UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption • Hacker News Board

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#51

Post by iso1631 » Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 1:43 PM UTC

jabradoodle wrote: post #46

circuit10 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The king doesn’t really have any power in practice, I think the royal family mainly exist for tradition/tourism reasons at this point At least according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index it’s one of the most democratic countries at 18th in the world (to be fair that’s made by a UK company but I don’t see why they would be biased)

This is a tiring narrative. They do have power, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Action_Against_Iraq... That the royal family is useful for tourism is also laughable

You're quoting royal prerogative, which is held by the government, specifically by the prime minister, who has to have the support of the house of commons, and aside from Alec Douglass Home for a period of 20 days in recess has always been a member of the house of commons for over a century.

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#52

Post by becquerel » Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 1:43 PM UTC

derelicta wrote: post #11

The fact that every "democratic" superpower seeks to criminalize or prohibit E2EE at the same time gives the impression there is some sorta coordination between state actors to do so.

you don't need a conspiracy when you have hegemony.

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#53

Post by darrenf » Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 1:45 PM UTC

seanhunter wrote: post #13

The UK has threatened this on and off for a while. I recall around 2000 they proposed a bill which would have forced everyone who wanted to use encryption to escrow a key with the government. I used to watch some TV in those days and the UK programme "NewsNight" had a discussion about it. There proposing the idea was some poor government flunky. There explaining the flaws in the idea was Whitfield Diffie[1]. Diffie j…

> the bill was eventually dropped

If you're referring to the Electronic Communications Bill, it did indeed become an act. And in fact it contained an explicit section prohibiting the imposition of escrow (which has not been removed by any subsequent amendments): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/7/part/III

14 Prohibition on key escrow requirements

(1) Subject to subsection (2), nothing in this Act shall confer any power on any Minister of the Crown, on the Scottish Ministers, on the National Assembly for Wales or on any person appointed under section 3—

(a) by conditions of an approval under Part I, or

(b) by any regulations or order under this Act,

to impose a requirement on any person to deposit a key for electronic data with another person.

What's more, you can read a transcript of a parliamentary debate about escrow where all sides were keen to ensure it was clearly not part of the final text https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2000-01-25a.174.1

The debate on key escrow raged for some time. Foremost among the original proponents of key escrow was my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). However, the debate has moved on—as has my hon. Friend, who has changed his mind because we have learned much more about the matter. All credit is due to him for that.

It was thus crucial that key escrow should not be included in the Bill. There would be no power for the Government, or for some agency, to demand that the key—as between public and private—for the de-encryption of material could be deposited with a third party. However, we were concerned that key escrow might be introduced through the back door.

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#54

Post by becquerel » Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 1:45 PM UTC

gumballindie wrote: post #38

What happens if we sniff all internet traffic and train an ML model? Can we automate all input and output to build a fully automated internet?

some say this has already happened

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#55

Post by wiredfool » Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 1:48 PM UTC

If they end end to end encryption, then Signal and Telegram can read the private messages that the leaders inevitably use to get around records retention laws.

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#56

Post by afavour » Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 1:49 PM UTC

ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #18

derelicta wrote: post #11

The fact that every "democratic" superpower seeks to criminalize or prohibit E2EE at the same time gives the impression there is some sorta coordination between state actors to do so.

The fact that we regard as "democratic" (because they are good guys, or so we'd wish) a country with king and lords (even a House of Lords, or even "Lords Spiritual" [1]), is the greater joke. [1] Just a random click https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_House_o... on the Bishop of Chichester https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Chichester#List_of_b... reveals a list of bishops going back as far as…

I’m sorry but this is a very simplistic take. The King has no meaningful power at all, MPs have power over the Lords and they are democratically elected.

I’m not for a second saying the system is wonderful and beyond reproach. But suggesting it’s equivalent to an autocracy or something is just flat out wrong. If you want to complain about the U.K. political system complain about first past the post or the creeping anti-democratic forces pushing things like voter ID laws. The House of Lords and the King aren’t anything comparatively.

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#57

Post by afavour » Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 1:52 PM UTC

Where others see conspiracy I see incompetence (wish a dash of conspiracy). Time and time again it’s shown that our elected officials have no clue what they’re doing with tech. They simply do not understand the issues at hand in an era when tech is taking over more and more of our lives.

I’d say we should elect more people with tech knowledge but who’s going to quit their lucrative software engineering job to run for office, get paid considerably less and achieve little?

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#58

Post by tialaramex » Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 1:55 PM UTC

jabradoodle wrote: post #46

circuit10 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The king doesn’t really have any power in practice, I think the royal family mainly exist for tradition/tourism reasons at this point At least according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index it’s one of the most democratic countries at 18th in the world (to be fair that’s made by a UK company but I don’t see why they would be biased)

This is a tiring narrative. They do have power, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Action_Against_Iraq... That the royal family is useful for tourism is also laughable

You need to learn to at least read between the lines. "On the advice of her government" means it's what the government decided to do.

Why so? Because although they had sufficient numbers to ensure the bill wouldn't become law, using Consent allowed them to prevent debate.

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#59

Post by dannyw » Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 1:55 PM UTC

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #35

So, what's going to happen with secure banking? Will local govt officials (councillors) get to spy on all my credit card transactions and sneak a peak at my account passwords and PINs? This will basically make e-commerce a risky business. If I buy something from overseas, will I then get in trouble for setting up an end-to-end encrypted link with their shop or is it more likely that international sites will just stop…

All credit card transactions and financial transactions are basically open book.

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#60

Post by Arathorn » Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 1:56 PM UTC

I was very glad to find Lord Kamall saying sensible things about this last week in the context of the House of Lords debate - at least one person there is following the tech argument: https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/online-safety-...