10 ms·

UK is spending £500k on a PR campaign demonising end-to-end encryption

518 points by FinnKuhn 5y ago

isaacremuant 5y ago
- alar44 5y ago
  No, that's where you're at with your inability to see the difference.
  - notRacistSir 5y ago
zeruch 5y ago
This is not surprising at all, as a nation that is second only to China for its density of CCTV surveillance in public places would hate that anyone have the capacity to elude constant monitoring/"oversight".
- Gigachad 5y ago
  CCTV has become almost entirely useless when anyone planning on committing some crime just wears a hoodie and face mask. Tracking via the internet and peoples phones is so much more effective.
  - smegger001 5y ago
    wouldn't criminals just start leaving their phones at home then?
b1n 5y ago
They've spent lots of money on an expensive PR firm from the old school, and what they came up with is "No Place To Hide". This can be easily undone with the following meme... 1. Take whatever advert they create with the tag line "No Place To Hide". 2. Change the image to Ann Frank. 3. Profit. * BONUS: Add the text "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about".
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Change the image to Prince Andrew.
- bshipp 5y ago
  2. Change the image to Ann Frank Except for, perhaps, the posters purchased outside of Parliament. Directly across the street they should put up a billboard showing the logos of all the Cayman Islands banks.
- bawolff 5y ago
  Yes. But, privacy is not just important against (traditional) tyranny of the state. Maybe change the image to be a bathroom to get the mesage across.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    It is, when the criminals get to read your private data. Somehow people don't want that, and only consider politicians criminals in all other aspects, except this.
- ars 5y ago
  Good idea in theory, but maybe not Ann Frank please? It's not right to use her image that way.
  - notRacistSir 5y ago
  - ticviking 5y ago
    Her fate is why we need tools like end to end encryption
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - throw7 5y ago
    Anne Frank has entered the "public" life, for better or worse. Her image use in the parent comment is perfectly fine. Personally, I think the various versions and censoring of her diary are way worse.
Paraesthetic 5y ago
Disgusting
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
The unfortunate truth about e2ee is that most people do not understand what it really means, and what real drawbacks it has, like difficulties in multidevice sync, establishing identify of a chat partner, etc. Users expect e2ee to magically work just like non-encrypted service, but with encryption, pointing to other services that do that, not realising that it is a security theater more often than not.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  If that's true then why are the Tories and Blairites trying so hard to ban it?
- ipaddr 5y ago
  I remember when cellphones came out and the problems we had when a phone would go into a zone where it was halfway between towers. The technicals do make things more complex but these are solvable problems that different developers will attack in different ways.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    Yes, by introducing the security theater. When was the last time you checked your Signal contact's fingerprints? Oh, you trust singal? That's ironiс, considering the fact that server operator is the main adversary in the e2ee threat model.
- spiderice 5y ago
  I'm fairly confident that the UK isn't campaigning against encryption to make multi device sync work better
matheusmoreira 5y ago
That means it's working. The more noise they make, the better. This technology should be ubiquitous. The Streisand effect also means that lots of people will discover end to end encryption because of their attempt to discredit it.
- pvarangot 5y ago
  I think this is mostly because Facebook is going to go E2E now. I can understand why Facebook wants to do this, as it's starting to get risky with stuff like Jan 6th and other violent political demonstrations in the US maybe starting to happen more. If they go E2E they don't have to deal with the risk of having to "pick a side".
- CommanderData 5y ago
  Which could indicate the gov has already broken TLS's trusted model. It's known a CA was breached some years back by a state, why would it be so far fetched to say CA's haven't been required to hand over private keys and are prevented from speaking about it? I would not be surprised in the slightest that the government has subpoenaed a UK based CA or has a UK controlled CA of their own. Having access to end private keys or being able to sign your own valid cert from a well known entity in the trusted list, to just operating your own all means the user is (almost) none the wiser TLS communication is opened wide to a state actor.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mike_d 5y ago
    > It's known a CA was breached some years back by a state Last time I bothered to check over a third of all CAs were directly owned by some arm of a government (national telecom, postal services, etc). Certificate Transparency is the solution to this problem. To be trusted by browsers the malicious CA has to publicly publish that they generated a cert for facebook.com.
    - 5y ago
felipellrocha 5y ago
To be fair, 500k is basically nothing
- computerphage 5y ago
  Can I have it please? I feel like I could put it to good use
  - halpert 5y ago
    What would you do with it?
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      Replace my income for a few years so I could spend 100% of my effort turning my side project into the real deal.
      - frozenport 5y ago
        Go for it. This isn't a bad startup pitch.
    - olyjohn 5y ago
      Just about anything is better than putting up shitty propaganda.
    - smegger001 5y ago
      pay off my mortgage, and my spouse's student loans for a start.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  If we're being fair, it's 500k too much.
- CameronNemo 5y ago
  Judging by this video, you would think so.
JetAlone 5y ago
