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

CertiVox confirms it withdrew PrivateSky after GCHQ issued warrant

itsecurityguru.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: CertiVox confirms it withdrew PrivateSky after GCHQ issued warrant

#61

Post by teamgb »

jackgavigan wrote: post #46
kintamanimatt wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

End of discussion? No, sir, it is not! Your interpretation is extremely naïve. I could hold a gun to your head, for example. You wouldn't be forced per se to meet my demands, but you probably would because it would be extremely unreasonable not to. In the same way, the consequences for not complying are: an extremely expensive and possibly unaffordable rewrite, going to jail for a few years, or giving up their custom…

> I could hold a gun to your head, for example. You wouldn't be forced per se to meet my demands, but you probably would because it would be extremely unreasonable not to. GCHQ never demanded that CertiVox shut down their service. That is the bottom line and, no matter what sort of ridiculous "gun against your head" rationale you come up with or how firmly you plug your ears while shouting "LALALA!" at the top of you…

Sir Ian, nice try, but we know it's you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Lobban

Re: CertiVox confirms it withdrew PrivateSky after GCHQ issued warrant

#62

Post by mindcrime »

csmuk wrote: post #51
jackgavigan wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's ironic that those who are in favour of personal liberties are often on the left of the political spectrum whereas, in this instance, it was the Tories who rolled back aspects of surveillance legislation that was introduced by Labour.

I think that the left/right distinction is silly myself. A typical red vs blue flag waving exercise rather than solving anything. Both labour and conservatives seem to mix the tenets of the two freely based on whim rather than manifesto. On one hand we have Big Society and smash socialism. On the other hand we have Big Society and smash socialism. Same turds, different coloured glitter. All parties have sold out to t…

I think that the left/right distinction is silly myself.

You're right, it's totally ridiculous. The whole thing is rooted in shit that dates back to before the French Revolution[1], and there's no real connection whatsoever between the "left" and "right" of the French Assembly and modern political views.

How absurd is it? Just read this:

There is general consensus that the Left includes progressives, communists, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, civil-libertarians (as in "social-libertarians"; not to be confused with the right's "economic-libertarians"), secularists, and anarchists, and that the Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, capitalists, neoliberals, economic-libertarians (not to be confused with the left's "civil-libertarians"), social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, Nazis (including neo-Nazis) and fascists.

It takes anybody with even half a brain about .0002 seconds to realize that any sort of ontology that lumps "neoconservatives" and "economic libertarians" (which basically corresponds with "US style libertarianism") in the same bin, or that lumps "anarchists" with "democratic socialists", or that lumps pretty much any kind of "libertarian" along with "monarchists" and "theocrats", is totally useless.

In modern terms, there is no "right" and there is no "left". There are just people haphazardly throwing around archaic labels because they either A. have a vague notion that the label confers some sort of appealing "vibe" and want to leverage it to advance their cause, or B. have a vague notion that the label will be seen as a pejorative and want to use it to put their opposition in a bad light.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics

Re: CertiVox confirms it withdrew PrivateSky after GCHQ issued warrant

#63

Post by anoncowherd »

7952 wrote: post #4

There are some details of the legislation in question here[1]. It allows the UK to monitor "in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom" which seems a little broad! It would be interesting to know if this warrant targeted all users or a specific subset? I wonder how they decide whether to issue a warrant or just break into the site in question. A warrant could imply that they are unable to attac…

>> It allows the UK to monitor "in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom" which seems a little broad!

You're right, that is a bit broad. "In the interests of the UK's ruling class" would be more accurate.

Re: CertiVox confirms it withdrew PrivateSky after GCHQ issued warrant

#64

Post by [deleted] »

teamgb wrote: post #60
jackgavigan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if I put a gun to your head, and you give me money, you haven't been forced to, right? Wrong. I HAVE been forced. You have threatened me with death if I don't comply with your demand. GCHQ never demanded that CertiVox shut down their service. They (or, rather, the Home Secretary) demanded that they hand over the key(s) required to decrypt one (or more) of CertiVox's customer's data. If CertiVox took it upon them…

Theresa, is that you?! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May

[deleted]

Re: CertiVox confirms it withdrew PrivateSky after GCHQ issued warrant

#65

Post by bribriinlondon2 »

maffydub wrote: post #57
_mhp_ wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no actually secure - that's the problem. The best you can do is secure against specific threat models. Up until recently, most people didn't necessarily view government intrusion as a particularly credible threat, so didn't spend the extra time/effort/money mitigating against it. One of the best things to come out of all these revelations, in my opinion, is a revised view of what threats we should consider w…

You're right that we may have been naive about trusting our governments. What I don't understand is why anyone trusted businesses (such as CertiVox and Lavabit) to keep their emails secure? If the businesses themselves couldn't decrypt these emails, there's nothing the government could usefully ask them for.

That's a complete misunderstanding of the law and on whose shoulders it falls on to provide data in the clear to the relevant authorities upon legal request.

Re: CertiVox confirms it withdrew PrivateSky after GCHQ issued warrant

#66

Post by rhizome »

maffydub wrote: post #57
_mhp_ wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no actually secure - that's the problem. The best you can do is secure against specific threat models. Up until recently, most people didn't necessarily view government intrusion as a particularly credible threat, so didn't spend the extra time/effort/money mitigating against it. One of the best things to come out of all these revelations, in my opinion, is a revised view of what threats we should consider w…

You're right that we may have been naive about trusting our governments. What I don't understand is why anyone trusted businesses (such as CertiVox and Lavabit) to keep their emails secure? If the businesses themselves couldn't decrypt these emails, there's nothing the government could usefully ask them for.

What I don't understand is why anyone trusted businesses (such as CertiVox and Lavabit) to keep their emails secure?

Because they didn't consider "because terrorism" to be a security threat that could penetrate privacy and property laws. Lavabit has proven that the Third-Party Doctrine means that once you give data to a business, you're giving it to the government.

Re: CertiVox confirms it withdrew PrivateSky after GCHQ issued warrant

#67

Post by hash9 »

teamgb wrote: post #60
jackgavigan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if I put a gun to your head, and you give me money, you haven't been forced to, right? Wrong. I HAVE been forced. You have threatened me with death if I don't comply with your demand. GCHQ never demanded that CertiVox shut down their service. They (or, rather, the Home Secretary) demanded that they hand over the key(s) required to decrypt one (or more) of CertiVox's customer's data. If CertiVox took it upon them…

Theresa, is that you?! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May

Going through the thread calling people names. Keep it classy teamgb.

Re: CertiVox confirms it withdrew PrivateSky after GCHQ issued warrant

#68

Post by hash9 »

jackgavigan wrote: post #45
alan_cx wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I put a gun to your head, and you give me money, you haven't been forced to, right? Are you PG? No? Then who are you to decide when a discussion ends round here?

> So if I put a gun to your head, and you give me money, you haven't been forced to, right? Wrong. I HAVE been forced. You have threatened me with death if I don't comply with your demand. GCHQ never demanded that CertiVox shut down their service. They (or, rather, the Home Secretary) demanded that they hand over the key(s) required to decrypt one (or more) of CertiVox's customer's data. If CertiVox took it upon them…

It doesn't matter that the CEO agrees with you. Your post went against the circlejerk and got duly downvoted.

Re: CertiVox confirms it withdrew PrivateSky after GCHQ issued warrant

#69

Post by at-fates-hands »

Just confirmation of another vendor who said no to the government intrusions on their customer data.

I"ll say it again since it bears repeating. How many more companies are complying and giving their keys to the government so they can track people that we won't hear about??

Makes me sketchy on using any "encrypted" email service right now.

Post reply on HN