Live data from Hacker News

UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

reuters.com

211–220 of 394 posts

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

#211
We hear most terrorists ate with forks so all forks are now banned.

Also, we were shocked to discover that virtually ALL criminals rely on something called Oxygen to perform their work so this is now a controlled substance that will be heavily regulated.

We were then terrified to learn that after banning forks, terrorists were able to successfully eat with spoons or even their hands.

/s

Seriously, you cannot ban tools. Lawmakers have to approach this with a firm grounding in statistics (how LIKELY is a risk, relative to the magnitude of the measures to prevent it?). They also have to realize that some things are just necessary for society to function. Stop being paranoid.

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

#212
post #12

what if the guy read a book and agreed with it because he was an sad angry teenager with no life

They have access to library records because of that scenario. They would be able to access online bookstore records. The book may not have been purchased of course, or may have been banned for sale in a country - many illegal copies of books were made in Communist states in the 80s for that reason.

[deleted]

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

#213
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Andrews & Arnold is unfortunately many times more expensive than the more "mainstream" ISPs. Much cheaper to get a Sky/Virgin connection, and then route all your traffic off their networks over a VPN to a cheap couple of quid VPS per month.

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

#214

Poorly timed opportunism. Police have said the attacker acted alone, so he wasn't using encrypted comms to talk to anyone.

They arrested 8 people so the "acted alone" theory might have changed.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/uk-police-arrests-west...

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

#215
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I was going to suggest them as well. My boss used to use them back when I was in the UK ten years ago and now I would definitely pay the extra for what they provide. Unfortunately I am in Spain now and the choice of ISP's is far more limited.

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

#216

Poorly timed opportunism. Police have said the attacker acted alone, so he wasn't using encrypted comms to talk to anyone.

I really hate this "going dark" narrative.

They can track his purchases via his debit card, his movements via CCTV + cell tower records, intercept his emails... but there's one bit of his digital life that's inaccessible and we're "going dark?"

We are burning bright with data. More data does not necessarily mean less terrorism.

The English might be better served by posting some armed officers in high value areas. The French do this at major train stations and tourist spots like the Eiffel Tower. This doesn't stop terrorism, but vastly reduces the body count.

Frankly, I think it's laughable that countries which resisted the Nazis will let 10 people dying make them consider rolling back civil liberties.

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

#217
post #44

So they get a backdoor into WhatsApp and terrorists just move onto some other non-compromised tool. Rinse and repeat. You can't ban maths ffs. TBH I am surprised attackers do not better destroy their electronic equipment just before they carry out their attack. Pop your phone and SSD/flash drives in the microwave on high for a few minutes is pretty much going to destroy all evidence on them, and if not then chances a…

Wouldn't putting a bunch of metal in a microwave be risky? I'm picturing something exploding and sending shards of glass into bystanders.

(Then again, a 4 Lions moment where an intrepid terrorist slits his own throat with a molten SSD wouldn't be the worst thing in the world...)

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

#218
post #209
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

I was discussing this with friends. The fact that people are acting in the name of Islam and there is a common ideology behind the attacks is why they are considered "terrorism" rather than lone wold attacks. Admittedly this one seems to be somewhere in between. Mass shootings in the US by contrast, do seem to be done by rouge actors in general, and there doesn't seem to be a common element to such attacks. As with everything such definitions aren't black and white and more of a sliding scale, so can be interpreted differently depending on your viewpoint.

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

#219

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 mor…

At some point, some politician is going to have to man up and speak the truth. The public will have to either accept that the government can try and protect it from low probability events by invading every aspect of our lives or people will have to accept the idea that there is a sub 1% chance of being killed by a crazy person.

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

#220
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…

The thing that concerns me about this perspective that everyday use of encryption is bad is that it makes no damn sense. Pandora's box is opened; if you force software solutions to backdoor their technology, someone will just step up who doesn't care about your laws. There are no global treaties on software development, and we aren't going to be signing any such thing any day soon. Even if we could force something like that down the throats of every country on Earth, the knowledge exists, and anyone can roll out their own solution with a high-school level understanding of the topic.

It's absurd to think this can be resolved through legislation or cajoling companies into cooperation. But what really bothers me about this whole issue is that we already have laws in place that handle this situation, at least in the USA. In the USA, if you refuse to hand over an encryption key (or can't) and are being compelled to by a court, you can and will be held in contempt of court, and possibly convicted of destruction of evidence. The only thing that forcing people to backdoor their crypto does is allow government entities to investigate people without having sufficient evidence to compel them to give up their keys, and destroy the marketability of large scale, centralized end-to-end encryption solutions.

I mean, you could make the argument that end-to-end encryption restricts the ability to wiretap people, sure, but a wiretap warrant should require a decent amount of evidence, and at that point, there are most likely other options.

Post reply on HN