14 ms·

Fundamentally, I think the issue is more about technical literacy amongst the political establishment who consistently rely on the fallacy that having nothing t

by ljm 2y ago

Fundamentally, I think the issue is more about technical literacy amongst the political establishment who consistently rely on the fallacy that having nothing to hide means you have nothing to fear. Especially in the UK which operates as a paternalistic state and enjoys authoritarian support across all parties. On the authoritarianism: these laws are always worded in such a way that they can be applied or targeted vaguely, basically to work around other legislation. They will stop thinking of the children as soon as the law is put into play, and it's hardly likely that pedo rings or rape gangs will be top of the list of priorities. On the technical literacy: the government has the mistaken belief that their back door will know the difference between the good guys (presumably them) and the bad guys, and the bad guys will be locked out. However, the only real protection is security by obscurity: it's illegal to reveal that this backdoor exists or was even requested. Any bad guy can make a reasonable assumption that a multinational tech company offering cloud services has been compromised, so this just paints another target on their backs. I've said it before, but I guarantee that the monkey's paw has been infinitely curling with this, and it's a dream come true for any black or grey hat hacker who wants to try and compromise the government through a backdoor like this.

elAhmo 2y ago
> the government has the mistaken belief that their back door will know the difference between the good guys (presumably them) and the bad guys This is a very good point, and in the recent months we have been witnessing that people in government, or aiming to become the government, are definitely not the good guys. So, even if what they are asking would be limited to just governments (which it wouldn't), they can't claim they are the good guys anymore.
kmeisthax 2y ago
What the politicians want is partial security: something they can crack but criminals can't. That is achievable in physical security, but not in cybersecurity. I have a feeling the politicians already know partial cybersecurity isn't an option, and don't care. Certainly, the intelligence community advising them absolutely does know. We don't even have to be conspiratorial about it: their jobs are easier in the world where secrets are illegal than in the world where hackers actually get stopped.
- joncp 2y ago
  > That is achievable in physical security, but not in cybersecurity. Not with physical security either, I'm afraid.
  - kmeisthax 2y ago
    Any physical lock can be manipulated, even the particularly high-security ones. But in practice, most locks are not even challenged because doing so requires actually walking up to the lock and trying. You can't try every physical lock in existence; but you can try every digital lock. So the effects of, say, an encryption backdoor key compromise would be far greater and far more immediate than, say, the compromise of the Travel Sentry master keys.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    With physical security the state apparatus can provide physical security in the form of police and what not, as well as deterrence and punishment. In the world of cryptography it's... a bit harder to do something similar. In the best case they can come up with a key escrow system that doesn't suck too much, force you to use it, and hopefully they don't ever get the master keys hacked and stolen or leaked. But they're not asking for key escrow. They're asking for providers to be the escrow agents or whatever worse thing they come up with.
- eterm 2y ago
  > That is achievable in physical security, but not in cybersecurity This isn't accurate though, and leads us down the path of trying to prevent these bad laws from a technical perspective when we should be fighting the principle of the bad law not just decrying it for being "unworkable". It is possible to construct encryption schemes with a "backdoor key" while still being provably secure against anyone else. This creates precisely the "partial security" you describe: Criminals can't crack the encryption, but the government can use their backdoor-key. But like those who argue online age-consent schemes can't work, it doesn't help to argue against the technical aspects of such bad laws. The law, particularly UK law, doesn't care for what's technically possible. The bad laws can sit on the books regardless of the technical feasibility of enforcement. Eventually technology can catch up, or the law can simply be applied on a best endeavours / selective enforcement approach.
kingkongjaffa 2y ago
> Especially in the UK which operates as a paternalistic state and enjoys authoritarian support across all parties. This seemed strange to point out. It’s not really any more or less “paternalistic” than most western nations including the US.
- gleenn 2y ago
  If you see a red car driving down the street do you not call it red because there are many other red cars? They're adding color (pun intended) to their description of the general bias of the UK government. What you're doing is called Whataboutism - the argument that others are doing something similar or as bad in different contexts. It doesn't make what the UK is doing any less bad for citizens (and non-citizens) privacy or data sovereignty.
  - polshaw 2y ago
