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

201–210 of 299 posts

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#201

Post by matz1 »

outime wrote: post #55
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…

> 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’s what the govs always try to imply. The reality is, the minimally sophisticated “bad guys” will still use encrypted means and now we can imagine who’s really affected by this condemnation.

This like saying, what good of having a law against murder if there is still going to be murder.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#202

Post by schwede »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #177

You know what else protects criminals? Walls. Seriously, wouldn't it all be much easier if the police could just look into your home from the outside without those pesky walls around it? This constant war on encryption is getting so absurd lately. The kind of people who are pushing this should just be fired if not thrown into prison. It's just a blatant attack against human rights and the public should finally start…

What about warrants? The police can get a warrant to look inside your walls. You can’t do that with encryption.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#203

Post by synt4x1k0 »

jacquesm wrote: post #113
n0rbwah wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, giving access to all communications worldwide to the cops still won't help them catch the abusers that don't record and post their abuse online. Which I assume is the majority of child abuse cases.

The bigger problem the police have is not that they don't have enough cases go after, it is that they already are overwhelmed by the cases they do have and the fact that those departments are typically understaffed and overworked. It takes a special kind of person to be exposed to this crap on a daily basis and still be able to function, employee turnover is - not surprisingly - high and the effectiveness is relative…

> employee turnover is - not surprisingly - high

Is it? From a quick search, I cannot find any academic papers that support this claim. However, I see some news articles that claim this.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0735648X.2011.63...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/104398621140589...

This paper mentions "turnover intentions", which seems broadly defined in the methodologies.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11896-010-9066-7

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#204

Post by ajb »

It's so obvious to many of us that 'think of the children' is a disingenuous argument, that it's difficult to articulate a counter-argument which would be emotionally valid to someone for whom this is not obvious. Here is my attempt:

Someone whose child has been kidnapped, would sacrifice a great deal to get them back. A lot of the things which we hold dear, our dignity, privacy, democracy, even rule of law - would pale into insignificance to against the loss of a loved one. But for that very reason, we should not look to victims for a standard of how much the police can override our civil rights. The standard of 'what the police can demand from honest citizens' cannot be 'what a mother would sacrifice for her child'.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#205

Post by [deleted] »

bboygravity wrote: post #182
scandox wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I admit working is a poor term. Perhaps framing it as "working for me" or "least scary for me" is more honest. I'm more afraid of direct democracy than anything. I basically think I'll be dead within a few months of that emerging. Authoritarianism is my next greatest fear.

> I'm more afraid of direct democracy than anything. Any substantiation? My fear is the exact opposite (anything decided by "not us" is "not for us").

[deleted]

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#206

Post by vcavallo »

schwede wrote: post #202
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #177

You know what else protects criminals? Walls. Seriously, wouldn't it all be much easier if the police could just look into your home from the outside without those pesky walls around it? This constant war on encryption is getting so absurd lately. The kind of people who are pushing this should just be fired if not thrown into prison. It's just a blatant attack against human rights and the public should finally start…

What about warrants? The police can get a warrant to look inside your walls. You can’t do that with encryption.

do you think warrant should also extend to the walls of your skull? should police be able to access your thoughts, given the correct warrant?

the “walls” analogy is sort of unfortunate because it doesn’t apply evenly.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#207

Post by vcavallo »

ajb wrote: post #204

It's so obvious to many of us that 'think of the children' is a disingenuous argument, that it's difficult to articulate a counter-argument which would be emotionally valid to someone for whom this is not obvious. Here is my attempt: Someone whose child has been kidnapped, would sacrifice a great deal to get them back. A lot of the things which we hold dear, our dignity, privacy, democracy, even rule of law - would p…

it’s a good attempt, but i think it still won’t appeal to those on which the previous argument didn’t work.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#208

Post by Mirioron »

matz1 wrote: post #201
outime wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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’s what the govs always try to imply. The reality is, the minimally sophisticated “bad guys” will still use encrypted means and now we can imagine who’s really affected by this condemnation.

This like saying, what good of having a law against murder if there is still going to be murder.

Murder itself is wrong and causes harm to society. Using encryption by itself is not wrong and does not cause harm to society.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#209

Post by eternalny1 »

How can they prevent this?

What if I secure my messages with a known passphrase inside a picture of a rainbow using steganography?

Are they just talking about decrypting the big players like Facebook Messenger and iMessage? Because you can't "prevent" encryption.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#210

Post by Mirioron »

coldcode wrote: post #160
cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #22

Sigh. What we can basically tell from this is that the Five Eyes crew have joint legislation ready to go on this and are now going to insert an easy-to-digest and appealing narrative into the mainstream ahead of the release of that legislation. The combination of "But the children! You don't support child predators, do you?!", low general technical understanding and overall apathy to the removal of our rights (in the…

I for one are ready to give up my encryption when the politicians do it first and we see how well that works.

They'll probably have an exception for politicians. That's how it usually goes.
Post reply on HN