Watched their little ad, the text goes scrambled and the scary subwoofer comes on. "Don't give them a place to hide, oh please, let us constantly monitor every reasonably accessible message in our entire society at the hardware level because some marginal percentage of the people out there are gross predators". Five eyes, burgers and lies; at it again.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  It's funny, just a modicum of common sense should tell them that the biggest problem is the government themselves. There have been a number (to understate it) of high profile cases of "gross predators" in Britain who were allowed to operate freely with the government fully aware of what they were doing and turning a blind eye to it or even protecting them. It's not that breaking encryption could not solve any crimes or help people (on the contrary it clearly could and if we had a perfect benevolent government that was immune to corruption and incompetence we may well want them to have a crypto backdoor). The problem is that governments have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated, by their actions, that they have no intention of using powers like this to help the common person or to better society. They use powers like this to protect and enrich the government and its friends.
charcircuit 5y ago
I wish people would argue in good faith in these types of discussions about responsible use of encryption. No one is arguing that we should remove E2EE between you and your bank. With cryptographic systems we can choose what parties can see the plain text. For different situations the people who should be able to decrypt and the requirements needed to be able to decrypt may be different. I feel like this is a challenging discussion to have because there's people on both sides who lack information / knowledge leading them to make poor arguments.
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  > I wish people would argue in good faith in these types of discussions about responsible use of encryption. You are assuming people are not arguing in good faith. That is, in itself, a kind of bad-faith arguing, suggesting that people who disagree with you simply don't understand and would change their minds if they did. In good faith, and with understanding and acceptance of potential consequences, I will continue to say that using encryption is always responsible, the responsible use of encryption is "yes, always", and any two or more (or one or more) people have the right to keep communications exclusively and nigh-unbreakably between themselves. My answer to that will not change, regardless of the people communicating or the content of the communication. If you want the contents of that communication, get it from one of the people communicating. > No one is arguing that we should remove E2EE between you and your bank. Many people are arguing that; I've seen people say that it wouldn't matter for the purposes of securing financial transactions if the government has access.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    >Many people are arguing that By removing encryption you leave the connection open to man in the middle attacks. That is something neither side wants. >securing financial transactions if the government has access This is just adding another person (end) who can decrypt the message. It's still E2EE. >You are assuming people are not arguing in good faith They are at least arguing from a point of misunderstanding what the other side wants or what is possible to satisfy the other side's needs. There exist plenty of people who think that allowing the government to decrypt messages between two people using a chat app when they have a warrant would require a plaintext copy of the message stored on the chat app's company's servers.
YetAnotherDavid 5y ago
My first thought was that this is using an emotional subject with a secret intent of a power grab. I could be wrong but I am curious about the actual numbers around CSAM on encrypted networks, and if there's other enforcement avenues.
- champagnois 5y ago
  I am sure there is plenty. I am also sure it is mostly all sting operations and bait.
- version_five 5y ago
  > I am curious about the actual numbers around CSAM on encrypted networks, and if there's other enforcement avenues. I'd be also curious to see the budget breakdowns for the different detect-deter-deny-disrupt activities going on, and the effectiveness of each. Like is intercepting encrypted communications addressing production and materially stopping abuse from happening, more effectively than tracing victims, social work, etc (I don't have a good sense of options available). Or is it just a low hanging fruit that catches a few criminals, but provides an important pretext for broader snooping like you say. They would have a much more compelling case (in any e event I disagree with violating innocent peoples privacy to prevent crime) if they explained why this was the best option.
dagaci 5y ago
*This is the same government-party which make extensive use of such technology https://www.google.com/search?q=tory+party+whatsapp+groups+encryption https://www.google.com/search?q=tory+party+whatsapp+groups+e... *You might start to think they dont practice what they preach, we know they like to party https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59577129 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59577129 *If they dont actually belive in the thing they promote, hmmm i wonder who is getting these contracts https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/28/high-court-to-rule-on-legality-of-covid-contracts-for-pms-chums https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/28/high-court-...
- CameronNemo 5y ago
  Oh don't worry they will still have access to their signal.gov.uk -- national security is too important!
Grakel 5y ago
Government power is inherently corrupt. Everyone wants their government to step in and implement their pet preference, and very few people are willing to say: the less a government does, the better. Edit: apparently I'm blocked from replying below, so: Saying that people who disagree aren't knowledgeable is the biggest thing making politics so hateful today. Small government works great. The smaller the better. For me, that's no dumb abortion laws or carbon taxes.