15 ms·

UK intelligence recycles “think of the children” argument for borking encryption

345 points by samizdis 4y ago

Havoc 4y ago
At this point UK gov seems openly hostile to any sort of data privacy. See also medical data sharing with for profit companies (NHS/palantir).
- onion2k 4y ago
  At this point UK gov seems openly hostile You could have ended your first sentence there.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    UK gov seems openly hostile There hasn't really been a point at which they weren't.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
AinderS 4y ago
It's never "all these automated license plate readers, phone and internet metadata harvesting, countless surveillance cameras on public property, surveillance drones [1], and facial, voice, and gait recognition are making our job so much easier, we can allow people to keep the tiny scrap of privacy they have left", is it? They won't stop until every room in every home has mandatory cameras installed. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-rapid-rise-of-federal-surveillance-drones-over-america/473136/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-rap...
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  Well UK is a special version of hell when it comes to surveillance. I don't know where this apathy in general population comes from, but to me it signals there is something rotten in the base fabric of their society. Can't be just government act alone, since I haven't noticed any significant pushback from citizens. And its not particularly safe spot either - instead of gun violence, there are frequent stabbings, on top of all other crime of which there is plenty. And 'they' get smarter too - if you watch Skyfall, one of the better recent Bond movies, there is a nice speech about why MI 6 needs more and more surveillance, powers and budget in front of government officials, because of boogeymen and so on. Of course the whole meeting is attacked by the main adversary. Its exactly kind of glorifying speech that CIA (or FBI, army, air force etc.) likes to sneak to Hollywood movies to purport the image of good guys fighting to save democracy and little children (when we know thanx to Snowden how things look like in real life). Hollywood in exchange at least gets access to special places like aircraft carriers or military bases, not sure what they got in UK, maybe just extra budget.
  - iasay 4y ago
    I think you're overblowing it a little bit there. As someone from London in the UK it's more nuanced. Firstly the stabbings are fairly infrequent and mostly isolated to territorial disputes between idiots and the odd psycho. You can walk past the perpetrators up to the eyeballs in Apple kit at midnight and say hello and they are fine and they actually help people in the local community. Just don't sell crack on their territory and you won't end up with any extra holes. I feel completely safe here unlike when I travel to the US. Secondly most of the surveillance is broken or ineffective or unmanned so the possibility of a conviction or an issue from it is fairly low. Really no one is that bothered about it. That is amplified by the constant tales of incompetence in this area and anyone who's had any direct experience with it. Realistically we do live in a bit of a pit of apathy but that's because it doesn't really have any detrimental effects on our lives on a daily basis. If it does then we tend to flip our shit rather rapidly and deal with it. Case in point a box junction camera was recently added to a very difficult to cross obscured junction. Bad decision by the council just to make money. After about a week someone burned the camera down. They replaced it. It lasted another week before it was burned again and they got the point.
    - helios_invictus 4y ago
      I don't believe that the incompetence of the surveillance or police state is a defense of its existence or growth. Furthermore direct physical attacks against the infrastructure of the control only reinforce the perception that it's needed. Also it costs council resources to build, and repair it, resource that could be used for any number of other far more useful ends.
      - iasay 4y ago
        I don't think it's a defence either. It's just how it is. The council never reinvests in infra that is destroyed. They don't work like you think they do.
    - hammyhavoc 4y ago
      You say this, but the number of folks I know in London who have been mugged for phones, handbags and wallets by blokes on scooters is unreal, in broad daylight too.
- insickness 4y ago
  I don't agree that surveillance cameras on public property are an invasion of privacy any more than police body cams. As a photographer, I am allowed to take photos and video anywhere on public property, with the exception of places where there is an expectation of privacy, like a public restroom. To me, the same applies to government surveillance. The problem arises when the government restricts that video from the public, which can be countered with laws like the Freedom of Information Act.
  - AinderS 4y ago
    Your initial claim is that it is not an invasion of privacy, but your argument is only that it is legal. And is it also not an invasion of privacy in China, where facial recognition cameras log everywhere you go in public? Any protest you attend, or coffee shop where troublemakers congregate that you visit, all of it is logged, and you don't even need to carry your phone with you. The UK is showing every intention of reaching parity with China in this regard. But that's no different than a random photographer taking your picture, or a grandmother noticing you come and go through a window? I agree "privacy" isn't the perfect word, but seems to be the best one we have to describe what we're losing as surveillance expands.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      You can't realistically expect privacy in a public space.
      - ehvatum 4y ago
        Note that there are 8 state jurisdictions in the United States where surveillance in public of one specific individual by another is illegal if the surveilled party objects. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/stlkbook.pdf https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/stlkbook.pdf
      - lostlogin 4y ago
        You are out and about it your car. It’s reasonable to think people can’t just open it and search it. You are sitting on a park bench. It would be considered an invasion of privacy if someone opened your bag and took out a diary or note book and started reading it. If you were meeting a friend in a public space and someone later confronted you about something you had said and produced a recording, it would probably make some portion of people uncomfortable.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  >They won't stop until every room in every home has mandatory cameras installed. And we will happily implement the APIs and integrate the databases they need to do it so long as they tell us they're gonna use it to prosecute our neighbor's cash landscaper for tax evasion, fine the teenager with a loud exhaust on his car and find our stolen packages (as if that ever happens when the less equal animals are victim). People have such short sighted and infantile attraction toward seeing the surveillance state as being used "optimize society" by enforcing whatever their pet issue is that they fail to see the average or median case it will be used to enforce something they don't care about at all and will frequently be used to enforce things they don't really want enforced that hard.
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    Gotta make sure no one is watching the beeb without a tv license.
    - hammyhavoc 4y ago
      Not that there's anything worth watching on it anyway. I've not seen broadcast TV since 2010. I don't miss it.
    - BobbyJo 4y ago
