If UK finishes leaving the EU, they will just be excluded from the market given their diminished relevance. Are sure given the power vacuum in tech, I'll release a gimped software product for their citizens. $£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£
UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption
61–70 of 236 posts
Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption
#62I 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…
talking to each other doesn't use a public service such as the internet, which is regulated by governing bodies that have been granted authority to make laws regarding that service.
you're an idiot.
Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption
#63I 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…
Most citizens carry said microphones complete with GPS and other tracking abilities... already
I agree with you. Every time I bring that up, I get down-voted due to the cognitive dissonance that folks have with their fondle-slabs. Now people are being conditioned to think it's normal for their microphone to always be on.
Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ciphertext is supposed to be impossible to distinquis from random noise, so how are they going to prove I am not just sending random noise, with a PGP header? As for asking why I would do such a thing? I think the law is wrong and want to make the court waste their time.
No one would actually send random noise as a message, so the law would assume that comnunications which look like random noise are, prima facie , encrypted comms and something the police have a right to see in cleartext.
The folks at https://www.random.org/ and similar true-randomness providers would beg to differ.
They do, in fact, have a paid service to deliver what appears to be random noise as a message, then store that noise in their archive for subsequent re-verification.
I recall seeing videos of lava lamps and handfuls of d6 dice on a vibrating table, broadcast live over the internet, purely for their utility as potential sources for truly random numbers.
I can easily see a case for sending randomness in a client-server game with protections against cheating and bandwidth restrictions. The randomness server sends the same chunk of noise to game client and game server, and the game client sends user commands to the game server. As long as the user isn't cheating, the official server copy of the game state and the client copy remain in sync.
Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption
#65I 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…
Is there a security problem now or has their always been one and we just hear about it now? Secondly, in some (many?) of the recent cases, the perpetrators were "known" to police and intelligence services. How does having more info help of they don't act on what's already held?
Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption
#66Two can play at this game. Surely folks here at HN can create something that is not technically or legally encryption, but accomplishes the same goal.
Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most citizens carry said microphones complete with GPS and other tracking abilities... already
I agree with you. Every time I bring that up, I get down-voted due to the cognitive dissonance that folks have with their fondle-slabs. Now people are being conditioned to think it's normal for their microphone to always be on.
Are there any good low-tech ways to disable them similar to tape over the camera? Not sure if tape alone would be sufficient to block audio.
Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you. Every time I bring that up, I get down-voted due to the cognitive dissonance that folks have with their fondle-slabs. Now people are being conditioned to think it's normal for their microphone to always be on.
Are there any good low-tech ways to disable them similar to tape over the camera? Not sure if tape alone would be sufficient to block audio.
A white noise generator placed over the microphone, perhaps?
Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption
#69I 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…
Likely no impact, because no facility on earth has the capacity to filter and find information on this scale, especially when simple techniques are employed to hide the meaning of communication.
The methods needed to reduce attacks (geopolitical unrest resolved) is probably not within the capacity of the police forces we have, and even pretty good safety is so expensive no one is willing to pay for it (even if we did all agree to register every action we took with the government.)
There is no government action which can promise results when it comes to motivated attacks, so when you hear "oh if we allow this police action then terrorist attacks will stop." you are hearing purposeful naivete at the best, and power grabs at the worst.
Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption
#70I 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 think they'd have to monitor and restrict thoughts or at least be able to extract memories. The frightening thing is: if there ever comes a time when such technology is available, they will try to use it.