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

Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 409 posts

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#291

Post by Arubis »

javajosh wrote: post #288

It's a strange thing, today's world. There exists, right now, a realized panopticon in suspension . The only reason we don't have one is that we don't want one. Sometimes I think that politicians wait for a time when weighty things are on the table to erode our rights. Who is going to be a one-issue voter for something barely understood? And yet, in terms of governance, what issue is more important than this?

> Sometimes I think that politicians wait for a time when weighty things are on the table to erode our rights.

The USA PATRIOT act was pretty much written and ready to go when the 9/11 attacks occurred, and would have been impassable without some sort of disaster. Politicians absolutely are prepared to take advantage of opportunities, including to erode civil liberties if that’s their bent.

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#293

Post by westernpopular »

jononomo wrote: post #127

How can the Signal app "exit the UK market"? Can't people just use the app anyway?

Even just removing it from that country's app store would mean 99% of people who might have used it otherwise won't use it. It doesn't need to be Impossible for the policy to be successful.

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#294

Post by Spivak »

mcpackieh wrote: post #259
int_19h wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have state sovereignty even on matters as trivial as which recreational drugs to regulate. And a system that requires a 3/4 supermajority of not even the population but the state legislatures (with the net effect that some states have a much greater say in pushing through or blocking amendments than others) is hardly a sane or sensible way to gauge public sentiment on such matters.

> We don't have state sovereignty even on matters as trivial as which recreational drugs to regulate. By the letter of the law, no. But in practice we do. The federal government is thus-far unwilling to defend their turf on this issue; they have de jure sovereignty but not de facto sovereignty. If a government finds itself politically incapable of exercising a sovereign power, then in a very real sense they no longer…

But that's mostly due to a string of executives that are sympathetic or indifferent to that particular issue. A president that reignited the war on drugs or had outside political motive to go after what is mostly blue states and liberal people would likely succeed.

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#295

Post by Hizonner »

_8j50 wrote: post #224
Hizonner wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't need to backdoor the protocol, just the specific targeted client. Distinction without a difference. Either way, the total system is delivering the same plaintext to the same third parties. On edit: and, just to be clear, they want the apps to scan for specific hashes from a master list, and/or apply ML to find "suspicious" material that's NOT in any lists, on EVERY client, not just "targeted" ones. That's…

Ok, so what's your point? Mine was to alleviate the burden on Signal. Fact is, this can be done and done well. Real harm is happening and this popular bandwagon is part of the problem, not solution. Find a better way for govs to have an advantage against CSAM and other boogeymen. Technical people are supposed to find optimal technical solutions, not pretend to be technocrats or underdogs fighting against governments…

My point is that she is appropriately characterizing what she's being asked to do.

> Real harm is happening

... and these proposals would be very unlikely to materially reduce that harm. They WOULD, however, create a bunch of other harm. Including harm to children. In fact even including sexual harm to children.

> boogeymen

You said it, I didn't.

> Technical people are supposed to find optimal technical solutions, not pretend to be technocrats or underdogs fighting against governments who are all unjust and out there to get us.

Nobody's job disqualifies them from having political opinions. Technical expertise MAY, on the other hand, give one a better than average understanding of the actual impact of making a technology change. As may actually running an affected system and knowing how things play out on it, for that matter.

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#296

Post by Eisenstein »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #289
Eisenstein wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other people's lives are meaningless then, but not yours. Got it. PS: Have you ever considered how paternalistic your view is?

I have never claimed nor implied that their lives are meaningless (point where). On the contrary, because everyone's life is meaningful and important, they shouldn't have to slave away or do scutwork just to survive. This is what I am advocating for. I want people to live, to be free, to enjoy the same things I am. This is literally the opposite of paternalistic. I am also not a tankie if that's what you concluded fr…

> 99.99% of us exist to feed the capitalists

I'm honestly curious why you wrote this and if you can explain what it means, because to me it means 'people who labor for others are wasting their lives as slaves and we need to remedy this'. What have I misread?

