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

Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 292 posts

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#271

Post by TulliusCicero »

hawk_ wrote: post #63
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cameron put a Eurosceptic in charge of the Remain campaign, and Nick Clegg - supposedly an arch Remainer - went to work for Meta after Cambridge Analytica and its contribution to Brexit became public knowledge. The public were conned. The oligarch-adjacent ruling faction of the ruling class knew exactly what they were doing, the lack of specificity for any Leave plan was deliberate, the lies and propaganda were cynic…

I blame Corbyn as much as Cameron if not more. Corbyn was supposed to represent the working class but because Remain could have benefited some Tories he backstabbed the working class and at least a whole generation if not 2 and for what?

Corbyn was an unusually terrible leader even by Labour standards. Amazing that some people still support him.

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#272

Post by BLKNSLVR »

tim333 wrote: post #139
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone who voted against Brexit knew exactly what Brexit was going to be though.

I didn't. I voted against and thought it would be soft Brexit. But here we are.

At least you got it half right.

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#273

Post by m463 »

inigyou wrote: post #233
freakynit wrote: post #188

All surveillance should start with ministers first. Their private lives streamed 24/7 over internet for the public to watch. Of course, this is only for national security since humans are corruptible, and these people have vastly most control over a nation's resources, thus, 24/7 monitoring of their private lives, by the public, is super important... for national security ... or else how we can be sure they have not…

If Flock is legal in the USA, then it's also legal for a private individual to make their own Flock network.

Why not a roving dashcam-based flock copycat?

(I thought I heard fedex vehicles actually do this)

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#274

Post by warrantisall »

mc32 wrote: post #161
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$5 wrench already in play, US citizen was detained at the border recently for simply wiping their phone

"What, like with a cloth or something?" Destruction of potential evidence of a crime is a crime. Obviously here there is nuance and the courts can determine if this is the right interpretation or not. If he had compromising information and he reasonable suspicion he’d be asked to unlock his phone he should have “wiped” it way before he got to the border.

The person was not charged with destruction of evidence, rather destruction of property to prevent a seizure.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.35...

To be charged with destruction of evidence, the data contained in the device has to be justified as such. It appears this was not the case, note this person was not indicted or accused of anything else too.

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#275

Post by pjmlp »

1718627440 wrote: post #260
pjmlp wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty, ask AI friend about military coups.

Aren't they still claiming, that they do it for and represent the people?

Maybe, however with elections they did in fact asked for it, which was the whole point.

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#276

Post by rsynnott »

DarkUranium wrote: post #76
rsynnott wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even a bit sillier than that. David Cameron promised a dumb thing to get elected, on the assumption that he'd be in another libdem coalition, and the libdems wouldn't allow it. Then he got a majority. And campaigned against his own dumb thing. Not only was it expected to fail at referendum, but the referendum itself was never really meant to happen. > What's shocking of course is that the Brexit vote didn't end…

Little did they know that the UK effectively already had Norway's status and then some, what with all the special privileges they were granted in the EU.

BUT THE FISH.

(The British fisheries industry actually largely suffered due to Brexit, as British people don’t eat much fish, especially the fish available around Britain, and the industry was largely dependent on exports. But it’s the thought that counts, I suppose.)

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#277

Post by mdp2021 »

inigyou wrote: post #255
mdp2021 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Under California AB1043 We are talking about "Brits" here. But you seem to be stating that California has tackled the issue and deliberated that - do I understand correctly? - somebody installs an OS on a machine and sets manually, without verification, a date of birth for the user (setting that will be shared with relevant servers). Are you sure that that would be the way Britain is going to implement it? Why have…

If we want a good thing we should push for the good thing instead of remaining silent while worse people push for the worse thing.

Not clear. What would be the good thing. And what is "we", what is that silence: I denounce that of the britons as a set. We are pretty vocal.

The good thing to push is demanding decent administrations and operators (e.g. in information systems), selected from and evaluated by decent neighborhoods.

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#278

Post by fsflover »

inigyou wrote: post #234
throw0101a wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "ineffective". Traffic analysis is a thing: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_analysis but message E2EE is generally not designed to solve that. Other layers of the stack would probably have to get involved.

For instance WhatsApp uploads your unencrypted message history to Google Cloud once a week.

Or iPhone storing all previous unencrypted notifications including Signal messages, if you didn't switch it off: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47716490

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#279

Post by inigyou »

mdp2021 wrote: post #263
inigyou wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are the ulterior motives people I referred to. Asking on installation is robust enough because parents buy devices for their children and set them up. You could make it even more robust if you required a cellphone store employee to do it. Whatever way someone is authenticated as a cellphone store employee would surely leak, but again: robust enough . An example of something not robust is asking the child upon a…

> You could make it even more robust if you required a cellphone store employee And you would accept a device that would require a third party for setup?!?!?! That is what I meant with "either proving identity or lunatic workarounds"... That "robust enough" is full grounds to have a population rise, given that an expectable combination of stupidity as ineptitude and stupidity as radical psychosis from the state can s…

Yes I accept that every device requires a third party for setup. That setup being namely putting the device in my hands and giving me legal ownership of the device.

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#280

Post by inigyou »

mdp2021 wrote: post #277
inigyou wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we want a good thing we should push for the good thing instead of remaining silent while worse people push for the worse thing.

Not clear. What would be the good thing. And what is "we", what is that silence: I denounce that of the britons as a set. We are pretty vocal. The good thing to push is demanding decent administrations and operators (e.g. in information systems), selected from and evaluated by decent neighborhoods.

sorry that's not a coherent thought
Post reply on HN