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > and very few people are willing to say: the less a government does, the better. A lot of people are saying that, and in most cases just out themselves as loud and not very knowledgeable people. Governments exist for a bunch of reasons. Many things are only possible or can only work well if done centrally and without a profit motive (like most things infrastructure and utility, healthcare to name a few). Yes, people want their governments to do things said people want. What's the problem that? If i want more bike lanes in my city, you can bet your ass I'll petition and lobby the mayor for that. Who else could do it? A benevolent rich person? As if. Same goes for many many many other things. Banning single use plastics? Carbon tax? Giving incentives so that energy generation and transportation switch to less carbon intensive ( nuclear, renewables, EVs, rail electrification) energy? Creating good public transit so that less people need polluting and space wasting vehicles? Etc etc etc. The US libertarian "small government" dream simply doesn't work. And the best part is that state governments that ostensibly follow that dogma are still able to force their nonsense pet preferences ( like abortions in Texas) or ask for federal help when disaster strikes ( the recent Kentucky natural disasters). Off the top of my head i can't think of other places in developed countries that went so far on the "the less a government does, the better" thing, that's why I'm only giving them as examples.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > apparently I'm blocked from replying below There are some rules on replying, I think. Timing, maybe, whether you're replying to someone who replied to you, maybe. I haven't worked them all out. But I will say that if the reply link does not show below the post, clicking on the timestamp link will take you to the post by itself, and on that page there will be a reply link. At least, every time I've needed to use it myself for that reason.
DevKoala 5y ago
That’s peanuts in the marketing world.
DarkmSparks 5y ago
Not impossible this completely backfires. With trust in the UK government, police and state institutions at pretty much an all time low. Them demonising it will quite possibly result in more people really wanting it. Kinda like when they poured their entire propaganda machine into staying in the EU.
- chefandy 5y ago
  Tech, law enforcement, and media, folks aside, people will collectively shrug and move on. To most, it's all abstract fights about other people's problems, like most banking regulations are to me, no matter how much they might impact me. See James Comey/FBI vs Apple, Apple iCloud CSAM scanning, etc. etc. etc.
lsllc 5y ago
Previously posted in the last few days on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29978952 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29978952 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29978647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29978647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29977426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29977426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29955893 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29955893
floatingatoll 5y ago
> Your mobile banking app uses E2EE; online chats with HMRC are protected through E2EE; you'd no more have an unsecured web chat with the taxman's helpdesk than read out your P60 in the middle of a shopping centre. The Register is only showing an example of #3, but leaves #1 and #2 unaddressed: 1. Your Identity (who everyone is) 2. Your Conversations (with whom, when) 3. Your Content (what was said) Does the UK government have the ability to identify #1 and #2 for E2EE connections, and they desire #3 (content)? Is the UK government only able to identify #2, and they desire #1 (identities) and #3 (content)? If so, which is more important to them: Identity, or Content? I suspect they are much more desperate for Identity and Connections, than they necessarily are for Content, and that their attempt to overreach and backdoor all encryption could be shutdown by offering them #1 and #2 but not #3. This is obviously unpalatable to consider to "perfect anonymity is the only way" adherents, but it's probably time to consider discussing it, when the alternative is a government backdooring or banning all encryption. It's too bad The Register didn't take that chance, but we could at any time.
- cyphar 5y ago
  > when the alternative is a government backdooring or banning all encryption. That is not the alternative because the mathematics of encryption is already very widely known. In the scenario where all encryption is outlawed, there will be a black market for encryption tools designed for criminals (this already exists today) and society will not be significantly safer. Or alternatively, open source encryption software development will continue happen outside the UK/USA/AU. Banning encryption will only make inept criminals (those who don't have the resources or aren't smart enough to buy the encryption tools) easier to catch and the general public unsafe. If the police are having trouble catching inept criminals to the point that they want to make the general public unsafe, the issue here isn't the encryption.
  - Underphil 5y ago
    What does a ban on encryption even look like? If they see unidentifiable traffic in your ISP logs you're illegally using encryption? What would be allowed and what wouldn't? Is devising a code with the recipient in the real-world and using that in a messaging tool considered E2EE and therefore banned? Do both endpoints have to be in the UK to be covered by this law? I can't get my head round how they think this could be implemented without insane amounts of money and a rule book like war and peace.
outside1234 5y ago
They can spend as much as they want - we are still going to build it
- sk0g 5y ago
  It's not lobbying to prevent people from working on it. It's lubing up the masses for an eventual ban on encryption, or the power to demand access to, and the creation of, backdoors. This doesn't need to mean HTTPS traffic is banned, but would give them the power to jail you for refusing to unlock your phone for them, or ensuring no tech firm with a local presence can keep their data from you. Australia codified it semi-recently, and we are quite often the 5 Eyes beta testers -- early access Orwellianism.
credit_guy 5y ago
I'll be the devil's advocate. I can see a need to encrypt privileged communications, like with your lawyer, your health care provider, etc, but chats, for example? Can someone please change my mind? And by the way, I find arguments of the type "are you ok to have transparent walls at the bathrooom" quite unconvincing. Bathrooms are not protected with encryption, the analogy is very weak. Or, "If you have nothing to hide, can you share with me your bank account password"? Well, no, the communication with my bank is encrypted, and I seriously doubt the Government wants me to put it out in the clear (oh, and also, banks are so heavily regulated, e.g. Anti-Money-Laundering, that if the Government wants to find anything about anything, they probably already can, regardless of how encrypted your communication with the bank is).
