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

71–80 of 394 posts

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

#71

Post by goodplay »

makomk wrote: post #36
hanselot wrote: post #11

How difficult would it be for these so called terrorists to develop their own end to end encrypted app? Perhaps something masquerading as something common like any port under 1000? It is feasible that the elimination of whatsapp/telegram/signal encryption would just lead to a way more complicated encryption system developed internally to these organisations.

Not that difficult, but it'd almost certainly have major security flaws that GHCQ and the NSA could exploit, because homebrew end-to-end encryption tends to. The bigger problem is that merely using an Isis-branded chat application is the equivalent of sending a text message to the security services saying "hello, I'm a potential terrorist, please pay special attention to my every movement". Even the Tor project hasn'…

I generally agree, but intelligence groups have to first find the signal they want to monitor. Modern steganography techniques coupled with the free randomness you get from the physical world gives you much to work with. And that's assuming common tech will be used.

Also, designing a secure general purpose messaging system is much harder that designing a system tailored for a specific use case.

Banning encryption by law is like demanding, loudly, that people not talk behind your back. Some will listen, and some will not. Only legitimate users and use cases will suffer.

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

#72

Post by ktta »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #64
ktta wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> long period of peace

What if the huge nuclear arsenal was in the wrong hands? That begs the question, what is 'wrong'?

Your definition of peace was probably characterized as oppression/dominance by the people who did want to revolt. You don't account for the extremely subjective nature of things, especially when it comes to nationalistic actions of people.

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

#74

Post by cm2187 »

satysin wrote: post #44

So they get a backdoor into WhatsApp and terrorists just move onto some other non-compromised tool. Rinse and repeat. You can't ban maths ffs. TBH I am surprised attackers do not better destroy their electronic equipment just before they carry out their attack. Pop your phone and SSD/flash drives in the microwave on high for a few minutes is pretty much going to destroy all evidence on them, and if not then chances a…

That's why the justice system sort of works. Criminals are even dumber than law enforcement.

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

#75

Post by blockoperation »

I'm surprised it took this long for her to bring up the subject – Theresa May would've had her soundbites prepared in advance and released within hours of the attack if she was still Home Sec.

> That is my view - it is completely unacceptable

You know what else is completely unacceptable? Technologically illiterate, authoritarian jobsworths capitalising on tragedy to push through their agendas. But that's just my view.

Home Office always seems to attract the nastiest and dumbest of politicians, but this is a whole new level of dumb, and sadly will only gain her more support, because the general public either have no idea about the implications of backdoored crypto, or simply don't have any expectation of privacy and are happy to give up what little they have left in order to feel safe.

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

#76

Post by Tharkun »

visarga wrote: post #9

> "That is my view - it is completely unacceptable, there should be no place for terrorists to hide." I am sure a ban on encryption would work. Hey, guys, I just had a great idea. Let's ban bombs, knifes, and driving into people. That would fix the terrorism problem. Once it is illegal, no terrorist would dare do it!!! I'm wondering why Churchill didn't think to ban the Enigma machine. If only England was led by smar…

While we're at it, can we also ban crime? That'd be great.

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

#77

Post by fwn »

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?…

I always thought that putting the blame on actual agents instead of stuff is the direct opposite of being evasive.

You rightly said that I will answer that it was the adults fault. The bad act done with the weapon was giving it to a child, not the childs shooting someone. It gets clearer if the adult hands the weapon to a monkey or a randomized shooting machine. All three scenarios change nothing in regard to the moral responsibility of the adult.

I do not know whether the UN should ban nuclear weapons, but if someone uses a nuclear weapon and we would check out who might be morally responsible for the attack, I'd point at the attacker.

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

#78

Post by cJ0th »

If I may ask a very naive question: Do politicians like her really think encryption is dangerous or is it a devious way to expand mass surveillance?

Attacks of the past have shown that terrorists don't have a need to resort to encryption. The people involved in the Berlin attack last year, for instance, were monitored. Authorities knew they would strike but they didn't have sufficient incriminating evidence that would count in court to lock those guys up.

Even if encryption on messaging services were forbidden (which would make millions of law abiding people vulnerable in some way), terrorists could use throwaway email accounts from internet cafés and wrap their messages in password protected attachments.

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

#79

Post by Tharkun »

satysin wrote: post #44

So they get a backdoor into WhatsApp and terrorists just move onto some other non-compromised tool. Rinse and repeat. You can't ban maths ffs. TBH I am surprised attackers do not better destroy their electronic equipment just before they carry out their attack. Pop your phone and SSD/flash drives in the microwave on high for a few minutes is pretty much going to destroy all evidence on them, and if not then chances a…

Not sure about banning maths, but back when I was in school I had to suffer through a couple of maths teachers who were so bad that they might as well have been trying to instill a life long hatred for maths.

Wow, that sentence got away from me.

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

#80

Post by razzaj »

Isnt it weird that drasticly restrictive all encompassing rules are hastily pushed after attacks? Blanket Decryption of messages, and other privacy suppression rules will make intelligence agencies into super powers with too much control at a very reduced cost (less messy assassinations, or physical threats needed)
Post reply on HN