      Your TV is already tracking everything you watch, and selling the data to 3rd parties.
  - LordDragonfang 4y ago
    >find our stolen packages (as if that ever happens when the less equal animals are victim). I've read so many accounts of people with Ring footage of a theft who tried to give it to the police and they refused to even look at it. I don't think I've ever heard of someone actually getting stolen property back outside of a Mark Rober video. The police surveillance state isn't there for you, and people need to realize that. <stage whisper>It's there to serve the interests of Capital</stage whisper>
    - 4y ago
- buscoquadnary 4y ago
  "But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
pSYoniK 4y ago
The naming of the most recent bill is also another sneaky way of manoeuvring around - online safety bill. It's hard for an MP to vote against it and then try to justify it to their constituents who, let's face it, aren't that knowledgeable or interested even in the subject. When you have the cost of living crisis (which is now used to justify a host of other things...) and an upcoming winter where heating/electricity costs could keep on rising, something like messaging encryption isn't the first thing on your list. Hell, most people are juggling 3-4 social media apps hoovering up their data, this is the LEAST of their concerns. And I can't blame them. So they will use whatever argument gets Joe Average to vote for an MP that will then enact these measures.
mrex 4y ago
Is there a way that we can better balance the needs to surveil against the legitimate fears of the populace about chilling effects that broad law enforcement domination of electronic media could create? Can we somehow effectively, assuredly, in a way that citizens can trust, limit the surveillance activities to legitimate national security and lifesaving actions? Because the only alternative, to me, seems worse: a world in which our adversaries maintain the advantage in information asymmetry against us, knowing more about our own society than we do, and thereby maintaining an ability to act against our society in ways we cannot detect or attribute.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- noir_lord 4y ago
  > Can we somehow effectively, assuredly, in a way that citizens can trust, limit the surveillance activities to legitimate national security and lifesaving actions? Unlikely, every system of checks and balances requires someone to set up and enforce those checks and balances so that person can then circumvent them. It's the classic "How do you protect yourself from a rogue admin" There are steps you can take (use a quorum etc) but against a malicious actor with sufficient power there isn't much of a defence.
  - iasay 4y ago
    Indeed. You actually can't protect yourself from a rogue administrator. The rogue administrator or quorum is subject to a unitary instruction from above which can override that. Which is ultimately everything from management to the government which can use everything up to the threat of violence against the person to comply. The best situation to be in is never put yourself in a position where you can be made to do this or have it normalised. If people refuse to work for surveillance and tracking companies then they would not exist. But some people are attracted to power. And they are the people who shouldn't be allowed to work for them.
- MrPatan 4y ago
  > Can we somehow effectively, assuredly, in a way that citizens can trust, limit the surveillance activities to legitimate national security and lifesaving actions? How about, giving the public access to the data as well? You want to see my messages and pictures? OK, then I want to see the politicians' and the police ones too.
londonizsr 4y ago
- Mindwipe 4y ago
  Properly funding police and having a functioning court and probation service? Social services having the resources to actually to their jobs?
- ocius 4y ago
  My standpoint is that banning encryption or adding backdoors to it is not a feasible way of attacking this problem. Encryption methods don't stop to exist just because the government declares them illegal. Programs to encrypt messages will stay around and will continue to be used. Even if police set out to find anyone using encryption by spying on their traffic, the traffic could just be hidden as part of legitimate traffic. But perhaps I'm underestimating the stupidity of criminals - perhaps they'd just stick to unencrypted communication. However, if the usage of Tor for illicit activities is any hint, I'd say that is unlikely.
- iasay 4y ago
  I disagree with this. Very high profile "untouchable" pedophiles have been and probably are still operating right in front of the police and they have not done anything out of choice or mandate through whichever political or societal connection that they have. If they can't do anything about those people then why should they be granted extraordinary powers?
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    Indeed, hard to take them seriously when its clear they look the other way when it comes to rich and powerful.
  - hellohowareu 4y ago
    "An FBI document admitted that billionaire pedophile / intelligence asset Jeffrey Epstein had "provided information to the FBI as agreed upon." Former US government attorney Alexander Acosta also said he "was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence'"" https://twitter.com/benjaminnorton/status/1278743919526907905 https://twitter.com/benjaminnorton/status/127874391952690790...
ocius 4y ago
How would you even ban encrypted communication in practice? It takes only one expert cryptographer who is willing to build a communication platform that encrypts its traffic and hides it as part of legitimate traffic to counter any such law. Yes, initially you might be able to catch a few bad guys who don't switch to the new service quick enough, but soon enough, all that is left is the ability for police & co. to read private messages of a population that is mostly innocent.
- junon 4y ago
  As said a million times before, you can't. These laws are written and enacted by people who don't understand this stuff.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    The point of DRM and anti encryption laws aren't the criminals. Only law abiding citizens get bitten by these laws.
    - junon 4y ago
      Criminality wasn't part of the question.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    They do. The goal has never been to catch the bad guys.
- hugh-avherald 4y ago
  It's not much of a counterargument to say that encryption would be easy to access. Most crimes are easy to perform. The point is that if you're caught with encryption software, the prosecution rests.
- fulafel 4y ago
  At least in the EU they're going after the tech corporations and commercial operations and not necessarily outlawing grassroots diy software use. The line of argument that criminals would be too smart to stay on commercial services is not really robust, as catching just the not so smart ones would be good enough for politicians. There are better arguments. (The upcoming EU "chat control" mechanism is about similar remotely triggerable client-side fuzzy searching ).
lelandfe 4y ago
Remember the Clipper chip, back in the 90s? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip It’s wild how these junk arguments just keep happening. What governments want is understandable (unreadable online conversations are scary) but impossible without dire consequences
- mtgx 4y ago
