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

UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 320 posts

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

#41

Post by jamiek88 »

maxbond wrote: post #23
grotorea wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s possible. As in physics says it can be done. But it isn’t technically feasible, probably ever.

There’s nothing in the laws of physics that prohibits us turning burned paper smoke back into a document and recover the information.

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

#42

Post by jamiek88 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #29
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.

Interesting critique considering the podcast says the exact opposite.

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

#43

Post by glitchc »

Jigsy wrote: post #39

I'm not sure why people are assuming they've abandoned the idea. They've simply said it's not technically feasible. Which implies that later - through the power of delusions of grandeur - that it will become feasible.

Not technically feasible is akin to abandonment in government circles.

To revive this, they would have to find an expert to attest that it is technically feasible to have security with a backdoor that government can access, but at the same time is impossible for malicious entities to access.

Ergo, this is technically dead, which is the best form of dead.

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

#44

Post by aaomidi »

merpnderp wrote: post #34

The real question is why did they want this? Is the UK suffering some giant crime wave or are the powers that be just really intent on making sure people are using Bad Think in their private chats?

“Eco terrorism” is on the rise.

As we progress with climate change and climate disaster, it’s clear that eco terrorism is going to be increasing. This has been especially highlighted in UK.

I put it in quotes because honestly it’s just fighting for survival at this point, but the ones in charge have decided to add the word terror to make it scarier.

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

#46

Post by xkcd-sucks »

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.

"I promise I will not stab you until I acquire a knife"

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

#47

Post by nonrandomstring »

halJordan wrote: post #37
ajb wrote: post #5

It's a little unclear, but my reading of this is that the power to do it will still be in the law, requiring at most secondary legislation to put into effect (perhaps not even that) if they think they ever have enough leverage over messaging providers, or are willing to spend the political capital. Not a great place to be in really, but better than it actually being deployed.

Yeah that was my reading as well. The legislation isn't being changed. The statement even says "We know you can develop [the methods to access], and we still have the authority to order it." The only relevant part of from op is the govt acknowledging that 2+2 = 4. But it fails to acknowledge that if they want to get 5, they can still order the equation to be 3+2.

Through most of history government always has the power, but the question is whether it has the legitimacy.

In this case it has the legitimacy, but lacks the power.

This is an unusual turn.

We need online safety for kids. The aims of this bill should obtain widespread support from everyone.

But instead of carefully researching and implementing difficult ideas, framing it properly and obtaining permission from the people - a remit to empower us to embrace online safety on our own terms - it's taken a strictly 20th Century "Mother knows best, think of the children" approach and made this a battle with Big Tech.

It is laughably "Yes, Prime-Minister" in its clumsiness. We have anachronistic throwbacks in charge.

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

#48

Post by javajosh »

Why ban e2ee when you could just pass a law giving LEO's the right to passively turn on any mic or camera or look through photos and messages on any smartphone at any time? I mean, how can they keep people safe without that access? Think of the children!

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

#49

Post by whatshisface »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #47
halJordan wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that was my reading as well. The legislation isn't being changed. The statement even says "We know you can develop [the methods to access], and we still have the authority to order it." The only relevant part of from op is the govt acknowledging that 2+2 = 4. But it fails to acknowledge that if they want to get 5, they can still order the equation to be 3+2.

Through most of history government always has the power, but the question is whether it has the legitimacy. In this case it has the legitimacy, but lacks the power. This is an unusual turn. We need online safety for kids. The aims of this bill should obtain widespread support from everyone. But instead of carefully researching and implementing difficult ideas, framing it properly and obtaining permission from the peo…

I already have a remit to embrace online safety on my own terms - I can install a local filtering system if I choose to.

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

#50

Post by maxbond »

jamiek88 wrote: post #41
maxbond wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s possible. As in physics says it can be done. But it isn’t technically feasible, probably ever. There’s nothing in the laws of physics that prohibits us turning burned paper smoke back into a document and recover the information.

I'm not sure physics really does say that. Physicists seem to believe that information is never lost - but that doesn't mean the information can be retrieved. If it's in a fragile state, then the act of measuring it might change it. Eg an electron has both a position and a momentum, but that doesn't mean you can measure it's velocity.

When you burn a document, all the matter might be transferred into the smoke, but you've rendered it into a stream of particles which is small enough to be effected by Brownian motion. Reversing the process (figuring out the initial position of each soot particle) involves knowing the position and momentum of the air molecules impacting the soot particles. In principle, you could take the current position and momentum of those particles and extrapolate backwards - but you can't actually measure that, not even in theory.

Post reply on HN