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

161–170 of 234 posts

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#161

Post by antibasilisk »

dspillett wrote: post #31

A paraphrase of the age-old glib phrase is in order: If you outlaw End-to-End Encryption, only criminals will have End-to-End Encryption. It should also be pointed out to them that saying “you there, yes you, stop doing that” to remote, likely anonymous, criminal types, has never been effective.

It's also worth pointing out that if you practise enough and with a little spare time you can do an dh key exchange with pen and paper. I look forward to the day when I am arrested for mathing too hard with random people in my neighbourhood (jk, there's not enough cops to arrest anyone anymore).

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#162

Post by kypro »

usrbinbash wrote: post #117
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 no meaningful power at all, Please define "meaningful power". Because getting millions of pounds from the state every year [1], having massive media attention, having the ear of international leaders in politics, and having ones face on currency, sounds pretty impactful to me, especially given the fact that all this is conferred by being born to certain parents, and not by, say, something like an elect…

It's so much more complicated that this. In modern times the UK monarch fulfils the role of an apolitical leader of the UK and commonwealth nations.

Just imagine for a moment if the PM was head of state... Who would be leader of commonwealth? Liz Truss? Boris Johnson? Can you see how this would cause conflict? Having a heredity apolitical monarch works really well in the context of a commonwealth of nation. Electing someone would introduce politics and that isn't feasible when you need someone who can represent such a diverse range of views.

I also think the UK monarch serves as a unifying voice for the UK. No matter our political differences we can still all turn to the monarch as voice of unity for the nation during difficult times. I think this lack of an apolitical leader is quite noticeable in the US and other nations.

I don't like all of the tradition and baggage that comes with the Royal Family and I think they would benefit from trying to modernise their public perception, but I do think there is value in having an heredity head of state with very limited powers. I think the question really is how much we should be spending on that. At the moment it does seem a bit excessive...

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#163

Post by stametseater »

tekknik wrote: post #77
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some sorta coordination between state actors There's no smoky backroom where Biden and Macron and Sunak and Scholz sit in high-back leather chairs with glasses of whisky scheming about how to counter each threat to their power (with their super-secret puppeteers present only as a grim silhouette in the shadows, or maybe as an unexpected call at a climactic moment). The only coordination that exists at the level of…

> There's no smoky backroom where Biden and Macron and Sunak and Scholz sit in high-back leather chairs with glasses of whisky scheming about how to counter each threat to their power Why whenever anybody says anything that can be construed as conspiratorial do we automatically assume it is? World leaders can meet without the conspiracy, they do it all the time.

Why do we automatically assume that people conspiring is a farcical premise? Common criminals conspire with each other all the time. Business leaders conspire with each other when they form illegal cartels. Why can't politicians or even heads of state conspire? Why is that considered so outlandish?

For instance, the leaders of prominent American tech companies conspired with each other to suppress wages. Should this be laughed at?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#Role_in_illegal_n...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#164

Post by vincnetas »

Nebasuke wrote: post #29
vincnetas wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting times ahead. I would assume that child porn is illegal because it's production harms children. When we can synthesise it without child involvement, what are the reasons for banning it? It becomes on the same level as gore movies, kink adult porn or any fictional perversion book. It's up to consumer to choose to consume it or not. And at the end everything mentioned before can be turned to 1 and 0. So shou…

You would assume wrong in the case of the UK. "Extreme pornography" is already illegal, even when staged, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_63_of_the_Criminal_Jus... .

It's curious how it's ok to depict a human being sadistically cut to pieces while he is in terrible agony as long as there is no sexual arousal involved.

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#165

Post by afavour »

usrbinbash wrote: post #117
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 no meaningful power at all, Please define "meaningful power". Because getting millions of pounds from the state every year [1], having massive media attention, having the ear of international leaders in politics, and having ones face on currency, sounds pretty impactful to me, especially given the fact that all this is conferred by being born to certain parents, and not by, say, something like an elect…

In this context by "meaningful power" I mean "ability to override democracy".

I'm not saying the Royal Family are not impactful (I'm certainly not defending them at all!) but I'm specifically refuting the notion that the presence of a King means that the country is not democratic. Kim Kardashian has millions, draws massive media attention and in all honesty could probably have the ear of international leaders. None of that means she can override what US voters do.

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#166

Post by dspillett »

dexterdog wrote: post #92
dspillett wrote: post #31

A paraphrase of the age-old glib phrase is in order: If you outlaw End-to-End Encryption, only criminals will have End-to-End Encryption. It should also be pointed out to them that saying “you there, yes you, stop doing that” to remote, likely anonymous, criminal types, has never been effective.

It should be "If you outlaw End-to-End Encryption, only outlaws will have End-to-End Encryption."

Yep, my brain juddered and switched tracks between criminalise/criminals and outlaw/outlaws halfway through the sentence.

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#167

Post by saurik »

darrenf wrote: post #53
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 confe…

That the key escrow portion was finally dropped is not somehow incompatible with it being there in the first place. Maybe your comment is just trying to clarify the timeline--due to a pedantic complaint that if a bill is changed to not do something it isn't the entire bill that was "dropped"--but it frankly is coming off like some kind of attempt to gaslight the thread down a path of "this was never a concern and no one was suggesting this".

https://www.telepolis.de/features/UK-Electronic-Communicatio...

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#168

Post by timcavel »

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…

[dead]

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#169

Post by ly3xqhl8g9 »

pjc50 wrote: post #157
ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, I just like long hereditary lines [1]: if those don't show what power is, then I don't know what power is. Being hoi polloi myself, I barely know who my grandparents were, not to speak of their parents. [1] A really fun one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_of_Dunsany#Barons_of_Dun... Christopher Plunkett, 1st Baron of Dunsany (1410–1463) Richard Plunkett, 2nd Baron of Dunsany (died c. 1480) John Plunkett,…

Real power doesn't quite follow like that. I'm reminded of how Eastenders actor Danny Dyer found he was a descendant of King Edward III. Real power flows through those who've maintained their assets, e.g. Duke of Devonshire; those who own the media, e.g. Viscount Rothermere; and just buying your way in, like Baron Lebedev, son of former KGB oligarch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lebedev

Don't worry, the Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax-es maintained their assets. There was even a bit of a hullabaloo, not too much, when it was discovered that Richard Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax "still owns and grows sugar on the same Drax Hall Estate in Barbados that made the family's fortune. Over 200 years, 30,000 slaves died at this and the other Drax plantations, according to Professor Sir Hilary Beckles, Chair of CARICOM's Reparations Commission. 'The Drax family has done more harm and violence to the black people of Barbados than any other', he said." [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Drax#:~:text=still%20o....

Re: UK Threatens End-to-End Encryption

#170

Post by lwhi »

traceroute66 wrote: post #40
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…

> 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…

I'm sorry, but we'd be a hell of a lot worse off without the BBC.

For all its flaws, it does a huge amount of good. All reporting will inevitably hold a bias simply because selection of story for time scheduled news will _always_ involve excluding other news items.

The amount of criticism the BBC recieves is significant, and it's gone up a lot more recently.

I think it's a reflection of the incumbent gov more than the state of the organisation. There are strong forces working against the BBCs more egalitarian aims.

Post reply on HN