49 ms·

Message encryption a 'problem' – UK home secretary

308 points by luxpir 9y ago

snakeanus 9y ago
The civil liberties in the UK are a big joke. It's like they are in a race with China on who will have the biggest censorship and on the control of their citizen's internet activities.
jstanley 9y ago
> 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.
- monkeyprojects 9y ago
  My viewpoint when talking about security is please sign this form and your bank can send your bank statements on the back of a postcard in full view of everyone. For your convenience we will include your PIN number and card number in full on all correspondence.
  - jstanley 9y ago
    What does this mean?
    - andrei_says_ 9y ago
      Not much. Your bank access credentials will be visible to multiple government workers. They're all trustworthy so nothing will change. On top of it they'll be able to catch any ...-ists who use banking for their illegal activities.
- lou1306 9y ago
  Also, this is beyond ridiculous. Have fun having those "private conversations" on a backdoor-riddled machine.
  - amiga-workbench 9y ago
    I'll be Librebooting my X200 shortly, the webcam and mic are coming out too.
    - touristtam 9y ago
      Noone is interested in listening at your heavy breathing and watching your extactic face while you are getting entertained with adult material on your TP.
      - sleazybae 9y ago
        savagery detection unit is redlining
        touristtam 9y ago
        Ye, I should have re-read myself and opted for cancelling the previous comment. sorry. :\
        amiga-workbench 9y ago
        Don't be, it got a laugh out of me. https://www.sudosatirical.com/articles/new-owner-of-secondhand-thinkpad-blissfully-unaware-just-how-much-it-was-used-to-watch-porn/ https://www.sudosatirical.com/articles/new-owner-of-secondha...
- tomfitz 9y ago
  Are you law enforcement with a warrant?
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    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 communications will be vulnerable to all kinds of criminals as well.
    - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
      > will be vulnerable to all kinds of criminals as well. But legal authorities would never abuse their power (without you even knowing about it, unlike in other cases of abuse).
    - tomfitz 9y ago
      This is the argument raised by security experts in http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2015-026.pdf?sequence=8 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.
    - cookiecaper 9y ago
      The superficial solution to this is not to outlaw cryptography completely, but to require those who make cryptography available to keep master keys and/or logs. I know that these are not a real solution as they can be leaked or abused, but it's best that we don't pretend not to hear this argument. We should make clear that these are insufficient and that there's nothing wrong with private communications truly remaining private.
      - mr_spothawk 9y ago
- jlebrech 9y ago
  they won't be private for long
- sambe 9y ago
  Exactly this. I often hear such things from politicians who sound like they don't understand the topic, and it's usual at a point of "weakness" for civil liberties such as after terorism events. I assume it's just a form of lobbying, but I wonder if it's from other clueless people (police chiefs/unions who just want the job to be easier) or elite security services who make a conscious decision to trade public good for their own interests (ignoring the claim that they do good themselves...).
- branchless 9y ago
  Have a read of this, I'd imagine the UK might want to tighten up their airport security a touch before encryption becomes a major issue: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/31/pipe-bomber-stopped-manchester-airport-let-plane-two-days-later-nadeem-muhammad https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/31/pipe-bomber-...
- csomar 9y ago
  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.
  - gasof 9y ago
    The upper cla... I mean Parliament should be exempt, of course.
- kitd 9y ago
  And if she's nothing to hide then she's nothing to fear of them being made known, right?
- wonderwonder 9y ago
  Unfortunately you cant. They have already exempted themselves from any type of monitoring. Only the proletariat can be spied on or forced to account for themselves. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/investigatory-powers-bill-a7447781.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...
  - ue_ 9y ago
    This is very true. There is class antagonism behind the surface.
- dTal 9y ago
  "You will not be safe until there is a complete information asymmetry between government and governed." http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2961 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2961
- pmarreck 9y ago
  Who decrypts the decrypters?
pmlnr 9y ago
“Legislation is always an alternative.” Yeah, sure. Because people who actually have something to hide will follow all the rules. I wonder what they are trying to redirect the media coverage from with ideas like this.
- stuaxo 9y ago
  Well there was this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-foreign-terror-funding-report-uk-extremists-saudi-arabia-isis-security-intelligence-a7822121.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-fo...
317070 9y ago
> "However, there is a problem in terms of the growth of end-to-end encryption. "It’s a problem for the security services and for police who are not, under the normal way, under properly warranted paths, able to access that information.” What surprises me about this argument, is that their stance is that terrorists are accidentally starting to use encryption. So, by consequence, that in the past terrorists simply did not bother with encryption? In that case, I wonder whether the terrorists have been triggered by the simplicity of current day cryptography, or simply by the knowledge that the governments are always listening in on everything everyone is saying. It seems to me that someone started an arms-race, be it government or terrorists, and both are willing to cause massive amounts of collateral damage in order to keep one-upping the other.
- rwmj 9y ago
  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.
  - sonthonax 9y ago
    > The vast majority of terrorists are clowns. Perhaps if you're referring to home grown Islamic terrorists. However Britain does have a problem with an experienced group of rather professional terrorists called the IRA.
    - discombobulate 9y ago
      When was the last IRA attack, Manchester 1996?
      - EliRivers 9y ago
        If we fuck up Brexit badly enough, maybe we'll see them back in action.
      - 9y ago
voidz 9y ago
It's only a problem for Orwellian / Brave New World type states.
westmeal 9y ago
It sounds to me like she believes throwing legislation at an issue will fix it. I mean, everyone obeys the law right?
- EvilGrin 9y ago
  Despite countless protests from politicians, the laws of mathematics trump the laws of the land.
- dm319 9y ago
  Even maths![1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
- b3lvedere 9y ago
  No, she wants more laws to arrest people no matter what.
Aoyagi 9y ago
