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

331–340 of 394 posts

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

#331

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#332

Post by kakarot »

drdaeman wrote: post #304
kakarot wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but how do you feel about a person's right over their personal information being systematically collected by their government, several large corporate entities, and a dozen or so international spy agencies? What about when this information is used to economically bind them into submission?

Ah, but that's about how the tools are used, not what they are and who has them. I believe, any entity, from a mere individual to a government agency or multinational corporation should be free to possess any software tools they may desire. How they use those is another matter. I do "spy" on my own traffic on my own network running on my own hardware on my own premises. I've had some audits for possible malware/spywa…

This doesn't extend well to other domains.

We're talking about what are essentially cyberweapons and surveillance tools.

Why can I not own a nuclear warhead, as long as I promise not to do anything with it?

Why can I not put cameras and 3D radio imaging equipment up across the street on a small private plot of land and spy on you and your children's home without being visited by the police at your request?

If you don't have a problem with how those two cases are legislated then you might be able to understand how this could relate back to software.

Should you have access to any program you want? I guess so, if you can get it in a licensed manner. If it's FOSS or something similar, that will be easy. But using these tools to collect surveillance data and PII is an entirely other issue because of the potential weaponization of collected data and the harm that can result from it.

I supposed I did not fully understand what the OP was asking, because I do believe you should be able to own these tools and test them on your own equipment, and that the issue is that we need to ensure proper protections against these tools are in place for the average uninformed user.

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

#333

Post by brokenmachine »

pera wrote: post #299
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…

> The work of police and security services has never been easy in a free society, I think the work of security services have never been easier as it is now thanks to the massive use of social networks and mobile phones, CCTVs everywhere, GEOINT, etc. At least for the Five Eyes.

Just my opinion, but I think now they are having problems because they are getting too much information in, so separating the wheat from the chaff is difficult.

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

#334

Post by brokenmachine »

Silhouette wrote: post #252
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…

We're a very long way from being a totalitarian state and likely to remain so for quite some time The scary thing is that the difference between the UK and the kind of place we might describe using words like "totalitarian state" is now more about how our laws are used in practice than what the laws actually say. The government and its agents already have very broad powers, our courts have already taken surprisingly…

I agree with this. The last thing we need is more laws and new powers for the surveillance state.

For example, Australia's Lindt Cafe siege - the guy was already under "24 hour surveillance" by ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence) - which did nothing to prevent the attack. Despite this, AFAIK there was not much blame placed on ASIO. I'm sure there are many other examples. I'm not saying it's an easy problem to solve, just that more surveillance is probably not the answer.

Sure, the attacker is the real culprit, but adding more laws and surveillance will not prevent crazies from doing crazy stuff.

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

#335

Post by brokenmachine »

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…

If I can make a super weapon from air and water, how will extra surveillance stop a terrorist from doing that?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, are you saying we need more surveillance to protect us because weapons are becoming easier to produce?

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

#336

Post by terrestrial »

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…

> there's little doubt that being able to read everyone's private messages will enable the intelligence services to better do their jobs

[citation needed]

Seriously, this argument is FUD. I'm sorry for picking on this quote, as I agree with the rest of your post, but allow me to go on a short rant..

We've seen this argument used many times over. It was used to introduce surveillance cameras on every UK street. What has it achieved? Less parking lot crimes[1].

The EU used it when introducing the data retention directive. Which was "nullified" eight years later due to violating fundamental human rights[2]. Of course, the infrastructure is still in place, and everyone is still using it. What has it achieved? AFAICT nothing except a blatant danger to society. The ability to know everything about anyone and actively take over their private devices is not something that should be taken lightly.

The GCHQ even admitted that the London terrorist was "on their radar". Well duh, who isn't. If that's not admitting mass surveillance is ineffective, I don't know what is.

It is impossible to prevent all crime before it occurs. The world isn't NP complete. Get over it. Or, to paraphrase Gödel: "I would rather live in a world that is inconsistent, than one that is incomplete"[3].

The intelligence agencies are just bored. They have no wars, except drugs and "terror". They use this "downtime" to get more data sources by influencing politicians.

Guess what, gathering more of the same shit data won't increase your signal.

[1] https://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file708_35775...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive

[3] Not an actual quote, but I'm sure he would agree.

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

#337

Post by Spivak »

cperciva wrote: post #326
megous wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, many soldiers are murderers. There's clear intention to kill. And justification does not happen simply because some idiot in power tells someone to go kill other people for political reasons. And coalition is also killing civilians for political reasons, more than thousand of them a month ATM. It is obviously calculated. It's just that someone determined murdering perhaps 5-10 thousands civilians is a OK to gi…

Murder is, by definition, an unlawful killing.

And the definition as it exists in a given body of law is not an absolute definition nor how people typically use the term.

The Catholic Church is a good example. The fifth commandment is thou shall not murder. And the Catechism clarifies this by saying

> The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2...

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

#338

Post by beedogs »

FatalBaboon wrote: post #273
lb1lf wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No properly-informed voter would want this kind of legislation.

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

#339

Post by clubm8 »

pjc50 wrote: post #300
sergior wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unprece…

> People who will want to conceal contents of their messages could still send them encrypted via WhatsApp or other platform Even if posession of encrypted messages without the ability to decrypt carries a 10 year prison sentence? (Yes, this has serious enforceability problems, but that doesn't mean it can't become law)

How will you prove what I possess is encrypted data and not random bits?

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

#340

Post by beedogs »

humanrebar wrote: post #308
seanhandley wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrorists are politically motivated murderers. So are soldiers in any army. The only difference is in who they answer to.

You just called a lot of really honorable people murderers. Murder is unjust killing. Killing civilians to make a point or to cause chaos is, by definition, murder. Let's not equate that with all the legitimate things armed forces are for.

> You just called a lot of really honorable people murderers.

Pretty much every single person involved in, say, the Iraq war was indeed a murderer. Most of the battles the West has engaged in since WWII were unjust and ill-founded. The people involved in those wars are murderers.

Post reply on HN