Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 276 posts

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#91

Post by razakel »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #20
rwmj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of terrorists are clowns who, if they happen to use encryption at all, will mess up infosec in ways that are trivial to compromise. So if the Home Secretary is saying that message encryption is a "problem" then there must be something else going on which has little to do with terrorism.

thanks for the mental image of clown-terrorists :( as if either weren't bad enough on their own. Isn't it obvious? This has got f-all to do with terrorism. The bad guys have always hidden their communication. What's getting the security services all riled up is that ordinary law-abiding citizens are suddenly encrypted. And, of course, there's no way out of this. Either encryption is secure, or it's broken. If it's se…

>thanks for the mental image of clown-terrorists

Have you not seen Four Lions?

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#92

Post by tomfitz »

dm319 wrote: post #81
tomfitz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure of the relevance of this to jstanley's argument, nor my rebuttal.

I think GP's point is the warrant isn't needed. I guess whether it is relevant to your comment depends on whether your point is that a warrant is required despite their authority, or that you are simply pointing out that those in authority have a default duty/right to an individual's private conversations.

> I think GP's point is the warrant isn't needed.

GP?

> Whether [...] you are simply pointing out that those in authority have a default duty/right to an individual's private conversations

Certainly not. Whether they do ought to should be decided by society and its representatives via the legislature.

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#93

Post by zerebubuth »

Fifer82 wrote: post #16

Oh god, I despair of this country. After a decade of conservative I have never been so disillusioned. I feel like I am stuck in a rut or like, I don't belong here. It is a horrible feeling. Deep down I know that the government is stuck in 1740 and by the time that millennials walk the halls of power, their parents will have signed away all their rights. The very last thing I love is my country, that is for sure.

> by the time that millennials walk the halls of power, their parents will have signed away all their rights.

I don't think this is a generational thing. Governments have always been trying to spy on their citizens since governments have existed. Back in the 1700s, John Wallis and the Rossignols were routinely reading diplomatic letters. Before the invention of the internet, the "Special Investigations Unit" of the Post Office was routinely opening people's letters and copying them to MI5. Even Snowden's revelations simply show that the government continues to pry into everyone's private lives - only the scale of the abuse has been magnified.

When so-called "millennials" walk the halls of power, they'll try to spy on their citizens too. Their bogeyman might not be terrorism - that was their parents' bogeyman, and their grandparents' were Communists, their great-grandparents' were Fifth Columnists, etc...

It's not clear how to make the situation any better when both major parties in the UK are committed authoritarians whose security policies are dictated by MI5 and GCHQ. The public, "millennials" or not, in the UK seemed quite unmoved by the Snowden revelations, and seem happy for the panopticon to continue.

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#94

Post by tomfitz »

PeterisP wrote: post #80
tomfitz wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you law enforcement with a warrant?

If you remove the technological protections, the communications become accessible not only to law enforcement but also to malicious people - cryptography doesn't care if you have a warrant or not. A particular communications channel either is secure from anyone or it's vulnerable to everyone. If UK home secretary argues that we shouldn't be allowed to use secure channels, then that does imply that all such communicat…

This is the argument raised by security experts in http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSAI... , which I'm not qualified to disagree with. It seems strong! Even if it were technically possible, I expect there's also a strong argument along the lines of asserting our right to privacy.

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#95

Post by openfuture »

biofox wrote: post #86
J-dawg wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I happened to catch a Radio 4 documentary [0] on Sunday about the government's "Prevent" strategy, which aims to find evidence of extremism in places such as schools and "nip terrorism in the bud". It featured several worrying stories (including a school calling the police because a boy was talking about a toy gun he'd been given as a present [1]). The most worrying part was when they interviewed a senior police offi…

I have no problem, in principle, with the prevent strategy. If impressionable children are at risk of being brainwashed into a dangerous ideology, then the state should step in, just as it does with any other form of abuse. Hasn't "pre-crime" always been a part of policing, in the form of intelligence gathering and crime prevention? My main concern is schools, and (increasingly) the police acting irrationally and dis…

I feel it is the government that are brainwashing impressionable children with dangerous ideology and I'd prefer it if the stepped out.

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#96

Post by DanBC »

J-dawg wrote: post #56
DropbearRob wrote: post #30

There is a growing misconception that it is the role of the government to "keep their citizens safe". Although that it is often the intention of legislation to prevent behaviour which may lead to unsafe situations. For example, making it illegal to drink and drive. You can arrest someone for breaking the law, but never can you arrest someone right up to the point of breaking the law. For example, You cannot arrest so…

I happened to catch a Radio 4 documentary [0] on Sunday about the government's "Prevent" strategy, which aims to find evidence of extremism in places such as schools and "nip terrorism in the bud". It featured several worrying stories (including a school calling the police because a boy was talking about a toy gun he'd been given as a present [1]). The most worrying part was when they interviewed a senior police offi…

The PREVENT strategy could have been useful. But schools over-report (because that's the safest thing to do when you're compelled to report) and there doesn't seem to be sensible triage in place to filter out over-zealous referrals.

Here's an example of what the PREVENT agenda should be about: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/9.html

or this case: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/3171.html

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#97

Post by hendzen »

gargravarr wrote: post #31
dm319 wrote: post #12

I feel like the people who understand encryption and privacy advocates (myself included) are not engaging enough (or maybe effectively enough) with the public in communicating the concerns around trying to 'backdoor' encryption or giving up more of our privacy. While I think these political statements are often ridiculous, they actually have widespread public support, if my cohort of friends and family are anything t…

I've read so many arguments advocating strong encryption, all of which I agree with, and many of them are simplified as best we techies can - check out some of Troy Hunt's posts. But even avoiding the tech aspect completely, there is one thing the government simply refuses to accept. Banning strong encryption will not stop people using it. It will stop the 'good' and generally innocent populace using it and severely…

The government can legislate the pipes. It's possible to DOS strong encryption at the ISP level. Look at China...

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#98

Post by pdpi »

tomfitz wrote: post #92
dm319 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think GP's point is the warrant isn't needed. I guess whether it is relevant to your comment depends on whether your point is that a warrant is required despite their authority, or that you are simply pointing out that those in authority have a default duty/right to an individual's private conversations.

> I think GP's point is the warrant isn't needed. GP? > Whether [...] you are simply pointing out that those in authority have a default duty/right to an individual's private conversations Certainly not. Whether they do ought to should be decided by society and its representatives via the legislature.

GP = grandparent.

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#99

Post by csomar »

jstanley wrote: post #2

> When pressed on what kind of metadata she wanted, she replied: “I’m having those conversations in private.” Well I would like to know who she's having those conversations with, when she's having them, and how long they last. I think it's important that she share this information with us. So that we can catch criminals.

It is important that the medium she is using to make these conversation build meta-data around these conversations. And then uses AI and machine learning to detect potentially harmful content and inform the authorities.

Re: Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

#100

Post by csomar »

DropbearRob wrote: post #30

There is a growing misconception that it is the role of the government to "keep their citizens safe". Although that it is often the intention of legislation to prevent behaviour which may lead to unsafe situations. For example, making it illegal to drink and drive. You can arrest someone for breaking the law, but never can you arrest someone right up to the point of breaking the law. For example, You cannot arrest so…

Well driving while drank is pre-crime too.
Post reply on HN