It's like Rudd and Abbott are competing in which will come up with more ridiculous notion. And you'd think they would choose someone competent for bloody home secretary and shadow home secretary respectively.
- rwmj 9y ago
  There hasn't been a competent Home Sec since ... what ... Ken Clarke perhaps? Why should they start now.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- yen223 9y ago
  For a minute there I thought you were talking about Australian prime ministers. What a coincidence!
  - H4CK3RM4N 9y ago
    I feel like that phrase would've been perfectly applicable to their time as PM/opposition leader though.
    - yen223 9y ago
      It doesn't help that our prime minister recently made a laughable comment about this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/malcolm-turnbull-prime-minister-laws-of-mathematics-do-not-apply-australia-encryption-l-a7842946.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/malcolm-turnbull-prime-min...
  - throwawaymanbot 9y ago
    The 5 eyes are in Quorum to install similar surveillance state powers under the false guise of "Security". Britain saved Europe, from Hitler, fought against the Russians in the cold war, then itself becomes stasi like. Total shame.
dm319 9y ago
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 to go by. Do we have people who are better communicators? I don't think even Cory Doctorow's posts/talks are aimed at the non-technical audience.
- stefs 9y ago
  i think the problem is it's a highly technical, mathematical and social problem that isn't easily explained. well, the technical part is even comparatively simple. but the negative implications are usually harder to communicate. the "slippery slope" argument only gets one so far and non-criminals usually can't imagine how it would negatively affect them. "only metadata" doesn't sound too bad! the opponents of full encryption though have it quite easy by name-dropping the FUD buzzwords - i.e. security and terrorism. and anyway, it's only metadata!
- chii 9y ago
  I found the John Oliver episode about Snowden to be very good at conveying the ideas of privacy. Just mention that the govt can decrypt your dick pics and sexting if these laws pass.
  - dm319 9y ago
    You know this argument might well work for Theresa May.
    - kitd 9y ago
      "You mean GCHQ can see running through wheat field pics? Let's ... let's just take a step back, shall we?"
      - daemin 9y ago
Fifer82 9y ago
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.
- sshagent 9y ago
  Agreed. Those semi regular approached by Work to relocate perhaps shoudln't be dismissed out of hand. Would love to leave the country until all this brexit shit washes over
- hd4 9y ago
  Iktf. The Brexit shit won't wash away, not in our lifetimes. I'm looking at France or Switzerland. This Bizarro country can't be the best that humanity can do.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - scaryclam 9y ago
    You realise that Switzerland isn't in the EU...right?
    - k-mcgrady 9y ago
      Can't speak for OP but a lot of people's problem with Brexit isn't just the fact we won't be in the EU anymore but the things that come along with that. There's a lot of stuff our government wants to do that the EU has prevented until now. There's also the 'extreme' element in society feeling they can be more open now (racism, hate crimes, etc.).
    - hackerboos 9y ago
      You can still move to Switzerland as an EU citizen. https://www.ch.ch/en/working-switzerland-eu-efta https://www.ch.ch/en/working-switzerland-eu-efta
libeclipse 9y ago
The tale of The Orwellian Kingdom continues... No really. I've written about this before, but I sincerely refuse to believe that the government are doing this out of ignorance anymore. There's been too many people telling them how it actually is, but they persist. That leads me to conclude that either they're severely mentally dysfunctional, or there's another reason for doing this. PR maybe? Votes? Something more sinister?
- SimonPStevens 9y ago
  Power and control.
- beaconstudios 9y ago
  they continue to do the same with other legal systems like cannabis law and speed traps with poor visibility that do more harm than good.
  - joosters 9y ago
    Let's be devil's advocate for a second. The UK's speed cameras are brightly coloured, so there is an intention for them not to be traps - that is, they would prefer road users didn't speed. You cannot seriously argue that they are trying to sneakily catch people. If you get caught speeding by a speed trap which wasn't so visible, it is still your own fault and no-one else's. Either you are in control of your own vehicle's speed, in which case you are to blame, or you are not in control of it - which is even worse. Speed, or do not. Just don't go crying about it and blaming others when you get caught.
    - beaconstudios 9y ago
      your reply seems very accusatory. I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be a speed limit, or that people who speed aren't culpable for their actions. I'm talking about the fairly well-known incidence of cameras on sharp bends or that are hard to see at the bottom of hills (or worse yet, police pulled up on ramps on the side of the road) where people who are speeding will see them and slam on their brakes. This is well known to cause an increase in traffic accidents and yet the practices I mentioned continues. Perhaps a more productive tone to take on a discussion forum would be inquiry rather than indignant belittling. edit: Also, speed cameras are brightly coloured by law, notably a law that the police themselves do not write, so you cannot in good faith argue that the warning paint is an act of temperance on the part of the police.
barrkel 9y ago
There's something deeply dysfunctional in the UK Home Office. People who've been through that mill seem to come out with a really weird myopic perspective on the world, May included.
- ebcode 9y ago
  We've known this for quite some time: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." --- George Orwell, 1984
DropbearRob 9y ago
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 someone for being drunk and having their car keys in their pocket, or even being asleep in the car while drunk. This is the problem with the government demanding to read all communications... the idea that they have the right in order to prevent you committing a crime. Its not only impossible to prevent someone committing a crime (anyone can snap and do truly horrible things without prior communique), its insane to think that you can arrest someone for pre-crime. The role of the government is to pass laws. The role of the police and the justice system is to enforce these laws. It is not their job to spy on all their citizens for events which historically kill fractions of a percent compared to something as trivial as car accidents.
- beaconstudios 9y ago
  actually, funnily enough in the UK you can be arrested for being "drunk in charge of a motor vehicle" even if you aren't in the driver's seat. That can apparently include sleeping one off in the back seat of your car.
  - onion2k 9y ago
    Amusingly, here in the UK, we also have the crime of "drunk in charge of a carriage" which has been used to prosecute people for being drunk with all manner of things from bicycles to horses.
    - gregn610 9y ago
      "Wanton or Furious riding" is also an offence.
    - gsnedders 9y ago