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I see it more as a 'why not?' kind of issue. Why can't I encrypt my own communications? Why does the government need to see what I talk about and to whom? Criminals aren't going to avoid encryption technology just because the government says so, which means the law only really applies to law abiding citizens. I want the government to explain why they need this power without invoking the criminal scare tactic since we already know it isn't relevant.
  - andai 5y ago
    Same reason governments got rid of gun rights in most countries: to protect themselves from the people.
- steelstraw 5y ago
  I consider communication with my parents, friends and coworkers to be privileged communication.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Why would you want to encrypt your communication? An easy example is you are going to China for business. You share some trade secrets in private and by tomorrow some factory is producing your new part. Another example. You live in a cheap apartment. Your landlord wiresharks all communication over your internet connection and steals your private pictures Why would you want to hide information from your government? Maybe you are a journalist with a story on someone in power. You could have been raped by a high powered government employee You could be part of a minority who is being made into a villian in the current political climate. You have rights for a reason. You need to make a case why we should give up those rights.
d_burfoot 5y ago
Only £500k? Pikers! In the US the government would spend at least half a billion!
Silhouette 5y ago
An interesting viewpoint from the UK's privacy and data protection regulator: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60072191 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60072191 Stephen Bonner, the ICO's executive director for innovation and technology, said end-to-end encryption helped keep children safe online by not allowing "criminals and abusers to send them harmful content or access their pictures or location". "The discussion on end-to-end encryption use is too unbalanced to make a wise and informed choice. There is too much focus on the costs without also weighing up the significant benefits," he said.
smsm42 5y ago
Wow, these guys actually made a pro-surveillance campaign with the slogan "no place to hide". I guess they should also use the URL of miniluv.gov.uk if they're already going all in.
userbinator 5y ago
The government is scared of encryption being used against them, but I think we should also be just as scared of companies using encryption against us. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be much of a PR campaign against that.
AlbertCory 5y ago
As Sir Humphrey says in Yes, Minister: The Official Secrets Act is not to protect secrets, it is to protect officials. [1] https://anilnetto.com/governance/accountability/come-on-guys-let-nathaniel-tan-go/ https://anilnetto.com/governance/accountability/come-on-guys... This one doesn't have that quote, but I couldn't stop laughing when watching it: [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-s-Y4xA9pk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-s-Y4xA9pk
- enzino 5y ago
  YM/YPM aged so well!
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    Amazingly, "The Thick of It" is filmed only 20 years later, but feels like many generations apart.
    - AlbertCory 5y ago
      Thanks. Worth checking out?
      - rich_sasha 5y ago
        Fantastic series, full of pragmatic cynicism like YM but completely completely different world.
- bongoman37 5y ago
TeeMassive 5y ago
Of course the only argument they could come up with is "think of the children". Never mind that the UK has a huge problem with child abuse being swept under the rug. All in all I don't think people will be falling for it; in the end the fact that decided to produce propaganda against it means that E2EE is working.
- croes 5y ago
  It's either child abuse, organized crime or terrorism.
hypocr1tz 5y ago
- notRacistSir 5y ago
ulrikrasmussen 5y ago
Are cases of child exploitation really prevented by the interception of unencrypted chat messages in practice? In the case where chat messages are used retrospectively in court, E2EE does not prevent that, provided that one of the parties did not erase their history.
- mike_d 5y ago
  Currently messaging providers like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger have an obligation to scan images against centralized hash databases of known child abuse imagery. End to end encryption unburdens the providers because they don't know what the message content is. This type of reporting catches people who are not just consumers, but are actively sharing and trading - in theory the people who might be directly abusing or trafficking children to produce content and may lead to organized rings. Given the direct evidence and the fact they find a ton more when they raid the house - they are slam dunk cases for the police. I don't have any hard numbers, but as you suggest I believe the vast majority of cases where they are communicating directly with children are self or parent reported. These cases of course wouldn't go away with end-to-end encryption.
croes 5y ago
No place to hide? Could mean the same for the victims of child abuse.
rich_sasha 5y ago
How does this compare to postal secrecy laws? Post has a special place in law, right? Opening someone's post without a warrant is potentially a serious crime, right? I'd be happy with something equivalent for encryption: private and protected by default, court warrant can force user to disclose. If it's gone, well... Clearly, this isn't what's proposed here.
kevincox 5y ago
> Your mobile banking app uses E2EE; I highly doubt it. Unless the other "end" is the bank in which case this is just transport encryption. > online chats with HMRC are protected through E2EE Are they? Why is the other end in this context. Sounds like ybe author doesn't even know what E2EE is.
- y4mi 5y ago
  Naw mate, you're the one that's mistaken. Or name me a single one that doesn't use at least https. With chat apps it's a different story, because the end isn't the server in that case - but in the context of banking https is enough for e2ee
anothernewdude 5y ago
They're really hellbent on destroying their financial sector at any cost.
bevdecloud 5y ago
This UK government is a bunch of maniacs. Too much alcohol got them on one.

