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

Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 276 posts

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#151

Post by zebrafish »

gargravarr wrote: post #138
zebrafish wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the strongest argument for an American audience who is unfamiliar with technology is that encryption should be included under second amendment rights. "Guns don't hurt people, people hurt people", "blaming the manufacturer for the actions of the operator", "even if we ban them, bad guys will still use them", etc. If the right to bear arms is defined as the right to protection against totalitarian government I…

As predicted by Randall Munroe some years ago: https://xkcd.com/504/

Granted, guns have serial numbers and there is a list of registered owners. My argument falls apart there.

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#152

Post by gjjrfcbugxbhf »

DropbearRob wrote: post #30

There is a growing misconception that it is the role of the government to "keep their citizens safe". Although that it is often the intention of legislation to prevent behaviour which may lead to unsafe situations. For example, making it illegal to drink and drive. You can arrest someone for breaking the law, but never can you arrest someone right up to the point of breaking the law. For example, You cannot arrest so…

In the UK being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle is a crime. 'In charge of' includes for example being near the vehicle with the keys in your possession and certainly includes being asleep in the vehicle. If charged with this crime you are required to prove (to a balance of probabilities standard i.e. about 50:50) that you were not going to try to drive it until you were sober. NB I don't necessarily agree with the legal situation in the UK I'm merely stating the reality.

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#153

Post by throwawaymanbot »

yen223 wrote: post #17
Aoyagi wrote: post #9

It's like Rudd and Abbott are competing in which will come up with more ridiculous notion. And you'd think they would choose someone competent for bloody home secretary and shadow home secretary respectively.

For a minute there I thought you were talking about Australian prime ministers. What a coincidence!

The 5 eyes are in Quorum to install similar surveillance state powers under the false guise of "Security".

Britain saved Europe, from Hitler, fought against the Russians in the cold war, then itself becomes stasi like. Total shame.

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#154

Post by gsnedders »

onion2k wrote: post #77
beaconstudios wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

actually, funnily enough in the UK you can be arrested for being "drunk in charge of a motor vehicle" even if you aren't in the driver's seat. That can apparently include sleeping one off in the back seat of your car.

Amusingly, here in the UK, we also have the crime of "drunk in charge of a carriage" which has been used to prosecute people for being drunk with all manner of things from bicycles to horses.

Note this is English law (not the nonexistent UK law); this is a simple application of the mischief rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule).

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#155

Post by [deleted] »

tomfitz wrote: post #32
jstanley wrote: post #2

> When pressed on what kind of metadata she wanted, she replied: “I’m having those conversations in private.” Well I would like to know who she's having those conversations with, when she's having them, and how long they last. I think it's important that she share this information with us. So that we can catch criminals.

Are you law enforcement with a warrant?

[deleted]

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#156

Post by fredley »

dm319 wrote: post #150
fredley wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, there's a misconception underlying this one that there are 'good people' and 'bad people', and the role of Government is to protect the former from the latter. This of course flies in the face of the reality that crime is committed by otherwise ordinary people under extraordinary circumstances. Under this rhetoric - widely subscribed to by the right wing and tabloid press, it seems a logical step that…

I find this comment particularly interesting. I have a suspicion that believing in good and bad people is a product of fairytales and religion. I've never quite understood why authoritarianism, religion and the right seem to go together, maybe this is part of puzzle.

I don't think religion etc. is to blame personally, it's a simple extension of believing that I am good, and I am like her, and she is good, and we are not like them. We never see ourselves as the people who could tip over the edge.

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#157

Post by solatic »

DropbearRob wrote: post #30

There is a growing misconception that it is the role of the government to "keep their citizens safe". Although that it is often the intention of legislation to prevent behaviour which may lead to unsafe situations. For example, making it illegal to drink and drive. You can arrest someone for breaking the law, but never can you arrest someone right up to the point of breaking the law. For example, You cannot arrest so…

> There is a growing misconception that it is the role of the government to "keep their citizens safe".

What misconception? This is the basis of the social contract between society and its government, to safeguard the natural rights of society, the foremost of which (Life, among Life, Liberty, Property/Pursuit of happiness) is the safety and security of members of society. Read up on Locke and Rousseau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

> The role of the government is to pass laws

This is a tautology. Legislation is but a means in which some forms of government (excepting, for instance, dictatorships) act to secure the natural rights of society. Legislation is not a goal in and of itself for government.

> This is the problem with the government... the idea that [the government should try] to prevent you [from] committing a crime

See natural right #2 - the right to liberty, which in context means the right to act as you please until you actually cross the line by committing a crime. The right to liberty is not mutually exclusive to the right to life; legitimate governments act to secure both in tandem.

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#158

Post by gsnedders »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #117
blibble wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the Parliament doesn't have any ability to legislate to stop it the governments of the member states (essentially the Council) want it, so it will happen

Surely it can be stopped by the courts though? They've helped force the UK back slightly on mass surveillance already [0]. I'm sure a challenge will be brought on the basis of freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR) if any governments move to ban encryption. I mean it's an incredibly obvious impediment to free expression. I know personally if encryption goes I will be self-censoring a hell of a lot more (particularly…

Heck, see Malone v. the United Kingdom (ECtHR; 1984), which formed some precedence on the ability to legally do mass surveillance. This isn't new.

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#160

Post by mtgx »

DropbearRob wrote: post #30

There is a growing misconception that it is the role of the government to "keep their citizens safe". Although that it is often the intention of legislation to prevent behaviour which may lead to unsafe situations. For example, making it illegal to drink and drive. You can arrest someone for breaking the law, but never can you arrest someone right up to the point of breaking the law. For example, You cannot arrest so…

> This is the problem with the government demanding to read all communications... the idea that they have the right in order to prevent you committing a crime. Its not only impossible to prevent someone committing a crime (anyone can snap and do truly horrible things without prior communique), its insane to think that you can arrest someone for pre-crime.

This is exactly what Bruce Schneier saw with his "data mining for terrorists" essay more than a decade ago. Trying to prevent terrorist attacks is impossible if you rely on data mining alone, because of all the false positives it can create, making it useless in actually preventing real attacks.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/03/data_mining_f...

Post reply on HN