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

Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

techradar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 299 posts

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#151

Post by josteink »

dbdr wrote: post #113
miroljub wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK arrests 12k people per year for social media posts, using vague laws to undermine free speech. Here's the citation from the EU parliament itself [1], since I doubt you'd believe non-government sources. > That is because Germany and UK are beacons of democracy when compared to the countries that you listed. Read my comment again. The fact that the UK and Germany are in some aspects still better than the ones I…

> The UK arrests 12k people per year for social media posts, using vague laws to undermine free speech. A spokesperson for Leicestershire police clarified that offences under section 127 and section 1 can include any form of communication and may also be “serious domestic abuse-related crimes”. [1] It seems misleading to count arrests related to domestic abuse as "anti-free speech". [1]: https://lordslibrary.parliame…

It seems very politically convenient to be able to hide that one number behind the other. To obfuscate something highly controversial by making it artificially conflated with something everyone would agree on with.

This is what governments do when they want to avoid public scrutiny. This is not the win you are looking for.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#152

Post by t0bia_s »

flowerthoughts wrote: post #17

> He warns that developers of apps like Signal and WhatsApp could technically fall within the legal definition of "hostile activity" simply because their technology "make[s] it more difficult for UK security and intelligence agencies to monitor communications. Sounds like Let's Encrypt would also fall under that. This has got to stop. If you want to stop criminals, then focus on their illegal activites, not the stree…

So you still believe that system which gives people less freedom with every new regulation would solve anything by contributing to it? Shouldn't we abandon the idea of giving our repsonsibility and power to uknown electorate?

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#153

Post by oasisaimlessly »

nisegami wrote: post #36
LunicLynx wrote: post #29

I think there is a point to this. I’m not saying I’m a fan. But the reality is that it is too simple to communicate secretly, and the government has an interest in protecting its citizens. This is true in many aspects. (Health, technology, electronics, traffic) Btw. The https communication comparison does not hold, there is always a third party that can read what you say. E2E chats are effectively communication where…

>Btw. The https communication comparison does not hold, there is always a third party that can read what you say. E2E chats are effectively communication where evidence is instantly destroyed. If I use a third party CA this is correct. But what third party can read communications over HTTPS between a client and a server I control with a self signed SSL cert?

Not even correct for a third party CA (unless they MITM you).

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#154

Post by cjbgkagh »

9dev wrote: post #120
chii wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see why governments think they are doing this to protect the people. they're not doing this to protect people, they're doing this to ensure there cannot be rebellion against unpopular policies. Organization is harder if all communications is monitored. But this is how gov't get to be kept in check - the risk of "rebellion". If this risk is removed, you get authoritarian states - see north korea.

I know its satisfying to think of the government as some singular nefarious entity, but the reality is far worse: There is no one in charge. It’s chaos all the way down.

There are a few people in charge, they just don’t advertise the fact. Similar how the ‘Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence’. These both appear correct to the vast majority of people because of the Pareto distribution of outcomes, the vast majority of people experience the incompetence / no-one in charge and don’t experience the relatively tiny number of events when the competent malevolent people in charge do make their decisions. Consider if you were hosting the Jekyll Island meeting, how many people of what caliber would you invite to be there? And that’s just one of the meetings we know about. Another good one is the involvement of Bohemian Grove in selecting Ronald Regan to run for president. Their motto, "Weaving spiders come not here", like many institutions, describes the opposite of what actually happens there.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#155

Post by everdrive »

debugnik wrote: post #139
gbil wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curtains should also fall under the same category because they do make it more difficult for UK security and intelligence agencies to monitor suspect activities. Then of course you also have walls... The argument is so fundamentally stupid that they should be embarrassed just putting it down in writing!

Don't worry, WiFi sensing will eventually remove our walls and curtains for free in that respect.

And if this were weaponized in a big way, you'd still have people leaving their wifi enabled, but complaining "why can we regulate this problem away!"

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#156

Post by sgtrx »

nisegami wrote: post #36
LunicLynx wrote: post #29

I think there is a point to this. I’m not saying I’m a fan. But the reality is that it is too simple to communicate secretly, and the government has an interest in protecting its citizens. This is true in many aspects. (Health, technology, electronics, traffic) Btw. The https communication comparison does not hold, there is always a third party that can read what you say. E2E chats are effectively communication where…

>Btw. The https communication comparison does not hold, there is always a third party that can read what you say. E2E chats are effectively communication where evidence is instantly destroyed. If I use a third party CA this is correct. But what third party can read communications over HTTPS between a client and a server I control with a self signed SSL cert?

This isn't correct with 3rd party CA's with modern TLS either.

TLSv1.2 has Perfect Forward Secrecy with DHE and ECDHE key exchanges and in TLSv1.3 PFS is mandatory. A compromised root CA or even leaf certificate these days protects you from a man-in-the-middle and not a whole lot else - the certificate private key is never used for session key derivation and the keys themselves are ephemeral and never sent over the wire so even intercepting the key exchange doesn't allow decryption of the stream.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#157

Post by everdrive »

Kbelicius wrote: post #63
miroljub wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK arrests 12k people per year for social media posts, using vague laws to undermine free speech. Here's the citation from the EU parliament itself [1], since I doubt you'd believe non-government sources. > That is because Germany and UK are beacons of democracy when compared to the countries that you listed. Read my comment again. The fact that the UK and Germany are in some aspects still better than the ones I…

> The UK arrests 12k people per year for social media posts, using vague laws to undermine free speech. This doesn't mean anything in isolation. > Here's the citation from the EU parliament itself [1], since I doubt you'd believe non-government sources. Do we know each other? > The fact that the UK and Germany are in some aspects still better than the ones I mentioned doesn't make them beacons of democracy. No, but t…

>> The UK arrests 12k people per year for social media posts, using vague laws to undermine free speech.

>This doesn't mean anything in isolation.

For anyone who cares about free speech, this is very scary and very troubling, regardless of any other factors at play.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#158

Post by DaSHacka »

Hizonner wrote: post #143
tejohnso wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they could sit on their hands and still get paid Could? I know of government employees who literally cannot do their job, yet somehow they've been employed for over twenty years. When I say they can't do their job, I mean they have to ask coworkers how to do something that is and always has been a job requirement, and they have to "ask for help" every time. People are actually enabling massive amounts of waste and…

You seem to think this is somehow specific to government. It is not. And, no, the market does not eventually destroy the organizations where it happens.

While perhaps not exclusive to the public sector, it undeniably happens WAY more often.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#160

Post by jandrewrogers »

MangoToupe wrote: post #79
creata wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For people too lazy to click, the second post was: > I think it’s time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter. > Violence and murder is the only way now. Start off burning every migrant hotel then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament, we need to take over by FORCE. I'm not sure what the punishment for such a clear but ineffective incitement to violence should be, but it shouldn't…

This is an convictable crime in the US. Inciting violence is emphatically not protected speech.

This is definitely not a crime in the US per the US Supreme Court. Several additional conditions not in evidence are required for speech of this type to fall outside of First Amendment protections.
Post reply on HN