518 points by FinnKuhn 5y ago

alar44 5y ago
No, that's where you're at with your inability to see the difference.
- notRacistSir 5y ago

This is not surprising at all, as a nation that is second only to China for its density of CCTV surveillance in public places would hate that anyone have the capacity to elude constant monitoring/"oversight".

Gigachad 5y ago
CCTV has become almost entirely useless when anyone planning on committing some crime just wears a hoodie and face mask. Tracking via the internet and peoples phones is so much more effective.
- smegger001 5y ago
  wouldn't criminals just start leaving their phones at home then?

b1n 5y ago

They've spent lots of money on an expensive PR firm from the old school, and what they came up with is "No Place To Hide". This can be easily undone with the following meme... 1. Take whatever advert they create with the tag line "No Place To Hide". 2. Change the image to Ann Frank. 3. Profit. * BONUS: Add the text "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about".

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
Change the image to Prince Andrew.
bshipp 5y ago
2. Change the image to Ann Frank Except for, perhaps, the posters purchased outside of Parliament. Directly across the street they should put up a billboard showing the logos of all the Cayman Islands banks.
bawolff 5y ago
Yes. But, privacy is not just important against (traditional) tyranny of the state. Maybe change the image to be a bathroom to get the mesage across.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  It is, when the criminals get to read your private data. Somehow people don't want that, and only consider politicians criminals in all other aspects, except this.
ars 5y ago
Good idea in theory, but maybe not Ann Frank please? It's not right to use her image that way.
- notRacistSir 5y ago
- ticviking 5y ago
  Her fate is why we need tools like end to end encryption
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- throw7 5y ago
  Anne Frank has entered the "public" life, for better or worse. Her image use in the parent comment is perfectly fine. Personally, I think the various versions and censoring of her diary are way worse.

Paraesthetic 5y ago

Disgusting

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

The unfortunate truth about e2ee is that most people do not understand what it really means, and what real drawbacks it has, like difficulties in multidevice sync, establishing identify of a chat partner, etc. Users expect e2ee to magically work just like non-encrypted service, but with encryption, pointing to other services that do that, not realising that it is a security theater more often than not.

mandmandam 5y ago
If that's true then why are the Tories and Blairites trying so hard to ban it?
ipaddr 5y ago
I remember when cellphones came out and the problems we had when a phone would go into a zone where it was halfway between towers. The technicals do make things more complex but these are solvable problems that different developers will attack in different ways.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Yes, by introducing the security theater. When was the last time you checked your Signal contact's fingerprints? Oh, you trust singal? That's ironiс, considering the fact that server operator is the main adversary in the e2ee threat model.
spiderice 5y ago
I'm fairly confident that the UK isn't campaigning against encryption to make multi device sync work better

matheusmoreira 5y ago

That means it's working. The more noise they make, the better. This technology should be ubiquitous. The Streisand effect also means that lots of people will discover end to end encryption because of their attempt to discredit it.

pvarangot 5y ago
I think this is mostly because Facebook is going to go E2E now. I can understand why Facebook wants to do this, as it's starting to get risky with stuff like Jan 6th and other violent political demonstrations in the US maybe starting to happen more. If they go E2E they don't have to deal with the risk of having to "pick a side".
CommanderData 5y ago
Which could indicate the gov has already broken TLS's trusted model. It's known a CA was breached some years back by a state, why would it be so far fetched to say CA's haven't been required to hand over private keys and are prevented from speaking about it? I would not be surprised in the slightest that the government has subpoenaed a UK based CA or has a UK controlled CA of their own. Having access to end private keys or being able to sign your own valid cert from a well known entity in the trusted list, to just operating your own all means the user is (almost) none the wiser TLS communication is opened wide to a state actor.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mike_d 5y ago
  > It's known a CA was breached some years back by a state Last time I bothered to check over a third of all CAs were directly owned by some arm of a government (national telecom, postal services, etc). Certificate Transparency is the solution to this problem. To be trusted by browsers the malicious CA has to publicly publish that they generated a cert for facebook.com.
  - 5y ago

felipellrocha 5y ago

To be fair, 500k is basically nothing

computerphage 5y ago
Can I have it please? I feel like I could put it to good use
- halpert 5y ago
  What would you do with it?
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    Replace my income for a few years so I could spend 100% of my effort turning my side project into the real deal.
    - frozenport 5y ago
      Go for it. This isn't a bad startup pitch.
  - olyjohn 5y ago
    Just about anything is better than putting up shitty propaganda.
  - smegger001 5y ago
    pay off my mortgage, and my spouse's student loans for a start.
mandmandam 5y ago
If we're being fair, it's 500k too much.
CameronNemo 5y ago
Judging by this video, you would think so.

