People smart enough to do this are also smart enough to anonymise their online identity. Banning it will just push the determined further beyond the reach of the security services. Services will either become peer-to-peer (and therefore un-interceptible) or use servers hosted in countries where our governments have no sway. The politicians want the playground to be supervised, but they're going to wind up with no-one in it.

Rather than the dragnet approach favoured by the NSA and an increasing number of politicians, security services need to properly investigate targetted individuals. The panopticon approach is never going to work.

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

#254

Post by ionised »

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?

Iceland, if I can learn the language to a sufficient degree.

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

#255

Post by jrs95 »

qubex wrote: post #225
jrs95 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But this stuff actually is codified. It's essentially the basis of our legal system. When it's working "correctly", it's working along these lines.

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

#256

Post by hackerboos »

scaryclam wrote: post #102
hd4 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iktf. The Brexit shit won't wash away, not in our lifetimes. I'm looking at France or Switzerland. This Bizarro country can't be the best that humanity can do.

You realise that Switzerland isn't in the EU...right?

You can still move to Switzerland as an EU citizen.

https://www.ch.ch/en/working-switzerland-eu-efta

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

#257

Post by literallycancer »

Jedd wrote: post #181
reitanqild wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Next they take your car. But cars are useful and, on average safer, for many / the majority of people that use them. Guns are, on average, not so useful / safe. Note that I'm averaging this across the planet, not just across one small (5% of global population) country with a lot of strong opinions on the matter. > Why? Cars kills way more people than guns. I know it's a pithy aphorism, but in the same way that guns…

>But cars are useful and, on average safer, for many / the majority of people that use them. Guns are, on average, not so useful / safe. Note that I'm averaging this across the planet, not just across one small (5% of global population) country with a lot of strong opinions on the matter.

Do you have the numbers to back that up?

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

#258

Post by EugeneAZ »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #63
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 think the problem isn't that the ideas/reasons for privacy aren't being communicated. It's that a lot of people are seriously worried they will be a victim of a terrorist attack (and the government tells them this invasion of privacy will protect them from that) and when they hear the other side's arguments they are happy to fall back on the 'I've got nothing to hide' argument. Honestly it's a nice mindset to be in…

Let them read George Orwell "1984"

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

#259

Post by EugeneAZ »

zanny wrote: post #195
jff wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 e…

IQ qualification for the privilege to vote.

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

#260

Post by zanny »

EugeneAZ wrote: post #259
zanny wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

IQ qualification for the privilege to vote.

It isn't IQ. It is environmental culture during childhood development. If you grow up in a family that values intellectualism you will probably be intellectual, curious, logical, and skeptical. If you grow up in a family that is hostile to intellectualism, you are more likely to be ignorant and manipulated by emotional falsities as well.

The problem is more kids are growing up anti-intellectual than intellectual. IQ has nothing to do with that, intellectuals uplifted civilization from effectively universal anti-intellectualism (at least in Europe) in the 16th century to where we are now.

We have the most intellectuals ever now, but that doesn't mean we are close to a majority, and that also means as long as anti-intellectualism is prevalent you need systems of rule by minority (in various forms) to see progress happen.

Post reply on HN