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

UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 234 posts

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#141

Post by IshKebab »

InCityDreams wrote: post #125
darrenf wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 confe…

>Friend, who has changed his mind because we have learned much more about the matter. All credit is due to him for that. Complimented for being a rational human being, no less.

Surely you are aware how rare it is for people to admit that they are wrong? If you take social consequences into account it's not even irrational for people to resist having to do that. Especially for politicians! So yes, he should be given credit for it.

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#142

Post by jonathanstrange »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #88

To ban end-to-end encryption you effectively need to ban math. Even if all messaging apps will remove built-in encryption function you can still use e2ee in your keyboard app or something that would seamlessly decrypt incoming messages and encrypt outgoing messages on the fly.

Sadly it suffices for them to get direct government access to the endpoints. They already have that for targeted surveillance, laws like this proposal just add the possibility of mandating interfaces for total automatic mass surveillance of all endpoints when foreign device manufacturers don't fully comply. Developing or buying 0-day exploits for iPhones is cumbersome and expensive, so the law steps in.

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#143

Post by AlecSchueler »

blibble wrote: post #34
ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

the Lords have been completely subordinate to the elected Commons since 1911 they can be completely bypassed when necessary they are a scrutiny committee and despite the gold and pomp they do quite a reasonable job

Wasn't there a kerfuffle where 1911 was overruled some years back or did it only nearly happen?

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#144

Post by jonathanstrange »

jeroenhd wrote: post #103
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #88

To ban end-to-end encryption you effectively need to ban math. Even if all messaging apps will remove built-in encryption function you can still use e2ee in your keyboard app or something that would seamlessly decrypt incoming messages and encrypt outgoing messages on the fly.

Key escrow and other three-way encryption algorithms exist. You wouldn't want to use them in any normal circumstances, but there's no technical reason why you couldn't. A key for you, your recipient, and your friendly government agent. Very few people actually write cryptographic code, and even fewer write code that is safe to use. I doubt many people will bother with some kind of messenger hook/overlay keyboard to s…

That depends on how easy to use you make this kind of software. An app that makes the soft keyboard produce encrypted output on the fly could indeed become a popular solution until it's prohibited. Like always, the problem is key exchange, though.

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#145

Post by iso1631 »

bee_rider wrote: post #66
iso1631 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The king does have some power, but it's mainly lobbying. Big party donors in America have far more power.

Do they lobby much? I vaguely remember a bunch of silliness about trying to figure out the Queen’s preferences around Brexit based on the brooch she was wearing or something like that… I’ve always just thought of royalty as sort of like the prototype for American celebrities like the Kardashians. Just a bunch of people who are famous for being famous.

Oh no, they definitively lobby, as listed in the sibling comment

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35687508

I'm just not sure that "rich person lobbies government" is the jackpot that republicans think it is. The day that Biden, Trump. Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and before don't get lobbying on a regular basis from major donors then I'll consider it one.

Indeed I'd rather Charlie spend an hour a week lobbying Sunak as it takes an hour of lobbying away from anyone else.

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#146

Post by AlecSchueler »

denton-scratch wrote: post #134
TRiG_Ireland wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brown was elected. He was elected as MP by his constituents, and selected as PM by the Queen, just like every other PM. Or, essentially, he was elected by the House, which is the electorate for the PM, but instead of actually holding a vote, the Queen just assumed what the result would be, which is how the UK always does it. (Ireland actually holds the vote for Taoiseach, and every party solemnly puts forward their o…

You're right; we don't elect PMs. And it's true that Brown was elected as an MP by his constituents; and I was elected chair by my local resident's association. So what? I still think a PM that doesn't lead their party into an election lacks legitimacy, and isn't a 'proper' PM. The most recent two - Sunak and Truss - weren't elected in that sense, because they didn't have any popular mandate. We don't elect the party…

That may be your feeling about it but the person above is correct from a legal standpoint.

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#148

Post by darrenf »

pjc50 wrote: post #139
InCityDreams wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Friend, who has changed his mind because we have learned much more about the matter. All credit is due to him for that. Complimented for being a rational human being, no less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Taylor_(British_politician... : appears to be the now almost vanished old school type of conservative. Member of the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists, so at least knows some tech people. Europhile, to the extent of quitting the party over Brexit. Pro-space exploration. Anti-Iraq-war. No wonder he quit.

And the people of Esher & Walton are now served by ... Dominic Raab.

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#149

Post by deathcakes »

monocasa wrote: post #113
afavour wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

The king has veto power over any acts he believes affects him, and him and the queen have apparently used the threat of this many times in order to shape UK legislation before it's argued on. Apparently almost all legislation is passed by the royal family's office for edits before it goes up for debate. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette... This idea that the royal family has no meaningful p…

Yes and when was the last time a reigning monarch exercised those powers? The answer is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Militia_Bill

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#150

Post by pjc50 »

Karellen wrote: post #82
traceroute66 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Aah, the good old days when the BBC was un-biased. These days you would get a government flunky, and on the other side of the table a pro-government flunky from a lobbying outfit whose real accreditation has been carefully omitted by the BBC and th…

> Aah, the good old days when the BBC was un-biased. I'm curious, around when do you think that changed? And was there a specific story they reported on (or didn't report on) that really solidified the change for you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry

Regardless of the fine detail about who knew what at what time, history has vindicated people who were skeptical about the claims being made to provoke the invasion of Iraq, and it was not right of the Blair government to attempt to suppress them.

(Mind you, the BBC has never been really able to report on the security state; see the Troubles, or the Zircon Affair)

Post reply on HN