JetAlone 5y ago

Watched their little ad, the text goes scrambled and the scary subwoofer comes on. "Don't give them a place to hide, oh please, let us constantly monitor every reasonably accessible message in our entire society at the hardware level because some marginal percentage of the people out there are gross predators". Five eyes, burgers and lies; at it again.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
It's funny, just a modicum of common sense should tell them that the biggest problem is the government themselves. There have been a number (to understate it) of high profile cases of "gross predators" in Britain who were allowed to operate freely with the government fully aware of what they were doing and turning a blind eye to it or even protecting them. It's not that breaking encryption could not solve any crimes or help people (on the contrary it clearly could and if we had a perfect benevolent government that was immune to corruption and incompetence we may well want them to have a crypto backdoor). The problem is that governments have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated, by their actions, that they have no intention of using powers like this to help the common person or to better society. They use powers like this to protect and enrich the government and its friends.

charcircuit 5y ago

I wish people would argue in good faith in these types of discussions about responsible use of encryption. No one is arguing that we should remove E2EE between you and your bank. With cryptographic systems we can choose what parties can see the plain text. For different situations the people who should be able to decrypt and the requirements needed to be able to decrypt may be different. I feel like this is a challenging discussion to have because there's people on both sides who lack information / knowledge leading them to make poor arguments.

JoshTriplett 5y ago
> I wish people would argue in good faith in these types of discussions about responsible use of encryption. You are assuming people are not arguing in good faith. That is, in itself, a kind of bad-faith arguing, suggesting that people who disagree with you simply don't understand and would change their minds if they did. In good faith, and with understanding and acceptance of potential consequences, I will continue to say that using encryption is always responsible, the responsible use of encryption is "yes, always", and any two or more (or one or more) people have the right to keep communications exclusively and nigh-unbreakably between themselves. My answer to that will not change, regardless of the people communicating or the content of the communication. If you want the contents of that communication, get it from one of the people communicating. > No one is arguing that we should remove E2EE between you and your bank. Many people are arguing that; I've seen people say that it wouldn't matter for the purposes of securing financial transactions if the government has access.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  >Many people are arguing that By removing encryption you leave the connection open to man in the middle attacks. That is something neither side wants. >securing financial transactions if the government has access This is just adding another person (end) who can decrypt the message. It's still E2EE. >You are assuming people are not arguing in good faith They are at least arguing from a point of misunderstanding what the other side wants or what is possible to satisfy the other side's needs. There exist plenty of people who think that allowing the government to decrypt messages between two people using a chat app when they have a warrant would require a plaintext copy of the message stored on the chat app's company's servers.

YetAnotherDavid 5y ago

My first thought was that this is using an emotional subject with a secret intent of a power grab. I could be wrong but I am curious about the actual numbers around CSAM on encrypted networks, and if there's other enforcement avenues.

champagnois 5y ago
I am sure there is plenty. I am also sure it is mostly all sting operations and bait.
version_five 5y ago
> I am curious about the actual numbers around CSAM on encrypted networks, and if there's other enforcement avenues. I'd be also curious to see the budget breakdowns for the different detect-deter-deny-disrupt activities going on, and the effectiveness of each. Like is intercepting encrypted communications addressing production and materially stopping abuse from happening, more effectively than tracing victims, social work, etc (I don't have a good sense of options available). Or is it just a low hanging fruit that catches a few criminals, but provides an important pretext for broader snooping like you say. They would have a much more compelling case (in any e event I disagree with violating innocent peoples privacy to prevent crime) if they explained why this was the best option.

dagaci 5y ago

*This is the same government-party which make extensive use of such technology https://www.google.com/search?q=tory+party+whatsapp+groups+encryption https://www.google.com/search?q=tory+party+whatsapp+groups+e... *You might start to think they dont practice what they preach, we know they like to party https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59577129 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59577129 *If they dont actually belive in the thing they promote, hmmm i wonder who is getting these contracts https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/28/high-court-to-rule-on-legality-of-covid-contracts-for-pms-chums https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/28/high-court-...

CameronNemo 5y ago
Oh don't worry they will still have access to their signal.gov.uk -- national security is too important!

Grakel 5y ago

Government power is inherently corrupt. Everyone wants their government to step in and implement their pet preference, and very few people are willing to say: the less a government does, the better. Edit: apparently I'm blocked from replying below, so: Saying that people who disagree aren't knowledgeable is the biggest thing making politics so hateful today. Small government works great. The smaller the better. For me, that's no dumb abortion laws or carbon taxes.

