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

Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

haddadi.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 164 posts

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#141

Post by [deleted] »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #125
raxxorraxor wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe has similar bills with chat control. There was no serious expert that did not warn about the severe negative repercussions. Representatives still didn't seem to be interested and the EU isn't particular democratic so anyone could be held to account. I think technology must provide ways to ensure free and secure communication without a possibility of surveillance. The political class cannot be entrusted to shie…

I agree generally, but we have to be realistic that decentralization/onion routing/public key encryption and all the other technical tricks at our disposal will only slow the corporations/the state down. Yes, it convenient for the FBI to have a web form to be able to get access to your gmail inbox or whatever, but they will happily just arrest you and beat you with a wrench until you give them your private keys. The…

[deleted]

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#142

Post by formerly_proven »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #99
martinralbrecht wrote: post #2

"As independent information security and cryptography researchers, we build technologies that keep people safe online. It is in this capacity that we see the need to stress that the safety provided by these essential technologies is now under threat in the Online Safety Bill."

Europe has similar bills with chat control. There was no serious expert that did not warn about the severe negative repercussions. Representatives still didn't seem to be interested and the EU isn't particular democratic so anyone could be held to account. I think technology must provide ways to ensure free and secure communication without a possibility of surveillance. The political class cannot be entrusted to shie…

> There was no serious expert that did not warn about the severe negative repercussions.

This is surprisingly often the case, not just for criminal law (or "security law") changes, but even in general lawmaking. And way more often than not those experts are spot on. Be it obvious loop holes in regulations, tax code issues, eroding civil rights, obvious unconstitionality of many surveillance (and many other) laws, obvious abuse potential and so on. It's a very long list.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#143

Post by psychphysic »

scarface_74 wrote: post #137
psychphysic wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we're into ad hominem attacks. I'm sure I deserved that for asking your opinion.

You don’t need an “opinion” about whether Musk is blocking Twitter links he doesn’t agree with. That’s an easily verifiable fact that you could have found out about just by reading the link you refused to read.

I apologize profusely for deigning to ask you to talk to me.

It's not an excuse but I thought your opinion might provide me insight, but your behaviour makes clear it'll be utterly worthless.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#144

Post by isaacremuant »

scarface_74 wrote: post #94
isaacremuant wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the populations around the world were in favor of locking people down because the governments, media and tech companies told them to. They were ok with debate being censored because "It was too important and risky". Same thing happened in many countries with terrorism and loss of rights/super authoritarian/inconstitucional powers for govs, and it was fine... Because the risk is too great and "are you a Let's…

The idea of isolating people who have communicative diseases and limiting crowds goes back centuries https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/past-virus-...

That's such a poor response to everything i said but it's par for the course.

A telling thing is that you said people who have diseases and here it was prevent movement from everyone. Prevent the movement of the non sick. Remove human rights and civil rights. Implement inconsistent security theater and censor debate, and a long etc you don't care for because you just answered in the laziest of ways.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#145

Post by psychphysic »

lrvick wrote: post #128
noduerme wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what the micro-nations were on about, people trying to dredge sand up off reefs and take over drilling platforms since the early 1980s to establish "data havens". The long term trend is that no nation will ultimately resist backdoors on encrypted platforms, because militarily they cannot resist the pressure (internally or externally). The micronation thing is silly, as is relying on a shrinking number of coun…

Or just used decentralized e2ee comms that already exist?

Any good ones? Last I "used" was BitMessage I ran it for maybe a week and never looked back.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#146

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

bell-cot wrote: post #100
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could they actually communicate with normal people if they (somehow) wanted to? That have that comm channel. It's the press and the press instantly loses it's way, the moment Gov puts on a NatSec or Child Safety mask.

