32 ms·

The U.K. government is close to eroding encryption worldwide

• christkv 3y ago
  I bet the five eyes are exited about this then maybe the us and Europe can use the uk to spy on their citizens. Since it’s not them doing the spying hey presto legal.
• eff_off 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • pwmtr 3y ago
    Nice username :) I'm on the other side. IMO; CP is used more and more as an excuse to pass more anti-privacy agenda, because it is difficult to argue against "We want to protect children". That perspective moves discussion to a different place where it is difficult to discuss. Why can't we have both? Is only way to prevent CP eliminating privacy?
    • ronsor 3y ago
      The only way to prevent all crime is 24/7 surveillance combined with constant control and no free will, but any reasonable person would find that unreasonable. That aside, a significant number of people sharing CP aren't smart enough to use an encrypted platform anyway.
    • developer93 3y ago
      I mean in the UK there were cp rings which were known about, that is the girls told the authorities about what was happening to them, and it was buried, so maybe get their own house with systems in place, training and funding (which is universally in short supply in UK since [edit: about] a decade now) to act on info they already get before trying to come after innocent people with a drag net in the hope of catching a few paedophiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit...
    • shrimp_emoji 3y ago
      CP = "brain_off" to defending your human rights :D Simple as! Also see terrorism
  • SN76477 3y ago
    Its simple, get a warrant.
    • tonyarkles 3y ago
      I’m going to assume that both you and the OP are engaging in this in good faith. I am thoroughly in the “legislating encryption is basically outlawing math” camp and believe it’ll be highly ineffective at accomplishing any of its goals. However… Get a warrant for what exactly? On, say, an iPhone where you can have reasonably secured encryption-at-rest for your data (the entire disk is encrypted using an AES key that is protected by your passcode and that key is destroyed after too many failed attempts), simply getting a warrant to take physical possession of the device doesn’t really provide any evidentiary value. In the US and many other jurisdictions (but not the UK from what I recall), courts generally can’t compel someone to reveal their passcode. The E2E keys are stored encrypted at rest as well.
  • giantrobot 3y ago
    This begs the question of there being a "scourge" of child porn and terrorist propaganda. You're also assuming the UK's attack on encryption would do anything at all to combat either thing let alone end the presumed "scourge". Strong encryption is the foundation of pretty much all online commerce. Without it little else is practical online. It's not up to the EFF to come up with solutions to made up or exaggerated issues.
    • tivert 3y ago
      > This begs the question of there being a "scourge" of child porn and terrorist propaganda. You're also assuming the UK's attack on encryption would do anything at all to combat either thing let alone end the presumed "scourge". And the "terrorist propaganda" part doesn't make sense. Propaganda is useless if it doesn't reach an audience, and encryption is all about restricting the audience. I mean, didn't ISIS put up its propaganda videos on Youtube? They're hardly trying to hide it out of sight.
    • developer93 3y ago
      They've been coming back with these proposals with this every few years at least as long as my adult life (~20yrs) just that thus time they've got it through. Until now it's been knocked down for the ridiculousness it is. "They only have to be lucky once, you have to be lucky every time"
  • thefurdrake 3y ago
    Your right to hunt down child porn does not exceed my right to privacy. To have it otherwise is to live in a panopticon.
    • ethanbond 3y ago
      In reality all rights are contingent upon and in direct conflict with each other. This is not some special case, and no, contingency and conflict does not make one side immediately the worst case scenario of itself. "Your right to prevent incitement to violence does not exceed my right to free speech. To have it otherwise is to live in a panopticon." It factually does exceed that right and that fact does not yield a panopticon.
      • thefurdrake 3y ago
        > It factually does exceed that right and that fact does not yield a panopticon. Poor analogy. The panopticon analogy was to relate the fact that allowing inspection of every single message sent by everyone ever is a panopticon. Preventing someone from speaking doesn't equate to a panopticon. I am very concerned for the worldviews of people who genuinely think it's a good idea to let the government (and consequently, any entity with moderately-skilled hackers and a motive to mass collect data) view every message sent between private parties. So I'll reiterate, I guess. No, it doesn't.
  • AequitasOmnibus 3y ago
    Your comment is made in bad faith. Notably, you posted from a brand new account echoing the most inflammatory talking points that the government uses in support of eroding encryption. Either this is some blatant (and bad) astroturfing, or you've drunk the kool-aid from the government. Nobody is here to defend child pornography or terrorism. But even accepting that they exist, those are a drop in the literal ocean of use cases for encryption relative to the overwhelmingly legal and productive and often necessary uses. > They should come up with a useful alternative We have a useful alternative - criminal laws. Make the criminal penalty a strong enough deterrent and you'll stop everyone except the most craven malfeasors (and those people will find ways to continue to disseminate their materials irrespective of encryption status). Rather than accuse privacy supporters of being "stubborn", you should come up with a legitimate argument why ordinary, law abiding people should have to sacrifice their autonomy in service of an effectively phantom boogeyman.
    • ethanbond 3y ago
      wrt making criminal penalties stronger, I wonder what effect an add-on charge (idk the technical term) for deliberately using encryption in the commission of a crime would add. I.e. using encryption is never illegal, but if you commit a crime and directly employ encryption as a means to commit that crime, your sentence is doubled or whatever. (inb4 pedantic "all internet services use encryption", which I don't think a court would buy if this is meant to be an add-on charge)
  • cs02rm0 3y ago
    They're telling us it's a scourge. But I suspect it's a relatively tiny, albeit terrible, problem compared to breaking encryption, which isn't just about privacy but about every action over the internet. I don't see that you can have it both ways; secure encryption and being able to inspect traffic. There's no alternative so it's either using other mechanisms to go after CSE and terrorist material, as currently happens allowing us to know about the scourge, or we may as well revert to everything being on http.
  • inconceivable 3y ago
    why don't you save us all a bit of time and just go ahead and tell us exactly which rights we're allowed to have in order to protect the children in your perfect kingdom? like, will you allow me to drive a car, or eat beef, or own a kitchen knife?
