Live data from Hacker News

Real people don't need end-to-end encryption says UK Home Secretary

uk.businessinsider.com

11–20 of 92 posts

Re: Real people don't need end-to-end encryption says UK Home Secretary

#11
> Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of features to perfect, unbreakable security. So this is not about asking the companies to break encryption or create so called "back doors". Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family? Companies are constantly making trade-offs between security and "usability", and it is here where our experts believe opportunities may lie.

lol what a terrible argument.

> suggesting that E2E encryption hinders usability

> points to the massive number of WhatsApp as proof

Re: Real people don't need end-to-end encryption says UK Home Secretary

#12
The problem is largely the UK's lack of a constitution. There are no checks or balances in the UK. Parliament can literally do anything they want. The courts can't block Parliament. Parliament can just abolish the courts. The house of lords can't stop the house of commons, the commons can just override the lords. The queen won't veto the commons because she fears parliament will just abolish the monarchy.

Re: Real people don't need end-to-end encryption says UK Home Secretary

#13
post #12

The problem is largely the UK's lack of a constitution. There are no checks or balances in the UK. Parliament can literally do anything they want. The courts can't block Parliament. Parliament can just abolish the courts. The house of lords can't stop the house of commons, the commons can just override the lords. The queen won't veto the commons because she fears parliament will just abolish the monarchy.

The US has shown with the NSA and FISA courts that a constitution will not prevent practices like this.

Re: Real people don't need end-to-end encryption says UK Home Secretary

#14

"So, there are options. But they rely on mature conversations between the tech companies and the Government - and they must be confidential" i.e. backdoors. Trust us, we are the government!

That's such bullshit. If anything only government conversations conducted by public servants should be made public and private conversations should be, well, private.

Re: Real people don't need end-to-end encryption says UK Home Secretary

#15
post #13
post #12

The problem is largely the UK's lack of a constitution. There are no checks or balances in the UK. Parliament can literally do anything they want. The courts can't block Parliament. Parliament can just abolish the courts. The house of lords can't stop the house of commons, the commons can just override the lords. The queen won't veto the commons because she fears parliament will just abolish the monarchy.

The US has shown with the NSA and FISA courts that a constitution will not prevent practices like this.

It's a necessary but not a sufficient condition. That doesn't make it useless.

Re: Real people don't need end-to-end encryption says UK Home Secretary

#17
I realize the article was about the UK, but this entire encryption/spying issue certainly applies to the US as well. My comments are regarding the US because I don't know enough about the UK's laws and general situation to speak on it.

The cat is out of the bag. End to end encryption that is very easy for the average user to use exists. There's no going back. These terrorists that they are so worried about are going to use it (if they have any common sense), even if it is outlawed somehow. Making it illegal or extremely difficult to use is the same as gun control - the criminals are still going to break the law because their end goal is a crime far worse and if they are willing to commit that crime then they are surely willing to commit the lesser crime of not getting a license for a weapon or possibly using end-to-end encryption.

In the US we supposedly have the 4th amendment to protect against this NSA spying criminality. The 4th amendment protects against both search and seizure. The giant dragnet they use to sweep up all communications over private channels is supposed to be a crime without a warrant. And when done in bulk it should be easily considered a mass, rank violation of the 4th amendment. For example, in the case of your cell phone, you agree to allow a private business to forward your data and communications. They theoretically can access it all, including your GPS because of the cell tower triangulation. That should be understood as necessary to providing the base service. But your agreement is only with the telecom provider, not the government. The government just decided to stick it's head in and declare itself to have a national security interest in the data of not just you, but everyone in the entire nation, and demanded access to it all.

What's worse is that these programs have not been proven to actually stop terrorists: https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-ha... http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/nsa-program-stopped-no-ter...

In fact, based on my memory, every instance of a thwarted attack has been the FBI actually communicating directly with alleged terrorists using undercover agents. This is how actual investigative work has historically been done. They followed up on tips, evidence, etc. and followed the leads and performed a real investigation and followed the proper warrant protocols. And doing it "the hard way" has yielded them more terrorists in handcuffs than the NSA.

The results are so abysmal for the PRISM program and it's siblings, that it begs the question whether or not stopping terrorists is even the real purpose. Personally, I have never thought it was the main goal. Sure, they might catch some, but I think the real purpose is to make sure no one poses a political threat. If anyone starts to get out of line or cause too many problems, they can just rifle through all their data they have on you and find something to use against you. How many people are clean enough to escape that? Ever, even once, downloaded an illegal mp3? Ever watch a movie on an illegal, streaming tube site or use torrents? Ever cheated, even a little on your taxes? Ever cheated on your spouse? Have a porn fetish that others may find unsavory? In the closet? Are you fully in compliance with every housing regulation? Have permits for every little thing that legally requires a permit? Have any secrets that aren't illegal but may be embarrassing? Done anything that isn't illegal but people would look upon with disdain? It might just be used against you.

Re: Real people don't need end-to-end encryption says UK Home Secretary

#18
post #12

The problem is largely the UK's lack of a constitution. There are no checks or balances in the UK. Parliament can literally do anything they want. The courts can't block Parliament. Parliament can just abolish the courts. The house of lords can't stop the house of commons, the commons can just override the lords. The queen won't veto the commons because she fears parliament will just abolish the monarchy.

Right, because constitutions don't generally have a mechanism to be amended? And the judiciary in countries with constitutions don't tend to apply constitution to areas that they were clearly never intended e.g. encryption.

The idea that the UK parliament would abolish courts doesn't really need addressing, it's so absurd. I take it you're also aware that we regularly (some would say too regularly) democratically elect parliament? That's usually consider a check if not a balance.

The problem isn't the lack of a UK constitution or any of the other specious arguments. The problem is that a large number of people, very probably the majority, either agree with this idea or simply don't care. At the very least they don't care enough to make it an important issue in a general election and we've just had a couple.

Re: Real people don't need end-to-end encryption says UK Home Secretary

#19
Dear UK secretary: your department lost credibility to talk about "real people" needs when the UK police helped Murdoch's "News of the World" to hack into "real people" phones.

But I don't expect you to understand your own responsibilities so let's just wait until Vladimir Putin hacks into any server containing your private information. Then UK politicians will understand.

Re: Real people don't need end-to-end encryption says UK Home Secretary

#20

> Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of features to perfect, unbreakable security. So this is not about asking the companies to break encryption or create so called "back doors". Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family? Companies are constantly making trade-offs between secur…

Actually I think it's a pretty devious argument. This is effectively saying that most people value convenience over security & privacy. Given the track record of corporate surveillance and ad supported content this is absolutely correct. After all WhatsApp users are already OK with Facebook collecting their metadata for advertising purposes.
Post reply on HN