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

If David Cameron bans secure encryption he can't intercept

blog.mythic-beasts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 104 posts

Re: If David Cameron bans secure encryption he can't intercept

#21

Post by northernmonkey »

chao- wrote: post #17
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really the elected government, it's the security services asking for an expanded remit and being granted one by uncritical politicians and an apathetic media.

Who are the security services employed by? I certainly wouldn't call them private industry! Did you mean to say it's not elected government officials? Just curious, because I definitely consider a country's intelligence apparatus to be completely and wholly part of its "government", and would be surprised to find someone who didn't.

But a Country's intelligence apparatus doesn't 'govern'. I'm not trying to be deliberately argumentative but it seems to me that there is a clear and obvious distinction between a government and the organisations tasked by it to provide intelligence.

Re: If David Cameron bans secure encryption he can't intercept

#22

Post by Zigurd »

chao- wrote: post #17
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really the elected government, it's the security services asking for an expanded remit and being granted one by uncritical politicians and an apathetic media.

Who are the security services employed by? I certainly wouldn't call them private industry! Did you mean to say it's not elected government officials? Just curious, because I definitely consider a country's intelligence apparatus to be completely and wholly part of its "government", and would be surprised to find someone who didn't.

Read about the Dulles brothers. They forged very strong connections between overt and covert foreign policy and industry.

Re: If David Cameron bans secure encryption he can't intercept

#23

Post by tonyedgecombe »

chao- wrote: post #17
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really the elected government, it's the security services asking for an expanded remit and being granted one by uncritical politicians and an apathetic media.

Who are the security services employed by? I certainly wouldn't call them private industry! Did you mean to say it's not elected government officials? Just curious, because I definitely consider a country's intelligence apparatus to be completely and wholly part of its "government", and would be surprised to find someone who didn't.

I was thinking of government as the elected officials, the rest is the civil service and departments including the security services.

I was trying to say the security services will always press for more powers and it's the job of politicians to know when to resist those requests.

Re: If David Cameron bans secure encryption he can't intercept

#24

Post by c0g »

Except Cameron wants to backdoor end-to-end encryption like iMessage/Whatsapp, rather than mess with something like SSL. With SSL they can just get a warrant (or you know, don't get a warrant) and look at the server, where everything is in plain text.

One possible way to backdoor it might be mandate that companies keep copies of the encrypted messages, tagged with a device ID. Then to decrypt you need to get the person's phone, which is a clearer analogy to getting a warrant to search someone's house to look for things they have stashed.

Re: If David Cameron bans secure encryption he can't intercept

#25

Post by pjc50 »

SCdF wrote: post #20
lowmagnet wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given current trends, I'm guessing national root certificate as a license to MITM all traffic.

Yeah I was going to have that as an example in my comment, but even then that seems unrealistic to me. Why wouldn't the big tech companies simply not do that? The UK needs them more than they need the UK, and if you took away the country's access to Facebook for more than an hour you'd have a riot on your hands.

I'd assume they'd go along with government policy, like they have done in e.g. China. And the government proposed taking down twitter and BBM during the London riots a few years ago.

Re: If David Cameron bans secure encryption he can't intercept

#27

Post by pjc50 »

northernmonkey wrote: post #21
chao- wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are the security services employed by? I certainly wouldn't call them private industry! Did you mean to say it's not elected government officials? Just curious, because I definitely consider a country's intelligence apparatus to be completely and wholly part of its "government", and would be surprised to find someone who didn't.

But a Country's intelligence apparatus doesn't 'govern'. I'm not trying to be deliberately argumentative but it seems to me that there is a clear and obvious distinction between a government and the organisations tasked by it to provide intelligence.

See discussion of "permanent state" passim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9902497

The security services have a large amount of operational discretion and privileged access to ministers. They have the ability to present secret "evidence" which cannot be publicly challenged.

Let's not forget that the CIA effectively ran the governments of several Latin American countries, and in the UK Northern Ireland was effectively governed by the police Special Branch.

Re: If David Cameron bans secure encryption he can't intercept

#28

Post by Luc »

chao- wrote: post #17
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really the elected government, it's the security services asking for an expanded remit and being granted one by uncritical politicians and an apathetic media.

Who are the security services employed by? I certainly wouldn't call them private industry! Did you mean to say it's not elected government officials? Just curious, because I definitely consider a country's intelligence apparatus to be completely and wholly part of its "government", and would be surprised to find someone who didn't.

'The government' refers to something different in the US than in (most of?) Europe.

My American friends were mightily amused and amazed when Belgium spent >500 days without government a couple of years ago, but of course they were interpreting the word in a much more encompassing way than it is done in Belgium. 'The goverment' is really just a couple of dozen people (with perhaps a couple of dozen assistants each).

Re: If David Cameron bans secure encryption he can't intercept

#29

Post by steaminghacker »

There won't be a ban, it will be licensed. Big companies like banks etc will get their licence right away, so your secure banking will be fine. Routers will still have wifi encryption because they'll have a licence.

The licence will be implemented as a fee for a digital certificate that properly authenticates.

So, you're a small startup with an idea for a secure messaging app. want a licence. no problem, its £10M. have you got the money handy?

Re: If David Cameron bans secure encryption he can't intercept

#30

Post by gorgak »

chao- wrote: post #17
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really the elected government, it's the security services asking for an expanded remit and being granted one by uncritical politicians and an apathetic media.

Who are the security services employed by? I certainly wouldn't call them private industry! Did you mean to say it's not elected government officials? Just curious, because I definitely consider a country's intelligence apparatus to be completely and wholly part of its "government", and would be surprised to find someone who didn't.

i call them the black government, ruining everything for everyone behind the scenes. these politicians have no control over them! they must be stopped.
Post reply on HN