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

UK drops 'spy clause' for scanning encrypted messages, admits not 'feasible'

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 160 posts

Re: UK drops 'spy clause' for scanning encrypted messages, admits not 'feasible'

#71

Post by bananapub »

curiousllama wrote: post #68
bananapub wrote: post #17

The reporting on this is horrific, including by the businesses involved. Absolutely nothing legally was changed. The government put out a press release saying some worthless crap, that's the entire thing that happened. edit: sorry, not a press release, sent a minion to read out a non-binding statement, who then confirmed the the law was not actually changed at all: https://www.reuters.com/technology/uk-minister-says-…

And yet a few layers deeper, a lot has changed. The bill is dead, and anyone who wants to revive it knows they need significant political capital to do so. Politics ain't tech - a non-binding agreement that signals "we're not going to do this, at least for the next 3-5 years" is a win in politics.

> And yet a few layers deeper, a lot has changed. The bill is dead, and anyone who wants to revive it knows they need significant political capital to do so.

> Politics ain't tech - a non-binding agreement that signals "we're not going to do this, at least for the next 3-5 years" is a win in politics.

What on earth are you talking about?

The bill was passed by the Commons and then will be passed by the Lords and then will become law.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137

Re: UK drops 'spy clause' for scanning encrypted messages, admits not 'feasible'

#72

Post by varispeed »

curiousllama wrote: post #68
bananapub wrote: post #17

The reporting on this is horrific, including by the businesses involved. Absolutely nothing legally was changed. The government put out a press release saying some worthless crap, that's the entire thing that happened. edit: sorry, not a press release, sent a minion to read out a non-binding statement, who then confirmed the the law was not actually changed at all: https://www.reuters.com/technology/uk-minister-says-…

And yet a few layers deeper, a lot has changed. The bill is dead, and anyone who wants to revive it knows they need significant political capital to do so. Politics ain't tech - a non-binding agreement that signals "we're not going to do this, at least for the next 3-5 years" is a win in politics.

This should be classed as an attempt at violating human rights and possibly other violations.

After all this worthless bill cost millions to develop and if people knew it is not workable, then they de facto defrauded the tax payer.

Re: UK drops 'spy clause' for scanning encrypted messages, admits not 'feasible'

#73

Post by master-lincoln »

jacquesm wrote: post #45
hcfman wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just the UK. The Netherlands is like that as well and it's lost it's democracy. They can now hack anyone, not just criminals, without a judge being involved or even any evidence. They can shutdown speech that they don't like and they regularly commit criminal acts against non-criminally involved citizens organised by non-accountable organisations.

This is a bit over the top, don't you think? Case in point: we will have elections one of these days, that seems to be proof to me that we still are a democracy. Or do you believe in widespread vote fraud?

Elections alone don't make a democracy. Fair and free and secret elections are necessary but not sufficient for a democracy. Free press, protection of minorities, free speech, separation of powers, fundamental rights are other parts I think are necessary for a liberal democracy.

Re: UK drops 'spy clause' for scanning encrypted messages, admits not 'feasible'

#74

Post by BookhouseGames »

PrimeMcFly wrote: post #58
bananapub wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

christ alive buddy. the royal family costs the UK tax payer ~100m a year[0], which is about the cost of the three nuclear bombs in the US or less than one of the ill-advised F-32 purchases Australia is making. it's also maybe a 1/10th of the amount of money stolen by Tory mates for their various PPE crimes during the early pandemic. every country has very very dumb shit they piss money up the wall over, but it's not…

That's ~100m that could be put towards things that actually help people and improve peoples lives.

India could put a craft on the moon for that.

Re: UK drops 'spy clause' for scanning encrypted messages, admits not 'feasible'

#75

Post by nonrandomstring »

pjc50 wrote: post #59
nonrandomstring wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try to take a charitable, open-minded position in this. Two of us in the cybershow are parents. Taking on analysis of this bill was a tough decision, but something we felt obliged and qualified to do as parents and security experts. There are obviously grave harms around digital technology, plus its obvious myriad benefits. Covert communications enabling criminal and anti-social activity is just one small part. Our…

> Our thought experiment is to assume good faith. At this stage, and in the dying days of a flailing Tory government, that simply makes you a mug. Also from today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-66720994 ; this is specifically to protect murders carried out by and on behalf of the state in Northern Ireland. Along with historical matters such as the "spycops" scandal, and the abuses of PREVENT, there i…

> in the dying days of a flailing Tory government, that simply makes you a mug.