      Note this is English law (not the nonexistent UK law); this is a simple application of the mischief rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule).
raesene6 9y ago
ah more security cluelessness from the UK Government. The frustrating piece is that they're ignoring their own internal experts on this. The people running the National Cyber Security Centre are very bright and have stated that they think backdoors are a bad idea from http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/05/problems-ending-encryption-fight-terrorism http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/05/problems-end... "Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb." "
- proactivesvcs 9y ago
  The UK government has a habit of ignoring its own experts, to the degree of firing them if they give advice the government don't like. Drug policy is another area that suffers from this approach.
  - k-mcgrady 9y ago
    I was just about to mention this. For anyone interested Professor David Nutt[0] was fired from his role as the government's chief drug advisor after claiming ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-advis...
    - stordoff 9y ago
      The comments from Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary, are rather telling: > He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy. [...] As for his comments about horse riding being more dangerous than ecstasy, which you quote with such reverence, it is of course a political rather than a scientific point.[0] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/nov/02/drug-policy-alan-johnson-nutt https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/nov/02/drug-policy...
      - 9y ago
jlebrech 9y ago
how about arresting known terrorists first, then focus on what normal people are doing.
raverbashing 9y ago
Meanwhile people can support ISIS and advocate for attacks in plain sight and that apparently isn't a problem So I see how "worried" they are about that
- gargravarr 9y ago
  More than one of the terrorist incidents in France were arranged by simple, unencrypted SMS, and the security services couldn't catch them beforehand. We don't need to give the security services more data. We need them to focus on better dealing with the data they currently have access to.
Freak_NL 9y ago
This is another statement that is part of a trend in many countries, and it is worrying to be sure. But I suspect that the aim of these audacious statements is not to actually ban the technology of strong end-to-end encryption. Rather, it is to force the Google, Apple, and Facebook to provide backdoors in their popular messaging platforms (e.g., WhatsApp) that can be used by law enforcement. They don't care about someone using GnuPG to mail someone something private (because that would be impossible to legislate effectively), but they do care about the big honey-pot of always-on end-to-end encryption offered to anyone with an off-the-shelf smartphone. The call for legislation and a ban on strong encryption is meant to put pressure on Google, Apple, and Facebook to cooperate with the Five Eyes without too much fuss, and simply let them in. I can't see it making any sense otherwise. Whether that access is to act on signals of religious radicalisation and planned acts of terrorism or something much more encompassing (big data predictive crime analysis and other scary stuff) I don't know.
cjsuk 9y ago
Home secretary a 'problem' - me.
benevol 9y ago
> Ms Rudd is meeting with representatives from Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and others at a counter-terrorism forum in San Francisco. Well, these will simply be the companies whose tools we won't be using anymore. The World does certainly not depend on any US companies or the UK government's approval to securely use encryption.
justinjlynn 9y ago
Ah, great lie of metadata. What those in power don't want us to know is that metadata is just a weasel word for incomplete data. It tells a story about you and those with whom you associate or intersect. What's worse is that incomplete data cannot tell the whole story by design. All incomplete data lies as all summaries, to some extent, do. Some would like us to believe that this incomplete data is somehow less harmful. It is not. Incomplete data can only accuse, it can never convict nor can it exculpate - it can only implicate and paint false pictures on massive scale. To filter the false positives and turn incomplete data into data, I seriously doubt that less work than traditional police work is required to process the output. It is only a benefit to those who wish to retroactively target known and presently target unknown individuals, matching a particular signature, and assassinate them unjustly. As such, at its worst, a danger to every one of us and, at its best, a lethal distraction to those who would otherwise protect us. When they say they only gather incomplete data they lie. They gather all of it - would you believe someone who tells you "just the tip and only for a second"? I wouldn't.
petre 9y ago
If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.
cloop_floop 9y ago
She's as evil as she is hideous.
- b3lvedere 9y ago
  So beautiful people aren't evil?
  - cloop_floop 9y ago
    That's a retarded takeaway.
    - dang 9y ago
      We ban accounts that comment like this, so please don't do it again, regardless of how bad the target of your comment is.
- pimmen 9y ago
  That was totally uncalled for and immature! It's comments like this that make politicians scoff at criticism because they'll put name calling and legitimate criticism in the same box.
  - mmmpop 9y ago
    Then tell that to every journalist insulting Trump for his admittedly clownish looks? The guy has proven he's a joke of a leader so why not take the high road and let him dig his own figurative grave??
- sctb 9y ago
  Please don't post like this here. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14898640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14898640 and marked it off-topic.
titzer 9y ago
See also: envelopes considered 'a problem' by tyrannical government.
junkculture 9y ago
The Paris attacks were coordinated over plain old encrypted SMS. Didn't see that coming. The Australian PM thinks the laws of mathematics can be bent to those of Australia. Now this genius. Fact is, communications are ubiquitous now, and even if every byte was unencrypted, they won't be able to catch every crook.
- dpedu 9y ago
  Don't you mean UNencrypted SMS?
  - junkculture 9y ago
    I did. Typo. Thanks.
throw2016 9y ago
Western identity has become so enmeshed with liberalism, progressiveness and democracy that few are willing to step out of that safety zone to question the reality on the ground while those in power continue to rehash tinpot ideas and hysteria about safety. A similar statement from a third world official would be met with an unequivocal flood of ridicule and accusations of backwardness. Too many value the comfort of easy judgements. This will be met with apologism, muddying the waters and sophistry.
pimmen 9y ago
