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

UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 394 posts

Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

#141

Post by orless »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #118
orless wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to roll your own crypto to create an own end-to-end encryption app. You can use existing crypto. Writing a user interface around it is not so difficult. Beyound the reach of the terrorist organisations? We have already seen pretty sophisticated operations by relatively small crime organizations (like exploiting pseudorandom generators in casino slot machines). There's an established black market for ex…

> small crime organizations (like exploiting pseudorandom generators in casino slot machines) If all you do is pushing the buttons of the slot machine in the right order with the right timing, that's hardly a crime —and I don't care about court judgements to the contrary. If a slot machine has a crappy pseudo random number generator, they're just asking for it. I'd rather sue the slot machine's maker for providing a…

It is a crime as in "unlawful act punishable by a state or other authority". You are welcome to disagree, but I'd be interested in your definition of "crime" then.

Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

#142

Post by iliketosleep »

blockoperation wrote: post #75

I'm surprised it took this long for her to bring up the subject – Theresa May would've had her soundbites prepared in advance and released within hours of the attack if she was still Home Sec. > That is my view - it is completely unacceptable You know what else is completely unacceptable? Technologically illiterate, authoritarian jobsworths capitalising on tragedy to push through their agendas. But that's just my vie…

Sure she'll get support and they may even be stupid enough to attempt to enact this stuff. But rest assured there'll be a massive backlash from big business and various political fallouts from the scandals that will ensue.

Then some genius will come up with what's essentially an "encryption is illegal for terrorists" bill and we'll have the best of both worlds: full use of encryption where we need it, whilst the terrorists can't use it because it's illegal!!

Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

#143

Post by y4mi »

cm2187 wrote: post #74
satysin wrote: post #44

So they get a backdoor into WhatsApp and terrorists just move onto some other non-compromised tool. Rinse and repeat. You can't ban maths ffs. TBH I am surprised attackers do not better destroy their electronic equipment just before they carry out their attack. Pop your phone and SSD/flash drives in the microwave on high for a few minutes is pretty much going to destroy all evidence on them, and if not then chances a…

That's why the justice system sort of works. Criminals are even dumber than law enforcement.

Only the ones that get caught...

Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

#144

Post by fwn »

ktta wrote: post #92
fwn wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought that putting the blame on actual agents instead of stuff is the direct opposite of being evasive. You rightly said that I will answer that it was the adults fault. The bad act done with the weapon was giving it to a child, not the childs shooting someone. It gets clearer if the adult hands the weapon to a monkey or a randomized shooting machine. All three scenarios change nothing in regard to the mor…

> I always thought that putting the blame on actual agents instead of stuff is the direct opposite of being evasive. Well I meant evasive argument as in statements which directly avoid the question. Because the thing is, we don't live in a perfect world. So putting the blame on agents doesn't solve the problem. That's why I brought up that sometimes things have to be taken away from people. The question is when and h…

In a perfect world, government would be good, capable not oppressive and there would be zero reason for anyone not to trust them with private data - but government would not want it, since they would not be immoderate and power hungry but perfect.

But we both believe that the world is not perfect. This is why we need to talk about moral responsibility in the first place. Blurry definitions might only make us even more humble while proposing new, disruptive power centralizations like an encryption ban.

Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

#145

Post by natch »

ktta wrote: post #97
vinceyuan wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One solution in my mind is the source code of the monitoring software must be reviewed by independent and trusted software engineers/experts.

That's a perfect solution actually. But sadly, we aren't there just yet. There are nuances with these things that software can't (yet) pickup. So humans have to do it till then. We were maybe born too early. But I think it makes things interesting. That means there are still problems for you and me to solve.

Actually it's a horrible non-solution.

Assuming these experts are perfect and infallible (a bad assumption), then what does it prove?

That only an authorized government agent can have access?

Can you not think of any problem with that whatsoever?

Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

#146

Post by goodplay »

petre wrote: post #82
goodplay wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tools designed to directly cause destruction are not similar to tools designed to provide privacy.

However they were treated as such by US export regulations.

How does does this counter my point?

Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

#147

Post by lozf »

cm2187 wrote: post #96
ktta wrote: post #21

Hmm, this definitely brings up an interesting discussion I don't think HN has had before, especially something in a similar vein since Apple+San Bernardino fiasco. Obviously privacy is something that HN holds very close to its heart. But I'm interested in what do people here have to say about the privacy features are used by terrible people to do terrible things. And I want to share something that I think is one of t…

Terrorism, and crime in general is a nuisance that we have to live with. You can have a society with no crime. All you need is a super repressive totalitarian state, total transparency with citizens reporting on each others, state surveillance everywhere. It will work. But first I don't want to live in such a state. And second these totalitarian states slide invariably toward corruption and state crimes. So we have t…

> "... total transparency with citizens reporting on each others, state surveillance everywhere."

Like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY

(Tom Scott's "Oversight" from 2013)

Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

#148

Post by microtonal »

ajmurmann wrote: post #88
darfs wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no other way to use a gun than shooting with it. (Useful! Of course you could use it like a hammer, but... Srsly.) It's whole purpose is, to hurt someone; i think that's some point to acknowledge first.

You can go hunting with it or shoot for fun or make yourself feel safer. What can I do with encryption other than encrypt messages I want to hide? //Playing devil's advocate

Well, there are very good reasons to hide messages.

First of all, I don't want any company in transit, from my ISP, to the message broker, to the receivers ISP to mine my data and use/sell it for profit.

Secondly, there are a lot of messages which are not illegal, but can be personally embarrassing if they were to become public. Think of sexually-tinted messages, psychological help, a kid who lives in a very conservative community and has doubts about their religion, discussions about a candidate for a job position, etc.

The problem with backdoor is that the question is not if they are exploited, but when they are exploited. And this is all assuming that the organization that has backdoor access is not of ill will.

Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

#149

Post by M_Grey »

blockoperation wrote: post #75

I'm surprised it took this long for her to bring up the subject – Theresa May would've had her soundbites prepared in advance and released within hours of the attack if she was still Home Sec. > That is my view - it is completely unacceptable You know what else is completely unacceptable? Technologically illiterate, authoritarian jobsworths capitalising on tragedy to push through their agendas. But that's just my vie…

Listening to some old episodes of 'The News Quiz', and I'm struck by the fact that this is not a whole new level of anything at all. If anything, this is par for the course, and Theresa May being in power at all is a result of that.

Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

#150

Post by sjayasinghe »

benevol wrote: post #132

They don't need to touch encryption in any way. It's way simpler to subvert the endpoints, as most people use closed-source operating systems such as iOS and Android which offer closed-source applications. All they need to do is to pressure Apple and Google to keep some backdoors open, which is more than realistic, as Snowden's revelations have shown a couple of years ago.

Even better, why not introduce backdoors at the hardware level?
Post reply on HN