TBF let's take longer view than the incumbent freak show of throwbacks and incompetents.

> "spycops" scandal, and the abuses of PREVENT,

Do please give the podcast episode I linked a listen. You'll appreciate that we took that precise case (the Bob Lambert case) as an example for discussing mission-creep and the impossibility of containment of digital privilege or other special powers.

Re: UK drops 'spy clause' for scanning encrypted messages, admits not 'feasible'

#76

Post by Ylpertnodi »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #62
bananapub wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they are trying to get the law passed they did pass the law through the lower house. the upper house can demand amendments and stall things a bit, but it can also just be completely ignored given enough time. > despite the obvious objection that message filtering is impossible it's not impossible, it's just a horrificly bad idea, and why would being impossible affect if it gets passed or not? > by saying "we know it…

>lots of governments pass lots of laws and regulations and are untruthful about what they'll do later. If I was giving them the benefit of the doubt I would say they are trying to avoid losing face.

>they are trying to avoid losing face.

After boris johnson, liz truss, not achieving much after 13 years etc, etc, etc I rather suspect saving face is the least of a Tory worry.

Re: UK drops 'spy clause' for scanning encrypted messages, admits not 'feasible'

#77

Post by skinkestek »

gottorf wrote: post #63
nonrandomstring wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try to take a charitable, open-minded position in this. Two of us in the cybershow are parents. Taking on analysis of this bill was a tough decision, but something we felt obliged and qualified to do as parents and security experts. There are obviously grave harms around digital technology, plus its obvious myriad benefits. Covert communications enabling criminal and anti-social activity is just one small part. Our…

> to assume good faith. To assume the government is sincerely invested in doing it's job of protecting citizens. Five thousand years of recorded human history should serve as adequate evidence against making this assumption. And we all know that even if the current government is sincerely invested in doing its job in good faith, any powers that are given to the current government can and will be abused by a future go…

> And we all know that even if the current government is sincerely invested in doing its job in good faith, any powers that are given to the current government can and will be abused by a future government that may be invested in doing something else.

Exactly this.

For starters, and using the U as an example:

If you are a Democrat (or whatever), think if you want these powers to be available to the next Trump.

And vice versa: if you are a republican (or whatever) think if you want these spying capabilities and what not to be available to the next Democrat president.

Re: UK drops 'spy clause' for scanning encrypted messages, admits not 'feasible'

#78

Post by eesmith »

gottorf wrote: post #64
eesmith wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the whole point of democracy is that governments should fear their citizens, rather than vice versa. I think that's more an optimistic interpretation of democracy. After all, it's the government that gets to decide who is a citizen, and who has the franchise. Historically the US said that African Americans were not citizens, within the meaning of the Constitution. In 1858 your statement might be 100% true about the…

To be fair, the GP said governments should fear their citizens, not that they do and always have done. It's an ideal end state, I guess.

I think that veers too close to the No True Scotsman fallacy.

It's like saying that in a {a benevolent dictatorship, real communism, true anarchy} the citizens will not fear the government.

Re: UK drops 'spy clause' for scanning encrypted messages, admits not 'feasible'

#79

Post by bananapub »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #62
bananapub wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they are trying to get the law passed they did pass the law through the lower house. the upper house can demand amendments and stall things a bit, but it can also just be completely ignored given enough time. > despite the obvious objection that message filtering is impossible it's not impossible, it's just a horrificly bad idea, and why would being impossible affect if it gets passed or not? > by saying "we know it…

>lots of governments pass lots of laws and regulations and are untruthful about what they'll do later. If I was giving them the benefit of the doubt I would say they are trying to avoid losing face.

what on earth does that mean?

the bill passed: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137

the entire thing that happened yesterday is a nobody minister (not the actual person in charge of any of this) said they wouldn't do a thing the law allows them to do. they didn't change the law, or pass a regulation or anything, they just did a speech.

Post reply on HN