  > unreadable online conversations are scary Why are they scary? Are people's private conversations in their homes scary, too? Are private meetups scary? I feel like people have by default fallen for the government propaganda and they don't even realize it. What's next? Putting a chip that can monitor everyone's thoughts in real-time to prevent school shootings? Would the cops even be able to filter through thousands of such thoughts on a daily basis and take action against the most "real" thought? Or would they be flooded by data and not know what to do with it and how to act, and only act after the fact anyway? Remember for virtually all of the terrorist attacks in the past 15 years, the authorities were already well aware of the attackers' history. Some had even been arrested before and released. None of these surveillance laws is the right solution to those types of problems. Those problems have other fundamental causes that create them (economic policy, education policy, healthcare policy, etc). And the governments know that, too. But such laws have other much bigger benefits for them, such as the ability to spy on any single person that they feel has slighted them in some way at will, so they can destroy that person's life. They care about passing surveillance laws for this reason way more than what they say the reason is in public. Another benefit is spying on individuals for economic benefits, too, such as stealing other countries' or foreign company's trade secrets, etc. But of course you're never going to hear them preach new surveillance laws for those reasons.
  - loup-vaillant 4y ago
    > What's next? Putting a chip that can monitor everyone's thoughts in real-time to prevent school shootings? Funny, that: school shootings seems to share two traits with CSAM: they are salient (horrible, traumatic, publicised…), but they are also fairly rare. I admit that for CSAM I only suspect it, but school shooting represents a very small fraction of all gun deaths in the US. Which represent only a fraction of violent deaths. Which represent only a (small?) fraction of all deaths. Making a priority of reducing school shootings at the expense of other death reduction policies sounds… somewhere between irrational and dishonest. It seems to me that trying to ban guns in the name of reducing school shootings is like trying to ban encryption to reduce CSAM: it's fundamental rights (self defence, privacy) vs greater good (school shootings, CSAM). And while many "greater good" people clearly mean well (heck, some even have a point), for others it really is about power and control.
ccbccccbbcccbb 4y ago
MIzerable 6astards
- InCityDreams 4y ago
  Mi5erable....
amadeuspagel 4y ago
Yeah, people think of the children. I'm pro encryption, but sneering at people for "thinking of the children" isn't going to convince anyone.
- jeremyjh 4y ago
  There is nothing wrong with thinking of the children. But the government isn't doing that.
- fulafel 4y ago
  It is, since it's a well known appeal-to-emotion rhetorical tactic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children#Debate_tactic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children#Debate_t...
  - mgdlbp 4y ago
    GP agrees with you.
- knaik94 4y ago
  I don't hear the "think of the children" rhetoric from my peers. I see it in government propaganda. Pointing out the hypocrisy in government policy and how lawmakers choose to hide right eroding laws behind "protecting the children" isn't sneering at people who care about children's safety. It's calling out the true motivation for these laws out. The right to encrypted texts means the safety from persecution from the government for being who you are. If people really thought about the difficulties the new generation of children will face growing up, the right to encrypted chat and privacy so they can grow and make mistake and learn without being vilified by society, is protecting them.
kypro 4y ago
It's funny, no one in the UK cares about real actual privacy, yet we're obsessed about the "dangers" of tracking cookies. I don't know how true this is outside the UK, but here people are generally happy for the government to monitor their internet and mobile communications, they're happy for supermarkets to use facial recognition cameras to identify them at checkout, they're happy for CCTV to monitor their every move, but if Google tracks your search results, that's going too far. Even on the topic of encryption, most people don't really care as long as it's not Facebook or Google reading their messages. If you're any other business or the government, then go on ahead... Collect our biometric data, read our emails, track our movements. No need for consent.
- b1476 4y ago
  You’re cherry picking a subset of people there. I imagine some view it with a sort of mild indifference, but there are people who are concerned about their own privacy from both government and big tech. I generally disregard any sentence that starts with “most people..” because it usually can’t be backed up with sources.
  - Dma54rhs 4y ago
    The newer generation is definitely very much ok with it. I've stopped taking or discussing privacy issues at certain circles because I basically get called paranoid boomer.
    - westmeal 4y ago
      If the newer generation is OK with it then we're just going to be compost for the future that's ahead.
      - cokeandpepsi 4y ago
        tbh they don't really know what privacy is
        4y ago
motohagiography 4y ago
There is nothing dumb about these people. It's important to understand the underlying belief that drives stupid encryption policy though. They interpret a limit on their omniscience as a limit on their sovereignty. If I could summarize the way people I've met in government moralize policies like these it's, "Leviathan, c'est moi." Consequently, I don't know that they are persuaded by principle or reason. They understand power, but that's about it. The main thing that comes out of laws that sabotage encryption is they shift the burden of proof of innocence onto the accused, because if there are encrypted files involved, there is no legal presumption of innocence. This is the most serious crux of the issue: anti-encryption laws violate the presumption of innocence that underpins the western legal system, and that's what makes them so desirable to certain establishments. Encryption isn't about hiding anything, it's about whether there is a physical/logical limit to the discretion of the state, and whether the presumption of innocence of the accused is an inalienable right or just a convention.
- starkd 4y ago
  Right. If it's not "think of the children", it's "you have nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything wrong".
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    And the undeniable fact is that nearly everyone is doing something wrong (with highly varying degrees of wrongness, of course) every single day.
    - justin_oaks 4y ago
      Or can appear to be wrong. This is really the problem of the "nothing to hide" arguments. It isn't that you have anything to hide so much as people can use the information against you by interpreting it wrong, removing necessary context, bringing up old information that is no longer relevant today (e.g. youthful indiscretions), etc.
      - 4y ago
JasonFruit 4y ago
"The government would like to outlaw encryption" == "This website would like to show notifications". They'll keep trying until they get their way, and then you'll never be asked again.
Zenst 4y ago
