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

UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 320 posts

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#161

Post by skydhash »

ChrisKnott wrote: post #77
glitchc wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, by definition if the key is to be used, and to be used more than once, it cannot be kept safe. The key has to go through multiple hands on its way from the senior government official responsible for its safekeeping to the peon assigned to unlock a specific phone at a specific point in time. It could be copied at any one of those points. No amount of technology or cryptography can solve the master key problem. T…

Doesn't this problem exist throughout the tech industry though? Microsoft, Google, Apple etc are keeping the keys that allow you to push updates secret, aren't they?

> Microsoft, Google, Apple etc are keeping the keys that allow you to push updates secret

Governments can provide immunity, which companies can't do. Companies try not to do these kinds of stealing, governments don't care.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#162

Post by edandersen »

jiveturkey wrote: post #92
makingstuffs wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d bet my life we start to see a massive influx of bad press aimed at messaging providers, focusing on how criminals are using their services, over the next few years. When the general sentiment of the average Dave is ‘encryption === bad’ this BS will rear its head again. Seems to have been the standard play for governments of this country for decades now.

Yes, so much so that there's a term for this: manufactured consent.

Maybe they'll get the nudge unit out for another round.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#163

Post by rentnorove »

blowski wrote: post #103
pydry wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already deployed M&C Saatchi against it: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/01/19/uk-has-voyeuristic-new-p... https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/revealed-u... All about saving the children. From everybody except Prince Andrew, it seems.

I don’t remember seeing this campaign. Are there any links?

This isn't the same ad as described in the article, but is a government funded Saatchi one from around the same time: https://www.noplacetohide.org.uk/ > The campaign is funded by the UK Government and has been developed by a steering group of child safety organisations with support from M&C Saatchi.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#164

Post by pydry »

rentnorove wrote: post #163
blowski wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t remember seeing this campaign. Are there any links?

This isn't the same ad as described in the article, but is a government funded Saatchi one from around the same time: https://www.noplacetohide.org.uk/ > The campaign is funded by the UK Government and has been developed by a steering group of child safety organisations with support from M&C Saatchi.

I think that was the website displayed on the adverts.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#165

Post by RegW »

mcjiggerlog wrote: post #134
gridspy wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming that is true, it's amusing that the politicians are trying to strip communications privacy from the masses while desiring it themselves.

You also need to understand the context that in the UK, and most of the west other than the US, WhatsApp is just the default communication channel for messaging. If you text someone, it's just assumed it's via WhatsApp.

I don't think so. When you text somebody it's assumed it's SMS, but if your friendship circle is on Android then in actual fact it's Google Messages.

All the same benefits: end-to-end encryption and data mining.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#166

Post by dwaite »

orlp wrote: post #59
glitchc wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not technically feasible is akin to abandonment in government circles. To revive this, they would have to find an expert to attest that it is technically feasible to have security with a backdoor that government can access, but at the same time is impossible for malicious entities to access. Ergo, this is technically dead, which is the best form of dead.

> To revive this, they would have to find an expert to attest that it is technically feasible to have security with a backdoor that government can access, but at the same time is impossible for malicious entities to access. > Ergo, this is technically dead, which is the best form of dead. Except it's not. There exist such cryptographic trapdoor constructions that are perfectly secure, if the government backdoor key i…

> There exist such cryptographic trapdoor constructions that are perfectly secure, if the government backdoor key is kept safe.

A big problem with this statement is the term “the government”. If you give the private key to the UK - the US, India and China will want a copy as well.

The UK might want to spy on foreign nationals only in the country and only for CSAM, but that doesn’t mean other nations won’t use it for more traditional espionage.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#167

Post by Nifty3929 »

Clamchop wrote: post #115
codeptualize wrote: post #85

You see this time and time again, some initiative to "just introduce some backdoors, what could go wrong", and then it takes some time for people who understand what it actually means to convince them that it is in fact a really bad idea and it would be a giant disaster.

Unfortunately I suspect they will just keep trying it out over and over until the public gets too exhausted to rally against it anymore.

Or until the voters wise up and start electing people that believe and espouse imperfect freedom rather than perfect control.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#168

Post by jll29 »

> A planned statement to the House of Lords on Wednesday afternoon will mark an eleventh-hour effort by ministers to end a stand-off with tech companies, including WhatsApp, that have threatened to pull their services from the UK

Dear FT, WhatsApp is not a company, the owner of the WhatsApp service is Meta Inc., also the owner of Facebook and Instagram. (It is misleading to citizens that companies can hide behind the names of their acquisitions.)

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#169

Post by yafbum »

jupp0r wrote: post #149
yafbum wrote: post #147

Unpopular puffin opinion ahead, for the sake of argument only. Pls respond with arguments vs just downvoting. Throughout history, encryption has always been a government privilege. Only very recently, and then only in the West, practically speaking, is encryption that is safe from the eyes of government available. The liberalization of encryption has been concomitant with a naive "end of history" belief that once eve…

There's no way bad actors will adhere to these restrictions anymore. Unless one's view of government is a very cynical one (they only care about controlling the general population vs actually fighting crime), tightly controlling cryptography is just not the effective tool anymore that it had been in the 90s.

Is this the same argument as "bad people will always flout rules, might as well give every person a machine gun so the good guys can have an even fight"? Looking at China, I think that it is very possible to make it least very uncomfortable, so uncomfortable as to be an effective deterrent.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#170

Post by nonrandomstring »

mikestew wrote: post #104
nonrandomstring wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry you felt tricked by that dramatic device. Perhaps listen to end of the podcast to get closure.

Ya know, I actually upvoted your very-downvoted comment above, but if you’re going to hand out homework, make sure it’s not 1.25 hours long. If you have a point to make, make it; don’t outsource it to long-winded podcasters.

Thanks. And fair enough, it's a big ask to listen through the whole episode.
Post reply on HN