Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UK can and does prosecute grooming gangs.
Yeah after hiding it for decades and then trying to bury it in inquiries after public outrage.
How on earth is holding an inquiry burying it? It's the opposite.
Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
241–250 of 299 posts
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you understand what transit encryption is? The point of TLS is the ISP can't inspect the traffic. They can of course refuse to carry all encrypted traffic, but 1) stenography exists, so have fun writing DPI filters to detect suspicious noise in the note velocities of MIDI data; 2) turns out the free market didn't adopt HTTPS just to hide drug dealers -- I don't know if you heard, but there's this itty bitty thing…
I know very well and I absolutely am not advocating for removing TLS. I am only saying that there is no need for them to remove it as IsP's can already access your traffic if needed through a lawful intercept. These are part of ISP certification. You're very naive if you believe there is no way for the ISP to view your traffic just because you're over an Https connection. The ISP has "Intercept Access Points" withing…
>You're very naive if you believe there is no way for the ISP to view your traffic just because you're over an Https connection.
they can see the connections, the volume, and the ciphertext being exchanged, but unless...
A) the server is compromised
B) the client is compromised
C) they can break the key exchange algorithm or the symmetric algorithm being used
...the ISP or any other MITM cannot see the plaintext. by design.
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#243I wonder how the public in the UK feels about their country quickly devolving into an oversurveilled state.
My impression is if you talk about privacy or rights or anything like that you are immediately labelled a weirdo. Nobody wants to hear about it.
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#244There are quite a few comments below complaining about the headline - happy to change it, but I'm in a meeting trying to figure out more about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46301921 for the next bit. Can someone suggest a better title? Better here means "accurate and neutral, and preferably using representative language from the article".
"Creating apps like Signal could be considered 'hostile activities' under new Counter-Terrorism and National Security Acts, UK watchdog warns" The language changes here are slight (claims -> warns) and includes more context about the reason this watchdog is speaking out (current debates around the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, new implementation of the National Security Act), using language from the firs…
[deleted]
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#245> Developers of apps that use end-to-end encryption to protect private communications could be considered hostile actors in the UK. So say if my UK friend connected directly to my PC with SSH/RDP, both uses end-to-end encrypted link, to chat with me using `wall`, `write` or Windows Task Manager, then all of sudden this is a hostile and Mr Big Ben will just launch laser at me to burn me to death. Wow, this is just mes…
Please read the report linked in the article. This in not a policy announcement. This a report from a government-appointed official illustrating that there is a theoretical possibility that the current legalisation may be interpreted in a way they didn't intend.
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#246There are quite a few comments below complaining about the headline - happy to change it, but I'm in a meeting trying to figure out more about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46301921 for the next bit. Can someone suggest a better title? Better here means "accurate and neutral, and preferably using representative language from the article".
"Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach" - this, apart from the addition of "UK", is verbatim from the article and much more accurately describes the event being reported.
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#247There are quite a few comments below complaining about the headline - happy to change it, but I'm in a meeting trying to figure out more about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46301921 for the next bit. Can someone suggest a better title? Better here means "accurate and neutral, and preferably using representative language from the article".
[deleted]
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#248There are quite a few comments below complaining about the headline - happy to change it, but I'm in a meeting trying to figure out more about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46301921 for the next bit. Can someone suggest a better title? Better here means "accurate and neutral, and preferably using representative language from the article".
"Creating apps like Signal could be considered 'hostile activities' under new Counter-Terrorism and National Security Acts, UK watchdog warns" The language changes here are slight (claims -> warns) and includes more context about the reason this watchdog is speaking out (current debates around the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, new implementation of the National Security Act), using language from the firs…
Although I'm not actually sure how much the watchdog is "warning" here, despite the article claiming it is. The language from the report is the following:
6.18. In each of these cases the motive of the app developer/ lobbyist/The report doesn't make any recommendations or suggest any changes to the law, it seems to consider that it is good that this could be considered Section 3 "hostile activity". This later part about Schedule 3 investigations also makes this clear:
The Joint Committee on Human Rights was of the view that there was an even greater risk of arbitrary use of Schedule 3 than of Schedule 7, owing to the broader and more ambiguous definition of “hostile activity” (than of terrorism). I would develop the point further:
• For Schedule 7, the examining officer must at least have in mind the possibility that the examined person is morally blameworthy. That arises from the statutory question: whether the individual is a person “…is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”
• By contrast, under Schedule 3 a lawful examination may take place, with all the intrusion and inconvenience attached, of an individual for whom the question of moral fault does not arise at all.
6.22. Having said this, I am not yet able to draw any practical conclusions from this conceptual distinction. Firstly, most examinations are likely to be directed at the issue of witting or witting participation, which incidentally puts a premium on human as well as digital interrogation. Secondly, the possibility that an examinee is in fact entirely innocent also arises under Schedule 7. I will therefore keep under review whether this needs to be reflected in the Code of Practice, but make no recommendation at this stage.Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#249There are quite a few comments below complaining about the headline - happy to change it, but I'm in a meeting trying to figure out more about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46301921 for the next bit. Can someone suggest a better title? Better here means "accurate and neutral, and preferably using representative language from the article".
"Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach" - this, apart from the addition of "UK", is verbatim from the article and much more accurately describes the event being reported.
Ok, let's use that. Thanks!
This, btw, is exactly what we look for when doing a title replacement:
> verbatim from the article and much better describes the event being reported
That's what I usually call "representative language from the article" (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). The idea is not to invent new wordings, but rather to find the place where the article 'confesses' what it is really about.
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#250I know this is about UK (where I am a foreigner living for almost a decade). But why are pretty much all governments universally inept? It's not only the UK but US gov has also pushed for this and plenty of other stupendously stupid ideas or decisions - and plenty of other governments (well, all of them) besides. It leads me to believe that our species is incapable of leading itself, that we are incapable of choosing…
When you look at the pay available in the UK government for this kind of work you'd understand. Interns at financial firms get paid more than the most senior technical staff in government.