• lijok 3y ago
  We could outlaw math. Or the police could start doing their job.
  • ben_w 3y ago
    That would require the UK government to fund the police properly. And the courts. And the judiciary. And the prisons. For a political party that likes the cliché "tough on crime", it's kinda surprising how far on the path to accidental anarchy they are.
    • hkt 3y ago
      They're hoping people will start hiring rent-a-cop type security firms for their areas. Not joking.
      • jokethrowaway 3y ago
        Speaking from experience, they work pretty well. Unlike the metropolitan police which is utterly useless. I want my tax money back.
    • tremon 3y ago
      It's the same party that's tough on immigration, yet keeps importing lorry drivers, health workers and building contractors because they apparently can't be found inside the country.
      • BLKNSLVR 3y ago
        Off topic: there's almost no better word to immediately identify someone as British than 'lorry'. I love it.
        • danparsonson 3y ago
          I'll see that and raise you "bloke" :-)
• ssl232 3y ago
  Is this even enforceable? How can the UK government determine whether encrypted traffic going to/from UK IPs emanates from a messaging service as opposed to any other service?
  • jamesdwilson 3y ago
    "Who denounced you?" said Winston. "It was my little daughter," said Parsons with a sort of doleful pride. "She saw the installed encryption programs, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh? I don't bear her any grudge for it. In fact, I'm proud of her. It shows I brought her up in the right spirit, anyway."
  • BLKNSLVR 3y ago
    This becomes a separate problem of against whom they choose to enforce it. Defending yourself legally, no matter whether there's a lot or a little evidence, is an expensive, stressful, drawn out exercise. Sometimes the accusation is the punishment.
  • darkclouds 3y ago
    >Is this even enforceable? Not really, people have been talking in code for millennia. I wouldnt be surprised if a car company like Mercedes or Volkswagen could use their vehicles like swarm drones, relaying information between them when passing on the road, which could get data out of the UK using the cross channel ferries and eurotunnel. There's way too much movement of people and stuff inorder to secure anything really. Even the new Apple headset can read the iris of the eye to get subconscious data out of the user when exposed to AV data, and the users wont even know they are giving out this data. Privacy? We dont have any! Clandestine communications in cyber-denied environments Numbers stations and radio in the 21st century https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/18335330.2023.2209578 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/18335330.2023.2... Number Stations https://www.youtube.com/@RingwayManchester https://www.youtube.com/@RingwayManchester
  • nitwit005 3y ago
    > Is this even enforceable? They'll consider it enforced if all the major companies comply. In terms of actually having the criminals using software that complies with the law, absolutely not. Making your own program that doesn't comply isn't much of a challenge.
• api 3y ago
  To fully implement this would require dismantling vast amounts of software and protocols including VPNs, SSL/TLS, SSH, WebRTC, and loads more. Other countries won't want these protocols weakened just for the UK. It would end with the UK having a "great firewall" and basically its own little Internet with tech-savvy people punching holes in it just like they do in China.
  • miohtama 3y ago
    Hopefully the role of the UK is: Mistakes: It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others. https://despair.com/products/mistakes https://despair.com/products/mistakes
    • BLKNSLVR 3y ago
      I think Australia is used as a canary for laws that other 5-eyes countries want to implement. Australians are pretty darn compliant to bad government because their lives are really quite comfortable either way.
      • cheekibreeki2 3y ago
        Tight borders make everything easier.
• EGreg 3y ago
  The issue is bigger than just the UK government. Here is the global war on encryption: https://community.qbix.com/t/the-coming-war-on-end-to-end-encryption/214 https://community.qbix.com/t/the-coming-war-on-end-to-end-en...
• jmclnx 3y ago
  "They" seem to be using the standard play book used by the rich and/or powerful against the will of the people. If you fail, keep trying and trying and trying until they get their way. Well if the UK and other countries pass this, I guess it is back to gnupg. No way can that be restricted at this point.
  • kmlx 3y ago
    > against the will of the people it is not against the will of the people. the opposition, NGO’s and the general public are accusing the government of moving too slowly and watering down the law. they want the law strengthened and adopted faster.
    • stephen_g 3y ago
      The Government, Opposition and NGOs don’t necessarily represent the views of the general public. Obviously in a perfect world such a consensus would, but in the real world it’s often not the case unfortunately. I expect many UK citizens who were given a clear explanation of what the implications of the law was (without revealing which law it is and using its cutesy name) would say they would be opposed to such a hypothetical law, and would then be surprised if you told them you’d just described the “Online Safety” bill - if they knew what it was. Literally the way these laws get through is because there are enough uninformed and politically non-engaged people that they can slip them by.
• vr46 3y ago
  I honestly hate my current government with all my heart. Let this series of badly-thought-out bills be destroyed in the courts once the courts find that reality bats last. There’s probably a clause in there that decrees Pi must be four from now on.
  • tivert 3y ago
    > Let this series of badly-thought-out bills be destroyed in the courts once the courts find that reality bats last. How? I thought the UK courts can't override Acts of Parliament, because the courts are subordinate to it (unlike in the US).
    • LocutusOfBorges 3y ago
      There’s still the option of appeal to the ECHR, but that’s more or less it - and there’s a quite strong push from the right to leave that as well. This was absolutely an intended outcome for a lot of the figures responsible for the UK’s exit from the EU - European legislation/institutions were more or less the only real absolute check on the authoritarian tendencies of the British state, given the UK’s insane constitutional structures.
      • ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        One think I have never realised before moving here, is that UK has an authoritarian streak going back a long, long time. The desire to join such beacon of democracy as Russia in jeaving ECHR is heartwarming.
        • Silhouette 3y ago
          The thing about the "authoritarian streak" in the UK is that historically as a people we have mostly trusted the government and its police and security services to use the powers they give themselves by law appropriately. And although obviously there have been some serious failings in the past it's probably fair to say that overall they have earned that trust more than some of their counterparts in some other Western democracies so enough of our people continue to give them that trust that the same culture can continue. The danger for us is that it's always possible for the needle to move towards more frequent or routine abuses of power but once those measures make it into statute our trust-based system has few checks and balances to help us recover if it turns out someone went too far that time. That in turn is because our political/electoral system is itself fundamentally broken but also self-sustaining, which is a much bigger problem than just the risks of authoritarianism that we're discussing here.