sofixa 5y ago
> and very few people are willing to say: the less a government does, the better. A lot of people are saying that, and in most cases just out themselves as loud and not very knowledgeable people. Governments exist for a bunch of reasons. Many things are only possible or can only work well if done centrally and without a profit motive (like most things infrastructure and utility, healthcare to name a few). Yes, people want their governments to do things said people want. What's the problem that? If i want more bike lanes in my city, you can bet your ass I'll petition and lobby the mayor for that. Who else could do it? A benevolent rich person? As if. Same goes for many many many other things. Banning single use plastics? Carbon tax? Giving incentives so that energy generation and transportation switch to less carbon intensive ( nuclear, renewables, EVs, rail electrification) energy? Creating good public transit so that less people need polluting and space wasting vehicles? Etc etc etc. The US libertarian "small government" dream simply doesn't work. And the best part is that state governments that ostensibly follow that dogma are still able to force their nonsense pet preferences ( like abortions in Texas) or ask for federal help when disaster strikes ( the recent Kentucky natural disasters). Off the top of my head i can't think of other places in developed countries that went so far on the "the less a government does, the better" thing, that's why I'm only giving them as examples.
rootusrootus 5y ago
> apparently I'm blocked from replying below There are some rules on replying, I think. Timing, maybe, whether you're replying to someone who replied to you, maybe. I haven't worked them all out. But I will say that if the reply link does not show below the post, clicking on the timestamp link will take you to the post by itself, and on that page there will be a reply link. At least, every time I've needed to use it myself for that reason.

DevKoala 5y ago

That’s peanuts in the marketing world.

DarkmSparks 5y ago

Not impossible this completely backfires. With trust in the UK government, police and state institutions at pretty much an all time low. Them demonising it will quite possibly result in more people really wanting it. Kinda like when they poured their entire propaganda machine into staying in the EU.

chefandy 5y ago
Tech, law enforcement, and media, folks aside, people will collectively shrug and move on. To most, it's all abstract fights about other people's problems, like most banking regulations are to me, no matter how much they might impact me. See James Comey/FBI vs Apple, Apple iCloud CSAM scanning, etc. etc. etc.

lsllc 5y ago

Previously posted in the last few days on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29978952 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29978952 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29978647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29978647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29977426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29977426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29955893 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29955893

floatingatoll 5y ago

> Your mobile banking app uses E2EE; online chats with HMRC are protected through E2EE; you'd no more have an unsecured web chat with the taxman's helpdesk than read out your P60 in the middle of a shopping centre. The Register is only showing an example of #3, but leaves #1 and #2 unaddressed: 1. Your Identity (who everyone is) 2. Your Conversations (with whom, when) 3. Your Content (what was said) Does the UK government have the ability to identify #1 and #2 for E2EE connections, and they desire #3 (content)? Is the UK government only able to identify #2, and they desire #1 (identities) and #3 (content)? If so, which is more important to them: Identity, or Content? I suspect they are much more desperate for Identity and Connections, than they necessarily are for Content, and that their attempt to overreach and backdoor all encryption could be shutdown by offering them #1 and #2 but not #3. This is obviously unpalatable to consider to "perfect anonymity is the only way" adherents, but it's probably time to consider discussing it, when the alternative is a government backdooring or banning all encryption. It's too bad The Register didn't take that chance, but we could at any time.

cyphar 5y ago
> when the alternative is a government backdooring or banning all encryption. That is not the alternative because the mathematics of encryption is already very widely known. In the scenario where all encryption is outlawed, there will be a black market for encryption tools designed for criminals (this already exists today) and society will not be significantly safer. Or alternatively, open source encryption software development will continue happen outside the UK/USA/AU. Banning encryption will only make inept criminals (those who don't have the resources or aren't smart enough to buy the encryption tools) easier to catch and the general public unsafe. If the police are having trouble catching inept criminals to the point that they want to make the general public unsafe, the issue here isn't the encryption.
- Underphil 5y ago
  What does a ban on encryption even look like? If they see unidentifiable traffic in your ISP logs you're illegally using encryption? What would be allowed and what wouldn't? Is devising a code with the recipient in the real-world and using that in a messaging tool considered E2EE and therefore banned? Do both endpoints have to be in the UK to be covered by this law? I can't get my head round how they think this could be implemented without insane amounts of money and a rule book like war and peace.

outside1234 5y ago

They can spend as much as they want - we are still going to build it

sk0g 5y ago
It's not lobbying to prevent people from working on it. It's lubing up the masses for an eventual ban on encryption, or the power to demand access to, and the creation of, backdoors. This doesn't need to mean HTTPS traffic is banned, but would give them the power to jail you for refusing to unlock your phone for them, or ensuring no tech firm with a local presence can keep their data from you. Australia codified it semi-recently, and we are quite often the 5 Eyes beta testers -- early access Orwellianism.

credit_guy 5y ago

I'll be the devil's advocate. I can see a need to encrypt privileged communications, like with your lawyer, your health care provider, etc, but chats, for example? Can someone please change my mind? And by the way, I find arguments of the type "are you ok to have transparent walls at the bathrooom" quite unconvincing. Bathrooms are not protected with encryption, the analogy is very weak. Or, "If you have nothing to hide, can you share with me your bank account password"? Well, no, the communication with my bank is encrypted, and I seriously doubt the Government wants me to put it out in the clear (oh, and also, banks are so heavily regulated, e.g. Anti-Money-Laundering, that if the Government wants to find anything about anything, they probably already can, regardless of how encrypted your communication with the bank is).

