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

181–190 of 394 posts

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

#181

Post by Neliquat »

ajmurmann wrote: post #85
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I had this thought as well. However, the comparison to knives seems better. It's pretty hard to make your own gun. It's pretty straight forward to make your own encryption app on top of existing OSS libraries. Like it's pretty easy to make your own makeshift, large knife. Maybe I just see it like that because I'm a software developer though.

It is not. Smash "home made gun" into youtube sometime. $30 at any hardware store and you have a functioning shotgun.

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

#183

Post by Neliquat »

joshvm wrote: post #27
royka118 wrote: post #13

Is it technically feasible to have a back door and still be `end to end` encrypted ?

Yes, this was revealed by the recent agency leaks. Cracking end to end encryption is still extremely difficult (currently impossible?). It's much easier to get root on a target's phone and run a keylogger or break into the app. The messages are still end-end encrypted, but you can sniff them before they're sent and after they're received since they're shown to the user in plaintext.

But then the side channel (pre enc info) is also sent, using different encryption? Otherwise, just as broken.

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

#184

Post by Stranger43 »

dawnerd wrote: post #138
zzzcpan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Even if the British government is successful with WhatsApp, can they do much against free, open source tools?" Why would they care about open source tools and niche use of encryption? Of course they don't. They are after mass surveillance and use fear of terrorism to push for it. It's very logical of them.

I feel countries will ultimately make it a crime to use any non approved encryption.

The UK actually tried to enforce key escrow as far back and 1999(http://www.cyber-rights.org/crypto/ukpolicy.htm). But backed down due to conflicts with EU law.

It's not entirely by accident that the UK current ramp up of legalized government surveillance coincide with Brexit, as the UK doesn't actually have a democratic constitution limiting government surveillance outside of the ECHR treaty they signed as a prerequisite for joining the EU/EEC.

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

#185

Post by kortex »

mrkgnao wrote: post #99

Thought-experimentally: could we potentially be able to scan message databases for the absence of certain phrases, using something like [1], but in a probabilistic manner akin to that of a Bloom filter? This would ensure that law enforcement would be able to flag certain keywords with a nonzero (and nontrivial) false-positive rate. That way, repeated flags end up identifying potentially interesting members of society…

Theoretically, I'm sure some crafty solution like that exists, but then that is no longer true end-to-end encryption. It's 'leaky' E2E, which in the eyes of most crypto enthusiasts, is practically worse than open channel, because it gives a false sense of security.

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

#186

Post by madaxe_again »

SimonPStevens wrote: post #161

I watched Amber Rudd interviewed by Andrew Marr this morning and the scariest thing about it was that Marr completely agreed with her. Rather than providing an opposing viewpoint and counteracting her points, he agreed with the idea that it was unacceptable for people to be allowed to use encryption and that it was terrible these companies were using it as a selling point. All he pushed her on was if she would enforc…

This isn't all that surprising, given that the government has repeatedly threatened the BBC with the loss/alteration of their charter for being critical of the government and not sufficiently jubilant about Brexit. ITV owning the BBC would arguably be a greater disaster than watered down coverage.

For a corollary see the paucity of coverage on the mass demonstration in London yesterday.

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

#187

Post by secfirstmd »

SimonPStevens wrote: post #161

I watched Amber Rudd interviewed by Andrew Marr this morning and the scariest thing about it was that Marr completely agreed with her. Rather than providing an opposing viewpoint and counteracting her points, he agreed with the idea that it was unacceptable for people to be allowed to use encryption and that it was terrible these companies were using it as a selling point. All he pushed her on was if she would enforc…

He actually asked a very unprofessional leading question.

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

#188

Post by timthorn »

IanCal wrote: post #175
jen20 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can find MVNOs without filtering, such as Andrews & Arnold

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

#190

Post by kortex »

lozf wrote: post #147
cm2187 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

That gave me actual shivers. I can't believe the general populace (especially in the USA and UK) fall for this garbage. The bread and circuses must be really good. Ok maybe just circuses, I think Trump wants to cut SNAP.
Post reply on HN