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

201–210 of 394 posts

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

#201

Post by tormeh »

goodplay wrote: post #71
makomk wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that difficult, but it'd almost certainly have major security flaws that GHCQ and the NSA could exploit, because homebrew end-to-end encryption tends to. The bigger problem is that merely using an Isis-branded chat application is the equivalent of sending a text message to the security services saying "hello, I'm a potential terrorist, please pay special attention to my every movement". Even the Tor project hasn'…

I generally agree, but intelligence groups have to first find the signal they want to monitor. Modern steganography techniques coupled with the free randomness you get from the physical world gives you much to work with. And that's assuming common tech will be used. Also, designing a secure general purpose messaging system is much harder that designing a system tailored for a specific use case. Banning encryption by…

Well, ISPs could implement a whitelist of communication methods. Maybe all content would have to be signed by a whitelist of apps before it's allowed through the network. Images would have to be signed by the camera app, so no steganography would be possible.

From a business perspective it would be like going back to before the internet, but many of the services we associate with the internet like Facebook, Netflix etc. would survive.

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

#202

Post by bartread »

We're a very long way from being a totalitarian state and likely to remain so for quite some time but, make no mistake, this is the thin end of a very long and ultimately very fat wedge. It therefore behooves us well to hold the government to account when they try to get us to swallow more of that wedge.

Sure, encryption helps terrorists as well as ordinary citizens but it's my belief that freedom and privacy are more important than that. The work of police and security services has never been easy in a free society, but protecting and upholding that free society is the very essence of the job. Dilution of that freedom is therefore counter to the purpose for which these agencies exist, and so when the government tries to move in that direction we, as citizens, should voice our resistance, and keep voicing it until they understand.

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

#203

Post by noarchy »

"Home Secretary Amber Rudd told Sky News it was "completely unacceptable" that police and security services had not been able to crack the heavily encrypted service."

This is great news, actually. It means that WhatsApp's encryption works, and stonewalls the efforts of state actors (or at least, hers) to break it.

That said, we don't know if she's lying about this, or not.

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

#204

Post by untog »

madaxe_again wrote: post #186
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.

It isn't all that surprising to me either. But for different reasons. They have no idea what they are talking about.

Do we think they know our online banking software uses the same kind of encryption? Probably not. Andrew Marr not knowing this is annoying. But an entire government being ignorant of it is deeply worrying.

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

#206

Post by leggomylibro »

Symbiote wrote: post #42
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…

From [1], linked elsewhere in this discussion, and referring to a failed plot in India: "The Hindi-speaking handler guiding the men in Hyderabad also insisted on using a kaleidoscope of encrypted messaging applications, with Mr. Yazdani instructed to hop between apps so that even if one message history was discovered and cracked, it would reveal only a portion of their handiwork." "the handler taught Mr. Yazdani how…

That's the beauty of it; even with their more restrictive measures and massively increased surveillance, they won't make a significant dent in these sorts of attacks.

So they'll never run out of reasons to push further. Hooray.

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

#207

Post by DanBC »

untog wrote: post #204
madaxe_again wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It isn't all that surprising to me either. But for different reasons. They have no idea what they are talking about. Do we think they know our online banking software uses the same kind of encryption? Probably not. Andrew Marr not knowing this is annoying. But an entire government being ignorant of it is deeply worrying.

Why do you think the government doesn't know? Why do you think they believe what they say?

This is just populist bullshit. It follows on from other populist bullshit.

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

#208

Post by spacecadets »

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…

Given that the BBC is a state funded organisation, why would you expect anything else?

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

#209

Post by tunap »

atmosx wrote: post #164
s3arch wrote: post #154

>Referring to Whatsapp's system of end-to-end encryption, she said: "It is completely unacceptable. There should be no place for terrorists to hide. Thats it guys. Mommy says no more maths.

> "It is completely unacceptable. There should be no place for terrorists to hide." Agreed. I'm terrorized when I hear gov representatives talking like that. Who's the terrorist, I wonder.

I seem to remember in pre-inet news, rogue actors with mental disorders seldom made national headlines. Now an individual with no affiliation with organized hate-based groups and some twisted logic can dream of international recognition for their actions if they manage to fulfill loose criteria under the "terrorists" FUD umbrella. Dead or alive, they want to be significant in some way different from their previously banal existence, consequences be damned.

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

#210

Post by loup-vaillant »

orless wrote: post #141
loup-vaillant wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> small crime organizations (like exploiting pseudorandom generators in casino slot machines) If all you do is pushing the buttons of the slot machine in the right order with the right timing, that's hardly a crime —and I don't care about court judgements to the contrary. If a slot machine has a crappy pseudo random number generator, they're just asking for it. I'd rather sue the slot machine's maker for providing a…

It is a crime as in "unlawful act punishable by a state or other authority". You are welcome to disagree, but I'd be interested in your definition of "crime" then.

My point is, there is nothing wrong with pushing a slot machine's buttons, even if it is done in a way that defeats the RNG. The difference between this and counting cards in a game of Black Jack is, the RNG can easily be fixed to prevent this.

You provided it as an example of "organized crime", and doing so heavily suggests that it is wrong.

We tend to conflate "wrong" and "unlawful", and for good reason: the law is supposed to prevent wrong things from being committed. There are exceptions however, and this is one of them. I'd rather use another example if possible.

Post reply on HN