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

151–160 of 160 posts

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

#151

Post by TrueDuality »

bananapub wrote: post #107
TrueDuality wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They said nothing about it being practical. Specifically from the Reuters article: > Junior minister Stephen Parkinson appeared to concede ground to the tech companies' arguments on Wednesday, saying in parliament's upper chamber that the Ofcom communications regulator would only require them to scan content where "technically feasible". What this means is any chat system that isn't using end-to-end encryption is sub…

> What this means is any chat system that isn't using end-to-end encryption is subject to these laws. Anything using end-to-end encryption is considered unfeasible to scan. Why are you asserting this is true? Adding a backdoor to an e2e system is technically feasible, what makes you imagine that is excluded?

That is what the press release was specifically about.

Additionally, I strongly disagree with your assertion. Adding any kind of scanning system like that is technically infeasible unless you sacrifice some measure of security. The government and many nation states have been trying to argue against encryption of various levels (even less than end-to-end encryption) and the ultimate outcome is it being rejected because all of those measures _meaningfully weaken the security of the system_.

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

#152

Post by dang »

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…

Can you please stop using HN to promote your podcast? You're doing it way too much and users are complaining.

HN is supposed to be a place for curious conversation, and promotion is the opposite of that. Hence the guideline:

"Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the site should be for curiosity."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#153

Post by teawrecks »

pydry wrote: post #138
justin66 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No human being whatsoever should be surprised when Reuters offers better reporting than The Register.

What is wrong with it? The article actually states everything the OP did here. I'm not sure what is missed. From what Ive heard on the grapevine PR flacks hate the Register. That kind of says it all. They dont just republish press releases like Reuters or write neoliberal op eds like the Economist.

The headline literally says the "spy clause" was dropped. It sounds like that's it true at all, nothing was dropped.

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

#154

Post by bananapub »

Canada wrote: post #136
bananapub wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's the lie? deploying this mass surveillance system is definitely possible.

That government funded research shows safe backdoor can be implemented. There is no question that mass surveillance is possible. It's the government claiming that what it wants tech companies to implement is not mass surveillance.

> That government funded research shows safe backdoor can be implemented.

where did she claim that?

the article just says:

> "If there was a situation where the mitigations that the social media providers are taking are not enough, and if after further work with the regulator they still can't demonstrate that they can meet the requirements within the bill, then the conversation about technology around encryption takes place," she said.

> She said further work to develop the technology was needed, but added that government-funded research had shown it was possible.

and what does "safe" even mean?

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

#155

Post by bananapub »

vdqtp3 wrote: post #141
dghf wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

To take this to an extreme, are you saying that under UK law, it would be legal for Parliament to legalize slavery or permit other activities that would unconscionable and illegal without such action?

> To take this to an extreme, are you saying that under UK law, it would be legal for Parliament to legalize slavery or permit other activities that would unconscionable and illegal without such action?

definitely. why is this surprising? countries permit all sorts of unconscionable things (the US had slavery and only banned it "except as a punishment for crime", literally has the death penalty right now) and by definition legislatures turn things from "illegal" to "legal" and vice versa constantly. the US could re-legalise slavery via a constitutional amendment any time it wanted, Ireland could ban divorce again, Australia could un-repeal Section 127, etc etc.

the only difference in the UK is that there's no "basic law" / "constitution" that's harder to change than regular laws.

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

#156

Post by bananapub »

TrueDuality wrote: post #151
bananapub wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What this means is any chat system that isn't using end-to-end encryption is subject to these laws. Anything using end-to-end encryption is considered unfeasible to scan. Why are you asserting this is true? Adding a backdoor to an e2e system is technically feasible, what makes you imagine that is excluded?

That is what the press release was specifically about. Additionally, I strongly disagree with your assertion. Adding any kind of scanning system like that is technically infeasible unless you sacrifice some measure of security. The government and many nation states have been trying to argue against encryption of various levels (even less than end-to-end encryption) and the ultimate outcome is it being rejected becaus…

> he ultimate outcome is it being rejected because all of those measures _meaningfully weaken the security of the system_.

this is beyond naive.

the reason these measures have been rejected is due to public outcry and bad press for the governments trying it. the US banned exporting functional encryption for a long time, Australia passed it's you-must-assist-security-services bill, every country has LI systems embedded in etc etc. the LI systems hugely reduce security, up to and including mass infiltration by the US of an ally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_wiretapping_case_2004–05

if you think "that'll make things less secure" is actually going to stop these constant attempts to eliminate private communications, you're going to be hugely disappointed by the next ten years.

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

#157

Post by cryptonym »

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…

See how China build its own internet and will individually go after people trying to use a VPN.

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

#158

Post by dghf »

vdqtp3 wrote: post #141
dghf wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

To take this to an extreme, are you saying that under UK law, it would be legal for Parliament to legalize slavery or permit other activities that would unconscionable and illegal without such action?

Yes. The Supreme Court might declare such a law incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (incorporated into UK law under the Human Rights Act), but that does not in itself invalidate the law: it would remain the law until Parliament amended it or repealed it (if it ever did).

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

#159

Post by justin66 »

pydry wrote: post #138
justin66 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No human being whatsoever should be surprised when Reuters offers better reporting than The Register.

What is wrong with it? The article actually states everything the OP did here. I'm not sure what is missed. From what Ive heard on the grapevine PR flacks hate the Register. That kind of says it all. They dont just republish press releases like Reuters or write neoliberal op eds like the Economist.

> From what Ive heard on the grapevine PR flacks hate the Register. That kind of says it all.

Everyone with good judgment hates The Register and recognizes that it's unmitigated hot garbage. This does not logically imply that the PR flacks you're referring to necessarily have good judgment and I don't mean to imply that.

Nothing personal, everyone has their lapses. Look at music in the late nineties...

> They dont just republish press releases like Reuters or write neoliberal op eds like the Economist.

Okee dokee.

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

#160

Post by robertlagrant »

mcpackieh wrote: post #142
robertlagrant wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, sometimes they'd have someone crouched in the room next door listening and looking. That seems fairly invasive even by today's standards.

Yes, the things the Stasi did were insanely paranoid. But I think they still got less "bang for their buck" than modern western democracies. The latter have a far more complete map of who associates with who, logs of where people have been even months before they become subjects of interest, etc.

I think it was probably better - if people can turn in their neighbours or family for a small reward that's a lot cheaper than mass surveillance, and it induces compliance as a bonus!
Post reply on HN