• dheera 3y ago
  > gives the British government the ability to force backdoors into messaging services This is NOT enforceable outside the UK any more than Chinese law enforceable outside China. If you are a messaging service, just close all your business entities in the UK and they have no more jurisdiction over you. People in the UK can still use your messaging services unless the UK decides to implement a firewall like China. > which will destroy end-to-end encryption I don't trust any E2E encryption unless at least the clients are open source. How do I know the NSA hasn't inserted a backdoor into WhatsApp? And then if the clients are open source, the back doors they insert (via git pull requests?) can be removed.
  • FpUser 3y ago
    Or they can be scraping screens so it does not matter whether your encryption is "trusted".
    • chaxor 3y ago
      It's much more useful for agencies to backdoor hardware. If Intel chips, the snapdragon line, and AMD chips all have a backdoor allowing root, that's most of the devices out there that wouldn't need to have E2EE broken.
• nitwit005 3y ago
  I'm curious how many companies will just block the UK rather than comply. It's definitely not going to be zero.
  • miohtama 3y ago
    - Whatsapp (Meta) - Signal - Apple https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-ministers-lock-horns-with-whatsapp-over-threat-to-break-encryption/ https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-ministers-lock-horns-with...
    • sacnoradhq 3y ago
      WhatsApp requires a phone number, implicitly deanonymizing you. It also lacked e2ee for a long time. Signal requires a phone number. Use the fork Session that generates anonymous identifiers. https://getsession.org https://getsession.org Apple participated in PRISM and also requires an identifier such as an email address or phone number.
      • adhvaryu 3y ago
        E2E encryption means that the content of the messages you send are encrypted. Requiring a SIM card to sign-up doesn't kill that feature.
      • felixg3 3y ago
        Anonymity is not equivalent to privacy, although lots of characteristics overlap.
      • anothernewdude 3y ago
        phone numbers cost like $5. phone numbers don't deanonymize you.
        • sickill 3y ago
          In EU they do.
      • 3y ago
• jckahn 3y ago
  Would this bill affect P2P apps? From the article: > The Online Safety Bill, now at the final stage before passage in the House of Lords, gives the British government the ability to force backdoors into messaging services So it seems like purely P2P communication could still be legally encrypted.
• theginger 3y ago
  The UK Government repeatedly fails to understand that there are no boarders on the internet, and it'd be impossible to impose any without the kind of extreme restrictions of a totalitarian regime. Any measures without broad international cooperation will push vast number of people towards darker corners of the internet, which will not just end up completely undermining what they are trying to achieve, it will make the problems worse. Meta alone have the power to make this law a miserable failure. People will want to use WhatsApp, the government themselves use it extensively. If meta refuses there is very little they can do. Facebook can continue to operate without a single person on the ground in UK. It might harm their business in some ways but it's definitely doable. The government might be able to force/convince Apple and Google to take it out their app stores in the UK but such regional restrictions are easily bypassed and WhatsApp is popular enough to make people try it. So that would then normalise the practices such as side loading / jail breaking and avoiding regional restrictions. Cyber criminals would be rubbing their hands at the opportunities this creates and I am sure the peodos and terrorists this is meant to be stopping will jump at the chance to get in on the act.
  • dheera 3y ago
    Even with a totalitarian regime, they cannot stop the rest of the world from using encryption. People can pull their business entities out of the UK and they have no jurisdiction outside their borders. If I create an E2E messaging app, I don't need to listen to the UK at all. The UK can't tell me what to do any more than China can. China can block my app if they want, but it's on them, not me, to block it. Same goes for the UK. They can set up a firewall too if they want. But I don't need to change my app if I don't set foot in the UK.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • account-5 3y ago
      Yeah the UK doesn't have the clout of the US that does go after app creators in other countries all the time extraditing them to the US etc, or attempting to anyway.
• xwdv 3y ago
  Funny thing is, this doesn’t hurt criminals at all. If you’re doing serious crime, you bring your own encryption. There are cartels that spend a lot of money rolling their own crypto.
  • kypro 3y ago
    In the UK we have a huge problem with children sending hateful communications online which cause anxiety and distress. As it stands we can only arrest children who are doing this in public but banning encryption should give authorities more power to arrest children who are committing these crimes in private (eg on WhatsApp). The list really of hate crimes being committed online is endless and these are just the criminals doing this in public: https://news.sky.com/story/teenager-jailed-for-sending-racist-tweet-to-marcus-rashford-after-euro-2020-final-12578310 https://news.sky.com/story/teenager-jailed-for-sending-racis... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-4381692 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-4381692 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-52877886 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-52877886
    • morkalork 3y ago
      Are you being serious? Racist trolls causing "anxiety and distress" is justification for undermining everyone's security and privacy? Shame.
      • kypro 3y ago
        I am trolling, but in my opinion this is likely the reason for the attack on encryption. Everyone occasionally says bad things in private, so banning encryption and policing hate speech laws basically criminalises everyone.
        • morkalork 3y ago
          Well, I just hope you're preaching to the choir about that here. All have to add is that the people deciding these laws also enjoy parliamentary privilege which exempts them from slander and libel charges. Isn't that nice? They can be untouchable while you and I get to have our stripped away.
• zgluck 3y ago
  The UK is an island, physically and metaphorically. It can dig its (financial) grave if it wants to, the rest of the world won't really care much. The headline is false.
  • cpncrunch 3y ago
    Indeed. The article itself doesn't explain why this will affect the rest of the world. In fact, Apple has said they would consider withdrawing FaceTime and iMessage in the UK if this law goes ahead, so I think it is unlikely it will affect the rest of the world. Either the UK will be left with fewer encrypted products, or they will do a u-turn. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/20/uk-surveillance-law-changes-could-force-apple-to-withdraw-security-features https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/20/uk-survei...
