10 ms·

I wonder why the UK legislators not preparing a new regulation mandating every keys to every door and safe having a bypass mechanism for government officials.

I wonder why the UK legislators not preparing a new regulation mandating every keys to every door and safe having a bypass mechanism for government officials. Behind every door and every locked place there could be child pornography and illicit materials hidden!! Every house, every hotel safe are suspects! Criminal oversight, criminal oversight! (and if they think their reasoning for backdoors into online chat and conversation is mandated by this supid reasoning of theirs then it must be valid for all entrance doors of every home and buidlding and every locked spaces as well! Getting easy access to material without assistance or knowledge of the people involved.)

Eighth 3y ago
Anecdotally, I've heard the argument made that police can knock in doors for raids, and they should have the same power over technology.
- Rebelgecko 3y ago
  Dunno how I feel about that metaphor. To me the current situation isn't just saying "police have the power to kick in doors". It's more like "citizens are banned from building houses with doors that make it hard for police to enter".
  - Spivak 3y ago
    I think if you could build such a thing they would be banned on the same grounds.
    - appletrotter 3y ago
      It already exists. You can have a door with a steel core. It's not illegal. https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/zcvwno/steel_reinforced_door_battering_ram/ https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/zcvwno/steel_rein...
      - gene91 3y ago
        Are the windows and walls of the said house also made of steel? In that video, why are the armed personnel so obsessed with entering through the door?
        filoleg 3y ago
        Because real life isn't an action movie, and police would rather try to ram the door for a while and hope it budges, instead of instantly going for rappelling from the rooftop or for using a ladder. Especially given how relatively uncommon steel core doors in apartments are in practice.
        jstarfish 3y ago
        One guy climbing through a shard-lined window is easy to mow down; the first cop that dies halfway through will block access to the rest. It also disarms the guy with the riot shield. Opening the door lets a group of them quickly file in at once to swarm the occupants.
- dathinab 3y ago
  but you know - they still have to be physically there - one team can do only one raid at a time - people know if they did a raid - they needs a judge order and because the previous point you can counter sue if reasonable, at least theoretically - they can't impersonate you all around the globe including in countries outside of the UK just by raiding you - a raid is time wise also limited - police being able to raid doesn't prevent you from guarding yourself against random criminals or agents of foreign hostile governments raiding you - you know when you are raided - you are still allowed to put steal doors in your home - I probably missed a bunch of points I.e. it's not the same, not at all. A more correct comparison would to state police can raid you, so they should be able to hack your device but only to retrieve information and being required to leaf a message behind (and even that comparison has issues).
- didntcheck 3y ago
  The obvious counter is that raiding a house is a very public and relatively expensive action. There's a natural disincentive to it. OTOH digital surveillance is more akin to being a ghost who can float through a door without anyone ever knowing you're there, and teleport there and back instantly with no physical time or effort I think this is the big change people miss when it comes to police powers in the digital age. There's not been really been a culture shift from the police nor the citizens about police powers, just a increase in quantity of ability that has turned into a difference in quality. For decades agents of the state have had the theoretical ability to surveil people, and the people were generally OK with it because of the assumption that "well they won't bother doing it to a random guy like me", which was true, back when it required actual footwork, and even pulling up someone's file was a physical task Assuming one does accept targeted surveillance in extreme cases, then I'm not sure how to solve this apart from the frustratingly "stupid" and probably unenforceable solution of requiring the police and intelligence agencies to be stuck on 90s tech. Theoretical legal sanctions against doing this appear to have no teeth, the only way to discourage surveillance abuse is to make each instance have a non-circumventable operational cost So to use a concrete example: I actually like private CCTV in public spaces. I do feel safer knowing the police can use that footage if I'm a victim of crime. But I only accept it because most systems are just writing to a local device, meaning there's a cost to the police asking for it. Any scheme to automate access to these records over the internet, no matter how well-meaning and theoretically legally restricted they are, would inevitably be used to make those scenes from The Bourne Ultimatum seem quaint
deadletters 3y ago
Wait until you hear about search warrants
- didntcheck 3y ago
  If you could invade someone's house as easily and invisibly as digital surveillance, physical search warrants would be swiftly ignored by the police too
JKCalhoun 3y ago
I'll play Devil's Advocate (because I enjoy throwing myself into the fray — especially when arguing against a point I actually agree with). No one is mass-sharing their safe of child-porn worldwide with thousands of other child-porn voyeurs. The internet and its ubiquitous accessibility combined with digital image file formats has changed the landscape for those that would fight these heinous crimes. It is indeed a new and special case where a locked safe is not.
- sva_ 3y ago
  > No one is mass-sharing their safe of child-porn worldwide with thousands of other child-porn voyeurs. I wouldn't call 1 on 1 chats mass sharing
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    You can have multiple 1-on-1 chats, and CP collectors are pretty good at finding each other online. While I'm very much against this UK legislation, people in the tech sector do themselves no favors b¥ minimizing/handwaving the CP problem.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      Isn't that why we pay gov agents to hang out in the seedy parts of the web? If CP consumers are able to find each other with relative ease, I'm sure agents impersonating them can find them too. Then it's up to them to locate them, likely by exploiting an opsec failure along the way. I see no reason the give the gov eyes on everything when they have a perfectly valid route to investigations.
      - piva00 3y ago
        I'll also play Devil's advocate even though I'm a very vocal advocate for data privacy in real life. These government agents are people as well, and as people they'll suffer to wade through the dark corners of the web to locate a minuscule part of all the CP data available worldwide. These people will inevitably require mental care to deal with the trauma of looking at GiBs and GiBs of small kids being raped, that's not a cost we can handwave to "we employ government agents", there's not a limitless supply of people willing to do this job, and doing this job doesn't come for free, not for the individuals doing it neither for society (mental trauma care; staffing high enough to allow rotations and avoid burn out, or PTSD, etc.).
RektBoy 3y ago
[flagged]
- kergonath 3y ago
  That is… entirely divorced from reality.
- Ylpertnodi 3y ago
  >any violence against attacker with a weapon... Is that yourself with a weapon, or the attacker?
- philjohn 3y ago
  Mr Narwhal Tusk disagrees https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-idUKKBN1YP06Y https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-idUKKBN1...
- vidarh 3y ago
  At least in England and Wales, unreasonable force can be used in self defense (Crime and Courts Act 2013) as long as it is not grossly disproportionate, and people are regularly let off for that, so you're wildly off base. This includes cases where people have killed unarmed intruders. What will typically get people in trouble is not self defense, but cases where the victim continues after an attacker is no longer a threat (is subdued or fleeing).
- LightBug1 3y ago
  Bad acid trip? Hope you feel better soon.
FormerBandmate 3y ago
That’s called bolt cutters
rfrey 3y ago
Given the possibility of invisible and essentially free screening of private conversations, the analogy is probably more "install cameras in every home that only the government can access". But we promise, they'll be turned off most of the time.
- imchillyb 3y ago
  School boards already successfully do this with 'student laptops' also known as in-home monitoring devices that cannot be switched off.
  - dmvdoug 3y ago
    Well, one difference is that those laptops belong to the school. They don’t put in-home monitoring devices on privately owned devices. That said, it’s still creepy, I agree.
  - nilespotter 3y ago
    Has there been a case where a school board activated such a device to spy on the parents? That would be absolutely mental.
gumballindie 3y ago
> every keys to every door Have you seen doors in the uk? Most are just there for design.
cmiles74 3y ago
Because it is very easy for them to break down the door, or smash a nearby window, or simply wait for someone to go in or out and demand entry.
dclowd9901 3y ago
Likely because they know they don't actually need a bypass mechanism to bypass most physical barriers.
netheril96 3y ago
They don't mandate every keys to every door because they CAN break almost every door with force. The police can do it with a warrant and some "special forces" can do it clandestinely. They can't break most encryption with force.