Kinda curious how "child abuse" a remit outside the scope of GCHQ is being used to push for weaking of encrption. Not that I wouldn't love GCHQ to tackle child abuse, drug dealers and lots of crimes that the police seem unable or capable of dealing with to noticable effect. That said, police gained powers on the back of `terrorisim` so can see why GCHQ would want to push thru some changes on the back of the police scope of work. What irks is the premise that it is using the minority of people to penalise the majority of people. That and the issue of challanging anything that uses the "think of the children" angle is often countered with "why do you hate children, why you defenfing peodos...." and that kinda see's many who would speak out, very much put off. Shame leasons not learned though as weakening encryption or removing it only aids and helps criminals who cover a large percentage than the child abuse numbers. For example when digital mobiles came about, GCHQ and others pushed to weaken the enryption and saw a certain amount of the digits in the encyrption fixed as 0, so whilst it was advertised as 56bit encryption at the time, it was in reality 48bit (ogoing from memory on this one so maybe a bit off here or there). But crux being handicapping encryption enables a wider array of criminal activity above and beyond the scope of children being purported to protect. One aspect overlooked, this will only enable identification of some child abuse, it won't prevent it as by time digital media of the abuse is made, the child is already abused. That in itself is sad and tragic and focusing upon the aftermath over prevention at source is perhaps an area that should be addressed as I worry that things like this, if they came to pass to weaken encryption per-say will be seen as a magic solution that misses the root causes of such crimes.
- robocat 4y ago
  > it won't prevent [child abuse] as by time digital media of the abuse is made, the child is already abused It prevents another child being abused. Pre-crime prevention would be better. But clearly our social structures are imperfect at doing that (although may be improved), and prediction (Minority Report, profiling) is dangerous. Note, I’m not supporting government invasion of privacy, nor child abuse.
- rl3 4y ago
  >Kinda curious how "child abuse" a remit outside the scope of GCHQ ... I wouldn't be so sure. Their mandate includes combating organized crime. If it's a trafficking ring, there's your justification. >Not that I wouldn't love GCHQ to tackle child abuse ... Seconded. Add ransomware authors to that list. I recall hearing of NSA analysts who, upon incidentally encountering terrible things, would tip off relevant law enforcement. >... drug dealers and lots of crimes that the police seem unable or capable of dealing with to noticable effect. Cartels? Sure. Signals intelligence capability is already deployed against them anyways. Street dealers and random crimes? That's going too far. Of course, the crux of the debate is where do you draw the line. It admittedly gets fairly murky, and the existence of a line in the first place is worth questioning. I think in the future there will be more technological options to hopefully satisfy both sides of the debate. People unable to do horrible shit while otherwise retaining full privacy.
liberia 4y ago
I need more specifics on the UK’s planned ‘ghost protocol’ otherwise known as Eve or Mallory in the Alice and Bob cast of characters. What messenger apps will be affected by this? Because if I was building a messenger app I would pull a Lavabit and disband it if coerced to put in back doors. Heard great things about Matrix/Element app. Is such an app impervious to back doors though? I mean the protocol is open source right? How do you back door something open source? WhatsApp can be considered to be unsafe to use, that I know, but what about alternatives like Cwtch, and things like Session?
- hkt 4y ago
  Matrix, xmpp, COI/delta chat will all be unaffected by this. They'll still be available through fdroid and probably the play store etc. What worries me is the criminalisation of the workarounds. Obligations on providers are one thing, but the UK already has a mandatory minimum sentence of two years for not surrendering keys when there's an order. Expanding that power would be terrible, and is, I suspect, not far away.
huntertwo 4y ago
Given the UK is falling as a world power and consumer market, won't this just lead to all major tech companies pulling everything out of the UK? I can't imagine Google/Meta/Amazon/Apple complying with this bullshit.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- weare138 4y ago
  But like the article mentions these companies already make compromises for countries like China and compliance would have a minimal financial impact for these companies versus pulling out of a major market. I have little to no confidence in these corporations to do the right thing.
huntertwo 4y ago
timcavel 4y ago
Animats 4y ago
A practical rebuttal: any weakness in encryption opens an attack vector for Russian cyberwarfare. Which is all too real.
fderwgtjrsewa 4y ago
If only they'd "thought of the children" before sending every kid into solitary confinement in their family home and paid every social worker to sit on their hands. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-62163849 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-62163849 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61952430 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61952430
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
djfobbz 4y ago
Whenever a government entity says "trust us" or "it's for the greater good", it's time for you to run as far away as possible from their rationale!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
godelski 4y ago
Think of the children! They need encryption to protect them! Without encryption they are more vulnerable to hackers who can groom them and exploit them. Without encryption they are not able to safely communicate with authorities if they are in danger. Without encryption abusive adults can watch their every move, every word, and every action. Without encryption mistakes, as children are prone to, can lead to disastrous consequences. Our children are dumb and likely to send nudes over snapchat or facebook. Without encryption those images are intercepted by those companies and can be sold on the black market or those companies can similarly be hacked. With encryption the damage can be reduced and we'd know who leaked said photos, allowing authorities to follow up. Even worse, how can we protect our children from those in government that would exploit them? So won't you think of the children? They need encryption.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mentater 4y ago
How can people argue against this. I hate the world government and I support this. At least there is Ashton Kutcher and Thorn, and Apple and CSAM, I mean private corporations are going to save this planet, not the government. People hide evil trying to look good, and I just dream of Cordwainer Smith’s eternal menschenjaegers surviving out of time to hunt bad people. People on this forum who make fun of UK weakening encryption have never cared about someone who could have been taken advantage of.
- knaik94 4y ago
  I don't think you care about or can empathize with other people being taken advantage if you think weakening encryption helps the victims in vulnerable situations.
  - mentater 4y ago
    What the hell are you talking about? When has weak encryption ever risked something for a proletariat consumer on their iPad?
- loup-vaillant 4y ago
  Weakening encryption this way will also enable many ways to abuse people. And make no mistake, CSAM producers and consumers will move to networks that aren't under UK jurisdiction. This law will change nothing. It's pure virtue signalling, and you're falling for it.
  - mentater 4y ago
    You are right, I am wrong, weakening encryption abuses people the same way horrible people abuse children.
    - knaik94 4y ago
      Weakening encryption makes it easy for people in power to take advantage and, for example, installing software on the computer or router that let's them monitor what the victim in this situation does or says online. This doesn't even have to be a government or corporation, it could be the person abusing children. Weakening encryption gives software the ability to do that. E2E encryption strongly hinder that if not stops that ability. Not everyone grows up a loving environment. I urge you to look up statistics regarding the relationship between the abused and abuser in the majority of situations.