    • zgluck 3y ago
      I've lost count of the number of u-turns they have done already. I think it's like 5 or so. (I'm including their various attempts to ban porn from the internet.)
  • Hizonner 3y ago
    The rest of the world is taking notes. They're trying to push something similar through in the EU. The US has at least 2 or 3 bills active right now that would have similar effects.
  • dfawcus 3y ago
    The UK is a number of islands. The main one being Great Britain, plus a chunk of Ireland. There are then a number of smaller islands around the English, Welsh, and Scottish parts of Great Britain.
• tamimio 3y ago
  Let me guess, to protect the children and the rest of us from terrorists? You know bad actors won’t care about your bill, I would love to see how the government is going to block an email encrypted with gpg?
  • matheusmoreira 3y ago
    > to protect the children and the rest of us from terrorists Don't forget the pedophiles.
    • xcdzvyn 3y ago
      I presume GP's comment was meant to be read "to protect the children[? and protect] the rest of us from terrorists?
• user6723 3y ago
  Yeah well I have an AR-15 try to take my BSD and OpenSSL away bitch I dare you.
  • CTDOCodebases 3y ago
    Most sieges don't tend to end well for the person inside the building.
    • jstarfish 3y ago
      Especially these days. You're up against drones now, so it's not like you're going to do any damage on the way out. Find another means of resistance, ideally a nonlethal one (they bet everything on terrorism). Bunkering with a shotgun and a six-pack won't cut it anymore.
  • dang 3y ago
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
• isaacremuant 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • Sporktacular 3y ago
    The excess death rates between anti-vaxers and the vaccinated show that, in fact, the experts had it right all along. Similarly here, experts are pushing to maintain encryption for the sake of public safety. Weird you think your two examples cast doubt on expertise. Governments have always tried to maintain power through breaking secrets. But there's no evidence governments tried to do anything but vaccinate and protect their populations from COVID. How was any of that a power play? What irony?
    • isaacremuant 3y ago
      > The excess death rates between anti-vaxers and the vaccinated show that, in fact, the experts had it right all along. Yes. In your imagination. Because there's no good data on that. He'll, wallensky when asked suddenly went on not having good data to avoid showing how the vaccine passports were a sham. With that said, there's always some bullshit excuse about security and there's one for this bill. You're just the authoritarian spreading the same propaganda inconsistently. > Similarly here, experts are pushing to maintain encryption for the sake of public safety. Lol. No. Experts are testifying in favor. The government said so. And for once, the commercial interests of the companies is not aligned with gov so we don't censor the EFF like we did the great Barrington declaration... But we're not far from calling them names and implying the use of certain tools suggest criminality (see France). > Weird you think your two examples cast doubt on expertise. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. I'm obviously in favor encryption and freedom. The thing is, just like with my body my choice, I'm consistent throughout and not just when it benefits me. > Governments have always tried to maintain power through breaking secrets. But there's no evidence governments tried to do anything but vaccinate and protect their populations from COVID. How was any of that a power play? What irony? Lol. Really? Have you been asleep the last 20 years? The patriot act is also about security and terrorism? Do you not believe in corruption you can see and hear about daily if you only look for a bit? Government does hygiene theater, gov settles on a beautiful corrupt loop. Companies get bailed out and money transferred from tax payers to them. Media and tech thrive through the lockdown (propaganda, payments, locked in audience). Big Pharma makes a killing. It's simple hygiene/security theater and corruption. Not a grand masterplan. But the fact that you stare "there's no evidence the government tried to so anything but vaccinate and protect" shows you're either extremely dishonest or just 100% brainwashed. Authoritarianism at its finest, ignoring what your eyes see in favor of "govs, the same ones we criticize for nearly every other thing, has our best interests at heart, pinky.promise"
• psychphysic 3y ago
  Is this legislation likely to land? I mean I'd expect all relevant vendors to drop the UK than to pick up so much liability and be expected to hold it world wide. Apple told the US to suck lemons why would it kowtow to the UK.
  • account-5 3y ago
    It does in China, but maybe the market is too small??
  • toyg 3y ago
    It's a desperate lame-duck government, heading for an electoral wipeout of historic proportions - all bets are off.
    • scrlk 3y ago
      The two main parties do not care about civil liberties or privacy. This will resurface in the next administration under a new name with a few tweaks here and there.
      • toyg 3y ago
        But it will have to be lobbied for again, to different people, and with right-wing tabloids ready to be pointed at anything vaguely controversial in it. It will be a very different battle, and likely much easier - if anything because the government will want to win the subsequent election, whereas the current one knows very well that they won't, regardless of what they do.
  • yungporko 3y ago
    yes, it's almost certain at this point.
• dbg31415 3y ago
  Wankers.
  • SillyUsername 3y ago
    Tosspots
• daniel-cussen 3y ago
  [dead]
• pphysch 3y ago
  Would this Online Safety Bill have protected Julian Assange from being imprisoned by a foreign totalitarian regime?
  • BLKNSLVR 3y ago
    No. There's nothing that would have stopped that. If the US wants to make an example of someone, laws don't stop them. Nice thought eh? Doesn't help that Australian has some sweet FA to help one of its citizens. Weak as piss.
• nomendos 3y ago
  This is uber stupid, because it will create way more divided internet (all countries will start separating further) and will create loss of trust in western/UK/US products (why would rest of the world continue to use iPhone/MacBook, google, Amazon, etc,..) therefore it will have huge cost in terms of lost revenue to all big companies. On the other hand there are smarter ways to do what is needed that respect privacy and do not cause such unnecessary economic harm to companies, but hey we'd need to have smart people in the governments (which are full of not smart people). Another aspect is that this will be unenforceable for huge majority of individuals since there will be plenty of solutions that will circumvent this, plus then number of companies will start forming companies in non affected geo's (off shore etc) and provide for example alternative to Viber/Skype/google/etc.. (some already exist).
  • Aerbil313 3y ago
    > it will create way more divided internet (all countries will start separating further) IMHO that's the future.