Might you know of any Press Releases they've issued in conjunction with this open letter, or similar media-friendly materials? At least where I live, the middle-aged owner of a small-town ice cream parlor is 99% likely to know how to do an effective press release. The "news" can be a new ice cream flavor, with the colors of the local HS sports teams...but you carefully write that press release in such a way that any…

I'm mostly talking larger news orgs, inc wire services. They have resources. However, if manpower is tight, maybe they could redirect some manhours from their sportsball or celeb divisions.

I will agree that local news orgs tend to show ineptitude whenever local LEO issue a PR. They'll just parrot what is said - no analysis at all - not even when a 5 sec search would reveal blatant misinfo (re:kids are at meaningful risk of stranger kidnapping).

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#147

Post by scarface_74 »

isaacremuant wrote: post #144
scarface_74 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of isolating people who have communicative diseases and limiting crowds goes back centuries https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/past-virus-...

That's such a poor response to everything i said but it's par for the course. A telling thing is that you said people who have diseases and here it was prevent movement from everyone. Prevent the movement of the non sick. Remove human rights and civil rights. Implement inconsistent security theater and censor debate, and a long etc you don't care for because you just answered in the laziest of ways.

Your statement blaming the “media”.

> Most of the populations around the world were in favor of locking people down

These were common sense measures known by people in the 500s

From the article about what happened centuries ago:

> He imposed isolation for both travelers and food coming to Constantinople from North Africa, hit by the terrible plague outbreak (541-542 A.D).

> Freedom of movement was only granted to those who obtained "a sanitary certification" from the authorities. In Venice, foreigners and passengers coming on ships needed to show a "certificate", to prove that they came from contagion-free places. In times of plague or cholera those who entered the cities were obliged to present a "health certificate" ("Patente di sanità")

But the same people were arguing right here on HN about studies showing that preschoolers in day care spread Covid even though every parent knows that preschoolers in day care have always been walking Petri dishes that spread diseases like a hooker on a crack.

Heck, since many of the people who were complaining about masks are self proclaimed “Christians”, even the Bible had “mask mandates”

https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/LEV+1....

>The person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, [4] cover the lower part of his face and cry out, `Unclean! Unclean!' As long as he has the infection he remains unclean. He must live alone; he must live outside the camp.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#148

Post by pessimizer »

thephyber wrote: post #140
stephen_g wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public have been sold a lie. Just like the “Patriot Act” was just to keep everybody free and protect people from terrorists. It happens everywhere, and has been happening for a long time - it’s more about the narrative made up by the people pushing a law than what the law actually does. It would take a particularly free, particularly good media to inform the public that just doesn’t exist in most of the world.

People rarely pay attention to bills before they are passed. This just seems like another case of people answering polling with higher confidence than they should. The people are always sold a lie. But in a democracy, it is the responsibility of the voter to identify when they are being lied to and to search for the truth. As much as you claim that media isn’t free and isn’t good, I look around and see the opposite.…

> People rarely pay attention to bills before they are passed.

The fact that people don't pay attention means that they're vulnerable to accepting the framing that they get the first time they're forced to hear about it.

In this case it will be from slightly rewritten press releases sent from the people pushing the bill to the kind of UK papers and TV stations that can't find a single journalist who objects to censorship or surveillance.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#149

Post by Loquebantur »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #110
Loquebantur wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The complacency of researchers knowledgeable in these topics should be noted as well. With great power comes great responsibility, as Spiderman states correctly. This letter is a "nice try", but pretty late and lacking media-awareness. People certainly won't read a 4-page PDF. They should have led with: > There is no technological solution to the contradiction inherent in both keeping information confidential from th…

your lead statement would still confuse a non-trivial amount of the general population.

Certainly true.

But would that be a part of the population that actually partakes in the discussion to begin with?

If you cannot say something more simple without making a mess of it, don't.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#150

Post by manicdee »

psychphysic wrote: post #124
scarface_74 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2022/12/16/...

I'm not going to read that. Unless you're the opinion columnist for USA today? Cause I asked you about your opinion.

You asked about why they have that opinion. They provided a link which covers the reasons they have the opinion they have.
Post reply on HN