As was circulated recently on HN, this basically stems from the government thinking computers are appliances. "Hey! Your device creates and sends packages, could it just not create and send packages of this type? We'll even help with the quality control if you can't do it yourself! All we need is a backdoor!" How is this not the same as messing with people's mail? "Hey, you know this pen, paper and stamp thing? Can you just make the pen not write these kinds of letters, that terrorists usually writes? Ok, but can't we have a human (in lieu of AI) read through people's mail to make sure these types of letters aren't sent around with the intent to provoke violence? If you can't do it, we'll gladly send some agents to help you with quality control!"
b3lvedere 9y ago
>Home Secretary Amber Rudd wants harmful content to be auto-blocked What IS harmful content exactly?
Allower 9y ago
So when will people start treating these officials like the criminals they are?
skiman10 9y ago
I love the footer with the author's contact information! > "You can reach Dave securely through encrypted messaging app Signal on: +1 (628) 400-7370" Felt like a small little needle pointed at the UK's government.
diego_moita 9y ago
In UK, Murdoch's "News of the World" hacks into the phones of hundreds of people and politicians continue the debate about privacy as if it doesn't matter. In US, Russia hacks into Hillary's email server and politicians on Capitol Hill start using Whispering Systems' Signal and begin to understand why strong encryption is necessary. Don't worry too much, someday Vladimir Putin will show to the UK government why strong encryption is a good idea.
- pjc50 9y ago
  Ironically, private Whatsapp is extremely important in the UK government at the moment - it's where all the anti-PM plotting is carried out. Or so the leakers say. I do find it interesting that UK politics has not yet been visited by the email leak fairy. I don't know what conclusions to draw from this though.
- firmgently 9y ago
  I heard someone explaining how the phone hacking worked the other day (Steve Coogan in a great chat with Adam Buxton on YT for anyone who likes them). Two journalists would phone the target at the same time. One kept them talking, the other could be sure to get their voicemail because the line was busy. They'd try the default password of 0000 which 'nobody bothers changing' (I may have the number wrong, I'm going from memory and don't use voicemail) and frequently, it worked. So in terms of skillz it's somewhere up there with the fappening... default passwords, encryption wouldn't have prevented it. (not that I disagree with your general point btw)
  - nthcolumn 9y ago
    Not being able to disable the voicemail service entirely is a sore annoyance to me.
syrrim 9y ago
>extremists should not be allowed to upload content at all. If this is what they want, then they should convict the extremists first, and then make sure they don't have internet behind bars. Until then, they are still citizens, and you have no right to treat them specially.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
AJRF 9y ago
“I’m having those conversations in private.” The irony.
- nthcolumn 9y ago
  That's what she thinks.
rcthompson 9y ago
I wonder if the only reason we have unrestricted access to good encryption tech now is because politicians don't understand it and underestimated how inconvenient it would be for governments, and are only now realizing their error.
magicfractal 9y ago
If something decreases the power of the state (e.g. Encryption) you can bet state officials will be against it.
gumby 9y ago
"how will we issue ASBOs automatically if our computers can't read everyone's texts?"
andreasgonewild 9y ago
It's only a problem if you insist on knowing everything, leave people alone to mind their own business and the problem magically disappears. We all know who the "real" terrorists are. https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis
paradite 9y ago
Now we finally have the complete comparison on how different governments try to tackle terrorism: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14827837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14827837
almonj 9y ago
Get rid of all government programs. Instantly a huge amount of wealth will be gained and productivity will skyrocket. It is very important to remember: nothing the government does is good. What is the minimum amount of manipulation and lies it takes to cover up a problem? This is the question every government worker ponders every day of their job. Every one of these people are lying, scheming, delusional people. They manipulate and they lie, they shuffle things around and create busy-work for disgusting twisted crab-people.
- paradite 9y ago
  That's way too cynical and oversimplified to be considered a substantial comment.
  - almonj 9y ago
    Or for this reason, because it may be questioned whether the same simple essence can be expressed by many diverse attributes. There are, indeed, many definitions of compound things but only a single one of a simple thing, nor does it seem that its essence can be expressed except in a single way.
    - paradite 9y ago
      I think you will enjoy conversing with this user: https://github.com/payingattention https://github.com/payingattention
mtl_usr 9y ago
No secure communication AND Brexit ? Hope Europeans bankers will enjoy their new offices in Berlin, Amsterdam and Paris.
- detaro 9y ago
  Eh, banks pretty much are on the side of backdoored encryption - e.g. see recent proposals to make it easier for them to MITM TLS in their own networks, and compliance requirements for the messaging products they use.
thrillgore 9y ago
"I'm having those conversations in private" Ah yes, the old "Fuck you, we got ours" mentality.
pstuart 9y ago
How about a GoFundMe to pay for crackers to accesses the politicians' personal data and distribute it?
bllguo 9y ago
This is absolutely horrific. The path the UK is on is terrifying. On the bright side they are quite far ahead down this road compared to other Western countries, so when the UK inevitably collapses first, other governments can learn their lesson.
- type0 9y ago
  I don't think it would collapse but we might see a terrible junta dictatorship there in a near future
cryptonector 9y ago
IIRC the Bataclan terrorists didn't use any crypto at all. Using crypto makes you stand out, and doesn't really complicate traffic analysis. Corollary: not using crypto makes it easier to look like hay in a huge hay pile, even if you're a needle. Ad-hoc-but-disciplined plaintext comsec for small committed teams is not that difficult to establish and master, and can work very well for them. But for the rest of us, plaintext comsec just doesn't work. And defending privacy relative to state actors, foreign and domestic, is a legitimate activity within the bounds of due process (e.g., your affairs can get searched with a legal warrant, and so on). It's important to understand that when the State wins the crypto wars, not only does it ensure for itself access to people's data pursuant under Due Process, but also without Due Process at all. It's like making all houses and walls out of glass just so people can't hide from the police: it's insane. And worse than that: the State winning the crypto wars does not make it easier to prevent attacks. If anything it can make mounting attacks easier for terrorists, depending on the particulars of the crypto war outcome.
- hd4 9y ago
  1.3 bn people are using WhatsApp. If we assume that only 70% of those have encryption enabled, that's a billion people whose data is standing out, therefore no one is really standing out any longer.