• bhewes 3y ago
  Yep will be as effective as trying to block Activision Blizzard deal.
  • kmlx 3y ago
    that actually worked.
    • bhewes 3y ago
      except it didn't and the deal is going through.
• PenguinRevolver 3y ago
  If you live in the UK, then please go to the UK Government and Parliament website and sign your name on this petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/634725 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/634725 It's currently at 6,327 signatures; it needs 3,673 more for the government to respond and 90,000 more after that for a debate to be considered.
  • IshKebab 3y ago
    Writing to your MP (don't use a template) would be more effective. I have yet to see a single one of those petitions that resulted in anything more than a brush off. Even much more popular ones. Letters to MPs almost always result in a brush-off too but they do take notice of them at least. Very occasionally you do get a non-template response too.
    • frereubu 3y ago
      I've written to my MP twice in my life (as you say, non-templated because otherwise it's as meaningless as sending them a photocopy) and got a detailed response twice. If you take the time, they generally do too. (Obvious caveat that this is a sample size of one person and two emails / letters...)
      • IshKebab 3y ago
        I've written to an MP maybe 10 times in total and I would say 80% responded with a template. But they do at least have to have an assistant read the letters and pick the right template response. The one I remember where they didn't do that was when I wrote to them saying that Ordnance Survey's maps should be free, and that did actually improve! They're not totally free not but they are much freer. And the worst response I've had was the most recent when I wrote about the UK's insane criminalisation of term time holidays, and they wrote back assuring me that they were doing everything they could to deal with COVID?? Even so, still much more effective than petitions.
    • jaredlt 3y ago
      For others reading, I just used https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ to write to my MP.
• easytiger 3y ago
  For context this is a cross party designed in committee policy. Yes, both parties are that bad. The dumbest thing about this is you create a single attack vector for nation state enemies who we know now all have the facilites to exploit this. You might as well just turn the lights off and hand Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea the keys.
  • toyg 3y ago
    Still, an early general election would put the brakes on this bill. The next Labour government will be under no pressure to pick it back up, and in fact will likely be under quite a bit of pressure to let it go. This is the sort of terrible throwaway law that results from lame-duck governments.
    • easytiger 3y ago
      What do you base that on? My understanding is this bill will have cross party support and has been in development for many many years. It might be politically expedient to abandon it at some point, but the mainstream media largely have completely ignored it and the public have little knowledge of it but at all
      • toyg 3y ago
        Many many years with the same party in power. Whereas New Labour, at the peak of their electoral dominance, couldn't even pass a bill to get an ID card the rest of Europe has had for centuries. It's much easier to whip the right-wing into a frenzy when the government is not their natural friend.
        • timthorn 3y ago
          Labour did introduce ID cards. It was one of the first acts of the Cameron government to scrap it.
          • toyg 3y ago
• wudangmonk 3y ago
  Maybe when they were part of the E.U it mattered what the U.K did but now they do not seem important enough to be able to dictate things on a global scale. Not trying to put it down but do people worry about how Estonia's law will affect the rest of the world?. Nobody cares, because you are just not a big enough market to matter.
  • jokethrowaway 3y ago
    I'd agree with you but all governments think alike and I'm sure this will reach the EU and the states (with whatever excuse they can think of)
    • john_the_writer 3y ago
      Yep.. This will be the test bed for it. See which companies bend the knee. Then hobble the others. Once this is done, they'll move the law around to other countries.
      • kmlx 3y ago
        https://fee.org/articles/australia-s-unprecedented-encryption-law-is-a-threat-to-global-privacy/ https://fee.org/articles/australia-s-unprecedented-encryptio... > The Australian government has passed a new piece of legislation that, at its core, permits government enforcement agencies to force businesses to hand over user info and data even though it’s protected by cryptography.
• Sporktacular 3y ago
  It's not made clear how the UK Gov would erode encryption worldwide Seems like they'll only be stuck with their own police state friendly system.
  • JHorse 3y ago
    People on the other end of encrypted conversations outside of the UK would also be surveilled. More broadly, any backdoor built into any app can and will be exploited by bad actors. Theres no "safe" way to break end to end encryption for just the " good guys".
  • matheusmoreira 3y ago
    It will absolutely erode encryption in my country. Our government seems to operate on the following logic: 1. We want to be a developed country. 2. X is a developed country. 3. X does Y. 4. Therefore, we must also do Y. We have our own GDPR. I've seen judges citing european laws in decisions. Watching other countries pass laws like this one is like getting a glimpse into the future.
    • Sporktacular 3y ago
      I guess then it would be your government eroding encryption in your country. To take it your way, every law passed everywhere has an effect on anything, which is so indirect it starts to become meaningless. The UK has been getting less relevant for years. It's why tech companies are telling it to stick its laws without concern about losing that market. So its position on encryption is becoming less relevant too. But sure it's erosion and that sucks.
• ipcress_file 3y ago
  I run an encrypted XMPP server for about a dozen people. It's completely ephemeral in the sense that the server stores no messages. If you're offline, you miss them, kind of like IRC. Will this apply to me? Do I need to ensure that no UK users are on my server? I never anticipated this back when I set up the server. I thought that implementing strong security and privacy measures was a responsibility that I should take seriously. I wouldn't be willing to run the server if I had to compromise people's privacy. If you don't have privacy, you might as well be on a mega-corp service.
  • x3n0ph3n3 3y ago
    If you are not in the UK, you are not under the UK's jurisdiction.
    • luc4sdreyer 3y ago
      They can still open a case against you and put out a warrant for your arrest, in the UK. Then you need to ensure that you never have a flight routed through there. Though I doubt that they would go to all this trouble for a small fry.
      • fit2rule 3y ago
        [dead]
      • anothernewdude 3y ago
        I'll make sure my company never gets on that plane.
        • Zetice 3y ago
          Yeah, why don’t murderers just commit their murders via their company?
• sacnoradhq 3y ago
  Tories == fascists. And big money even sits in the PM's chair.
• userbinator 3y ago
  I wish they would outlaw remote attestation, because that also uses encryption, but I bet they won't.
