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

Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 299 posts

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#81

Post by raxxorrax »

peterwwillis wrote: post #46

There must be an algorithm that we can apply to show what such a change will have for society. If the probability is that the change is negligible, we should consider allowing it. But if the probability is that the change is overwhelmingly "bad", we should not allow it. Let's not argue from ignorance. What are the numbers? What are the ethics? For example: Say if we listened in on all connections, we would catch an e…

> Telephones and mail have been monitored in the past by law enforcement

But is that in any way comparable with automated surveillance? I think a fitting analogue would be having every mail scanned and archived. Different circumstances...

I doubt the numbers game you are proposing would net any insights, since it has a hidden premise that child trafficking can only be prevented with restricting encryption.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#82

Post by ggzgd »

sneak wrote: post #28
tqi wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also this is a good time to remember that not every citizen has to have the same values on this. Some people might think the tradeoff in terms of freedoms vs security is worth it. It seems everyone is so eager to paint the other side as objectively wrong / motivated by bad intentions, when in reality I don't believe this is an objectively right answer. As a society we have to decide how much freedom and security we…

Privacy is a human right. Encryption backdoors for governments are human rights abuses. It has nothing to do with safety; it is not a debate about “how much safety do we purchase with reduced privacy”. It’s just as firearms rights have nothing to do with hunting, or a militia.

Human rights are man-made and arbitrary. They aren't some kind of holy text that must be protected at all costs. They must be bent and ignored if necessary. You can't just say "this is a human right" to shut down any discussion.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#83

Post by AndrewBissell »

"citing predators"

So, where is Ghislaine Maxwell? Shouldn't the all-seeing panopticon we've already constructed be able to pinpoint her location at a moment's notice? I'll believe all this surveillance is really about "predators" the day I see her taken into custody.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#84

Post by ffe44 »

newguy1234 wrote: post #59
skokage wrote: post #51

Any time these topics around weakening privacy or removing encryption comes up, it's nearly always presented with a save the children type of argument. I mean, who doesn't want to protect children from child abuse and predators? The problem however, is that most children that are abused are done so by family members or people already close to them (like maybe their priests), so with that in mind I don't really unders…

That's because there is a deeper agenda than just "protecting children". If you read the Edward Snowden book (permanent record) then you'll note that he talks about what the NSA/CIA is actually doing with their signals intelligence programs. It isn't about national security, it is about espionage on a global scale. They want information on what foreign governments, journalists, domestic organizations (not just terror…

This sounds like what CIA should be doing, right? It's like saying that military has an agenda to build more aircraft carriers and control all movements in the open waters.

The only thing I wonder about is whether this encryption crisis is just a lazy attempt to preserve the no longer working espionage methods or it's a smart conspiracy of evil people to break the humanity: convince people that there is a child or whatever problem and convince them to build the 24/7 monitoring system. This way people would build a prison for themselves.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#85

Post by scotty79 »

EGreg wrote: post #20
snowwrestler wrote: post #8

This is a good time to remember that police forces work for governments and not the other way around. Of course it would be easier for the police to catch bad guys if they had full-text search access to all conversations and content, worldwide. That doesn’t mean it is a good idea. They’re asking for something to make their job easier... can’t blame them for trying, and of course who doesn’t want to catch people who h…

Many years of reading on HN, I used to just accept that encryption is the best thing. And from a point of view of what will happen, that’s what will happen. But should we as a society want this? I would argue these days that it is far better to be able to reconstruct a conversation and prove someone said something. In case things go wrong, we have to have a way to establish truth, and prove things, so we can have fai…

> I would argue these days that it is far better to be able to reconstruct a conversation and prove someone said something. In case things go wrong, we have to have a way to establish truth, and prove things, so we can have fairness in outcomes.

I'd love to have that capability. What matters is who controls it. If everything about me was constantly recorded but I was the person that decides if and when make some of this information available to other people (and initally to whom) then it would be great and I think that's our future that marries our progressing tech with our freedoms.

If I can be coerced to reveal information about myself or it can be revealed at the whim of government, judge or a corporation, then it's a dystopian nightmare which we see some people are trying to create for example by coercing people to reveal their passwords or unlock their devices.

There's of course some grey area like public places where privacy does not apply. Your thoughts there are private but the rest is not yours. We have pretty much worked out what's private and what's public in physical space. As for digital space I think things I do on my local machine or on another machine that I control then it's private. Once I do something on someone elses machine it stops being private.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#86

Post by GoblinSlayer »

protomyth wrote: post #17

Encryption is math, and not even hard math at that. You have as much chance of stopping evil people from using encryption as you have of stopping them from doing multiplication. Make every politician who opposes encryption feel like an idiot for thinking they can stop people from adding and multiplying.

From the article: "Tech companies should include mechanisms in the design of their encrypted products and services whereby governments, acting with appropriate legal authority, can obtain access to data in a readable and useable format"

They would target companies, not math or protocols.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#87

Post by GoblinSlayer »

paulmooreparks wrote: post #11

“Tech companies should include mechanisms in the design of their encrypted products and services whereby governments, acting with appropriate legal authority, can obtain access to data in a readable and useable format.” Yes, because governments always act with appropriate legal authority, by definition, right?

As soon as it's legally allowed, it's not illegal anymore.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#88

Post by jacquesm »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #79
jacquesm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Child protection should be treated much more as a "local" than "global" issue. That, unfortunately, is no longer an option. Pedophile rings including the content producers have realized long ago that going international gives them an extra layer of protection.

You can't physically abuse over the internet though, that's my point and that's why I separated the two concepts of "removing content from the Internet" and "Protecting children from harm". The digital is an after-effect of the physical.

No, but you can order physical abuse over the internet. I really don't want to bother you with how dark some of the darker stuff on the internet is but you're going to have to trust me on this without having to become more explicit or you risk losing your breakfast and then some.

The digital can definitely be a pre-cursor and active element in the physical.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#90

Post by scotty79 »

andy_ppp wrote: post #38

The weirdest part of this argument is that law abiding people get no encryption while people who break the law will still have access to encryption, so how does it help you catch pedophiles? I don’t really understand how this will work in reality for things like SSL or ssh.

I think that's how it should be argued. Strong encryption software exists. It's on the internet. You can't make it disappear. If you outlaw it, law observing people won't use it. But how would you force a criminal not to use it if you can't force him not to abuse children?
Post reply on HN