308 points by luxpir 9y ago

The civil liberties in the UK are a big joke. It's like they are in a race with China on who will have the biggest censorship and on the control of their citizen's internet activities.

jstanley 9y ago

> 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.

monkeyprojects 9y ago
My viewpoint when talking about security is please sign this form and your bank can send your bank statements on the back of a postcard in full view of everyone. For your convenience we will include your PIN number and card number in full on all correspondence.
- jstanley 9y ago
  What does this mean?
  - andrei_says_ 9y ago
    Not much. Your bank access credentials will be visible to multiple government workers. They're all trustworthy so nothing will change. On top of it they'll be able to catch any ...-ists who use banking for their illegal activities.
lou1306 9y ago
Also, this is beyond ridiculous. Have fun having those "private conversations" on a backdoor-riddled machine.
- amiga-workbench 9y ago
  I'll be Librebooting my X200 shortly, the webcam and mic are coming out too.
  - touristtam 9y ago
    Noone is interested in listening at your heavy breathing and watching your extactic face while you are getting entertained with adult material on your TP.
    - sleazybae 9y ago
      savagery detection unit is redlining
      - touristtam 9y ago
        Ye, I should have re-read myself and opted for cancelling the previous comment. sorry. :\
        amiga-workbench 9y ago
        Don't be, it got a laugh out of me. https://www.sudosatirical.com/articles/new-owner-of-secondhand-thinkpad-blissfully-unaware-just-how-much-it-was-used-to-watch-porn/ https://www.sudosatirical.com/articles/new-owner-of-secondha...
tomfitz 9y ago
Are you law enforcement with a warrant?
- PeterisP 9y ago
  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 communications will be vulnerable to all kinds of criminals as well.
  - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
    > will be vulnerable to all kinds of criminals as well. But legal authorities would never abuse their power (without you even knowing about it, unlike in other cases of abuse).
  - tomfitz 9y ago
    This is the argument raised by security experts in http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2015-026.pdf?sequence=8 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.
  - cookiecaper 9y ago
    The superficial solution to this is not to outlaw cryptography completely, but to require those who make cryptography available to keep master keys and/or logs. I know that these are not a real solution as they can be leaked or abused, but it's best that we don't pretend not to hear this argument. We should make clear that these are insufficient and that there's nothing wrong with private communications truly remaining private.
    - mr_spothawk 9y ago
jlebrech 9y ago
they won't be private for long
sambe 9y ago
Exactly this. I often hear such things from politicians who sound like they don't understand the topic, and it's usual at a point of "weakness" for civil liberties such as after terorism events. I assume it's just a form of lobbying, but I wonder if it's from other clueless people (police chiefs/unions who just want the job to be easier) or elite security services who make a conscious decision to trade public good for their own interests (ignoring the claim that they do good themselves...).
branchless 9y ago
Have a read of this, I'd imagine the UK might want to tighten up their airport security a touch before encryption becomes a major issue: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/31/pipe-bomber-stopped-manchester-airport-let-plane-two-days-later-nadeem-muhammad https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/31/pipe-bomber-...
csomar 9y ago
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.
- gasof 9y ago
  The upper cla... I mean Parliament should be exempt, of course.
kitd 9y ago
And if she's nothing to hide then she's nothing to fear of them being made known, right?
wonderwonder 9y ago
Unfortunately you cant. They have already exempted themselves from any type of monitoring. Only the proletariat can be spied on or forced to account for themselves. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/investigatory-powers-bill-a7447781.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...
- ue_ 9y ago
  This is very true. There is class antagonism behind the surface.
dTal 9y ago
"You will not be safe until there is a complete information asymmetry between government and governed." http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2961 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2961
pmarreck 9y ago
Who decrypts the decrypters?

pmlnr 9y ago

“Legislation is always an alternative.” Yeah, sure. Because people who actually have something to hide will follow all the rules. I wonder what they are trying to redirect the media coverage from with ideas like this.

stuaxo 9y ago
Well there was this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-foreign-terror-funding-report-uk-extremists-saudi-arabia-isis-security-intelligence-a7822121.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-fo...

317070 9y ago

> "However, there is a problem in terms of the growth of end-to-end encryption. "It’s a problem for the security services and for police who are not, under the normal way, under properly warranted paths, able to access that information.” What surprises me about this argument, is that their stance is that terrorists are accidentally starting to use encryption. So, by consequence, that in the past terrorists simply did not bother with encryption? In that case, I wonder whether the terrorists have been triggered by the simplicity of current day cryptography, or simply by the knowledge that the governments are always listening in on everything everyone is saying. It seems to me that someone started an arms-race, be it government or terrorists, and both are willing to cause massive amounts of collateral damage in order to keep one-upping the other.

rwmj 9y ago
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.
- sonthonax 9y ago
  > The vast majority of terrorists are clowns. Perhaps if you're referring to home grown Islamic terrorists. However Britain does have a problem with an experienced group of rather professional terrorists called the IRA.
  - discombobulate 9y ago
    When was the last IRA attack, Manchester 1996?
    - EliRivers 9y ago
      If we fuck up Brexit badly enough, maybe we'll see them back in action.
    - 9y ago

voidz 9y ago

It's only a problem for Orwellian / Brave New World type states.

westmeal 9y ago

It sounds to me like she believes throwing legislation at an issue will fix it. I mean, everyone obeys the law right?

EvilGrin 9y ago
Despite countless protests from politicians, the laws of mathematics trump the laws of the land.
dm319 9y ago
Even maths![1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
b3lvedere 9y ago
No, she wants more laws to arrest people no matter what.

