UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption • Hacker News Board

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#231

Post by krapp » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 1:26 AM UTC

ricksplat wrote: post #220

krapp wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that sounds like the absurdist end of the libertarian spectrum and I'd expect more moderately minded people would take some issue with that line of thinking ... Should people have the right to communicate with one another without government interference? Does encryption undermine the state in a similar way as terrorism, or is it merely an extension of the existing right of people to be (to quote the US Constitution)…

This may be a controversial opinion, but I do believe that a certain amount of surveillance is effective. It worked in London. It worked in New York. But that is "using" technology. Not "crippling" it. I am sympathetic to the needs of the state, and I believe there should be some attempt to meet these needs, but with oversight , and with proper procedures and protections. It's one thing to say James Bond doesn't have…

I don't think it's controversial - one of the reasons people oppose domestic surveillance is because it's effective, if it weren't effective, its abuse wouldn't really be a problem.

But law enforcement already has ways of doing its job without getting new surveillance powers. They can find people on Tor, they can pay for exploits to get into cellphones, and there always seems to be obvious (in hindsight) dots that could or should have been connected, leading to a terrorist plot, which rarely seem to involve encrypted communications.

I want terrorists stopped, but i'm not convinced that governments can't stop terrorists even with the existence of encryption.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#232

Post by kwhitefoot » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 10:48 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #210

blowski wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason I push on this argument is that by making it, we as a community sound like we're waving away the concerns of the majority. "Oh a lorry killed loads of children? Don't worry about it love, loads more people commit suicide every year." So those who do pander to those concerns end up winning the vote, and then they can trash our civil liberties. This is precisely how we British have ended up voting to leave t…

> We need to make those people feel safe again If we look historically, people do feel safer if people dressed like military are walking around with fake/unloaded guns. It worked very effectively after 9/11 to make people feel safe in airports, and the lack of any "real" weapons helped in eliminating the risk of having people with guns around large group of people. However that only worked as long you can keep up the…

It might have made you feel safe but it certainly didn't do it for me.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#233

Post by ptaipale » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 11:12 AM UTC

kiba wrote: post #228

ptaipale wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a misconception to think that the current wave of migration is just because of Syria. Or because of war in Iraq. The people who come on boats to Europe are mostly not Syrians. They are from the vast lands stretching from Senegal to Morocco to Congo to Egypt to Syria to Iraq to Pakistan to India to Bangladesh, and they are not travelling to Europe because one particular place is very bad; they are travelling righ…

Is there a source? I wasn't aware of that fact.

Syria was the largest of source countries in 2015, with a particularly large number arriving in Germany as well as Sweden, but the migration is not at all restricted to Syrian refugees. E.g. in my country (Finland) Syrians were only 3 % of the applications.

For instance, in Britain, the largest numbers of asylum seekers came from Eritrea, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan and Syria as fifth. In Ireland, the largest groups were from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Albania, Nigeria and India. In Italy, the largest source countries were Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal and Bangladesh. In France: Sudan, Syria, Kosovo, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Bangladesh.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#234

Post by physicalist » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 12:04 PM UTC

RazerM wrote: post #215

AdeptusAquinas wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you will find most states promote an 'us vs. them' attitude, especially in times of hardship. And conversely that both states and religions promote harmony and communion during times of plenty. I'd argue for example that Christianity is only peaceful these days because the states that are predominantly Christian are also the most prosperous. And, if you want an example of what atheists do during times of hard…

> And, if you want an example of what atheists do during times of hardship, look to soviet Russia or even Nazi Germany. There's nothing about being an atheist that promotes hatred. There isn't a holy text for Atheism that tells people to believe or do things. Besides, it's a tired argument without merit: https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/the-a...

Nazi Germany was Christian, very much so (There were also fringe pagan elements, yes). Atheists were persecuted under Hitler. Soviet Russia didn't kill anyone in the name of atheism. Atheism isn't an ideology, only the lack of a certain kind of ideology. There isn't much that unites atheists. It doesn't mean atheists don't subscribe to any ideologies, of course. In the case of Soviet Russia, the ideology responsible for the atrocities commited would be communism. Of course, these ideologies are not the sole reason people turn into savages. But Nazi Germany and Christianity for example were compatible because they shared a lot of hatred against jews. Christianity made a lot more people susceptible to Nazi propaganda (together with economic problems) than would have been possible.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#235

Post by nathan_long » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 1:12 PM UTC

RazerM wrote: post #215

AdeptusAquinas wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you will find most states promote an 'us vs. them' attitude, especially in times of hardship. And conversely that both states and religions promote harmony and communion during times of plenty. I'd argue for example that Christianity is only peaceful these days because the states that are predominantly Christian are also the most prosperous. And, if you want an example of what atheists do during times of hard…

> And, if you want an example of what atheists do during times of hardship, look to soviet Russia or even Nazi Germany. There's nothing about being an atheist that promotes hatred. There isn't a holy text for Atheism that tells people to believe or do things. Besides, it's a tired argument without merit: https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/the-a...

> There's nothing about being an atheist that promotes hatred. There isn't a holy text for Atheism that tells people to believe or do things.

On the other hand, there is nothing in atheism that can possibly say that anything is wrong. If the material universe is all that exists, humans are fundamentally no different from mosquitos or rocks. Killing a handicapped person because they inconvenience you cannot be seen as essentially worse than burning a leaf. In short, atheism provides no reason to do or not do anything other than "because I want to".

By contrast, if someone claiming to be a Christian wants to commit murder, they can only do so in opposition to the explicit commands and teachings of Jesus and of the moral laws they claim to believe.

By no means does this imply that "Christians" will always behave better than atheists. But at least there is ground for defining what it means to behave "better" and to argue for such behavior.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#236

Post by bitwize » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 3:40 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #218

adventured wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the scenario in question, that only helps you at layer one of the surveillance process and only for a very brief time. You're now a suspect to be watched intricately. At layer two, they begin digging into your life, tapping everything they can, following you, and most likely eventually getting a warrant or equivalent to enter your home and seize your property. There's no scenario under which you don't break som…

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the state begins persecuting a citizen based on a suspicion of exercising free speech and security in their papers and effects , it is ethically correct for that person to rebel.

And once that person rebels, according to Presidential Decision Directive XXX, the government may consider that person an unlawful enemy combatant, apprehend them without a warrant, and incarcerate them at Secure Facility [REDACTED] for interrogation and/or neutralization by means of [REDACTED]. If they are ever heard about again, it will be because the government "found" ISIS materials, CP, or other bad stuff on their computer.