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

281–290 of 394 posts

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

#281

Post by danmaz74 »

nicky0 wrote: post #251
danmaz74 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being ahead of all other EU countries in some field can be something significant while they're inside the EU, in those cases when an investment or purchase needs to be made inside the EU for any reason. But when they're out, what difference does that make?

It's not like relations with other European countries will immediately cease on leaving the EU.

That's not what I meant or wish. But it's a (for me sad) fact that at that point the expression "compared to the other EU countries" won't have any sense anymore. And if May will go with hard Brexit, as many predict, it will even become easier to trade with eg Canada than with the UK.

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

#282

Post by tsaoutourpants »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #278
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 pr…

That's a happy Sunday afternoon thought, but we are not at that point yet. The point we are at is one in which corrupt governments seek to control us not for our own safety, but because they crave power and control.

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

#283

Post by natch »

ktta wrote: post #268
natch wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inf…

>I actually didn't suggest a complete solution.

Nobody is saying you did. You yourself said "that is a perfect solution actually" in response to vinceyuan, who had a one-liner comment about "the source code of the monitoring software must be reviewed by independent and trusted software engineers/experts."

Maybe we are interpreting this in different ways.

How do you envision this "solution" working? It is a bit vaguely specified.

Who is doing the monitoring? What or who is being monitored? For example are we talking about monitoring the authorities to see if their access is done properly? Or are we talking about something / someone monitoring communications, on behalf of the authorities? Not sure what you had in mind. Can you explain how what you called "perfect" might work, were it to be developed at some point in the future?

I'll say up front that I'm skeptical, but let's see if we are even talking about the same thing. As long as you're being super vague, you don't have a solution at all.

And if you're just saying: there's no solution now but maybe one can be developed, fine (I believe you're wrong) but please clarify how you think it might work.

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

#284

Post by NetStrikeForce »

danmaz74 wrote: post #174
NetStrikeForce wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK's best shot at surviving Brexit is become stronger on value added industries. They have a very good head start over any other EU country in IT and in some research areas. Amber Rudd seems hell bent on destroying their only chance.

Being ahead of all other EU countries in some field can be something significant while they're inside the EU, in those cases when an investment or purchase needs to be made inside the EU for any reason. But when they're out, what difference does that make?

My point is that in case British businesses have to overcome barriers (e.g. tariffs), their best bet at not going bankrupt is selling non-physical goods and services with as much added value as possible. That implies high technology and investment in research.

Non-physical so selling to America, Africa or Asia is as cheap as selling to Europe and added value to absorb the new cost of doing businesses (in case the UK does not remain in the Single Market).

If e22 encryption is outlawed in the UK, their businesses would be less trusted (harder to sell expensive things) and will be at the mercy of other countries' intelligence and espionage services.

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

#285

Post by brainfire »

makecheck wrote: post #211

We hear most terrorists ate with forks so all forks are now banned. Also, we were shocked to discover that virtually ALL criminals rely on something called Oxygen to perform their work so this is now a controlled substance that will be heavily regulated. We were then terrified to learn that after banning forks, terrorists were able to successfully eat with spoons or even their hands. /s Seriously, you cannot ban tool…

It's perfectly legal to use a fork, if you choose to take that risk. We absolutely haven't banned forks, we just urge special precautions due to the clear and obvious terrorism risks. If you want to use a fork or fork-like object (various devices that can be used for stabbing crimes like pencils or pens), just put your name on this watchlist...

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

#286

Post by Stranger43 »

stordoff wrote: post #238
Stranger43 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

thanks for correcting my sometimes failing memory though the reality is more complex then that everything ECHR related was defined by 1950, as the active component of the ECHR did not come into existence until 1959 and was not acknowledged as superior court by the UK prior to the UK joining the EU.

The court http://www.coe.int/t/democracy/migration/bodies/echr_en.asp is what makes the ECHR significantly more effective then the unenforceable UN Declaration of Human Rights signed in 1948 only came into effect in 1859 and was only explicitly acknowledged as superior in British law with the still controversial Human rights act of 1998 https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/the-supreme-court-and-euro....

