UK drops 'spy clause' for scanning encrypted messages, admits not 'feasible' • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by OJFord » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 1:54 PM UTC

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.

They are net contributors even before tourism. (Massively so after it, but I suppose it'd be hard to say how much of that would remain, especially in the short term, if we had no current monarchy but still the history, buildings, military, etc.)

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

#92

Post by master-lincoln » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 1:55 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #89

master-lincoln wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To a large degree we have all of those, I'm not sure which countries rank better on those parameters but there can't be all that many of them. - #6 press freedom ranking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index - #9 freedom house https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores - #11 freedom of speech https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries... And so on. Now: this isn't sayi…

Totally agree with you.

OPs complaint about the police being able to gather private information of their citizens without a judge having to agree to it first might be seen as violating separation of powers, but as long as a judge still decides what the punishment is after seeing the evidence, I merely see this as a state not respecting individual's privacy, which is probably not a common thing to require for a democracy.

Sadly those erosions are to be seen in many EU countries currently...

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

#93

Post by kmlx » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 1:55 PM UTC

pipo234 wrote: post #4

nonrandomstring wrote: post #2

I've read six of these "Oh no we didn't back down" stories this morning. What worries me is the appearance of wishful thinking around the language of "technically feasible". Follow this road far enough and we'll have government ministers with marketing credentials defining what is "technically feasible", instead of scientists. https://cybershow.uk #016 | S2 | Special | UK Online Safety Bill Published on Friday 01st S…

The bigger picture of why UK is hell bent on surveilling their citizens, communities is that the number one problem is that governments are losing control over society. Off course the whole point of democracy is that governments should fear their citizens, rather than vice versa.

> The bigger picture of why UK is hell bent on surveilling their citizens

because it's been asked for by various ONGs, civil society at large, even the opposition parties want it strengthened.

it's not the government that is forcing these things. it's voters.

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

#94

Post by flir » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 2:00 PM UTC

sjducb wrote: post #85

tescocles wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even close. The specific case I know you're talking about is the woman who was in an exclusion zone that was in place to stop people harassing women entering an abortion clinic. If she doesn't want "praying silently in her head" to be interpreted as harassment, maybe she should think about the behaviour she and her cohorts have engaged in that might have lead to this interpretation. Sure, you can disagree with th…

This is a common misunderstanding. Harassing people near abortion clinics is a separate offense. The lady in question has harassed people in the past, but she was specifically arrested and charged for prayer in this case. This offense of prayer is separate to her harassment of people. It’s like if you had drugs in your pocket while harassing someone. They’re separate offenses. This video explains the situation and re…

If anyone wants to jump straight to the order itself, it's the first link under that youtube video.

> the council is satisfied on reasonable grounds that there are a number of activities, carried out or are likely to be carried out in a public space namely the area within and surrounding Station Road, Birmingham, B30, shown outlined on the map attached ( the restricted area) that have had, or are likely to have, a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality. The effect or likely effect of these activities is of a persistent or continuing nature such as to make these activities unreasonable, and justifies the restrictions imposed in this order

[...]

> The Activities prohibited by the Order are:

> i Protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means. This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling,

> ii Interfering, or attempting to interfere, whether verbally or physically, with a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or member of staff,

> iii Intimidating or harassing, or attempting to intimidate or harass, a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or a member of staff,

> iv Recording or photographing a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or member of staff or

> v Displaying any text or images relating directly or indirectly to the termination of pregnancy.

She was protesting. It's a persistent pattern of behaviour. It's harassment.

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

#95

Post by celtoid » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 2:00 PM UTC

miohtama wrote: post #56

bananapub wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not very secret. a bunch of western governments want to be able to spy on the comms of their citizens and lazy terrorists/pedophiles/whatever with poor opsec. basically everyone including normies moving to well-encrypted chat systems makes this very hard (requires court-ordering/NSL/coercing software companies to 0wn their own customers), so instead they want to standardise making it easy for governments. the UK…

Casual spying on citizens is new to Western governments (unless you count East Germany as Western). However in some countries your phone must have mandatory government spyware on your mobile phone and PC: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Dam_Youth_Escort

> Casual spying on citizens is new to Western governments

Five Eyes are old hands at spying on their citizens. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

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

#96

Post by _puk » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 2:02 PM UTC

Aerroon wrote: post #67

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…

I'm slowly becoming of the opinion that legislators should be punished for creating laws that are nakedly illegal (against the constitution/human rights that have been agreed upon). I don't know what can of worms it would open, but it's getting tiring when politicians just ignore the public and push forward with laws that then spend 5 years in court battles to eventually be struck down. But for those 5 years their bu…

In a country that doesn't have a written constitution [0] (per se), and is continually trying to renege on what human rights have been agreed [1], what would there be to punish against?