• incompatible 3y ago
  If you can't offer safe encryption, without backdoors, then you shouldn't offer encryption at all. No point in giving people a false sense of security. Let them accept that everything they say is potentially public. Eventually, they may even decide that they'd like a little privacy and force their government to back down.
• protocolture 3y ago
  How does this differ from the access and assistance bill in Australia? While its super illegal for anyone to talk about, literally none of the actions that were going to be taken (Atlassian threatened to move overseas and stop servicing oz, Apple/Facebook/Google all rattled sabers) eventuated. We can only assume that the backdoors have been delivered on time without complaint.
  • Buttons840 3y ago
    Is it really considered a "backdoor" for one party to willingly hand over the data that was exchanged through an encrypted channel? I'm not sure what you mean.
    • protocolture 3y ago
      The access and assistance bill requires platforms to create a technical capability on demand. From there the cops get to use their imaginations. Do they create a backdoor that allows them to get the data just after decryption from the end device? Do they ask for this to happen in real time for all users and that firehose is directed at some gubment server? Do they want the ability to unilaterally shut down the service? Its a grab bag. If the cops are more creative than me, than we are in even worse strife.
• FredPret 3y ago
  This nation gave us the first mecahnical computer, the first programming language, Alan Turing, the first digital computer, broke the Enigma encryption, and the World Wide Web… and now, this.
  • defrost 3y ago
    > broke the Enigma encryption Poland? > and the World Wide Web CERN is a country?
    • djohnston 3y ago
      Poland broke Enigma? Is the whole Bletchley park history just some fairytale? CERN is not a country. Neither is Tim Berners Lee for that matter.
      • defrost 3y ago
        Specifically Marian Rejewski, Jerzy Różycki and Henryk Zygalski - they even built the first bombe machines which were scaled up at Bletchley park. > Is the whole Bletchley park history just some fairytale? More the common mythology about Turing that gets repeated by people that never checked the details. Bletchley Park was real and people like Bill Tutte cracked encryption methods more difficult than Enigma. Tim Berners Lee alone, without being part of a vast group that adopted and used WWW, wasn't sufficient for WWW to take hold. There were many proto markup attempts, he authored one but it needed soil to grow, s/soil/CERN/.
  • tcptomato 3y ago
    > the first digital computer Z3?
    • jjgreen 3y ago
      I guess they mean Colossus (1943) but debatable https://www.britannica.com/technology/Atanasoff-Berry-Computer https://www.britannica.com/technology/Atanasoff-Berry-Comput...
• FollowingTheDao 3y ago
  Y’all forget the ultimate choice. None of us need these phones or need to use the Internet. I am sure it will make life much more difficult, but we don’t need to use these devices as much as we do. You have much more control than you think over the situation.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• luxuryballs 3y ago
  what does a black market on encrypted comms look like? if they can’t read your communication logs you go to jail?
  • lozenge 3y ago
    There's already a crime of refusing to provide a password. With a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, or five years in cases involving national security or child indecency. https://www.saunders.co.uk/news/prosecuted-for-your-password/ https://www.saunders.co.uk/news/prosecuted-for-your-password...
• tjpnz 3y ago
  I wonder what twisted shit the tories are looking at online. We already know they watch porn in the commons. By eroding encryption we'll soon be seeing what they look at in the privacy of their own homes.
  • archsurface 3y ago
    Because labour would never. You think this will go away when labour get in?
• acumenical 3y ago
  To break from the party line and parrot that E2E encryption is a human right for just a moment, does anyone else experience the same fatigue with communities on encrypted platforms? I've never found a good community on Tor, everyone on Signal seems to become a shadier version of their public selves, Telegram seems it's all full of smut. However I believe this is due to my small social circle. Does anyone with better social skills (any at all) have a more positive experience with E2E platforms? Please help me out because I want to believe. I believe it's important for people to speak freely but I'm having trouble reconciling that with how nasty they become.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • gherkinnn 3y ago
    I don’t see how E2EE services affect people’s behaviour. Anonymity does though.
    • stephen_g 3y ago
      Less than people might think. Apparently a lot of the the worst cyber-bullying (like the stuff that drives teens to take their own lives) happens from real-name accounts on Facebook and Messenger…
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • matheusmoreira 3y ago
    WhatsApp is end to end encrypted, this has been proven in actual court in my country. Everyone here uses it for everything every day. Never before have so many people used something that is this secure by default.
  • CaptainFever 3y ago
    > Telegram seems it's all full of smut Telegram is not E2EE. (Unless you use secret chats, which hardly anyone does.)
• natch 3y ago
  To the extent this also breaks or threatens the security of financial services, I’d like to see credit card brands and non-UK banks also pull out of UK. I know it may be dreaming but as a consumer outside of UK I don’t want to be saddled with the costs via higher fees, inferior service etc. that will be necessitated to pay for the knock-on effects of this weakening of security. I’d rather do business with companies that stay more secure and not pay this “shoddy security tax” they will impose on the industry.
• CommanderData 3y ago
  I hate our government but the media has a massive part to play in propping them up. All the tech companies should stand together and be ready to block access to their services. Imagine if the UK was left without access to just WhatsApp, let alone iMessage etc. It's not irresponsible or unsafe, there's always SMS for which the govenment has full control over. Also I don't think any of these companies should fear an competitors. Why? These services are so ingrained a few weeks if not months of protest will not change anything. When the govnement finally succumbs restoration will be easy and the numbers will go back to normal quickly.
  • dmje 3y ago
    Agree - a UK without WhatsApp would be a UK in revolt. Literally everyone I know from teens to oldies organises their lives on it. Lack of WhatsApp would be enough to drag our sorry apathetic lazy non-protesting arses out onto the street
    • switch007 3y ago
      It absolutely wouldn’t. Just because we use a lot of something doesn’t mean we care about it. We are extremely politically apathetic. You need targeted messages on social media and savvy campaigns to get people irate. Eg “campaigners stopping a pregnant mother getting to hospital”. That’s what gets people foaming at the mouth. Even then that’s usually just limited to angry replies on social media It’s also illegal to peacefully protest now
      • zarzavat 3y ago
        People protest when it affects them personally, and aside from the air we breathe it’s hard to think of anything more critical than WhatsApp. Losing it would be a bigger shitstorm than Truss, IMO. And the media all rely on WhatsApp so the real knives would be out.