345 points by samizdis 4y ago

At this point UK gov seems openly hostile to any sort of data privacy. See also medical data sharing with for profit companies (NHS/palantir).

onion2k 4y ago
At this point UK gov seems openly hostile You could have ended your first sentence there.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  UK gov seems openly hostile There hasn't really been a point at which they weren't.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

AinderS 4y ago

It's never "all these automated license plate readers, phone and internet metadata harvesting, countless surveillance cameras on public property, surveillance drones [1], and facial, voice, and gait recognition are making our job so much easier, we can allow people to keep the tiny scrap of privacy they have left", is it? They won't stop until every room in every home has mandatory cameras installed. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-rapid-rise-of-federal-surveillance-drones-over-america/473136/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-rap...

saiya-jin 4y ago
Well UK is a special version of hell when it comes to surveillance. I don't know where this apathy in general population comes from, but to me it signals there is something rotten in the base fabric of their society. Can't be just government act alone, since I haven't noticed any significant pushback from citizens. And its not particularly safe spot either - instead of gun violence, there are frequent stabbings, on top of all other crime of which there is plenty. And 'they' get smarter too - if you watch Skyfall, one of the better recent Bond movies, there is a nice speech about why MI 6 needs more and more surveillance, powers and budget in front of government officials, because of boogeymen and so on. Of course the whole meeting is attacked by the main adversary. Its exactly kind of glorifying speech that CIA (or FBI, army, air force etc.) likes to sneak to Hollywood movies to purport the image of good guys fighting to save democracy and little children (when we know thanx to Snowden how things look like in real life). Hollywood in exchange at least gets access to special places like aircraft carriers or military bases, not sure what they got in UK, maybe just extra budget.
- iasay 4y ago
  I think you're overblowing it a little bit there. As someone from London in the UK it's more nuanced. Firstly the stabbings are fairly infrequent and mostly isolated to territorial disputes between idiots and the odd psycho. You can walk past the perpetrators up to the eyeballs in Apple kit at midnight and say hello and they are fine and they actually help people in the local community. Just don't sell crack on their territory and you won't end up with any extra holes. I feel completely safe here unlike when I travel to the US. Secondly most of the surveillance is broken or ineffective or unmanned so the possibility of a conviction or an issue from it is fairly low. Really no one is that bothered about it. That is amplified by the constant tales of incompetence in this area and anyone who's had any direct experience with it. Realistically we do live in a bit of a pit of apathy but that's because it doesn't really have any detrimental effects on our lives on a daily basis. If it does then we tend to flip our shit rather rapidly and deal with it. Case in point a box junction camera was recently added to a very difficult to cross obscured junction. Bad decision by the council just to make money. After about a week someone burned the camera down. They replaced it. It lasted another week before it was burned again and they got the point.
  - helios_invictus 4y ago
    I don't believe that the incompetence of the surveillance or police state is a defense of its existence or growth. Furthermore direct physical attacks against the infrastructure of the control only reinforce the perception that it's needed. Also it costs council resources to build, and repair it, resource that could be used for any number of other far more useful ends.
    - iasay 4y ago
      I don't think it's a defence either. It's just how it is. The council never reinvests in infra that is destroyed. They don't work like you think they do.
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    You say this, but the number of folks I know in London who have been mugged for phones, handbags and wallets by blokes on scooters is unreal, in broad daylight too.
insickness 4y ago
I don't agree that surveillance cameras on public property are an invasion of privacy any more than police body cams. As a photographer, I am allowed to take photos and video anywhere on public property, with the exception of places where there is an expectation of privacy, like a public restroom. To me, the same applies to government surveillance. The problem arises when the government restricts that video from the public, which can be countered with laws like the Freedom of Information Act.
- AinderS 4y ago
  Your initial claim is that it is not an invasion of privacy, but your argument is only that it is legal. And is it also not an invasion of privacy in China, where facial recognition cameras log everywhere you go in public? Any protest you attend, or coffee shop where troublemakers congregate that you visit, all of it is logged, and you don't even need to carry your phone with you. The UK is showing every intention of reaching parity with China in this regard. But that's no different than a random photographer taking your picture, or a grandmother noticing you come and go through a window? I agree "privacy" isn't the perfect word, but seems to be the best one we have to describe what we're losing as surveillance expands.
  - foverzar 4y ago
    You can't realistically expect privacy in a public space.
    - ehvatum 4y ago
      Note that there are 8 state jurisdictions in the United States where surveillance in public of one specific individual by another is illegal if the surveilled party objects. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/stlkbook.pdf https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/stlkbook.pdf
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      You are out and about it your car. It’s reasonable to think people can’t just open it and search it. You are sitting on a park bench. It would be considered an invasion of privacy if someone opened your bag and took out a diary or note book and started reading it. If you were meeting a friend in a public space and someone later confronted you about something you had said and produced a recording, it would probably make some portion of people uncomfortable.
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
>They won't stop until every room in every home has mandatory cameras installed. And we will happily implement the APIs and integrate the databases they need to do it so long as they tell us they're gonna use it to prosecute our neighbor's cash landscaper for tax evasion, fine the teenager with a loud exhaust on his car and find our stolen packages (as if that ever happens when the less equal animals are victim). People have such short sighted and infantile attraction toward seeing the surveillance state as being used "optimize society" by enforcing whatever their pet issue is that they fail to see the average or median case it will be used to enforce something they don't care about at all and will frequently be used to enforce things they don't really want enforced that hard.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  Gotta make sure no one is watching the beeb without a tv license.
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    Not that there's anything worth watching on it anyway. I've not seen broadcast TV since 2010. I don't miss it.
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    Your TV is already tracking everything you watch, and selling the data to 3rd parties.
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  >find our stolen packages (as if that ever happens when the less equal animals are victim). I've read so many accounts of people with Ring footage of a theft who tried to give it to the police and they refused to even look at it. I don't think I've ever heard of someone actually getting stolen property back outside of a Mark Rober video. The police surveillance state isn't there for you, and people need to realize that. <stage whisper>It's there to serve the interests of Capital</stage whisper>
  - 4y ago
buscoquadnary 4y ago
"But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

