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

231–240 of 394 posts

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

#231

Post by k-mcgrady »

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…

>> 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.

Giving up such a valuable right to possibly stop attacks which, in the grand scheme of things actually harm very few people, is idiotic. Terrorism is obviously awful but the number of people in the UK actually affected by it is far, far too small to consider forgoing such an important right. And IMO, once you do that, the terrorists have won.

Take the attack in London last week for example. It doesn't require planning. Anyone could get in a car and mow down a lot of people in seconds. It doesn't need discussion on WhatsApp. It doesn't require purchase of weapons. It doesn't require you to do anything shady that could give you away more than a second before you do it. No amount of intelligence gathering could figure it out. You could force every citizen to wear a mic and body cam and you still wouldn't be able to stop it.

How about tackling the actual problem - terrorists seem to have resorted to using cars and trucks to kill people. Lets put up some metal/concrete bollards alone the edge of pavements that have no 'escape route', such as the one on Westminster Bridge.

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

#232

Post by rijncur »

It is the duty of the Home Secretary (and the UK's various nosey institutions - e.g. intelligence agencies, police, etc) to continuously badger us for this information - unfortunately, it's pretty much part of the job description.

It is our duty, as the public, to continuously say "no".

Disregarding any negative consequences, their motivations are pretty transparent - there's little doubt that being able to read everyone's private messages will enable the intelligence services to better do their jobs. However, as Edward Snowden and others have already shown to us many times over the last few years, the UK government can't be trusted with this responsibility - and that this is probably the thin end of the wedge. Britain is already the closest thing that Europe has to a surveillance state, and the number of people killed in the UK by terrorism is vanishingly small - we are hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident. Is it really worth giving up the last vestiges of our privacy for a little bit more security?

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

#233

Post by alphabettsy »

collyw wrote: post #218
tunap wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

No common element in US attacks? I think in the majority of cases that's just not true. People weren't killed, but the PizzaGate shooter was motivated by what can only be described as a large cult of a particular persuasion, Planned Parenthood shooter certainly had his political motives, Charleston shooter had motives that have existed in the US almost continuously, Oregon standoff were all anti-government types, I could go on and on. I would say the main difference is we are not actively at war with people that share their faith or look like them overseas. As far as I'm aware the Boston bombers and Orlando shooter were only inspired by, but received no support from groups such as ISIS. In that way they were just as self-radicalized as Dylan Roof the Charleston shooter.

Obviously it's all more complicated than I could quickly write, but to me there's a big difference between the self-radicalized generally disconnected persons in the US or U.K. versus those on the ground overseas.

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

#234

Post by GordonS »

makomk wrote: post #19
tinus_hn wrote: post #2

How would that have prevented anything? As if they'd have responded within 2 minutes to some guy sending weird messages.

The message he sent right before the attack will likely not have been his first communication about it. There's been a pattern of Isis operatives abroad guiding and supporting terrorists in detail via end-to-end encrypted messaging for weeks or months, right up until the moment they attack: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/world/asia/isis-messaging... Presumably the British police are assuming that this is like tho…

Come on. If this was really ISIS, then we plainly have nothing to fear.

My bet is that he's just a random crazy, but of course these days it suits the political narrative to brand such people 'terrorists' to stoke public fear

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

#235

Post by blibble »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #213
timthorn wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

they aren't "many times more expensive"

compare BT[1] (£44.99 for 12 months, then £53.99) with AAISP[2] (£45)

once you add on "a couple of quid VPS a month", you could even go for the AAISP 1TB package at £60/month

[1]: https://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/broadband-pa...

[2]: http://www.aaisp.net.uk/broadband-home1.html

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

#236

Post by DanBC »

GordonS wrote: post #234
makomk wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The message he sent right before the attack will likely not have been his first communication about it. There's been a pattern of Isis operatives abroad guiding and supporting terrorists in detail via end-to-end encrypted messaging for weeks or months, right up until the moment they attack: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/world/asia/isis-messaging... Presumably the British police are assuming that this is like tho…

Come on. If this was really ISIS, then we plainly have nothing to fear. My bet is that he's just a random crazy, but of course these days it suits the political narrative to brand such people 'terrorists' to stoke public fear

Stop tossing out mental health as a reason. There's nothing to say he had mental illness, and you cause harm to people with mental illness when you incorrectly link violence to mental illness.

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

#237

Post by [deleted] »

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...

[deleted]

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

#238

Post by stordoff »

Stranger43 wrote: post #184
dawnerd wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prere…

> ECHR treaty they signed as a prerequisite for joining the EU/EEC

The UK signed the ECHR in 1950 (and were involved in writing it); the EEC did not exist until 1957.

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

#239

Post by logingone »

cmdrfred wrote: post #214
logingone wrote: post #205

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...

That link is old. They've mostly if not all been released.

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

#240

Post by ryan-c »

clubm8 wrote: post #216
logingone wrote: post #205

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…

I posted about this on twitter this morning, and it seems appropriate to repeat it here:

For most of history, governments have not had the ability to easily monitor the communications of their citizens. Widely available, user friendly encryption tools are just returning us to normal. Well, except for the massive trail of metadata everyone now leaves.

Post reply on HN