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

51–60 of 320 posts

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

#51

Post by thereddaikon »

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…

People might be more receptive if the UK government had shown any real intention of going after pedos before this. But the number of scandals and coverups indicate they dont. And this is little more than an excuse to make it easier to spy on their subjects.

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

#52

Post by Jigsy »

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…

Online safety for kids begins at home. The problem is most parents are just too lazy.

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

#56

Post by [deleted] »

jamiek88 wrote: post #42
kelseyfrog wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#57

Post by kelseyfrog »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #32
kelseyfrog wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The podcast makes a unsubstantiated and unexamined assumption: kids > must be online. You haven't listened to a single word of it have you? https://soundcloud.com/chrismorrisbits/peter-ohanraha-hanrah... It says precisely the opposite.

The podcast starts with a kid interviewing parents who unanimously support the bill, calling it brilliant.

If the podcast wants to say the thing, they should say the thing rather than its opposite.

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

#58

Post by sweis »

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.

NIST post-quantum standards resulted from a 8+ year process and public competition: https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography

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

#59

Post by orlp »

glitchc wrote: post #43
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.

> 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.

Except it's not. There exist such cryptographic trapdoor constructions that are perfectly secure, if the government backdoor key is kept safe.

The problem is keeping the government backdoor key safe. But that's not a literal impossible technical problem. It's much more a social problem.

Don't get me wrong, I really, really wish what you said was true and we could kill this garbage forever by nature of technical argument. But it isn't, so we must keep fighting against it for the real reason: we simply don't want this.

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

#60

Post by nonrandomstring »

whatshisface wrote: post #49
nonrandomstring wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of curse, but it's not terribly easy for the average person to put sophisticated filters into multiple content pipelines on every child's device (imagine having 4 or 5 kids of different ages and needs).

So a solution I think we brainstormed on the show was mandating open interoperable APIs that allow easy insertion of (presumably commercial or open source) plugins into the system, within the user's end-to-end digital estate, under the control of the user (parent) and completely rejecting the MITM and endpoint compromise via back-doors that the government naively proposed.

In many ways that would take a much bigger stick to Big Tech,

It also transitions the definition of "online harms" to those defined by the guardian/parent rather than problematically allowing the State to define harms and control the selectors.

What that says to me is that the government are dishonest about the real aims of the bill.

And further, as a consequence, it crushes my belief that the government even truly care out child safety except as a vehicle to greater tyranny.

Post reply on HN