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

UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

rollingstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 143 posts

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#111

Post by frickinLasers »

godelski wrote: post #98
frickinLasers wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.precisesecurity.com/articles/top-10-countries-by... Holy crap, the US has more cameras per capita than China, according to this. The UK is a somewhat distant third. Though I think a distinction should be drawn between government-operated and commercial surveillance.

Per Capita is probably the wrong metric to use here. This isn't just limited to cameras but you don't need a single camera to track a single person. The more population dense an area is the higher efficiency a single camera can have. Just think about it in this manner. If you have a house and you set up cameras that monitor every square inch of the house, does it matter if there is one person in the house (high camer…

Fair enough. I didn't find a ready source on average camera densities by country, but comparing cities at the link below can give a sense of the difference. London has 399 cameras per square kilometer. Beijing has 278. NYC has 26, so not quite as Orwellian, in terms of cameras at least.

Approximate Populations, per wikipedia, for reference:

  London:   9 million  
  Beijing: 21 million  
  NYC:      9 million
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-top-surveillance...

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#112

Post by belter »

dTal wrote: post #100
samwillis wrote: post #3

I find it amusing that WhatsApp and its e2ee is used as a common target for regulation by the government when their own ministers are using it to organise all sorts of shenanigans; illegal parties during lockdown, “anonymous” briefing of journalists, leaking compromising information about their peers. Not to mention that it always seems like the government is run via WhatsApp (probably need the e2ee for that!). Ultim…

It doesn't really matter if government ministers organise their illegal lockdown parties over end-to-end encryption or not, when the police force were fully aware of it at the time (two officers stationed on either side of the door!) and decline to "investigate".

Was the same police force who surrounded these dangerous criminals?

"Covid: Women on exercise trip 'surrounded by police'" https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#114

Post by jevoten »

foldr wrote: post #107
stjohnswarts wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Said surveillance is available at a moment's notice and without a warrant. Just because they can't do the show "24" level of surveillance doesn't mean it's not bad, real bad, out there for someone who just want's to live their life relatively unscrutinized. Can't really believe anyone on HN is standing up for 24 hour surveillance with cameras.

Private individuals and organisations are not obliged to give their surveillance footage to the police without a warrant. There's no centralized system, so the data is not in any way available 'at a moment's notice'. >Can't really believe anyone on HN is standing up for 24 hour surveillance with cameras. As explained in the guidelines, there's a broad range of opinion on HN. However, I wouldn't say I'm 'standing up f…

I only have information on the US, but warrants don't offer much protection:

https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liber...

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#115

Post by foldr »

jevoten wrote: post #114
foldr wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private individuals and organisations are not obliged to give their surveillance footage to the police without a warrant. There's no centralized system, so the data is not in any way available 'at a moment's notice'. >Can't really believe anyone on HN is standing up for 24 hour surveillance with cameras. As explained in the guidelines, there's a broad range of opinion on HN. However, I wouldn't say I'm 'standing up f…

I only have information on the US, but warrants don't offer much protection: https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liber...

I have to say this discussion is getting a little frustrating.

First of all, information regarding the US is obviously irrelevant in the context of UK surveillance. Why even bring it up?

Second, every time you reply, you keep broadening out the terms of the discussion further and further, rather than addressing any of the specific factual claims in my posts. I have not taken any strong stance for or against surveillance in general. I'm only concerned to address inaccurate claims about the extent of CCTV surveillance in the UK.

The police can easily get warrants to look at lots of things that might be relevant to solving a crime. Maybe that is a problem. If so, that's an issue that's only tangentially related to CCTV surveillance in the UK.

All I am doing is correcting the claim that the police in the UK can force private individuals to hand over CCTV footage without a warrant. If you have a problem with warrants per se, then that's probably a discussion to be had elsewhere.

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#116

Post by wanda »

tobbob wrote: post #78
wanda wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> protecting the public Are you serious? This isn't high on their agenda at all. > surely there's tech people whose job is to explain this to politicians You have a very, very optimistic view of the world. If the government needs to get a consultant, they'll just find one who agrees with them.

That's nonsense. It's all very well being ultra cynical, makes you feel high and mighty but what you're saying is absurd.

What I said is a long way from "ultra cynical"

And I didn't say it for any feelings of my own, or for anyone's feelings for that matter.

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#117

Post by tobbob »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #87
tobbob wrote: post #4

End to end encryption will surely make a government's task of protecting the public much harder. It allows paedos, terrorists and the like to communicate freely, and any efforts to track what they're up to must be an absolute nightmare. The problem is, getting rid of encryption is replacing a bad situation with a disastrous situation. If you ban locks so the government can obtain access to the house of a terrorist, i…

If you want your communications to go to the government, I suggest you make a zip file and send it off to them. Personally I don't think any phone, tech device, or anything else should have spying software on it. It should require a specific warrant for a person, place, and time limit. The government has Far Too Much power already, we don't need to give it any more. Sure it allows criminals to do crime but it also al…

Are people only reading the first sentence I wrote? I made the argument in favour of encryption.

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#118

Post by dTal »

RansomStark wrote: post #96
stephen_g wrote: post #2

Those stunts sound super creepy and messed up. Weird, manipulative campaign. This shouldn't really be legal surely in democracies to have campaigns that "appear to be the result of grassroots campaigns and children's charities, while downplaying any Government involvement", when it's a political manipulation campaign paid for, coordinated and organised by the Government themselves. I really hope the counter-campaign…

This is normal for the UK. It was the current government, well it's previous coalition instantiation that created the nudge unit[0]. A group of behavioural psychologists that use mind tricks to convince people to do as they are told, whether that is to drink less, or stop smoking or to follow COVID rules. A group that has since been spun off as a business to sell coercion as a service, to any two bit dictator, or fre…

>This is the same government that deployed it's army information warriors against its own people during COVID [1].

Your [1] link asserts, right at the very top, "It is important to note that this isn’t being directed at British citizens or at UK organisations, the effort is being directed at sources outside of the country."

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#119

Post by messo »

larryflint wrote: post #108
narrator wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Power deserves scrutiny. Politicians should have less privacy than the average person.

LOL. Your right. If anything politicians should be denied E2EE

Norwegian politicians are required by law to only use official channels of communication (government email, phone etc) when discussing anything related to their public service. Citizens can demand to get access to these communications, even anonymously. This has made it possible for regular citizens to uncover both small and big abuses of power through the years, most recently exemplified by a close connection between the Police and a private anti-drug-lobby organization that has had a big influence on drug policy for decades.

I have, however, heard that apps like Signal has become more common among politicians, but using it for official business is still illegal.

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#120

Post by RansomStark »

dTal wrote: post #118
RansomStark wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is normal for the UK. It was the current government, well it's previous coalition instantiation that created the nudge unit[0]. A group of behavioural psychologists that use mind tricks to convince people to do as they are told, whether that is to drink less, or stop smoking or to follow COVID rules. A group that has since been spun off as a business to sell coercion as a service, to any two bit dictator, or fre…

>This is the same government that deployed it's army information warriors against its own people during COVID [1]. Your [1] link asserts, right at the very top, "It is important to note that this isn’t being directed at British citizens or at UK organisations, the effort is being directed at sources outside of the country."

Yes it does. The UK defence journey is not exactly an unbiased source and always follows the party line. However at least 1 MSP would disagree with that narrative [0] and suffered significant inline abuse for that post. Which oddly enough suggests he might have been on to something, given the brigades operations.

You will find this article is also biased, unfortunately in your current timeline finding unbiased sources is becoming harder everyday

[0] https://www.thenational.scot/news/17858200.vile-abuse-snp-mp...

Post reply on HN