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

291–300 of 320 posts

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

#291

Post by basisword »

anonymous_sorry wrote: post #145
basisword wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Familiarizing myself with TikTok or whatever the kids are into these days would fill me with dread. You don't need to. Don't give them devices until they're 16, and then implement the built in parental controls that come on every smartphone. When they are 18 and can buy their own, they can do what they want. I'm guessing your actual issue isn't familiarizing yourself with TikTok etc, but is instead facing conflict…

No, I'm just trying to empathise with busy parents rather than write off parents who struggle with this stuff as lazy. I know some parents give their children devices for safety reasons. For others, I guess they don't want their children to be socially isolated if all the other 14 year olds are chatting on messenger. My only point was that it can be hard, and that not everyone who fails at it is lazy. It sounds like…

Oh yeah I get that. My point was more that there is a simple solution that requires almost no time investment (i.e. a good option for busy parents). It might not be for everyone but it’s a solution that is to easily dismissed very often.

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

#292

Post by Terretta »

zo1 wrote: post #254
p-e-w wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making it sound as if the headline was poorly written, perhaps by accident or by a poor writer. I can assure you that isn't the case. Whoever wrote that headline is a copywriting genius. The headline conveys almost the exact opposite of what really happened, without being factually wrong. That doesn't happen by accident.

Curious what you would say the opposite is?

> Curious what you would say the opposite is?

“UK has not backed down in tech encryption row, minister says”

https://www.reuters.com/technology/uk-minister-says-position...

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

#293

Post by thefurdrake »

staplers wrote: post #242
worik wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because "they" say it's bad, does not make it good Bitcoin is bad. Even a broken clock is right twice a day....

Feel free to reply what makes bitcoin bad in a way any different from other high tech.

Outcome.

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

#294

Post by RegW »

vore wrote: post #248
RegW wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. When you text somebody it's assumed it's SMS, but if your friendship circle is on Android then in actual fact it's Google Messages. All the same benefits: end-to-end encryption and data mining.

I think what the parent meant was that if someone wants you to "text" them, they actually mean to send a message on WhatsApp and nothing to do with whatever texting on a given platform is. Also, how are you data mining end-to-end encrypted messages? How can you get data out of messages you can't even see the contents of?

Well I assume that the end-to-end encryption is honoured, and the message is not parsed in any way at either end. I also assume that the end-to-end reference is between your phone and the phone of the intended recipient, and not between your phone and the server routing the message. I don't have access to the source so I don't have any way to prove that, but with the objections by Facebook/Whatsapp/Meta to breaking the encryption this seems to be the case.

No, the data-mining with these apps is in your list of contacts. Whatsapp takes these and builds you into a network. Its not what you say, it is who you are talking to and when. That is valuable.

When you sign up, you up load your contacts to Whatsapp. If you try to prevent it, it will insist and not work until you do. You can try to clear down your contacts and sign up without any. However, it will still take your number and look it up in the contacts of all those who have your number. It now has your name and any details your contacts have chosen to keep about you.

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

#295

Post by thefurdrake »

nlitened wrote: post #211
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't true, is it? If so that's slightly terrifying.

What they would use instead? Plain-text emails? Plain-text SMS? Paper mail?

This question confuses me. Are we really in a year where people don't know you can securely encrypt email within an organization? This is a solved problem, and it's been solved for decades.

It's confusing because you nailed "Plain-text emails" but completely ignored signed, encrypted emails for some reason.

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

#296

Post by PawgerZ »

ChrisKnott wrote: post #281
generationP wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Local police is a part of the government as far as the laws in question are concerned; it's them who will be using or abusing the surveillance powers granted by the law. And the Rotherham scandal took two decades to be addressed, due not least to fierce political interference.

What surveillance powers? Granted by what law?

Don't be dense. Look at the thread you're in

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

#297

Post by rtkwe »

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.

Make no mistake this is going to come back around again. Fundamentally the state security apparatus will always want ways to peer into messages and break encryption despite the damages that will inevitably cause when their control mechanisms slip. It's been explained a dozen times to a dozen different administrations and they always come back asking for access.

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

#298

Post by jlokier »

jlokier wrote: post #193
amiga-workbench wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not completely untrue, there was a whole hoo-hah over getting Boris Johnsons WhatsApp messages. They use it to get around the requirement that official communications be logged and available for later scrutiny, much like a bank has to retain communications in case of an audit.

Also worth a note that Boris Johnson (former prime minister for those far from the UK) himself said he was happy to share all those WhatsApp messages on his phone with the investigation team, and it was a government department that stepped in to refuse access to those messages, repeatedly. They considered the WhatsApp messages too sensitive for an official investigation to read.

I think the replies and downvoter may have missed my intended point, which is that WhatsApp seems to be simultaneously treated as not an official channel and yet also treated as containing officially sensitive messages.

Whether Boris was telling the truth or not was irrelevant to my intended point.

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

#299

Post by ChrisKnott »

PawgerZ wrote: post #296
ChrisKnott wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What surveillance powers? Granted by what law?

Don't be dense. Look at the thread you're in

The Online Safety Bill doesn't grant any surveillance powers, as far as I'm aware...?

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

#300

Post by monksy »

ThePowerOfFuet wrote: post #224
monksy wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great example https://www.wired.com/story/apple-csam-scanning-heat-initiat... Heat initiative is basically non existent on Google. Not much of said about how they're funded or who is apart of it Their website is protectchildrennotabuse.org Has a CEO with experience in running charitable orgs They're explicitly focused on client side scanning and reporting on the iPhone. Honestly if you're reading this archive the web…

heatinitiative.org was registered 2023-08-23... so the paint is barely dry. Their privacy policy also turns up nothing.

The place has a CEO, made communication to Tim cook, been featured in Wired, put up massive scare mongering examples of bad people, made vague claims of a large organization. (collective effort of concerned child safety experts and advocates) [Prior instance of their page claims researchers, experts, and advocates].

All this and they're solely focused on a small corner case of 1 business and somehow their google presence is just not there.

Post reply on HN