Aoyagi 9y ago

It's like Rudd and Abbott are competing in which will come up with more ridiculous notion. And you'd think they would choose someone competent for bloody home secretary and shadow home secretary respectively.

rwmj 9y ago
There hasn't been a competent Home Sec since ... what ... Ken Clarke perhaps? Why should they start now.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
yen223 9y ago
For a minute there I thought you were talking about Australian prime ministers. What a coincidence!
- H4CK3RM4N 9y ago
  I feel like that phrase would've been perfectly applicable to their time as PM/opposition leader though.
  - yen223 9y ago
    It doesn't help that our prime minister recently made a laughable comment about this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/malcolm-turnbull-prime-minister-laws-of-mathematics-do-not-apply-australia-encryption-l-a7842946.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/malcolm-turnbull-prime-min...
- throwawaymanbot 9y ago
  The 5 eyes are in Quorum to install similar surveillance state powers under the false guise of "Security". Britain saved Europe, from Hitler, fought against the Russians in the cold war, then itself becomes stasi like. Total shame.

dm319 9y ago

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 to go by. Do we have people who are better communicators? I don't think even Cory Doctorow's posts/talks are aimed at the non-technical audience.

stefs 9y ago
i think the problem is it's a highly technical, mathematical and social problem that isn't easily explained. well, the technical part is even comparatively simple. but the negative implications are usually harder to communicate. the "slippery slope" argument only gets one so far and non-criminals usually can't imagine how it would negatively affect them. "only metadata" doesn't sound too bad! the opponents of full encryption though have it quite easy by name-dropping the FUD buzzwords - i.e. security and terrorism. and anyway, it's only metadata!
chii 9y ago
I found the John Oliver episode about Snowden to be very good at conveying the ideas of privacy. Just mention that the govt can decrypt your dick pics and sexting if these laws pass.
- dm319 9y ago
  You know this argument might well work for Theresa May.
  - kitd 9y ago
    "You mean GCHQ can see running through wheat field pics? Let's ... let's just take a step back, shall we?"
    - daemin 9y ago

Fifer82 9y ago

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.

sshagent 9y ago
Agreed. Those semi regular approached by Work to relocate perhaps shoudln't be dismissed out of hand. Would love to leave the country until all this brexit shit washes over
hd4 9y ago
Iktf. The Brexit shit won't wash away, not in our lifetimes. I'm looking at France or Switzerland. This Bizarro country can't be the best that humanity can do.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- scaryclam 9y ago
  You realise that Switzerland isn't in the EU...right?
  - k-mcgrady 9y ago
    Can't speak for OP but a lot of people's problem with Brexit isn't just the fact we won't be in the EU anymore but the things that come along with that. There's a lot of stuff our government wants to do that the EU has prevented until now. There's also the 'extreme' element in society feeling they can be more open now (racism, hate crimes, etc.).
  - hackerboos 9y ago
    You can still move to Switzerland as an EU citizen. https://www.ch.ch/en/working-switzerland-eu-efta https://www.ch.ch/en/working-switzerland-eu-efta

libeclipse 9y ago

The tale of The Orwellian Kingdom continues... No really. I've written about this before, but I sincerely refuse to believe that the government are doing this out of ignorance anymore. There's been too many people telling them how it actually is, but they persist. That leads me to conclude that either they're severely mentally dysfunctional, or there's another reason for doing this. PR maybe? Votes? Something more sinister?

SimonPStevens 9y ago
Power and control.
beaconstudios 9y ago
they continue to do the same with other legal systems like cannabis law and speed traps with poor visibility that do more harm than good.
- joosters 9y ago
  Let's be devil's advocate for a second. The UK's speed cameras are brightly coloured, so there is an intention for them not to be traps - that is, they would prefer road users didn't speed. You cannot seriously argue that they are trying to sneakily catch people. If you get caught speeding by a speed trap which wasn't so visible, it is still your own fault and no-one else's. Either you are in control of your own vehicle's speed, in which case you are to blame, or you are not in control of it - which is even worse. Speed, or do not. Just don't go crying about it and blaming others when you get caught.
  - beaconstudios 9y ago
    your reply seems very accusatory. I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be a speed limit, or that people who speed aren't culpable for their actions. I'm talking about the fairly well-known incidence of cameras on sharp bends or that are hard to see at the bottom of hills (or worse yet, police pulled up on ramps on the side of the road) where people who are speeding will see them and slam on their brakes. This is well known to cause an increase in traffic accidents and yet the practices I mentioned continues. Perhaps a more productive tone to take on a discussion forum would be inquiry rather than indignant belittling. edit: Also, speed cameras are brightly coloured by law, notably a law that the police themselves do not write, so you cannot in good faith argue that the warning paint is an act of temperance on the part of the police.

barrkel 9y ago

There's something deeply dysfunctional in the UK Home Office. People who've been through that mill seem to come out with a really weird myopic perspective on the world, May included.

ebcode 9y ago
We've known this for quite some time: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." --- George Orwell, 1984

DropbearRob 9y ago

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 someone for being drunk and having their car keys in their pocket, or even being asleep in the car while drunk. This is the problem with the government demanding to read all communications... the idea that they have the right in order to prevent you committing a crime. Its not only impossible to prevent someone committing a crime (anyone can snap and do truly horrible things without prior communique), its insane to think that you can arrest someone for pre-crime. The role of the government is to pass laws. The role of the police and the justice system is to enforce these laws. It is not their job to spy on all their citizens for events which historically kill fractions of a percent compared to something as trivial as car accidents.

beaconstudios 9y ago
actually, funnily enough in the UK you can be arrested for being "drunk in charge of a motor vehicle" even if you aren't in the driver's seat. That can apparently include sleeping one off in the back seat of your car.
- onion2k 9y ago
  Amusingly, here in the UK, we also have the crime of "drunk in charge of a carriage" which has been used to prosecute people for being drunk with all manner of things from bicycles to horses.
  - gregn610 9y ago
    "Wanton or Furious riding" is also an offence.
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    Note this is English law (not the nonexistent UK law); this is a simple application of the mischief rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule).

