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

261–270 of 394 posts

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

#261

Post by Silhouette »

rijncur wrote: post #232

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 ever…

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.

On the contrary. The Home Secretary is literally the holder of the ministerial authority that is required for police and security services to use a lot of the powers they have, and is supposed to be providing oversight and ensuring that those powers are used responsibly.

Unfortunately, that means the Home Secretary spends several hours every day just looking at cases presumably involving some very nasty people. You have to wonder how anyone could keep a balanced perpsective if they're doing that for 20, 30, 40 hours every week for months or years. Everyone who becomes HS in the UK turns into a severe authoritarian within a few months of taking the job, regardless of their prior political views or how reasonable they might be about other matters.

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

#262

Post by fredley »

ouid wrote: post #253
bartread wrote: post #202

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…

It doesn't seem very thin from here. Encrypted messaging is a mathematical fact that your government is attempting to deny. If I need a communication to be secret, I will encrypt it, and I don't need special software.

Not all people who need it can write their own encryption.

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

#263

Post by lb1lf »

bartread wrote: post #202

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…

Every time a person in a position of power calls for the intentional weakening of cryptographic systems - be it via backdoors, limits on key length or whatever, I long for a gutsy interviewer to ask them - preferably live - whether they advocate that position out of ignorance or malice.

There really aren't many other alternatives.

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

#264

Post by Asdfbla »

stale2002 wrote: post #250
CJefferson wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way you prevent anything.. they make it illegal for people in the UK to make, or use, such products. Don't think we can "tech" our way out of this.

Tell that to the pirate bay. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is enforceable.

Well, the Pirate Bay probably never really caught the interest of totalitarian states that really wanted to suppress its existence.

Now, the UK isn't at that point obviously, but if they really wanted to use draconian measures against encryption, it probably would be somewhat effective.

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

#265

Post by Asdfbla »

I morbidly curious how many terrorist attacks we are away from actual laws that will attempt to outlaw encryption as used by WhatsApp (even if it wouldn't make sense to do that). Resistance against such measures outside of the tech scene would probably be low. The "I've got nothing to hide" mentality is actually quite widespread among the population, so I don't even think it would be a risky move politically.

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

#266

Post by nthcolumn »

bartread wrote: post #202

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…

A long way? Real democracies do not spy on their people because it isn't a democracy anymore when you do. Whether that was always just a... well it is another matter. Business had a reasonable expectation of safe-passage. Who will want their traffic coming through the UK now? What multi-national/trans-national wants all their IP belong to the UK government? They will just go elsewhere. It's the economy stupid. Rudd is using the recent murders to her own twisted ends.

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

#267

Post by guilhas »

natch wrote: post #113
guilhas wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally think if there is a warrant the company should provide information. The same way my house is private but if there is any kind of problem police has access to it. Although we should have mechanism to protect from mass random surveillance.

So, no matter how bad the government, and how ridiculous its laws (let's say they ban music, and dole out harsh punishments to people who dare listen to music), then we as technology providers should enable them to catch such people and punish them for their "crimes"? Saudi Arabia punishes rape victims. We should help with that? China punishes people who try to air grievances about government abuse and corruption. Ag…

I can ask the same. Why should a suspected rapist, assassin, drug dealer, corrupt politician, be free or unjustly imprisoned, because of lack of evidence? Do you think we should help criminals?

Nowadays here are other more efective ways, than encrypted WhatsApp (secrecy), to fight bad governments and ridiculous laws.

North Korea and Saudi Arabia are obviously very extreme examples. Internet encryption must be the least of their worries.

Governments with working justice systems should be trusted with power to provide security.

There should be No technical means or backdoors globally accessible. Information should be provided on request basis, based on a warrant for that suspect. And data stored should follow data protection laws.

If you think you country justice system is not working properly there are ways to fight that. And probably there will be people and institutions already doing.

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

#268

Post by ktta »

natch wrote: post #145
ktta wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a perfect solution actually. But sadly, we aren't there just yet. There are nuances with these things that software can't (yet) pickup. So humans have to do it till then. We were maybe born too early. But I think it makes things interesting. That means there are still problems for you and me to solve.

Actually it's a horrible non-solution. Assuming these experts are perfect and infallible (a bad assumption), then what does it prove? That only an authorized government agent can have access? Can you not think of any problem with that whatsoever?

I actually didn't suggest a complete solution. You seem to judge the proposition without any further questions.

I said the monitoring software having access to the data was a solution. But you're probably thinking of a case where there is a master encryption key which we just hand to the government. But have you thought of a solution where we can be sure of the access that the software will have?

Something like a infallible way we can choose only the software can view the data. Sure, you're quick to dismiss it because it doesn't exist. That's why I said it didn't exist

There needn't be centralized way of communication you're thinking of now. It can be public software that people can choose to run.

> Assuming these experts are perfect and infallible

Well, you can have the same skepticism for the end-to-end encrypted software you use. How can you assume that it isn't broken?

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

#269

Post by goodplay »

tormeh wrote: post #201
goodplay wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

What about using latency or throughput as a signal? What about tunneling data over seemingly normal pictures taken by said camera app? What about switching the "User Available online" indicators at a seemingly natural rate? What about all three at the same time?

I assure you, steganography will always be possible. The only think a ban on encryption would do is hurt (badly) society, personal privacy, and those who want to follow the law.

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

#270

Post by clort »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #226
prodmerc wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They all are intent on crippling any chance the UK has at becoming stronger in high tech industries. I'm so sick of getting "this is an adult resource and you can't view it" anytime I search for information about a drug (pharmaceutical, not just "weed LSD and lols"). Great fucking way to encourage your future chemists. Maybe ban keywords like JavaScript, PHP and SQL while at it, them's the powerful drugs maaan.

It's completely optional, turn it off. It also tends to only be mobile networks that do that kind of filtering by default, ISP's ask you when you sign up if you want 'parental controls' or not.

Funnily enough, I just signed up to 3 mobile broadband last week, and I was pleasantly surprised that I didn't have to call and get it turned off (always have before)
Post reply on HN