UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by dyladan » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 7:09 PM UTC

shostack wrote: post #67

LinuxBender wrote: post #63

Earlier 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.

Most cell phones have pretty low-quality microphones. My guess is that a basic white-noise generator in an inaudible frequency would render the microphone pretty much useless. That being said, there is the problem of then having to maintain the white noise generator.

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

#72

Post by morsch » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 7:15 PM UTC

blowski wrote: post #53

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…

Europe doesn't clearly have a security problem. A few insane people committing political violence doesn't change the fact that Europe is among the safest places on the planet.

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

#73

Post by rm_-rf_slash » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 7:18 PM UTC

morsch wrote: post #72

blowski wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Europe doesn't clearly have a security problem. A few insane people committing political violence doesn't change the fact that Europe is among the safest places on the planet.

When people vote out of fear, the line between a security problem and a security perception problem becomes indistinguishable.

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

#74

Post by 0xmohit » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 7:20 PM UTC

"The Lives of Others" [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others

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

#75

Post by slg » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 7:21 PM UTC

blowski wrote: post #53

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…

Taking this logic a step further, what is the effect of this intrusion on privacy? Is it a philosophical problem or a real world problem? To borrow a tech phrase, are we talking about free as in speech or beer?

I think that is the stage in the debate that convinces most normal people. Losing privacy of their gmail account to some faceless government entity is a theoretical problem that has no real impact on their lives. Terrorism on the other hand is a real world problem with easy to see consequences. I think most pragmatic non-techy people are willing to make that trade. If you want to change their mind, focus on showing how loss of privacy has real world effects.

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

#76

Post by rm_-rf_slash » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 7:24 PM UTC

hobs wrote: post #69

blowski wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Agreed. It takes 10 minutes to find a hardware store shopping list and bomb recipe. Even then, a lot of ingredients can be purchased over time without raising any flags. Buy bleach at one store and ammonia at another, say you're cleaning if anybody asks, then find a public place to mix the two.

Once someone decides to kill a lot of people, it's already too late. There is no, repeat, no way to prevent every mass murder. A determined killer will always find a way.

Nobody wants to soberly admit that the only way to prevent terrorist attacks are to keep people from wanting to do so in the first place, which is a long and imperfect process with absolutely no guarantee of success.

A lot of America's mass shooters are simply deranged and hungry for national infamy.

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

#77

Post by blowski » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 7:28 PM UTC

hobs wrote: post #69

blowski wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So if it was technically possible to filter and find the information, and voters elected governments who said they were prepared to pay for it, would that make it a better idea?

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

#78

Post by zerebubuth » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 7:31 PM UTC

blowski wrote: post #53

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…

> So will this bill reduce, increase or have no effect on the attacks?

Many of the recent attacks, particularly those in the past week in Germany and in Nice, France, don't appear to have involved extensive planning. If that's the case, then it would follow that there wasn't much communication to monitor. Therefore this bill would have no effect on the attacks or attackers.

However, the increased access to information by the spying services may result in many more false positives and either an increase in resources needed to sustain the service, or a drop in effectiveness, perhaps leading to an increase in the number of successful attacks. [1]

> If not, then what would reduce the attacks and why are the authorities not doing it already?

The Aarhus model [2] appears to be effective, but perhaps is difficult to "sell" politically? Maybe bulk data collection and machine learning are being presented as a "silver bullet", and quicker than training up many police officers and giving the time for them to regain the trust of the communities they serve.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/07/new-snowden-document-revea...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/home-jihadi-de...

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

#79

Post by duncan_bayne » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 7:33 PM UTC

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".

Only for a year or so, until the vendor is acquired by a large company and all their devices are bricked ;)

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

#80

Post by Sylos » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

blowski wrote: post #53

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…

You're not going to get much else than comments explaining how ineffective these measures are when you are asking how ineffective they are.

That being said, let me explain how ineffective they are: Your law-abiding citizen will give up their encryption, but this doesn't raise the bar much for a criminal to get it. It's still just a matter of minutes until you have an encryption-implementation which is not compromised. You might get the occasional idiot-criminal who doesn't think of getting proper encryption which you therefore might be able to stop, but that's about it.

And on the other side, you expose your entire population to criminals who might steal their not-properly-encrypted information, as well as putting the country at risk of devolving into Totalitarianism. And even if none of that happens, you still have the Panopticon-effect which can have severe negative effects on mental health.