pSYoniK 4y ago

The naming of the most recent bill is also another sneaky way of manoeuvring around - online safety bill. It's hard for an MP to vote against it and then try to justify it to their constituents who, let's face it, aren't that knowledgeable or interested even in the subject. When you have the cost of living crisis (which is now used to justify a host of other things...) and an upcoming winter where heating/electricity costs could keep on rising, something like messaging encryption isn't the first thing on your list. Hell, most people are juggling 3-4 social media apps hoovering up their data, this is the LEAST of their concerns. And I can't blame them. So they will use whatever argument gets Joe Average to vote for an MP that will then enact these measures.

mrex 4y ago

Is there a way that we can better balance the needs to surveil against the legitimate fears of the populace about chilling effects that broad law enforcement domination of electronic media could create? Can we somehow effectively, assuredly, in a way that citizens can trust, limit the surveillance activities to legitimate national security and lifesaving actions? Because the only alternative, to me, seems worse: a world in which our adversaries maintain the advantage in information asymmetry against us, knowing more about our own society than we do, and thereby maintaining an ability to act against our society in ways we cannot detect or attribute.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
noir_lord 4y ago
> Can we somehow effectively, assuredly, in a way that citizens can trust, limit the surveillance activities to legitimate national security and lifesaving actions? Unlikely, every system of checks and balances requires someone to set up and enforce those checks and balances so that person can then circumvent them. It's the classic "How do you protect yourself from a rogue admin" There are steps you can take (use a quorum etc) but against a malicious actor with sufficient power there isn't much of a defence.
- iasay 4y ago
  Indeed. You actually can't protect yourself from a rogue administrator. The rogue administrator or quorum is subject to a unitary instruction from above which can override that. Which is ultimately everything from management to the government which can use everything up to the threat of violence against the person to comply. The best situation to be in is never put yourself in a position where you can be made to do this or have it normalised. If people refuse to work for surveillance and tracking companies then they would not exist. But some people are attracted to power. And they are the people who shouldn't be allowed to work for them.
MrPatan 4y ago
> Can we somehow effectively, assuredly, in a way that citizens can trust, limit the surveillance activities to legitimate national security and lifesaving actions? How about, giving the public access to the data as well? You want to see my messages and pictures? OK, then I want to see the politicians' and the police ones too.

londonizsr 4y ago

Mindwipe 4y ago
Properly funding police and having a functioning court and probation service? Social services having the resources to actually to their jobs?
ocius 4y ago
My standpoint is that banning encryption or adding backdoors to it is not a feasible way of attacking this problem. Encryption methods don't stop to exist just because the government declares them illegal. Programs to encrypt messages will stay around and will continue to be used. Even if police set out to find anyone using encryption by spying on their traffic, the traffic could just be hidden as part of legitimate traffic. But perhaps I'm underestimating the stupidity of criminals - perhaps they'd just stick to unencrypted communication. However, if the usage of Tor for illicit activities is any hint, I'd say that is unlikely.
iasay 4y ago
I disagree with this. Very high profile "untouchable" pedophiles have been and probably are still operating right in front of the police and they have not done anything out of choice or mandate through whichever political or societal connection that they have. If they can't do anything about those people then why should they be granted extraordinary powers?
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  Indeed, hard to take them seriously when its clear they look the other way when it comes to rich and powerful.
- hellohowareu 4y ago
  "An FBI document admitted that billionaire pedophile / intelligence asset Jeffrey Epstein had "provided information to the FBI as agreed upon." Former US government attorney Alexander Acosta also said he "was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence'"" https://twitter.com/benjaminnorton/status/1278743919526907905 https://twitter.com/benjaminnorton/status/127874391952690790...

ocius 4y ago

How would you even ban encrypted communication in practice? It takes only one expert cryptographer who is willing to build a communication platform that encrypts its traffic and hides it as part of legitimate traffic to counter any such law. Yes, initially you might be able to catch a few bad guys who don't switch to the new service quick enough, but soon enough, all that is left is the ability for police & co. to read private messages of a population that is mostly innocent.

junon 4y ago
As said a million times before, you can't. These laws are written and enacted by people who don't understand this stuff.
- imtringued 4y ago
  The point of DRM and anti encryption laws aren't the criminals. Only law abiding citizens get bitten by these laws.
  - junon 4y ago
    Criminality wasn't part of the question.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  They do. The goal has never been to catch the bad guys.
hugh-avherald 4y ago
It's not much of a counterargument to say that encryption would be easy to access. Most crimes are easy to perform. The point is that if you're caught with encryption software, the prosecution rests.
fulafel 4y ago
At least in the EU they're going after the tech corporations and commercial operations and not necessarily outlawing grassroots diy software use. The line of argument that criminals would be too smart to stay on commercial services is not really robust, as catching just the not so smart ones would be good enough for politicians. There are better arguments. (The upcoming EU "chat control" mechanism is about similar remotely triggerable client-side fuzzy searching ).