Eighth 3y ago

Anecdotally, I've heard the argument made that police can knock in doors for raids, and they should have the same power over technology.

Rebelgecko 3y ago
Dunno how I feel about that metaphor. To me the current situation isn't just saying "police have the power to kick in doors". It's more like "citizens are banned from building houses with doors that make it hard for police to enter".
- Spivak 3y ago
  I think if you could build such a thing they would be banned on the same grounds.
  - appletrotter 3y ago
    It already exists. You can have a door with a steel core. It's not illegal. https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/zcvwno/steel_reinforced_door_battering_ram/ https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/zcvwno/steel_rein...
    - gene91 3y ago
      Are the windows and walls of the said house also made of steel? In that video, why are the armed personnel so obsessed with entering through the door?
      - filoleg 3y ago
        Because real life isn't an action movie, and police would rather try to ram the door for a while and hope it budges, instead of instantly going for rappelling from the rooftop or for using a ladder. Especially given how relatively uncommon steel core doors in apartments are in practice.
      - jstarfish 3y ago
        One guy climbing through a shard-lined window is easy to mow down; the first cop that dies halfway through will block access to the rest. It also disarms the guy with the riot shield. Opening the door lets a group of them quickly file in at once to swarm the occupants.
dathinab 3y ago
but you know - they still have to be physically there - one team can do only one raid at a time - people know if they did a raid - they needs a judge order and because the previous point you can counter sue if reasonable, at least theoretically - they can't impersonate you all around the globe including in countries outside of the UK just by raiding you - a raid is time wise also limited - police being able to raid doesn't prevent you from guarding yourself against random criminals or agents of foreign hostile governments raiding you - you know when you are raided - you are still allowed to put steal doors in your home - I probably missed a bunch of points I.e. it's not the same, not at all. A more correct comparison would to state police can raid you, so they should be able to hack your device but only to retrieve information and being required to leaf a message behind (and even that comparison has issues).
didntcheck 3y ago
The obvious counter is that raiding a house is a very public and relatively expensive action. There's a natural disincentive to it. OTOH digital surveillance is more akin to being a ghost who can float through a door without anyone ever knowing you're there, and teleport there and back instantly with no physical time or effort I think this is the big change people miss when it comes to police powers in the digital age. There's not been really been a culture shift from the police nor the citizens about police powers, just a increase in quantity of ability that has turned into a difference in quality. For decades agents of the state have had the theoretical ability to surveil people, and the people were generally OK with it because of the assumption that "well they won't bother doing it to a random guy like me", which was true, back when it required actual footwork, and even pulling up someone's file was a physical task Assuming one does accept targeted surveillance in extreme cases, then I'm not sure how to solve this apart from the frustratingly "stupid" and probably unenforceable solution of requiring the police and intelligence agencies to be stuck on 90s tech. Theoretical legal sanctions against doing this appear to have no teeth, the only way to discourage surveillance abuse is to make each instance have a non-circumventable operational cost So to use a concrete example: I actually like private CCTV in public spaces. I do feel safer knowing the police can use that footage if I'm a victim of crime. But I only accept it because most systems are just writing to a local device, meaning there's a cost to the police asking for it. Any scheme to automate access to these records over the internet, no matter how well-meaning and theoretically legally restricted they are, would inevitably be used to make those scenes from The Bourne Ultimatum seem quaint

