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

UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

rollingstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 143 posts

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#51

Post by Lambdanaut »

ben_w wrote: post #23
samwillis wrote: post #3

I find it amusing that WhatsApp and its e2ee is used as a common target for regulation by the government when their own ministers are using it to organise all sorts of shenanigans; illegal parties during lockdown, “anonymous” briefing of journalists, leaking compromising information about their peers. Not to mention that it always seems like the government is run via WhatsApp (probably need the e2ee for that!). Ultim…

> Legislation won’t reduce the use of encryption by criminals and terrorists Hmm, I used to think this, but now? Now I think most people are bad at tech and security. No reason to expect the average criminal would be better. Of course, trivial for us to make it, or hide it in something that looks unrelated. And I expect serious organised crime to be able to afford a developer with no morals. But normal crime? It prob…

Even the customers on the darkweb have to encrypt all of their orders with PGP or they won't be accepted. Encryption is definitely used by smaller-time black market operations.

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#52

Post by Mystlix »

gruez wrote: post #26
323 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One big problem with P2P is that it reveals the IP address of the other party.

p2p but route it over tor?

yes, let's route billions of people through Tor when we are already scraping by on bandwidth because exit nodes get shut down left and right. and no, the companies themselves shouldn't set up exit nodes to expand the network because then they would still know everyone's IP address and could give that info to the police. either the Tor network gets reinforced on a completely independent basis or nothing

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#53

Post by frickinLasers »

mattlondon wrote: post #45
jevoten wrote: post #40

> The new campaign, however, is entirely focused on the argument that improved encryption would hamper efforts to tackle child exploitation online. I bet cars and homes without microphones and cameras spying on their residents also hampers their efforts to keep children safe - are those next on the chopping block? They're already spying on near every street corner, after all. Funny how they never say "Technology has…

> They're already spying on near every street corner, after all. Citation needed.

https://www.precisesecurity.com/articles/top-10-countries-by...

Holy crap, the US has more cameras per capita than China, according to this. The UK is a somewhat distant third.

Though I think a distinction should be drawn between government-operated and commercial surveillance.

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#54

Post by barcoder »

mattlondon wrote: post #45
jevoten wrote: post #40

> The new campaign, however, is entirely focused on the argument that improved encryption would hamper efforts to tackle child exploitation online. I bet cars and homes without microphones and cameras spying on their residents also hampers their efforts to keep children safe - are those next on the chopping block? They're already spying on near every street corner, after all. Funny how they never say "Technology has…

> They're already spying on near every street corner, after all. Citation needed.

Just take a walk down any British town street. If you can't physically do it there's always Google Street View

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#55

Post by pjc50 »

ben_w wrote: post #23
samwillis wrote: post #3

I find it amusing that WhatsApp and its e2ee is used as a common target for regulation by the government when their own ministers are using it to organise all sorts of shenanigans; illegal parties during lockdown, “anonymous” briefing of journalists, leaking compromising information about their peers. Not to mention that it always seems like the government is run via WhatsApp (probably need the e2ee for that!). Ultim…

> Legislation won’t reduce the use of encryption by criminals and terrorists Hmm, I used to think this, but now? Now I think most people are bad at tech and security. No reason to expect the average criminal would be better. Of course, trivial for us to make it, or hide it in something that looks unrelated. And I expect serious organised crime to be able to afford a developer with no morals. But normal crime? It prob…

There have been a few interesting cases of "custom" encrypted solutions being sold to crime groups then compromised by law enforcement.

The thing is, most "normal" crime doesn't rely on comms at all - street and domestic violence, burglary, car theft, etc. Fencing stolen items probably could make use of it. It's only really organized crime. And the UK has an increasing problem with organized crime .. from the top, like the unlawful "fast lane" procurement scheme. And the recent business with MI5 identifying an (extremely overt) Chinese agent.

And a surprising amount of terrorist recruitment gets done in the open. As long as you're not planning specific acts it looks like "free speech".

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#56

Post by rapind »

samwillis wrote: post #38
jevoten wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The police and intelligences agencies aren’t intercepting the communications of normal and petty criminals. Snowden showed otherwise - they're spying on everyone's conversations, criminal or not.

If they did have that capability do you think they would use it to take down and prosecute a small time drug dealer exposing what they are doing? Even exposing this capability to the Police by give them “secret” intelligence would inevitably result in the knowledge of their capabilities leaking. If they do have this capability it is only every going to be used for large scale organised crime, terrorism and state secu…

> If they do have this capability it is only every going to be used for large scale organised crime, terrorism and state security.

Don’t forget political opposition / dissidents, and analysis to see what they can get away with in terms of public opinion.

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#57

Post by barcoder »

mattlondon wrote: post #49
hn_version_0023 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me its the people in the government who are widely responsible for child abuse. Just ask Prince Andrew.

The royal family has no involvement with the UK government. The queen is officially head of state, but in reality does what she is told by the current party in power (queen's speech is written for her for example).

That's not true. The queen does have final say over laws.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-...

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#58

Post by alkonaut »

mbroncano wrote: post #9

Does anybody know how (or even if) these kind of campaigns are run in the US?

The US let authorities invent and market an encrypted communication tool, tricking criminals into using it (and surely some non criminals). In many ways I much prefer that, to the UK thing…

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#59

Post by pjc50 »

stephen_g wrote: post #2

Those stunts sound super creepy and messed up. Weird, manipulative campaign. This shouldn't really be legal surely in democracies to have campaigns that "appear to be the result of grassroots campaigns and children's charities, while downplaying any Government involvement", when it's a political manipulation campaign paid for, coordinated and organised by the Government themselves. I really hope the counter-campaign…

I remember discovering that the Scotland Office has a (crap) Buzzfeed posting account for the Indyref: https://www.buzzfeed.com/youdecide2014

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#60

Post by salawat »

mattlondon wrote: post #49
hn_version_0023 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me its the people in the government who are widely responsible for child abuse. Just ask Prince Andrew.

The royal family has no involvement with the UK government. The queen is officially head of state, but in reality does what she is told by the current party in power (queen's speech is written for her for example).

The fact the Queen is exceedingly good at doing exactly what a Head of State should endeavor to do (not use power) does not mean they never will. Something to keep in mind. Especially with an informal Constitution.

Not that a formal one makes much difference when the people who interpret it start doing mental gymnastics.

Post reply on HN