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

171–180 of 394 posts

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

#171

Post by jen20 »

OJFord wrote: post #153
prodmerc wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They all are intent on crippling any chance the UK has at becoming stronger in high tech industries. I'm so sick of getting "this is an adult resource and you can't view it" anytime I search for information about a drug (pharmaceutical, not just "weed LSD and lols"). Great fucking way to encourage your future chemists. Maybe ban keywords like JavaScript, PHP and SQL while at it, them's the powerful drugs maaan.

> I'm so sick of getting "this is an adult resource and you can't view it" anytime I search for information Switch ISP, or contact your current one to disable this. They don't all do it by default, or at all.

As far as I'm aware all new accounts in the U.K. do this unless you call to have it disabled (and give personal information). I mean, how else would you protect the children...

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

#172

Post by nine_k »

fwn wrote: post #66
CJefferson wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way you prevent anything.. they make it illegal for people in the UK to make, or use, such products. Don't think we can "tech" our way out of this.

Not "we" as in "we the general public with no specific interest in staying hidden". But of course criminals, terrorists or secret services do have the right incentive structure to always benefit from circumventing encryption bans.

Which shows who the real target is.

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

#173

Post by kwhitefoot »

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

Baxter and Clarke: The Light of Other Days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days

People should be careful what they wish for.

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

#174

Post by danmaz74 »

NetStrikeForce wrote: post #61
mattbee wrote: post #20

Amber Rudd is the UK's Home Secretary not just any minister. "We need to make sure that our intelligence services have the ability to get into situations like encrypted Whatsapp." She has said she is "calling in" technology companies this week to try to "deliver a solution". Marr asks if they refuse to do that, will you legislate to force them to change? She's not drawn on that. Interview is here: http://www.bbc.co.u…

UK's best shot at surviving Brexit is become stronger on value added industries. They have a very good head start over any other EU country in IT and in some research areas. Amber Rudd seems hell bent on destroying their only chance.

Being ahead of all other EU countries in some field can be something significant while they're inside the EU, in those cases when an investment or purchase needs to be made inside the EU for any reason. But when they're out, what difference does that make?

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

#175

Post by IanCal »

jen20 wrote: post #171
OJFord wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm so sick of getting "this is an adult resource and you can't view it" anytime I search for information Switch ISP, or contact your current one to disable this. They don't all do it by default, or at all.

As far as I'm aware all new accounts in the U.K. do this unless you call to have it disabled (and give personal information). I mean, how else would you protect the children...

I think all mobile providers do, but the filters are not required on all ISPs, only the big 7 IIRC.

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

#176

Post by nine_k »

adrianN wrote: post #117
visarga wrote: post #9

> "That is my view - it is completely unacceptable, there should be no place for terrorists to hide." I am sure a ban on encryption would work. Hey, guys, I just had a great idea. Let's ban bombs, knifes, and driving into people. That would fix the terrorism problem. Once it is illegal, no terrorist would dare do it!!! I'm wondering why Churchill didn't think to ban the Enigma machine. If only England was led by smar…

The difference is that it's relatively easy to detect when people use encrypted communication. You can just arrest them. It's not so easy to detect whether someone is planning to drive into people.

They forgot to ban steganography, didn't they?

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

#177

Post by kwhitefoot »

wiubiube wrote: post #100
hudathun wrote: post #73

Best ban everything that can be misused by terrorists... cars, knives, encrypted messaging.

that's the blindspot isn't it ? What's the one common thing about recent terrorist acts ? Vehicles used as weapons. Yet nobody's calling for a ban on the use of vehicles

Only because it is not yet feasible. Once autonomous vehicles become common there will be pressure to make driving a car manually difficult, expensive, and ultimately a crime.

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

#178

Post by drdaeman »

kakarot wrote: post #160
seabee wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't possessing surveillance tools be a fundamental human right in this hypothetical scenario?

No, because we also have the right to privacy.

I beg to differ. My (and everyone's else) right to have a copy of tcpdump doesn't violate you right to privacy.

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

#179

Post by Neliquat »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #40
fwn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly believe that tools are ethically neutral. A hammer, a knife or a government can be pretty useful, or pretty violent - depending on how you use it. This alone does not imply that a hammer, a knife or a government should not exist or be banned. edit: words

It's interesting when you extend that discussion to guns, in the UK guns are quite difficult to get hold of, I wonder what the incident at Westminster would have looked like if they were as available as they are in the US. As always it's a trade off, some people loose the right to arm themselves at home but that means other people may not loose their life to a shooting.

That would mean the 1st cop he stabbed, who was unarmed, might have stopped it. Its dumb to play whatif in these situations.
Post reply on HN