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

381–390 of 394 posts

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

#381

Post by ghughes »

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…

I wrote a letter to Amber Rudd based in part on your comment: https://medium.com/@flukes1/my-letter-to-amber-rudd-on-encry...

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

#382

Post by brokenmachine »

DanBC wrote: post #372
brokenmachine wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"absolutely no evidence"... except the random crazy violent act against innocent strangers that made international headlines. It's a bit odd to pretend those are the actions of a well-adjusted, sane person.

Most violent people do not have mental illness. You cause harm to people with mental illness when you ignorantly link violence to mental illness.

We're not talking about "most violent people" or regular domestic violence. We're talking about someone who ran random pedestrians down on purpose on a footpath and stabbed a police officer for no reason. This is an outlier.

Even though it doesn't fit your ridiculous PC SJW agenda, I would be willing to bet he's got some kind of mental health issue. I don't think that's a controversial opinion to hold.

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

#383

Post by dragonwriter »

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?

There are some mental illnesses for which are associated with violence, but much violence is not associated with mental illness.

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

#384

Post by dragonwriter »

stagbeetle wrote: post #302
DanBC wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Violent people aren't violent because they are violent. There is an underlying cause for someone to use force against another, especially when it is socially unacceptable. Perhaps it doesn't fit under the "common" mental illnesses of depression, anxiety, etc. but it lines up well with thought disorders. A sane and well person would not jeopardize themselves, and their fellow species.

> A sane and well person would not jeopardize themselves, and their fellow species.

Sane (by the usual definition, though it's possible you are using an unusual definition of your own) people jeopardize themselves to harm other members of the species all the time.

In fact, societies tend to have organized groups of people who are expected to do this when the targets are enemies of the group, and who are honored for it; they also not infrequently honor people who independently do it against people theor society has decided are "the enemy".

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

#385

Post by IanCal »

timthorn wrote: post #314
mike-cardwell wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Andrews & Arnold is unfortunately many times more expensive than the more "mainstream" ISPs. Much cheaper to get a Sky/Virgin connection, and then route all your traffic off their networks over a VPN to a cheap couple of quid VPS per month.

My point was more about them offering a mobile service - many here know of them as a good ISP, but it is less well known that they offer the same quality of Internet access via mobile.

I certainly fall into that bucket. Thanks for the note, I had no idea they did mobile stuff too.

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

#386

Post by sctb »

sergior wrote: post #275
Silhouette wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unsubstantive partisan comments are a kind we really need fewer of, so please don't post them here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#387

Post by clubm8 »

pjc50 wrote: post #367
clubm8 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, how will you prove that it's random data and not encrypted data? What if you're ordered to provide a password to decrypt it or go to jail? https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/02/justice-naps-m... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989

It's up to the prosecution to prove their case against me, not vice versa. (At least in the USA.)

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

#388

Post by brokenmachine »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #368
brokenmachine wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about tackling the actual problem - terrorists seem to have resorted to using cars and trucks to kill people. Lets put up some metal/concrete bollards alone the edge of pavements that have no 'escape route', such as the one on Westminster Bridge. Nice post. I agree almost entirely with you, but you can't put a bollard everywhere, and even if you could, bad people would find a way around or between the bollards,…

>> you can't put a bollard everywhere I agree, this wasn't my suggestion. I was thinking more of areas like a bridge where if a car does start speeding along the pavement, even if you are further along and see it, there is nowhere for you to go. Your choices are stay put (and get hit), run into the road and probably get hit by traffic, or jump off the bridge (dangerous). Bollards along pavements like that would be us…

The real problem is not the fact that we have places where pedestrians can be hit. It's the fact that there are people who would want to hurt innocent people for no reason. TBH I don't really understand why these crimes should be treated in any special way other than any other murder/assault crime. What difference does it make what ideology they are claimed to identify with? I am not convinced that the volume of such crimes (assault with relevant ideology) is enough to warrant putting them in a special category in the first place.

I do think that the bollard solution is a bit unnecessary though, as there'll always be a place where pedestrians would be vulnerable, and many other ways that people could be hurt besides.

At least it's something that could have an effect though. Snooping on emails would have almost no effect, and I hope everyone knows that. Snowden/William Binney, etc, should have made it patently obvious to everyone that there is no shortage of data flowing in, and I'm sure any successful preventative efforts would have been trumpeted to the rooftops with the way those agencies love to pat themselves on the back to justify bigger budgets.

More crap data, from millions of law-abiding innocent citizens, is not going to make it any easier for them to separate out the signal from the massive amount of noise.

The fact the media is not presenting real solutions to either of the actual problems - people being run down by cars or trucks, and people wanting to hurt other innocent people, or even questioning the imaginary solutions makes me strongly suspect there's ulterior motives at play.

To be quite blunt, this is such a blatant and transparent power grab by the authorities that I can't help but think that if the average person cannot see that our media is not interested in presenting the true story, with real facts that make sense, and our government representatives aren't addressing any of the real issues and just trying to remove our freedoms at every turn in order to not even solve imagined problems, then our society is already doomed, and not at the hands of terrorists.

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

#389

Post by sctb »

brokenmachine wrote: post #382
DanBC wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most violent people do not have mental illness. You cause harm to people with mental illness when you ignorantly link violence to mental illness.

We're not talking about "most violent people" or regular domestic violence. We're talking about someone who ran random pedestrians down on purpose on a footpath and stabbed a police officer for no reason. This is an outlier. Even though it doesn't fit your ridiculous PC SJW agenda, I would be willing to bet he's got some kind of mental health issue. I don't think that's a controversial opinion to hold.

Part of having a civil discussion is leaving things like “your ridiculous PC SJW agenda” right out.

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

#390

Post by jen20 »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #228
jen20 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I'm aware all new accounts in the U.K. do this unless you call to have it disabled (and give personal information). I mean, how else would you protect the children...

>> As far as I'm aware all new accounts in the U.K. do this unless you call to have it disabled (and give personal information). Usually you can have it disabled while you sign up (and they usually ask if you want it). As for giving personal info - they're you're ISP. They have your name, address, billing details, have done a credit check...what else are they going to ask for that you haven't already supplied?

I can buy a 'burner' SIM when landing at Heathrow without giving any information - paying in cash. However, to disable the content filter requires giving up personal information.
Post reply on HN