raesene6 9y ago

ah more security cluelessness from the UK Government. The frustrating piece is that they're ignoring their own internal experts on this. The people running the National Cyber Security Centre are very bright and have stated that they think backdoors are a bad idea from http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/05/problems-ending-encryption-fight-terrorism http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/05/problems-end... "Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb." "

proactivesvcs 9y ago
The UK government has a habit of ignoring its own experts, to the degree of firing them if they give advice the government don't like. Drug policy is another area that suffers from this approach.
- k-mcgrady 9y ago
  I was just about to mention this. For anyone interested Professor David Nutt[0] was fired from his role as the government's chief drug advisor after claiming ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-advis...
  - stordoff 9y ago
    The comments from Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary, are rather telling: > He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy. [...] As for his comments about horse riding being more dangerous than ecstasy, which you quote with such reverence, it is of course a political rather than a scientific point.[0] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/nov/02/drug-policy-alan-johnson-nutt https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/nov/02/drug-policy...
    - 9y ago

jlebrech 9y ago

how about arresting known terrorists first, then focus on what normal people are doing.

raverbashing 9y ago

Meanwhile people can support ISIS and advocate for attacks in plain sight and that apparently isn't a problem So I see how "worried" they are about that

gargravarr 9y ago
More than one of the terrorist incidents in France were arranged by simple, unencrypted SMS, and the security services couldn't catch them beforehand. We don't need to give the security services more data. We need them to focus on better dealing with the data they currently have access to.

Freak_NL 9y ago

This is another statement that is part of a trend in many countries, and it is worrying to be sure. But I suspect that the aim of these audacious statements is not to actually ban the technology of strong end-to-end encryption. Rather, it is to force the Google, Apple, and Facebook to provide backdoors in their popular messaging platforms (e.g., WhatsApp) that can be used by law enforcement. They don't care about someone using GnuPG to mail someone something private (because that would be impossible to legislate effectively), but they do care about the big honey-pot of always-on end-to-end encryption offered to anyone with an off-the-shelf smartphone. The call for legislation and a ban on strong encryption is meant to put pressure on Google, Apple, and Facebook to cooperate with the Five Eyes without too much fuss, and simply let them in. I can't see it making any sense otherwise. Whether that access is to act on signals of religious radicalisation and planned acts of terrorism or something much more encompassing (big data predictive crime analysis and other scary stuff) I don't know.

cjsuk 9y ago

Home secretary a 'problem' - me.

benevol 9y ago

> Ms Rudd is meeting with representatives from Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and others at a counter-terrorism forum in San Francisco. Well, these will simply be the companies whose tools we won't be using anymore. The World does certainly not depend on any US companies or the UK government's approval to securely use encryption.

justinjlynn 9y ago

Ah, great lie of metadata. What those in power don't want us to know is that metadata is just a weasel word for incomplete data. It tells a story about you and those with whom you associate or intersect. What's worse is that incomplete data cannot tell the whole story by design. All incomplete data lies as all summaries, to some extent, do. Some would like us to believe that this incomplete data is somehow less harmful. It is not. Incomplete data can only accuse, it can never convict nor can it exculpate - it can only implicate and paint false pictures on massive scale. To filter the false positives and turn incomplete data into data, I seriously doubt that less work than traditional police work is required to process the output. It is only a benefit to those who wish to retroactively target known and presently target unknown individuals, matching a particular signature, and assassinate them unjustly. As such, at its worst, a danger to every one of us and, at its best, a lethal distraction to those who would otherwise protect us. When they say they only gather incomplete data they lie. They gather all of it - would you believe someone who tells you "just the tip and only for a second"? I wouldn't.

petre 9y ago

If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.

cloop_floop 9y ago

She's as evil as she is hideous.

b3lvedere 9y ago
So beautiful people aren't evil?
- cloop_floop 9y ago
  That's a retarded takeaway.
  - dang 9y ago
    We ban accounts that comment like this, so please don't do it again, regardless of how bad the target of your comment is.
pimmen 9y ago
That was totally uncalled for and immature! It's comments like this that make politicians scoff at criticism because they'll put name calling and legitimate criticism in the same box.
- mmmpop 9y ago
  Then tell that to every journalist insulting Trump for his admittedly clownish looks? The guy has proven he's a joke of a leader so why not take the high road and let him dig his own figurative grave??
sctb 9y ago
Please don't post like this here. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14898640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14898640 and marked it off-topic.

titzer 9y ago

See also: envelopes considered 'a problem' by tyrannical government.

junkculture 9y ago

The Paris attacks were coordinated over plain old encrypted SMS. Didn't see that coming. The Australian PM thinks the laws of mathematics can be bent to those of Australia. Now this genius. Fact is, communications are ubiquitous now, and even if every byte was unencrypted, they won't be able to catch every crook.

dpedu 9y ago
Don't you mean UNencrypted SMS?
- junkculture 9y ago
  I did. Typo. Thanks.

throw2016 9y ago

Western identity has become so enmeshed with liberalism, progressiveness and democracy that few are willing to step out of that safety zone to question the reality on the ground while those in power continue to rehash tinpot ideas and hysteria about safety. A similar statement from a third world official would be met with an unequivocal flood of ridicule and accusations of backwardness. Too many value the comfort of easy judgements. This will be met with apologism, muddying the waters and sophistry.

pimmen 9y ago

As was circulated recently on HN, this basically stems from the government thinking computers are appliances. "Hey! Your device creates and sends packages, could it just not create and send packages of this type? We'll even help with the quality control if you can't do it yourself! All we need is a backdoor!" How is this not the same as messing with people's mail? "Hey, you know this pen, paper and stamp thing? Can you just make the pen not write these kinds of letters, that terrorists usually writes? Ok, but can't we have a human (in lieu of AI) read through people's mail to make sure these types of letters aren't sent around with the intent to provoke violence? If you can't do it, we'll gladly send some agents to help you with quality control!"

b3lvedere 9y ago

>Home Secretary Amber Rudd wants harmful content to be auto-blocked What IS harmful content exactly?

