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

61–70 of 394 posts

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

#61

Post by NetStrikeForce »

mattbee wrote: post #20

Amber Rudd is the UK's Home Secretary not just any minister. "We need to make sure that our intelligence services have the ability to get into situations like encrypted Whatsapp." She has said she is "calling in" technology companies this week to try to "deliver a solution". Marr asks if they refuse to do that, will you legislate to force them to change? She's not drawn on that. Interview is here: http://www.bbc.co.u…

UK's best shot at surviving Brexit is become stronger on value added industries. They have a very good head start over any other EU country in IT and in some research areas.

Amber Rudd seems hell bent on destroying their only chance.

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

#62

Post by tormeh »

kelnos wrote: post #15
dijit wrote: post #8

"He sent an encrypted message from whatsapp" Yes, and then he went and did something stupid with easily accessible tools and acted alone. You might have an argument if he was part of a coordinated attack against something but lone-wolf terrorism has always been defined as unpreventable by security services such as SIS. Once radicalised it's impossible to prevent individuals doing stupid stuff. The only thing she has…

> You might have an argument if he was part of a coordinated attack No. Even ignoring the erosion of privacy angle, this just doesn't work. Outlaw encryption, and only outlaws will use encryption. Provide government backdoors into the popular commercial messaging apps, and people coordinating terror attacks will just use custom, unknown, private encrypted messaging apps.

>Outlaw encryption, and only outlaws will use encryption.

Well, if only outlaws used encryption and you sent a non-plaintext message then the police would knock on your door at 04:00 the next morning. That's what happens in Morocco if you like something related to terrorism on Facebook. A bit extreme, yes, but that's how some countries do it.

Sure, technically sophisticated enemies know not to like things on Facebook and know to use steganography, but most don't know and those that learn it through terrorist networks have a long vulnerable period where they are malicious but before they become sophisticated.

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

#63

Post by ktta »

vinceyuan wrote: post #58

If I have to choose one from end-to-end encryption and security, I will choose security. I don't mind my WhatsApp chats are scanned by police's software, if it can reduce terrorism. Of course, we need to make sure it is used for anti-terrorism only. Update: One solution of 'make sure' is the source code of the monitoring software must be reviewed by independent and trusted software engineers/experts. PS. Downvoting m…

> Of course, we need to make sure it is used for anti-terrorism only.

See that's the problem everyone is talking about. The thing, is, turns out you can't. That's was the ENTIRE point of the Snowden revelations.

No sane person is okay with terrorism, but at what point are you going to stop relinquishing your rights?

First, texts with Whatsapp. Then your phone calls. Then your bags and notes when you go through airport security. Then bugs in your house. All of these will help curb terrorism. But where will you stop? Will you lose all your private life in the name of law?

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

#64

Post by LoSboccacc »

ktta wrote: post #55
fwn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly believe that tools are ethically neutral. A hammer, a knife or a government can be pretty useful, or pretty violent - depending on how you use it. This alone does not imply that a hammer, a knife or a government should not exist or be banned. edit: words

> I strongly believe that tools are ethically neutral. Well, that's a very evasive argument in my opinion. It's absolutely true that objects are neutral, but you can't make a blanket argument with topics like these. That argument has been made lots of times by many (including me). But it eventually breaks down. You can't give a child a gun and when the kid shoots someone say it was the kid's fault. Whose fault is it?…

on the other hand a huge nuclear arsenal maintained a long period of peace during a troubled time, so there's that

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

#65

Post by zzzcpan »

Symbiote wrote: post #42
mattbee wrote: post #20

Amber Rudd is the UK's Home Secretary not just any minister. "We need to make sure that our intelligence services have the ability to get into situations like encrypted Whatsapp." She has said she is "calling in" technology companies this week to try to "deliver a solution". Marr asks if they refuse to do that, will you legislate to force them to change? She's not drawn on that. Interview is here: http://www.bbc.co.u…

From [1], linked elsewhere in this discussion, and referring to a failed plot in India: "The Hindi-speaking handler guiding the men in Hyderabad also insisted on using a kaleidoscope of encrypted messaging applications, with Mr. Yazdani instructed to hop between apps so that even if one message history was discovered and cracked, it would reveal only a portion of their handiwork." "the handler taught Mr. Yazdani how…

"Even if the British government is successful with WhatsApp, can they do much against free, open source tools?"

Why would they care about open source tools and niche use of encryption? Of course they don't. They are after mass surveillance and use fear of terrorism to push for it. It's very logical of them.

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

#66

Post by fwn »

CJefferson wrote: post #33
orian wrote: post #7

How do they want to prevent someone from creating his own end-to-end encryption app? It may use other protocols to encode content (images, tweets, fb posts etc.). For me it seems to be more in a direction of so called "Big Brother" than real counter-terrorism.

The same way you prevent anything.. they make it illegal for people in the UK to make, or use, such products. Don't think we can "tech" our way out of this.

Not "we" as in "we the general public with no specific interest in staying hidden". But of course criminals, terrorists or secret services do have the right incentive structure to always benefit from circumventing encryption bans.

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

#67

Post by darfs »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #40
fwn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly believe that tools are ethically neutral. A hammer, a knife or a government can be pretty useful, or pretty violent - depending on how you use it. This alone does not imply that a hammer, a knife or a government should not exist or be banned. edit: words

It's interesting when you extend that discussion to guns, in the UK guns are quite difficult to get hold of, I wonder what the incident at Westminster would have looked like if they were as available as they are in the US. As always it's a trade off, some people loose the right to arm themselves at home but that means other people may not loose their life to a shooting.

There is no other way to use a gun than shooting with it. (Useful! Of course you could use it like a hammer, but... Srsly.)

It's whole purpose is, to hurt someone; i think that's some point to acknowledge first.

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

#68

Post by andai »

vinceyuan wrote: post #58

If I have to choose one from end-to-end encryption and security, I will choose security. I don't mind my WhatsApp chats are scanned by police's software, if it can reduce terrorism. Of course, we need to make sure it is used for anti-terrorism only. Update: One solution of 'make sure' is the source code of the monitoring software must be reviewed by independent and trusted software engineers/experts. PS. Downvoting m…

How are you going to make sure?

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

#69

Post by LoSboccacc »

badminton1 wrote: post #38

It's just reverse psychology. They have the means to break, degrade or bypass the encryption and they emit statements like these so people remain confident that they're not being spied on. This routinely happens after leaks reveal that certain type of traffic is being targeted. In this particular case, Wikileaks. In the past after all the PRISM collusion was revealed, all the PRISM partners started their PR campaigns…

precisely. I was around when only hatters and nutjobs talked about echelon, getting ridiculed on internet and the outernet, only to be proven correct decades later

people have very short memory, it seems.

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

#70

Post by vinceyuan »

ktta wrote: post #63
vinceyuan wrote: post #58

If I have to choose one from end-to-end encryption and security, I will choose security. I don't mind my WhatsApp chats are scanned by police's software, if it can reduce terrorism. Of course, we need to make sure it is used for anti-terrorism only. Update: One solution of 'make sure' is the source code of the monitoring software must be reviewed by independent and trusted software engineers/experts. PS. Downvoting m…

> Of course, we need to make sure it is used for anti-terrorism only. See that's the problem everyone is talking about. The thing, is, turns out you can't. That's was the ENTIRE point of the Snowden revelations. No sane person is okay with terrorism, but at what point are you going to stop relinquishing your rights? First, texts with Whatsapp. Then your phone calls. Then your bags and notes when you go through airpor…

One solution in my mind is the source code of the monitoring software must be reviewed by independent and trusted software engineers/experts.
Post reply on HN