deadletters 3y ago

Wait until you hear about search warrants

didntcheck 3y ago
If you could invade someone's house as easily and invisibly as digital surveillance, physical search warrants would be swiftly ignored by the police too

JKCalhoun 3y ago

I'll play Devil's Advocate (because I enjoy throwing myself into the fray — especially when arguing against a point I actually agree with). No one is mass-sharing their safe of child-porn worldwide with thousands of other child-porn voyeurs. The internet and its ubiquitous accessibility combined with digital image file formats has changed the landscape for those that would fight these heinous crimes. It is indeed a new and special case where a locked safe is not.

sva_ 3y ago
> No one is mass-sharing their safe of child-porn worldwide with thousands of other child-porn voyeurs. I wouldn't call 1 on 1 chats mass sharing
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  You can have multiple 1-on-1 chats, and CP collectors are pretty good at finding each other online. While I'm very much against this UK legislation, people in the tech sector do themselves no favors b¥ minimizing/handwaving the CP problem.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    Isn't that why we pay gov agents to hang out in the seedy parts of the web? If CP consumers are able to find each other with relative ease, I'm sure agents impersonating them can find them too. Then it's up to them to locate them, likely by exploiting an opsec failure along the way. I see no reason the give the gov eyes on everything when they have a perfectly valid route to investigations.
    - piva00 3y ago
      I'll also play Devil's advocate even though I'm a very vocal advocate for data privacy in real life. These government agents are people as well, and as people they'll suffer to wade through the dark corners of the web to locate a minuscule part of all the CP data available worldwide. These people will inevitably require mental care to deal with the trauma of looking at GiBs and GiBs of small kids being raped, that's not a cost we can handwave to "we employ government agents", there's not a limitless supply of people willing to do this job, and doing this job doesn't come for free, not for the individuals doing it neither for society (mental trauma care; staffing high enough to allow rotations and avoid burn out, or PTSD, etc.).

RektBoy 3y ago

[flagged]

kergonath 3y ago
That is… entirely divorced from reality.
Ylpertnodi 3y ago
>any violence against attacker with a weapon... Is that yourself with a weapon, or the attacker?
philjohn 3y ago
Mr Narwhal Tusk disagrees https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-idUKKBN1YP06Y https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-idUKKBN1...
vidarh 3y ago
At least in England and Wales, unreasonable force can be used in self defense (Crime and Courts Act 2013) as long as it is not grossly disproportionate, and people are regularly let off for that, so you're wildly off base. This includes cases where people have killed unarmed intruders. What will typically get people in trouble is not self defense, but cases where the victim continues after an attacker is no longer a threat (is subdued or fleeing).
LightBug1 3y ago
Bad acid trip? Hope you feel better soon.

FormerBandmate 3y ago

That’s called bolt cutters

rfrey 3y ago

Given the possibility of invisible and essentially free screening of private conversations, the analogy is probably more "install cameras in every home that only the government can access". But we promise, they'll be turned off most of the time.

imchillyb 3y ago
School boards already successfully do this with 'student laptops' also known as in-home monitoring devices that cannot be switched off.
- dmvdoug 3y ago
  Well, one difference is that those laptops belong to the school. They don’t put in-home monitoring devices on privately owned devices. That said, it’s still creepy, I agree.
- nilespotter 3y ago
  Has there been a case where a school board activated such a device to spy on the parents? That would be absolutely mental.

gumballindie 3y ago

> every keys to every door Have you seen doors in the uk? Most are just there for design.

cmiles74 3y ago

Because it is very easy for them to break down the door, or smash a nearby window, or simply wait for someone to go in or out and demand entry.

dclowd9901 3y ago

Likely because they know they don't actually need a bypass mechanism to bypass most physical barriers.

netheril96 3y ago

They don't mandate every keys to every door because they CAN break almost every door with force. The police can do it with a warrant and some "special forces" can do it clandestinely. They can't break most encryption with force.