    • CommanderData 3y ago
      I agree and platforms explaining why access has been blocked. It needs to be politicised perhaps EFF can get involved with a page explaining it and steps for action (emailing MPs, those that voted for it etc). We are supposed to be a democracy after all right? This govenment is nutorious for it's u-turns. I would be happy to see another in this case. FB, Apple and Microsoft need to start this campaign ASAP.
• SillyUsername 3y ago
  Stupid question maybe, but could certificate signing keys already be in government hands via backdoor (physical) handshakes/greased palms? If this is the case, then you have to ask, why is this bill even needed?
  • NohatCoder 3y ago
    A government would still have to make and use their own keys in a man-in-the-middle attack. The forged key means that if anyone bothers to check it will be detected, and there are also various ways that an application can lock the used key to make this impossible. Man-in-the-middle requires a lot of control over the infrastructure, for something that works reliably they would need to cooperate heavily with telcos, and spend a good deal of money.
    • SillyUsername 3y ago
      Thanks for explaining. I did wonder why the downvote from someone, now I understand why
  • vesinisa 3y ago
    That's a very bold claim, any evidence you can provide to support it? How do the governments sidestep Certificate Transparency, which makes the simple possession of the signing keys ineffective? And have there ever been reports of developers observing these rogue certificates in the wild?
    • SillyUsername 3y ago
      My assumption was that the signed certificates are provided by governments to state owned or shell companies (China having high profile cases of this). But if it really was this simple, it would have been noticed earlier.
• soundsgoodtome 3y ago
  So glad we threw that tea into Boston harbor
• soundsgoodtome 3y ago
  Could you imagine if the UK was just… cut off from the rest of the western internet? What a time to be alive.
  • ajmurmann 3y ago
    I hope that will be the response. I wish the same had happened when the EU passed the stupid cookie law. Everyone should have replaced their websites with a static page that explains browser cookie settings when accessed from Europe.
  • kmlx 3y ago
    zero chance. did anything happen in australia after they passed a very similar law? nope. https://fee.org/articles/australia-s-unprecedented-encryption-law-is-a-threat-to-global-privacy/ https://fee.org/articles/australia-s-unprecedented-encryptio...
• gorgoiler 3y ago
  At the same time as this is going on the UK is rolling out fibre to every home. I know of multiple people who live in the deepest darkest rural country lanes who are seeing 36x fibre COF215 drop cables strung up through the trees or trenched by the muddy roads. EE pioneered LTE cat16 at the end of the last decade in first and second tier cities right in time for iPhoneX to ship with support for gigabit traffic. It’ll be available in a field near you soon. There’s about to be an abundance of low latency bandwidth available to everyone. With all that connectivity you can start being much more creative about who provides your transport versus who provides your IP connectivity. VPNs are already becoming mainstream. Sounds like a positive way forward, right? The internet just routes around damage, heh, and laws that restrict what you can and can’t do can be “routed around” by terminating all your traffic in Dublin or Amsterdam. The trouble is that as it becomes normal for British subjects to export their traffic overseas then I can’t see HM Government policy avenue going anywhere other than all out war on encryption. Again.
• can16358p 3y ago
  I hope all the intelligent people eventually move away from those authoritarian governments' countries, moving all the brainpower away from serving their economies.
  • pauby 3y ago
    And go where exactly?
    • can16358p 3y ago
      Anywhere that doesn't block freedom.
• john_the_writer 3y ago
  What needs to happen here is a breech of UK government officials private stuff. Not gov secrets, but real private conversations between the members who vote yes. Here's a conversation with your mistress. No we don't respect your privacy.
• yungporko 3y ago
  as others have said, it's not going to affect the rest of the world, UK will just lose access to services. as a UK resident, i can safely say that we aren't going to do a single thing to stop this and we wholeheartedly deserve this and everything else the government does to strip away our rights. we are a nation of spineless cowards, do not feel bad for a single one of us.
  • kmlx 3y ago
    the opposition not only wants this to become law, they are accusing the government of watering it down and not moving fast enough. same for NGOs. they want the government to go even further. various members of the public have come forward accusing the government of not doing enough to protect them from the perils of the internet (there were a few tragic cases, as it’s always the case). basically, everyone wants this, and want it sooner and strengthened.
  • HeckFeck 3y ago
    I wish it would affect the rest of the world, so everyone else could at least give our government a well-deserved kicking. I've not checked but I would be doubtful that Sir Keir's Labour will reverse this dreadful bill, but if they do that will be welcomed.
    • yungporko 3y ago
      they won't, they support it too. the tories are evil but unfortunately that doesn't make labour good.
• kmlx 3y ago
  i guess this thread is a great example of how different the HN crowd is to the rest of the population. i keep seeing the same type of comments for every article where encryption is threatened. to me it looks like the direction of policy in the world when it comes to the internet is pretty clear: the internet needs to be brought to heel. it needs to respect local laws, it can’t be a black box, we can’t rely on foreign/american companies to moderate. this direction is coming mainly from voters. they feel disenfranchised from the big internet companies, they feel threatened, the internet still feels like a dangerous place. and to be fair, there are so many crimes enabled by the internet, some of them violent. and so the public and the NGO’s make enough noise so that politicians take stock and start doing something about it. this law is not the first law in the world to force internet companies to better moderate their content. and it won’t be the last. but if HN folk want to change people’s view around this issue then they need to step out of this bubble and engage with people’s concerns. because this direction of travel has been set for a while now. and it won’t change anytime soon. what’s going to happen with this law? nothing special. it will be adopted, and there will be no consequences. just like all the other countries that did the same. disclaimer: i’ve been on the internet since there were ~10 websites. that wild west stuff was amazing when growing up. but the cat is now out of the bag.