Allower 9y ago

So when will people start treating these officials like the criminals they are?

skiman10 9y ago

I love the footer with the author's contact information! > "You can reach Dave securely through encrypted messaging app Signal on: +1 (628) 400-7370" Felt like a small little needle pointed at the UK's government.

diego_moita 9y ago

In UK, Murdoch's "News of the World" hacks into the phones of hundreds of people and politicians continue the debate about privacy as if it doesn't matter. In US, Russia hacks into Hillary's email server and politicians on Capitol Hill start using Whispering Systems' Signal and begin to understand why strong encryption is necessary. Don't worry too much, someday Vladimir Putin will show to the UK government why strong encryption is a good idea.

pjc50 9y ago
Ironically, private Whatsapp is extremely important in the UK government at the moment - it's where all the anti-PM plotting is carried out. Or so the leakers say. I do find it interesting that UK politics has not yet been visited by the email leak fairy. I don't know what conclusions to draw from this though.
firmgently 9y ago
I heard someone explaining how the phone hacking worked the other day (Steve Coogan in a great chat with Adam Buxton on YT for anyone who likes them). Two journalists would phone the target at the same time. One kept them talking, the other could be sure to get their voicemail because the line was busy. They'd try the default password of 0000 which 'nobody bothers changing' (I may have the number wrong, I'm going from memory and don't use voicemail) and frequently, it worked. So in terms of skillz it's somewhere up there with the fappening... default passwords, encryption wouldn't have prevented it. (not that I disagree with your general point btw)
- nthcolumn 9y ago
  Not being able to disable the voicemail service entirely is a sore annoyance to me.

syrrim 9y ago

>extremists should not be allowed to upload content at all. If this is what they want, then they should convict the extremists first, and then make sure they don't have internet behind bars. Until then, they are still citizens, and you have no right to treat them specially.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

AJRF 9y ago

“I’m having those conversations in private.” The irony.

nthcolumn 9y ago
That's what she thinks.

rcthompson 9y ago

I wonder if the only reason we have unrestricted access to good encryption tech now is because politicians don't understand it and underestimated how inconvenient it would be for governments, and are only now realizing their error.

magicfractal 9y ago

If something decreases the power of the state (e.g. Encryption) you can bet state officials will be against it.

gumby 9y ago

"how will we issue ASBOs automatically if our computers can't read everyone's texts?"

andreasgonewild 9y ago

It's only a problem if you insist on knowing everything, leave people alone to mind their own business and the problem magically disappears. We all know who the "real" terrorists are. https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis

paradite 9y ago

Now we finally have the complete comparison on how different governments try to tackle terrorism: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14827837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14827837

almonj 9y ago

Get rid of all government programs. Instantly a huge amount of wealth will be gained and productivity will skyrocket. It is very important to remember: nothing the government does is good. What is the minimum amount of manipulation and lies it takes to cover up a problem? This is the question every government worker ponders every day of their job. Every one of these people are lying, scheming, delusional people. They manipulate and they lie, they shuffle things around and create busy-work for disgusting twisted crab-people.

paradite 9y ago
That's way too cynical and oversimplified to be considered a substantial comment.
- almonj 9y ago
  Or for this reason, because it may be questioned whether the same simple essence can be expressed by many diverse attributes. There are, indeed, many definitions of compound things but only a single one of a simple thing, nor does it seem that its essence can be expressed except in a single way.
  - paradite 9y ago
    I think you will enjoy conversing with this user: https://github.com/payingattention https://github.com/payingattention

mtl_usr 9y ago

No secure communication AND Brexit ? Hope Europeans bankers will enjoy their new offices in Berlin, Amsterdam and Paris.

detaro 9y ago
Eh, banks pretty much are on the side of backdoored encryption - e.g. see recent proposals to make it easier for them to MITM TLS in their own networks, and compliance requirements for the messaging products they use.

thrillgore 9y ago

"I'm having those conversations in private" Ah yes, the old "Fuck you, we got ours" mentality.

pstuart 9y ago

How about a GoFundMe to pay for crackers to accesses the politicians' personal data and distribute it?

bllguo 9y ago

This is absolutely horrific. The path the UK is on is terrifying. On the bright side they are quite far ahead down this road compared to other Western countries, so when the UK inevitably collapses first, other governments can learn their lesson.

type0 9y ago
I don't think it would collapse but we might see a terrible junta dictatorship there in a near future

cryptonector 9y ago

IIRC the Bataclan terrorists didn't use any crypto at all. Using crypto makes you stand out, and doesn't really complicate traffic analysis. Corollary: not using crypto makes it easier to look like hay in a huge hay pile, even if you're a needle. Ad-hoc-but-disciplined plaintext comsec for small committed teams is not that difficult to establish and master, and can work very well for them. But for the rest of us, plaintext comsec just doesn't work. And defending privacy relative to state actors, foreign and domestic, is a legitimate activity within the bounds of due process (e.g., your affairs can get searched with a legal warrant, and so on). It's important to understand that when the State wins the crypto wars, not only does it ensure for itself access to people's data pursuant under Due Process, but also without Due Process at all. It's like making all houses and walls out of glass just so people can't hide from the police: it's insane. And worse than that: the State winning the crypto wars does not make it easier to prevent attacks. If anything it can make mounting attacks easier for terrorists, depending on the particulars of the crypto war outcome.

hd4 9y ago
1.3 bn people are using WhatsApp. If we assume that only 70% of those have encryption enabled, that's a billion people whose data is standing out, therefore no one is really standing out any longer.