UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging • Hacker News Board

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#21

Post by ianburrell » Wed, Sep 06, 2023, 6:15 PM UTC

karmanyaahm wrote: post #17

maxbond wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is quantum computing relevant to symmetric encryption like OTP? GP was talking about asymmetric encryption. My limited understanding is that quantum computing is a threat to asymmetric encryption. There's also the question of, if you can distribute a key which is at least the same size as your message over a secure channel - why not just distribute your message over that channel in the first place?

> why not just distribute your message over that channel in the first place Latency? You can hand deliver a password ahead of time, but not messages.

One-time pad isn't a password. It is a flash drive or hard drive full of random bits.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#22

Post by grotorea » Wed, Sep 06, 2023, 6:15 PM UTC

monero-xmr wrote: post #6

phoe-krk wrote: post #3

> The UK government has conceded it will not use controversial powers in the online safety bill to scan messaging apps for harmful content until it is “technically feasible” to do so (...) That would be waiting for a quantum computer and quietly hoping that a) nobody develops a strong enough post-quantum scheme and b) there is still civilization after RSA and ECC are broken? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quantum computing doesn’t matter. Nothing in the universe can break a one time pad.

Doing some armchair navel gazing cryptanalysis, but isn't that only true if you assume the OTP has access to true randomness? What if the attacker breaks your CSPRNG? Or what if the universe is deterministic and therefore a true RNG is impossible?

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#23

Post by maxbond » Wed, Sep 06, 2023, 6:19 PM UTC

grotorea wrote: post #22

monero-xmr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quantum computing doesn’t matter. Nothing in the universe can break a one time pad.

Doing some armchair navel gazing cryptanalysis, but isn't that only true if you assume the OTP has access to true randomness? What if the attacker breaks your CSPRNG? Or what if the universe is deterministic and therefore a true RNG is impossible?

Similarly relaxing in my armchair, a deterministic universe is compatible with a CSPRNG as long as the information required to recover it's internal state is too diffuse to recover, or is outside the light cone of your adversary.

Eg, rolling a dice is deterministic, and I imagine an algorithm exists that could recover the value of a dice throw from a recording of the sound of it rolling and it's initial position. But once that sound has turned into heat, and that heat has conducted itself about the walls and into the air, I don't think it's possible to recover the sound.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#24

Post by nonrandomstring » Wed, Sep 06, 2023, 6:20 PM UTC

jjgreen wrote: post #2

This didn't even make the evening news, the Rolling Stones have a new album out!

I feel it can be said, without "conspiracy" or paranoia, that there's a widespread will to bury all activity around this bill.

Government doesn't want it debated or scrutinised. Tech companies want it to go away. The media doesn't understand it and cannot communicate the issues. People are scared or too pre-polarised to take a position. It's been kicked into the long grass by 4 prime-ministers. Even mentioning here that it is complex and worth examining both sides gets one down-voted to hell (judging by my other comment).

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#25

Post by jmilosze » Wed, Sep 06, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

phoe-krk wrote: post #3

> The UK government has conceded it will not use controversial powers in the online safety bill to scan messaging apps for harmful content until it is “technically feasible” to do so (...) That would be waiting for a quantum computer and quietly hoping that a) nobody develops a strong enough post-quantum scheme and b) there is still civilization after RSA and ECC are broken? Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's already perfectly feasible to do. Meta/Apple etc. can just deploy a client that decrypts the message, scans it, re-encrypts (with a different key) and sends it to their storage where they can store it forever and decrypt if needed. This way they could even have different clients in different regions still being compatible. It's just that it would suck and would not be secure any more.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#26

Post by toyg » Wed, Sep 06, 2023, 6:24 PM UTC

nonrandomstring wrote: post #13

[flagged]

> How could such a gulf emerge between good intent and practice?

Road to hell paved with good intentions - always has been.

To be honest, I don't think it could have gone any differently. It's an eminently hard thing to achieve: we want everyone to be free on the internet, but we also want "bad guys" not to be, and you can't really disjoint the two sets of people.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#27

Post by thinkingemote » Wed, Sep 06, 2023, 6:24 PM UTC

So it seems from the news that it was industry that forced this, but do we know how effective our campaigning and emails to MPs were? Or just some un-noteworthy political cog wheel action?

How could we find out? Do the reasons get leaked unofficially usually?

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#28

Post by phoe-krk » Wed, Sep 06, 2023, 6:25 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #11

phoe-krk wrote: post #3

> The UK government has conceded it will not use controversial powers in the online safety bill to scan messaging apps for harmful content until it is “technically feasible” to do so (...) That would be waiting for a quantum computer and quietly hoping that a) nobody develops a strong enough post-quantum scheme and b) there is still civilization after RSA and ECC are broken? Correct me if I'm wrong.

"Strong enough post-quantum schemes" already exist, and every single mainstream communications platform will update to become quantum-proof overnight if/when quantum computers approach that level of capability. Quantum computers cracking encryption is really not a concern on anyone's mind, at least no more than, say, modern processors cracking SHA-1 etc.

TIL! Which ones? I've only seen ones that were proclaimed to be secure, only to be broken in some simple/clever ways not much later.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#29

Post by kelseyfrog » Wed, Sep 06, 2023, 6:29 PM UTC

nonrandomstring wrote: post #13

[flagged]

It's very easy to protect kids online - simply don't allow them online. Banning children from the internet violates fewer people's rights(the number of children) than violating everyone's right to privacy(the total population: adults + children).

The podcast makes a unsubstantiated and unexamined assumption: kids must be online. A cursory glance reveals that they in fact do not.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#30

Post by mrguyorama » Wed, Sep 06, 2023, 6:29 PM UTC

phoe-krk wrote: post #28

paxys wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Strong enough post-quantum schemes" already exist, and every single mainstream communications platform will update to become quantum-proof overnight if/when quantum computers approach that level of capability. Quantum computers cracking encryption is really not a concern on anyone's mind, at least no more than, say, modern processors cracking SHA-1 etc.

TIL! Which ones? I've only seen ones that were proclaimed to be secure, only to be broken in some simple/clever ways not much later.

You can basically just make the numbers bigger. Quantum computers aren't magic, and are still limited in what and how they can process within normal informational theories.