  • Sporktacular 3y ago
    There was even pushback on HN to Apple's communication safety feature which would warn kids about nude photos. No big brother, not even CSAM matching. Just locally run nudity detection in a reasonable, even minimal effort to address some harm to kids. Comments wailed about the invasion of privacy, thin end of the wedge/normalisation of scanning etc. without any mention of the problem this tries to address. Personally I still think the risk of encryption to children is outweighed by the risk of permanent, incontestable authoritarian regimes (in which kids aren't safe either). But effectively arguing this requires acknowledgement of the other side's concerns. As you say, most people prioritise child safety over privacy, so these bills are going to keep happening until the rest of us make our case, acknowledge the problem and help find solutions. But I disagree there will be no domestic consequences for this law. The UK is the home of the coverup and this places even more power in the hands of a barely accountable old boys club. It should still be opposed, but privacy activists need to better make the case why.
• retube 3y ago
  Everybody was fine using non-e2ee messaging for like 2 decades before whatsapp and competitors implemented it. So why is it now so important, when since the early 90s everyone was totally happy to communicate without it?
  • harryvederci 3y ago
    If you really don't understand why, look into a guy named Edward Snowden.
  • fragmede 3y ago
    Other people listening in on private conversations hasn't been "fine" since the the first private conversation. It wasn't okay in the 90's and it isn't okay now. More people are aware now so more people are asking about it, which is making it seem more important, but it's always been important. We don't use telnet anymore, we use SSH, and for good reason. That people that have never heard of ssh have the same demands for their communications shouldn't surprise you.
• tim333 3y ago
  The British public seem mildly in favour of the thing "As the Online Safety Bill returns to parliament this month, polling shows overwhelming public support for tougher measures to enforce children’s safety online." "81% UK adults want senior tech managers to be appointed and held legally responsible for stopping children being harmed by social media, new polling reveals" https://www.nspcc.org.uk/about-us/news-opinion/2023/Majority-public-want-tougher-online-safety-bill-that-holds-tech-bosses-responsible-for-child-safety/ https://www.nspcc.org.uk/about-us/news-opinion/2023/Majority... also https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-poll-finds-7-in-10-adults-want-social-media-firms-to-do-more-to-tackle-harmful-content https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-poll-finds-7-in-10-ad... Although those don't mention encryption and more are asking about protecting kids from harmful content. Here's some earlier encryption polling: >More than half (55%) of UK adults believe the ability to detect child abuse images is more important than the right to privacy >Only 4% say privacy should be prioritised over safety https://www.nspcc.org.uk/about-us/news-opinion/2023/Majority-public-want-tougher-online-safety-bill-that-holds-tech-bosses-responsible-for-child-safety/ https://www.nspcc.org.uk/about-us/news-opinion/2023/Majority...
• mattmaroon 3y ago
  Better title: The U.K is close to making some chat apps no longer available to UK citizens. No apps are going to adopt this for a country that’s like 3% of its revenue.
• willtemperley 3y ago
  I'm a UK resident not opposed to this bill. First, child protection is paramount. Second, The erosion of big tech companies' power is a benefit as far as I can see. Third, We still have effective encryption in our hands. TLS is not going to be broken by this. The argument that offenders will be pushed into darker corners of the internet is probably true, though I expect that will make it easier for law enforcement - take ANOM [1] as an example. The battle I'd fight would be some kind of accountability in intelligence services. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANOM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANOM
  • jerryzh 3y ago
    Read the book Just Law published by your own people
    • willtemperley 3y ago
      Can you turn your comment into an argument please? This is obtuse.
      • Sporktacular 3y ago
        > First, child protection is paramount Can you name one authoritarian regime in which child safety has been a priority? If anything the impunity of those at the top has made child trafficking worse. Your position risks giving a massive amount of power to people who have already demonstrated they can't be trusted with it, let alone with kids. Don't assume privacy activists don't care about children. > Second, The erosion of big tech companies' power is a benefit as far as I can see. Big tech can't read E2E communications either. This won't reduce their power. > Third, We still have effective encryption in our hands. TLS is not going to be broken by this. Effective against whom? If it's the authorities you don't trust then TLS is already useless. Seriously, the UK is the home of the coverup. Sir Cyril Smith, Sir Jimmy Saville, Sir Peter Morrison, Sir Peter Hayman, Stuart Hall OBE, Rolf Harris CBE. All of them connected enough to 'put in a call to someone' and in many cases, shown to have received some police or official support. Your system sucks but you trust these people enough to give them more power? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-abuse-idUSKBN20J1VL https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-abuse-idUSKBN20J1... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/25/police-and-politicians-turned-blind-eye-to-westminster-child-abuse-claims-report https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/25/police-and-p...
• zahllos 3y ago
  I see a few comments suggesting a change of government will help. The previous Labour government (1997-2010) introduced the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_...), which amongst other provisions includes key disclosure rules (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Ki...). The burden of proof in key disclosure is inverted (the accused must prove non-possession of the key or inability to decrypt), which was somewhat controversial amongst people who cared at the time (activation, i.e. actual use if RIPA III provisions, began in 2007). The same Labour Government ran the Interception Modernisation Programme (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interception_Modernisation_Programme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interception_Modernisation_P...) (you may recognise this or "mastering the internet" from the Snowden leaks, although IMP was not a secret) and proposed legislation to enact part of it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Data_Bill_2008 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Data_Bill_200.... This never made it into law. I think Labour are on board with this, and the senior civil service (those at the top levels who work with ministers or close to those who do) don't change in the same way US administrations do. It might be the case that this bill runs out of time in the current parliament and is not picked up by the next government (this can happen even if the same political party holds office) but the idea will be back in some form one way or another and I suspect will make it into law.
  • j0ej0ej0e 3y ago
    Given Labour also have not committed to reverting the anti-protest laws that were brought in by Suella Braverman, and where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said along the lines of "now is not the time to review that" when a caller literally asked that question, I don't hold out much hope for them doing anything progressive in relation to this.