Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 236 posts

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#51

Post by kuon »

pdkl95 wrote: post #12
vidarh wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with most of what you wrote. Just one comment: > (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition) The vast majority of CCTV in the UK is not networked, and owned by small private companies (e.g. your local corner store), and rarely store data long enough to be of use to anyone unless something sufficiently serious happens to cause a request to be made quickly. While there are areas covered by networked,…

> not networked They will be once they upgrade to the "Internet of Things".

insecam.org

Many of those camera should be private, I think it's our duty as technicians to protect the users of those devices.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#52

Post by SeanDav »

I am surprised they did not add the line "think of the children" in there somewhere...

Meanwhile in the real world, criminals will resort to sending encrypted USB sticks via post, or carrier pigeons, or implanted in mules. There is always a way around these things for those that absolutely do not want their communications compromised. It is safe to say that any criminal enterprise knows that live electronic communication of any sort is likely to be compromised.

Also of concern, is that criminals will now have extra attack vectors to sensitive data, because if encryption has to be weakened for Government, it will be easier for other parties to exploit.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#53

Post by blowski »

tetrep wrote: post #24

I think this same logic that is purportedly the reasoning behind this bill would also require us to constantly record all of our vocal communications, as that would be the only way we could ensure that criminals could not have communications that aren't accessible to law enforcement. This, of course, would require microphones on all citizens as well as many more in the surrounding environment, to ensure communication…

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, because complaining about intrusions on our privacy and how ineffective they are, has become de rigeur on HN and Reddit without much dissent. There clearly is a security problem in Europe at the moment, and I'm assuming that the attacks are not being organised by the security services.

So will this bill reduce, increase or have no effect on the attacks? If not, then what would reduce the attacks and why are the authorities not doing it already? If it will reduce the attacks, how much does it have to reduce them before we accept the intrusion on privacy as a necessary evil?

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#55

Post by logfromblammo »

saulrh wrote: post #5

> “Doors are now almost ubiquitous and are the default for most houses and buildings. If we do not provide for access to people's bathrooms when it is necessary and proportionate to do so then we must simply accept that there can be rooms beyond the reach of the law,” There are well-established and functional methods for extending law into areas that you can't see all the time. You don't need to ban encryption, in ex…

The state's enforcers do not fear doors, because they have boots for kicking, and stout legs to fill them. Even the heavier doors can be breached by prybar, ram, cutting torch, or explosive.

But when your bathroom door is protected by 256-bit encryption, the peace of your metaphorical deuce-dropping is (statistically) guaranteed until such time as the sun leaves the main sequence and devours the Earth.

The states conveniently ignore that kicking down a toilet door to pick through someone's poo and count the peanuts is not generally beneficial to anyone's security, especially when holding out a net under the appropriate sewer pipe could usually achieve the same results with less public outrage.

In any case, those with truly incriminating poo-peanuts will likely burn them, or head off into the woods with a trowel, and your toilet raids will only end up menacing those who linger too long in the stall, solving sudoku puzzles or practicing toilet-square origami, or whatnot.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#57

Post by eternalban »

tetrep wrote: post #24

I think this same logic that is purportedly the reasoning behind this bill would also require us to constantly record all of our vocal communications, as that would be the only way we could ensure that criminals could not have communications that aren't accessible to law enforcement. This, of course, would require microphones on all citizens as well as many more in the surrounding environment, to ensure communication…

> wonder if we'll ever see a moral stance taken by tech companies

Established ones. There remains the fact that nascent tech companies need to get funded. By VCs.

For example, and only as an example, YCombinator could make a stand here. Have they?

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#58

Post by 49para »

What possibly can they do with all this data ?

It seems that current governments can't seem to solve the drug war, the war on terror, gun crime, or the increasing number of terrorist attacks.

How much intrusion do they actually need and what is the cost of the technology before they can actually seem to make headway on solving issues.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#59

Post by lb1lf »

This belief that you can somehow force the strong encryption genie back in his bottle is fascinating, if sad.

I guess it is not as futile as it may appear at first glance, though - after all, you don't need all the world's suppliers of communication software to adhere to be successful; just force the major ones to help you out, then simply assume that anyone using an insignificant (by user base) app is up to something nefarious.

Bah. Orwell was an optimist.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#60

Post by 49para »

saulrh wrote: post #5

> “Doors are now almost ubiquitous and are the default for most houses and buildings. If we do not provide for access to people's bathrooms when it is necessary and proportionate to do so then we must simply accept that there can be rooms beyond the reach of the law,” There are well-established and functional methods for extending law into areas that you can't see all the time. You don't need to ban encryption, in ex…

There are actually laws in Canada that prevent you from having a fortified door that can't be broken down, by cop or criminal.
Post reply on HN