lelandfe 4y ago

Remember the Clipper chip, back in the 90s? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip It’s wild how these junk arguments just keep happening. What governments want is understandable (unreadable online conversations are scary) but impossible without dire consequences

mtgx 4y ago
> unreadable online conversations are scary Why are they scary? Are people's private conversations in their homes scary, too? Are private meetups scary? I feel like people have by default fallen for the government propaganda and they don't even realize it. What's next? Putting a chip that can monitor everyone's thoughts in real-time to prevent school shootings? Would the cops even be able to filter through thousands of such thoughts on a daily basis and take action against the most "real" thought? Or would they be flooded by data and not know what to do with it and how to act, and only act after the fact anyway? Remember for virtually all of the terrorist attacks in the past 15 years, the authorities were already well aware of the attackers' history. Some had even been arrested before and released. None of these surveillance laws is the right solution to those types of problems. Those problems have other fundamental causes that create them (economic policy, education policy, healthcare policy, etc). And the governments know that, too. But such laws have other much bigger benefits for them, such as the ability to spy on any single person that they feel has slighted them in some way at will, so they can destroy that person's life. They care about passing surveillance laws for this reason way more than what they say the reason is in public. Another benefit is spying on individuals for economic benefits, too, such as stealing other countries' or foreign company's trade secrets, etc. But of course you're never going to hear them preach new surveillance laws for those reasons.
- loup-vaillant 4y ago
  > What's next? Putting a chip that can monitor everyone's thoughts in real-time to prevent school shootings? Funny, that: school shootings seems to share two traits with CSAM: they are salient (horrible, traumatic, publicised…), but they are also fairly rare. I admit that for CSAM I only suspect it, but school shooting represents a very small fraction of all gun deaths in the US. Which represent only a fraction of violent deaths. Which represent only a (small?) fraction of all deaths. Making a priority of reducing school shootings at the expense of other death reduction policies sounds… somewhere between irrational and dishonest. It seems to me that trying to ban guns in the name of reducing school shootings is like trying to ban encryption to reduce CSAM: it's fundamental rights (self defence, privacy) vs greater good (school shootings, CSAM). And while many "greater good" people clearly mean well (heck, some even have a point), for others it really is about power and control.

ccbccccbbcccbb 4y ago

MIzerable 6astards

InCityDreams 4y ago
Mi5erable....

amadeuspagel 4y ago

Yeah, people think of the children. I'm pro encryption, but sneering at people for "thinking of the children" isn't going to convince anyone.

jeremyjh 4y ago
There is nothing wrong with thinking of the children. But the government isn't doing that.
fulafel 4y ago
It is, since it's a well known appeal-to-emotion rhetorical tactic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children#Debate_tactic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children#Debate_t...
- mgdlbp 4y ago
  GP agrees with you.
knaik94 4y ago
I don't hear the "think of the children" rhetoric from my peers. I see it in government propaganda. Pointing out the hypocrisy in government policy and how lawmakers choose to hide right eroding laws behind "protecting the children" isn't sneering at people who care about children's safety. It's calling out the true motivation for these laws out. The right to encrypted texts means the safety from persecution from the government for being who you are. If people really thought about the difficulties the new generation of children will face growing up, the right to encrypted chat and privacy so they can grow and make mistake and learn without being vilified by society, is protecting them.

kypro 4y ago

It's funny, no one in the UK cares about real actual privacy, yet we're obsessed about the "dangers" of tracking cookies. I don't know how true this is outside the UK, but here people are generally happy for the government to monitor their internet and mobile communications, they're happy for supermarkets to use facial recognition cameras to identify them at checkout, they're happy for CCTV to monitor their every move, but if Google tracks your search results, that's going too far. Even on the topic of encryption, most people don't really care as long as it's not Facebook or Google reading their messages. If you're any other business or the government, then go on ahead... Collect our biometric data, read our emails, track our movements. No need for consent.

b1476 4y ago
You’re cherry picking a subset of people there. I imagine some view it with a sort of mild indifference, but there are people who are concerned about their own privacy from both government and big tech. I generally disregard any sentence that starts with “most people..” because it usually can’t be backed up with sources.
- Dma54rhs 4y ago
  The newer generation is definitely very much ok with it. I've stopped taking or discussing privacy issues at certain circles because I basically get called paranoid boomer.
  - westmeal 4y ago
    If the newer generation is OK with it then we're just going to be compost for the future that's ahead.
    - cokeandpepsi 4y ago
      tbh they don't really know what privacy is
      - 4y ago

motohagiography 4y ago

There is nothing dumb about these people. It's important to understand the underlying belief that drives stupid encryption policy though. They interpret a limit on their omniscience as a limit on their sovereignty. If I could summarize the way people I've met in government moralize policies like these it's, "Leviathan, c'est moi." Consequently, I don't know that they are persuaded by principle or reason. They understand power, but that's about it. The main thing that comes out of laws that sabotage encryption is they shift the burden of proof of innocence onto the accused, because if there are encrypted files involved, there is no legal presumption of innocence. This is the most serious crux of the issue: anti-encryption laws violate the presumption of innocence that underpins the western legal system, and that's what makes them so desirable to certain establishments. Encryption isn't about hiding anything, it's about whether there is a physical/logical limit to the discretion of the state, and whether the presumption of innocence of the accused is an inalienable right or just a convention.

starkd 4y ago
Right. If it's not "think of the children", it's "you have nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything wrong".
- jaywalk 4y ago
  And the undeniable fact is that nearly everyone is doing something wrong (with highly varying degrees of wrongness, of course) every single day.
  - justin_oaks 4y ago
    Or can appear to be wrong. This is really the problem of the "nothing to hide" arguments. It isn't that you have anything to hide so much as people can use the information against you by interpreting it wrong, removing necessary context, bringing up old information that is no longer relevant today (e.g. youthful indiscretions), etc.
    - 4y ago

JasonFruit 4y ago

"The government would like to outlaw encryption" == "This website would like to show notifications". They'll keep trying until they get their way, and then you'll never be asked again.