0: https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-co...

1: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/05/tory-mps-to...

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

#97

Post by pg_1234 » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 2:03 PM UTC

hathchip wrote: post #24

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-…

So they are trying to get the law passed, despite the obvious objection that message filtering is impossible, by saying "we know it's impossible but we would like to have the legal right to do it in case it becomes possible in the future"?

Fortunately:

With the way the law is going the UK could demand that Tech providers provide backdoors into end-to-end encryption.

The providers can refuse.

The UK can then demand that such apps are not available in the UK.

HOWEVER ... the providers can build WASM equivalents that run in the phones browser. These can be available elsewhere in the world, and there is no way to stop UK residents from installing them. If there is no other way to have end-to-end encrypted messaging, some provider WILL offer this ... and they'll make it pretty slick. You can try prosecute each user (not much chance of success).

Legislation that fights well implemented secrecy will always eventually loose, as the government becomes just one more hostile actor, which the tech is already set up to protect against.

If the government pushes too hard, all that happens is that encrypted messaging moves out of app stores into the open internet ... and then, not only can they not see the content, they can barely see who is using it.

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

#98

Post by dghf » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 2:04 PM UTC

Aerroon wrote: post #67

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…

I'm slowly becoming of the opinion that legislators should be punished for creating laws that are nakedly illegal (against the constitution/human rights that have been agreed upon). I don't know what can of worms it would open, but it's getting tiring when politicians just ignore the public and push forward with laws that then spend 5 years in court battles to eventually be struck down. But for those 5 years their bu…

There is no such thing as an illegal Act of Parliament in the UK. Parliament has unfettered power to pass whatever laws it sees fit, regardless of existing laws, treaties, or whatever.

(At least, that's the standard interpretation, though some authorities have suggested it's not quite as simple as that: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_t... for details.)

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

#99

Post by bananapub » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 2:04 PM UTC

_puk wrote: post #96

Aerroon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm slowly becoming of the opinion that legislators should be punished for creating laws that are nakedly illegal (against the constitution/human rights that have been agreed upon). I don't know what can of worms it would open, but it's getting tiring when politicians just ignore the public and push forward with laws that then spend 5 years in court battles to eventually be struck down. But for those 5 years their bu…

In a country that doesn't have a written constitution [0] (per se), and is continually trying to renege on what human rights have been agreed [1], what would there be to punish against? 0: https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-co... 1: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/05/tory-mps-to...

exactly, there's a lot of very weird "Everywhere Is Like The US, Presumably" commenting in this thread

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

#100

Post by bananapub » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 2:07 PM UTC

pg_1234 wrote: post #97

hathchip wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they are trying to get the law passed, despite the obvious objection that message filtering is impossible, by saying "we know it's impossible but we would like to have the legal right to do it in case it becomes possible in the future"?

Fortunately: With the way the law is going the UK could demand that Tech providers provide backdoors into end-to-end encryption. The providers can refuse. The UK can then demand that such apps are not available in the UK. HOWEVER ... the providers can build WASM equivalents that run in the phones browser. These can be available elsewhere in the world, and there is no way to stop UK residents from installing them. If…

> Legislation that fights well implemented secrecy will always eventually loose, as the government becomes just one more hostile actor, which the tech is already set up to protect against.

this is a very bad take, especially as governments across the world are all trying to do this exact same thing.

the US ban on encryption exports stopped secure encryption being exported for a long time. china's security services have enormous ability to spy on their citizens. Prism/Echelon/etc all existed and worked well. LI is a thing everywhere.

this last five-ten years where ~all citizens of rich countries had secure communications is a rare and unusual time, and people are trying quite hard to end it.