rootusrootus 5y ago
I see it more as a 'why not?' kind of issue. Why can't I encrypt my own communications? Why does the government need to see what I talk about and to whom? Criminals aren't going to avoid encryption technology just because the government says so, which means the law only really applies to law abiding citizens. I want the government to explain why they need this power without invoking the criminal scare tactic since we already know it isn't relevant.
- andai 5y ago
  Same reason governments got rid of gun rights in most countries: to protect themselves from the people.
steelstraw 5y ago
I consider communication with my parents, friends and coworkers to be privileged communication.
ipaddr 5y ago
Why would you want to encrypt your communication? An easy example is you are going to China for business. You share some trade secrets in private and by tomorrow some factory is producing your new part. Another example. You live in a cheap apartment. Your landlord wiresharks all communication over your internet connection and steals your private pictures Why would you want to hide information from your government? Maybe you are a journalist with a story on someone in power. You could have been raped by a high powered government employee You could be part of a minority who is being made into a villian in the current political climate. You have rights for a reason. You need to make a case why we should give up those rights.

d_burfoot 5y ago

Only £500k? Pikers! In the US the government would spend at least half a billion!

Silhouette 5y ago

An interesting viewpoint from the UK's privacy and data protection regulator: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60072191 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60072191 Stephen Bonner, the ICO's executive director for innovation and technology, said end-to-end encryption helped keep children safe online by not allowing "criminals and abusers to send them harmful content or access their pictures or location". "The discussion on end-to-end encryption use is too unbalanced to make a wise and informed choice. There is too much focus on the costs without also weighing up the significant benefits," he said.

smsm42 5y ago

Wow, these guys actually made a pro-surveillance campaign with the slogan "no place to hide". I guess they should also use the URL of miniluv.gov.uk if they're already going all in.

userbinator 5y ago

The government is scared of encryption being used against them, but I think we should also be just as scared of companies using encryption against us. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be much of a PR campaign against that.

AlbertCory 5y ago

As Sir Humphrey says in Yes, Minister: The Official Secrets Act is not to protect secrets, it is to protect officials. [1] https://anilnetto.com/governance/accountability/come-on-guys-let-nathaniel-tan-go/ https://anilnetto.com/governance/accountability/come-on-guys... This one doesn't have that quote, but I couldn't stop laughing when watching it: [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-s-Y4xA9pk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-s-Y4xA9pk

enzino 5y ago
YM/YPM aged so well!
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  Amazingly, "The Thick of It" is filmed only 20 years later, but feels like many generations apart.
  - AlbertCory 5y ago
    Thanks. Worth checking out?
    - rich_sasha 5y ago
      Fantastic series, full of pragmatic cynicism like YM but completely completely different world.
bongoman37 5y ago

TeeMassive 5y ago

Of course the only argument they could come up with is "think of the children". Never mind that the UK has a huge problem with child abuse being swept under the rug. All in all I don't think people will be falling for it; in the end the fact that decided to produce propaganda against it means that E2EE is working.

croes 5y ago
It's either child abuse, organized crime or terrorism.

hypocr1tz 5y ago

notRacistSir 5y ago

ulrikrasmussen 5y ago

Are cases of child exploitation really prevented by the interception of unencrypted chat messages in practice? In the case where chat messages are used retrospectively in court, E2EE does not prevent that, provided that one of the parties did not erase their history.

mike_d 5y ago
Currently messaging providers like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger have an obligation to scan images against centralized hash databases of known child abuse imagery. End to end encryption unburdens the providers because they don't know what the message content is. This type of reporting catches people who are not just consumers, but are actively sharing and trading - in theory the people who might be directly abusing or trafficking children to produce content and may lead to organized rings. Given the direct evidence and the fact they find a ton more when they raid the house - they are slam dunk cases for the police. I don't have any hard numbers, but as you suggest I believe the vast majority of cases where they are communicating directly with children are self or parent reported. These cases of course wouldn't go away with end-to-end encryption.

croes 5y ago

No place to hide? Could mean the same for the victims of child abuse.

rich_sasha 5y ago

How does this compare to postal secrecy laws? Post has a special place in law, right? Opening someone's post without a warrant is potentially a serious crime, right? I'd be happy with something equivalent for encryption: private and protected by default, court warrant can force user to disclose. If it's gone, well... Clearly, this isn't what's proposed here.

kevincox 5y ago

> Your mobile banking app uses E2EE; I highly doubt it. Unless the other "end" is the bank in which case this is just transport encryption. > online chats with HMRC are protected through E2EE Are they? Why is the other end in this context. Sounds like ybe author doesn't even know what E2EE is.

y4mi 5y ago
Naw mate, you're the one that's mistaken. Or name me a single one that doesn't use at least https. With chat apps it's a different story, because the end isn't the server in that case - but in the context of banking https is enough for e2ee

anothernewdude 5y ago

They're really hellbent on destroying their financial sector at any cost.

bevdecloud 5y ago

This UK government is a bunch of maniacs. Too much alcohol got them on one.