Zenst 4y ago

Kinda curious how "child abuse" a remit outside the scope of GCHQ is being used to push for weaking of encrption. Not that I wouldn't love GCHQ to tackle child abuse, drug dealers and lots of crimes that the police seem unable or capable of dealing with to noticable effect. That said, police gained powers on the back of `terrorisim` so can see why GCHQ would want to push thru some changes on the back of the police scope of work. What irks is the premise that it is using the minority of people to penalise the majority of people. That and the issue of challanging anything that uses the "think of the children" angle is often countered with "why do you hate children, why you defenfing peodos...." and that kinda see's many who would speak out, very much put off. Shame leasons not learned though as weakening encryption or removing it only aids and helps criminals who cover a large percentage than the child abuse numbers. For example when digital mobiles came about, GCHQ and others pushed to weaken the enryption and saw a certain amount of the digits in the encyrption fixed as 0, so whilst it was advertised as 56bit encryption at the time, it was in reality 48bit (ogoing from memory on this one so maybe a bit off here or there). But crux being handicapping encryption enables a wider array of criminal activity above and beyond the scope of children being purported to protect. One aspect overlooked, this will only enable identification of some child abuse, it won't prevent it as by time digital media of the abuse is made, the child is already abused. That in itself is sad and tragic and focusing upon the aftermath over prevention at source is perhaps an area that should be addressed as I worry that things like this, if they came to pass to weaken encryption per-say will be seen as a magic solution that misses the root causes of such crimes.

robocat 4y ago
> it won't prevent [child abuse] as by time digital media of the abuse is made, the child is already abused It prevents another child being abused. Pre-crime prevention would be better. But clearly our social structures are imperfect at doing that (although may be improved), and prediction (Minority Report, profiling) is dangerous. Note, I’m not supporting government invasion of privacy, nor child abuse.
rl3 4y ago
>Kinda curious how "child abuse" a remit outside the scope of GCHQ ... I wouldn't be so sure. Their mandate includes combating organized crime. If it's a trafficking ring, there's your justification. >Not that I wouldn't love GCHQ to tackle child abuse ... Seconded. Add ransomware authors to that list. I recall hearing of NSA analysts who, upon incidentally encountering terrible things, would tip off relevant law enforcement. >... drug dealers and lots of crimes that the police seem unable or capable of dealing with to noticable effect. Cartels? Sure. Signals intelligence capability is already deployed against them anyways. Street dealers and random crimes? That's going too far. Of course, the crux of the debate is where do you draw the line. It admittedly gets fairly murky, and the existence of a line in the first place is worth questioning. I think in the future there will be more technological options to hopefully satisfy both sides of the debate. People unable to do horrible shit while otherwise retaining full privacy.

liberia 4y ago

I need more specifics on the UK’s planned ‘ghost protocol’ otherwise known as Eve or Mallory in the Alice and Bob cast of characters. What messenger apps will be affected by this? Because if I was building a messenger app I would pull a Lavabit and disband it if coerced to put in back doors. Heard great things about Matrix/Element app. Is such an app impervious to back doors though? I mean the protocol is open source right? How do you back door something open source? WhatsApp can be considered to be unsafe to use, that I know, but what about alternatives like Cwtch, and things like Session?

hkt 4y ago
Matrix, xmpp, COI/delta chat will all be unaffected by this. They'll still be available through fdroid and probably the play store etc. What worries me is the criminalisation of the workarounds. Obligations on providers are one thing, but the UK already has a mandatory minimum sentence of two years for not surrendering keys when there's an order. Expanding that power would be terrible, and is, I suspect, not far away.

huntertwo 4y ago

Given the UK is falling as a world power and consumer market, won't this just lead to all major tech companies pulling everything out of the UK? I can't imagine Google/Meta/Amazon/Apple complying with this bullshit.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
weare138 4y ago
But like the article mentions these companies already make compromises for countries like China and compliance would have a minimal financial impact for these companies versus pulling out of a major market. I have little to no confidence in these corporations to do the right thing.

huntertwo 4y ago

timcavel 4y ago

Animats 4y ago

A practical rebuttal: any weakness in encryption opens an attack vector for Russian cyberwarfare. Which is all too real.

fderwgtjrsewa 4y ago

If only they'd "thought of the children" before sending every kid into solitary confinement in their family home and paid every social worker to sit on their hands. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-62163849 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-62163849 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61952430 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61952430

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

djfobbz 4y ago

Whenever a government entity says "trust us" or "it's for the greater good", it's time for you to run as far away as possible from their rationale!

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

godelski 4y ago

Think of the children! They need encryption to protect them! Without encryption they are more vulnerable to hackers who can groom them and exploit them. Without encryption they are not able to safely communicate with authorities if they are in danger. Without encryption abusive adults can watch their every move, every word, and every action. Without encryption mistakes, as children are prone to, can lead to disastrous consequences. Our children are dumb and likely to send nudes over snapchat or facebook. Without encryption those images are intercepted by those companies and can be sold on the black market or those companies can similarly be hacked. With encryption the damage can be reduced and we'd know who leaked said photos, allowing authorities to follow up. Even worse, how can we protect our children from those in government that would exploit them? So won't you think of the children? They need encryption.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

mentater 4y ago

How can people argue against this. I hate the world government and I support this. At least there is Ashton Kutcher and Thorn, and Apple and CSAM, I mean private corporations are going to save this planet, not the government. People hide evil trying to look good, and I just dream of Cordwainer Smith’s eternal menschenjaegers surviving out of time to hunt bad people. People on this forum who make fun of UK weakening encryption have never cared about someone who could have been taken advantage of.

knaik94 4y ago
I don't think you care about or can empathize with other people being taken advantage if you think weakening encryption helps the victims in vulnerable situations.
- mentater 4y ago
  What the hell are you talking about? When has weak encryption ever risked something for a proletariat consumer on their iPad?
loup-vaillant 4y ago
Weakening encryption this way will also enable many ways to abuse people. And make no mistake, CSAM producers and consumers will move to networks that aren't under UK jurisdiction. This law will change nothing. It's pure virtue signalling, and you're falling for it.
- mentater 4y ago
  You are right, I am wrong, weakening encryption abuses people the same way horrible people abuse children.
  - knaik94 4y ago
    Weakening encryption makes it easy for people in power to take advantage and, for example, installing software on the computer or router that let's them monitor what the victim in this situation does or says online. This doesn't even have to be a government or corporation, it could be the person abusing children. Weakening encryption gives software the ability to do that. E2E encryption strongly hinder that if not stops that ability. Not everyone grows up a loving environment. I urge you to look up statistics regarding the relationship between the abused and abuser in the majority of situations.