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

271–280 of 394 posts

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

#271

Post by emmab »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #219
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…

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.

> sub 1% chance of being killed by a crazy person.

Please don't attribute homicidal political views to insanity. These people don't have schizophrenia, and people with schizophrenia aren't terrorists.

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

#272

Post by sergior »

fredley wrote: post #262
ouid wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don't have to, because it is already written and fairly easy to use. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to encrypt a message using asymmetric cryptography, that will be difficult - if possible to break. People who will want to conceal contents of their messages could still send them encrypted via WhatsApp or other platform regardless if there is a backdoor or not. UK Home Secretary has just displayed unprecedented level of incompetence.

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

#273

Post by FatalBaboon »

lb1lf wrote: post #263
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.

I believe they do it because they've been elected to do so.

It takes too much to reply: "Tell you what, I'm going to educate you better instead". Because you can educate all you want, you will not have results that helps your re-election 4-5 years down the road.

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

#274

Post by DanBC »

stagbeetle wrote: post #258
DanBC wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's absolutely no evidence he had mental illness, and you do harm to people with mental illness when you incorrectly link violent behaviour to mental illness. More important is his time in prison - where most UK terrorists were radicalised - and if you were saying that UK prisons don't rehabilitate I'd agree.

Is brutal violence against others not associated with mental disturbation?

Violent people are violent. They may also have mental illness, but usually it's coincidental.

In this specific case there's no suggestion he had mental illness, and it's ignorant to suggest he did.

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

#275

Post by sergior »

Silhouette wrote: post #244
k-mcgrady wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corbyn has already spoken up: Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said authorities already had "huge powers". There had to be a balance between the "right to know" and "the right to privacy", he said. [1] Unfortunately when it came to actually doing something he provided practically no opposition to the Investigatory Powers Act. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39396578

I suspect that will prove to be Corbyn's "tuition fees" moment. If he's still there by the next general election, the Lib Dems will surely attack him for being all talk and no action.

Lib Dems are experts at all talk and no action. Oh irony.

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

#276

Post by sergior »

FungalRaincloud wrote: post #220
mattbee wrote: 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 li…

People can simply send random binary data to keep authorities busy.

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

#277

Post by sergior »

dmichulke wrote: post #152
satysin wrote: 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…

It's in the interest of the terrorists to get WhatsApp banned. Terrorists just use something else while the populace feels gradually more oppressed/controlled/... In a way they get something for nothing.

I think this is not about terrorists (that is just a side effect), but for state ability to know what people think and talk about. That is very powerful thing to have.

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

#278

Post by SubiculumCode »

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…

Suppose we came upon a time where some new technology had emerged allowing anyone with an average intelligence to be able to create a virulent bio weapon from materials so​ common and available that their restriction is impossible. In this world, we are almost surely doomed, but perhaps the only hope for survival on earth (ignore space diaspora for the moment) would be from instituting an all pervasive surveilance presence. In this scenario, I do not see the value of privacy trumping survival.

One might counter that the scenario I lay out above is not possible. However I would posit that technology enables our capacities to create/preserve and to destroy. However, perhaps stemming from thr laws of thermodynamics, it does seem that our capacities to destroy is always outpacing our capacities to create or preserve, and eventually the gap between these capacities will unsettle the center which cannot hold.

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

#279

Post by simonbarker87 »

emmab wrote: post #271
alistproducer2 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> sub 1% chance of being killed by a crazy person. Please don't attribute homicidal political views to insanity. These people don't have schizophrenia, and people with schizophrenia aren't terrorists.

There is also a wide spectrum of mental illnesses that aren't schizophrenia that may make people act in these ways. While OP was being flippant I don't think the essence of what they were saying is out of line, doing something extreme and causing a lot of harm and damage could justifiably be called crazy even if not medically accurate with out being a slur on those with diagnosed a mental illness.

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

#280

Post by tomc1985 »

emmab wrote: post #271
alistproducer2 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> sub 1% chance of being killed by a crazy person. Please don't attribute homicidal political views to insanity. These people don't have schizophrenia, and people with schizophrenia aren't terrorists.

'Crazy' refers to more than schizophrenia... nobody uses that word to refer to an exclusive group anymore
Post reply on HN