The fact that EU membership demand actual rather then pretend ECHR compliance is a fairly big deal in the anti-EU Tory circles currently running the show in the UK and some of them seem to presume that leaving the EU will absolve the UK of any duty to submit to the ECHR court http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/26/theresa-may-prepa... even though I am sure they think otherwise in Strasbourg.

but you are correct in stating that officially the ECHR came into dejura effect in 1950 under the Council of Europe where the UK unlike for the ECSC(1951) and the EEC(1957) was a founding member, but it's worth nothing here that the Council of Europe is a far more toothless organization(like the UN) then either the ECSC and the EEC.

Edit: fixed links

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

#287

Post by bencollier49 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #245
iamben wrote: post #241

If the govt. was to force WhatsApp's hand, I'm sure we'd see democracy in action if they prevented everyone using the app for 24 hours, replacing the facility to message with a note telling users to contact their local MP (with clickable email / phone numbers - and maybe links to the ORG).

Or even just put a banner at the top of the app.

And then suddenly Facebook find themselves legally responsible for the things published on their platform, perhaps. They're not going to stand up to the government, they're in too weak a position.

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

#288

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #278
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 pr…

> I do not see the value of privacy trumping survival.

Survival is not a value. Survival is a prerequisite for a lot of other values, but it's not a value in and of itself.

As many people have difficulty grasping what living in a world without privacy would be like, let me propose a different solution: We'll put everyone into solitary confinement, to ensure everyone's survival, as I do not see the value of freedom of movement trumping survival.

Would you agree with that as well? If not, why not?

Also, you might want to realize that surveillance does not ensure that your set of values gets enforced. It's the values of whoever manages to obtain that power, and whose power as a result of the surveillance might be impossible to challenge. The idea that you could create such a power structure and then guarantee that it's going to be used exclusively to prevent that bio weapon from being built and used is extremely naive. You would instead most likely find yourself alive, living in a world that makes you constantly wish for being dead, but thanks to the surveillance unable to kill yourself.

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

#289

Post by GordonS »

vinceyuan wrote: post #58

If I have to choose one from end-to-end encryption and security, I will choose security. I don't mind my WhatsApp chats are scanned by police's software, if it can reduce terrorism. Of course, we need to make sure it is used for anti-terrorism only. Update: One solution of 'make sure' is the source code of the monitoring software must be reviewed by independent and trusted software engineers/experts. PS. Downvoting m…

> if it can reduce terrorism It can't. If these supposed hoards of terrorists have half a brain cell between them, they'd simply communicate using something else.

> Of course, we need to make sure it is used for anti-terrorism only Hah, not likely in the UK - if sweeping powers exist, there will be a creeping escalation of their use by different government bodies, and for purposes not related to terrorism.

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

#290

Post by anigbrowl »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #225
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.

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

That's how it's always been. Northern Irish terrorism was used to justify many restrictions of civil liberties in the UK, and while opposition figures made disapproving noises nothing actually changed and their opposition was limited to expressing their opinions while sitting in comfy chairs.

It's one reason I left the UK in the first place; not because of facing personal discrimination for being Irish (I did face some but most British people are pragmatic and fair-minded), but because of the whole securitized atmosphere with security cameras everywhere - it was like being in prison.

However, I have little hope of this changing. As far as I can tell the vast majority of people value security over privacy or autonomy, and of course they never think Bad Things are going to happen to them because they're Good People - like the woman in the news the other day who voted for Trump and is now surprised that her husband is being deported even though he's not a 'bad hombre.'

It's unlikely that there will ever be a mass movement for privacy and autonomy, because the genius and failure o democracy is that it's harder to blame your problems on some antipathetic Other - foreign invaders, aristocrats, an elite social class or whatever. Democracy really depends on people thinking about issues, and most people want to be firmly embedded in a social context, perhaps because were a eusocial species. It's hard for them to conceptualize an oppressive state in the same way that it's hard for most people to imagine hating their parents or the people int heir community.

Happily, as far as digital technology is concerned there is not a whole lot the UK government can actually do about the issue, and May's speechifying is more directed at appeasing the drooling tabloid-reading class than it is reflective of any serious policy initiative. the likely effect sit aht operating systems on computing devices sold in the UK won't be allowed to have built-in encryption and the smart set will be using mods of some sort. Pretty much how it was with PGP 25 years ago.

Post reply on HN