Some people will simply refuse to let all and sundry (we have no idea as to who reads and acts on intercepted emails) to read private emails and they will therefore turn to steganography or one time pads with a seemingly ambiguous pre-arranged code. Good luck with reading the latter or even thinking it has a hidden message.
UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
81–90 of 394 posts
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#82Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#83Hmm, this definitely brings up an interesting discussion I don't think HN has had before, especially something in a similar vein since Apple+San Bernardino fiasco. Obviously privacy is something that HN holds very close to its heart. But I'm interested in what do people here have to say about the privacy features are used by terrible people to do terrible things. And I want to share something that I think is one of t…
In some sort of abstract theoretical vacuum I might be persuaded to support some form of limited targeted warrant-based intercept.
However, this is the real world, and I'd want the serious trust issues fixed first. Surveillance of journalists. Invasion of privacy by journalists with the complicity of corrupt police. Surveillance of peaceful left-wing and environmentalist groups.
Let's not be ignorant of history either, of secret prisons and unaccountable courts. Let Martin McGuinness' death remind us of H block and the Maze. Who here is old enough to remember the bizarre compromise where Gerry Adams appeared on TV with his words read by an actor, because he was deemed too dangerous to listen to?
Then there is the business of foreign intelligence agencies. If some communication isn't completely private, can it be compromised by the Russians? Remember the US election?
We need to have a conversation about radicalisation, but much of it happens in public or verbally, and it's not at all limited to Islamic fundamentalism. It needs to include the far-right too.
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#84The British gov is looking more and more like the Finger from V for Vendetta. The US president more and more like the one from Idiocracy. That we tend to live up to caricatures should be an alarming sign, but I only see worries on sites like HN. Most people still don't see the catastrophy in it.
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#85Earlier 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.
I had this thought as well. However, the comparison to knives seems better. It's pretty hard to make your own gun. It's pretty straight forward to make your own encryption app on top of existing OSS libraries. Like it's pretty easy to make your own makeshift, large knife. Maybe I just see it like that because I'm a software developer though.
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#86If 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…
Freedom and openness comes at a cost; this applies just as much to individuals as it does to countries. So then the ends of the spectrum are "I can take anything that comes at me, let the chips fall where they may"; and "Mummy make the bad man go away".
Unfortunately maths doesn't work that way, there is not much in the way of a spectrum when it comes to encryption, there is a very steep cliff from secure to insecure.
So then you are faced with a very stark contrast; the security afforded by a surveillance state, or freedom with the possibility of terrorism. Personally I prefer the latter.
The trick is there is no spoon, just like there is no control; only influence.
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#87> "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…
It's, in my view, more akin to trying to ban mathematics in a world in which mathematics exist. Tools and weapons don't exist indenpently from us, mathematics do.
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You can go hunting with it or shoot for fun or make yourself feel safer. What can I do with encryption other than encrypt messages I want to hide?
//Playing devil's advocate
Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#89Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[deleted]