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#297

Post by anigbrowl »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #163
immibis wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right/left is not imaginary. Whoever told you that wants you to think it's imaginary, so you won't bother to oppose them, because you think the opposition to them is just as bad as they are.

It’s imaginary in the sense that no matter who wins an election, you’re going to end up with substantially the same government every time. If you’re so concerned with political tribalism that you can’t see how utterly corrupt your own team is, then you’ve simply fallen for the distraction.

That's because government is a collection of institutions, the administration of the executive branch inherits them and has only limited ability to restructure them without legislative assistance (speaking about the US here, terms vary depending on the country and governance structure).

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#298

Post by 8note »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #264
rootusrootus wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For completeness, read the anti-federalist papers too. The collective opinion of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay is just one point of view.

I guess I don't get why the arguments against the Constitution of the time would be useful for "understanding the intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights"?

The thing that passed is always a compromise between opposing views

Only reading the federalist papers gives you a stilted opinion of what caused things to be the way they are

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#299

Post by anigbrowl »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #191
kelnos wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's demonstrably false. I don't have much experience or knowledge of politics outside the US, so I can only speak to US politics. The American right and left are very different when it comes to policy platform, and electing one or the other actually does have a measurable difference on what ends up happening to people in the country. This is especially true when we consider minority groups. I agree that bo…

> But even if I use your terminology, the "left wing tyrants" and "right wing tyrants", if one or the other were given complete control of the country... well, the country would look very different after some time, depending on which side were given control. Well this is actually demonstrably false. Biden currently has the house and the senate, Trump has the house, the senate and the Supreme Court, Obama had the hous…

Biden currently has the house and the senate

No he doesn't, the Republicans hold the House. And while a bare majority is sufficient to pass legislation in the House, the Senate has this quasi-official filibuster nonsense which means it's hard to get a lot of things done without a supermajority. Additionally, any legislative change is typically immediately dragged into court which can slow down implementation for several years.

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#300

Post by worik »

_8j50 wrote: post #249
int_19h wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, technical people are supposed to "just follow orders"? Nope. If what the government is trying to do is unjust in my own ethical judgment, then I have no obligation to help them find an "optimal technical solution" to do it - on the contrary, I have a moral duty to make it as hard as possible for them to do that. The usual argument is that if we don't "help" them, the regime that's actually enacted will be much wo…

> So, technical people are supposed to "just follow orders"? No, just be honest about technical matters. You can refuse to publish your software entirely or ideally in this case, make it available only outside the UK and let UK users seek it out on their own or use vpns. You can also protest the measure and try to prevent the law from being passed on ideological grounds. > on the contrary, I have a moral duty to make…

> No, just be honest about technical matters.

Please follow your own advice.

> Alright, technical argument here. This is false and tech talking heads are spreading this lie for ideological reasons.

That is not true. The "lie" is that if you allow a back channel into secure communications then you cannot be sure who will use it. You have gone from trusting the other party (whom you probably know) to trusting them and a third party, who's identity is a bit of a mystery.

> You don't need to backdoor the protocol, just the specific targeted client.

Somebody else has pointed out this is nonsense. It makes no difference. Whilst it is a fact, it is also a lie. Well done.

> Signal can scan messages before encryption and report to the authorities just fine.

That too is a lie. Signal offers secure communications. If it scans messages and sends hem to third parties that is not "Signal", that is something else.

> Whatever the UK government desires, Signal should accept it as the will of the UK people

Extraordinarily naive about the habits, morals, and actions of the English state. That is so untrue it transcends "lie".

> I don't know UK law...

No shit!

> ...but dragnet surveillance is illegal in the US but targeted warrantful requests to backdoor apps is lawful.

Not under English law. There are no rights, as Americans know them, under English law. There are statutes, that can be changed at any time if the Lords agree, and over time if they do not

> Find a better way for govs to have an advantage against CSAM and other boogeymen

Constant surveillance of all people at all times. A camera in every bathroom, In general every bedroom. My point is a line must be drawn somewhere. The English, and Australian, states do not care at all for the personal liberty of the subjects of the English crown. Some very good people in England doing very good work, but the state there is very deep.

Post reply on HN