    You don't say it's "especially" red then do you. The comparison was started by the GP.
- 15155 2y ago
  Folks in the United States aren't routinely arrested for Facebook posts.
  - 4ndrewl 2y ago
    They're not arrested for posting on Facebook. They're arrested for _what_ they're posting on Facebook.
    - pb7 2y ago
      Yes, people in the US don't get arrested for that.
      - maccard 2y ago
        Yes, they do. https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/page-man-charged-threatening-burn-page-magistrate-court https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/page-man-charged-threaten... https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/30/us/georgia-woman-facebook-antipolice-post/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/30/us/georgia-woman-facebook... https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/10/19/influencer-gets-months-in-prison-for-2016-voter-interference-scheme.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/10/19/influencer-gets-months-i... https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndal/pr/birmingham-man-sentenced-one-year-prison-tweeting-threat-against-president https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndal/pr/birmingham-man-sentence...
exe34 2y ago
> that having nothing to hide means you have nothing to fear hopefully the US turning from leader of the free world to Russia's tool will give them the kick they need to realise that just because you trust the government now doesn't mean you trust the next government or the one after it.
- GeekyBear 2y ago
  You probably don't want to look up which US President tried to force Apple to insert an encryption back door into iPhones back in 2015. However, Google did only start moving to protect location data from subpoenas after people started to worry that location data could be used as a legal weapon against women who went to an abortion clinic, so your larger point stands.
  - jshier 2y ago
    That would be none, as it was the FBI, operating independently (as it's supposed to), which tried to force the issue. They even tried to go to Congress but found little support for their stunt. I'm not even sure Obama ever spoke in support of the backdoor, much less used any political power to make it a reality.
    - GeekyBear 2y ago
      Sorry, but the FBI is part of the executive branch. This is exactly like saying that President Trump has nothing to do with the actions of the executive branch agencies today.
      - exe34 2y ago
        it's true that the honour system only works when there's honour in the people in charge. when a clown moves into a palace, the clown doesn't become the king - the palace becomes a circus.
        GeekyBear 2y ago
miohtama 2y ago
Furthermore, one UK head of state call everyone supporting encryption pedophiles https://x.com/BenWallace70/status/1892972120818299199 https://x.com/BenWallace70/status/1892972120818299199
- scott_w 2y ago
  Just to be clear: Wallace is not a head of state, or even an MP any more. At one point, he was Secretary of State for Defence, a Cabinet position, however he resigned this in 2023. This doesn’t justify his position (it’s stupid) but he doesn’t speak for the current government.
  - onei 2y ago
    To clarify a bit further, the UK head of state is King Charles III, as he is for a bunch of other countries in the Commonwealth. Head of state in the UK is a bit weird compared to countries that abolished or never had a monarchy.
    - scott_w 2y ago
      You’re correct, however I gave GP the benefit of the doubt and assumed they meant Secretary of State ;-) And, to be fair, while I’m generally a small r republican, I’m seeing benefits of having a non politically aligned head of state after J6. While the monarch has limited power, booting out a PM that can’t command the confidence of Parliament is one of them. The question of whether Johnson would accept being dethroned a la Trump was always silly given his consent was never needed.
      - onei 2y ago
        The UK monarch's power is largely based on convention more than active decision making. For example, a government is formed at the invitation of the monarch, but that's long reflected the results of an election. Getting rid of a PM generally happens when they run out of luck. That sometimes coincides with the ruling party/coalition imploding. The next PM is then shortlisted by MPs and selected by a minority of the electorate. I guess the US equivalent is the leader of the house being unable to hold their majority together. In some ways the presidential election feels more democratic if a relative outsider (like Trump was) can win. But a 2 year lead up is crazy.
yubblegum 2y ago
> technical literacy amongst the political establishment who consistently rely on the fallacy that having nothing to hide means you have nothing to fear. That's an awfully generous assessment on your part. Kindly explain just what "technical literacy" has to do with the formulation you note. From here it reads like you are misdirecting and clouding the -intent- by the powerful here. Also does ERIC SCHMIDT an accomplished geek (who is an official member of MIC since (during?) his departure from Sun Microsystems) suffers from "technical literacy" issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=983717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=983717 Thank you in advance for clarifying your thought process here. Tech illiteracy -> what you got to hide there buddy?
- stavros 2y ago
  I feel like the comment was clear, technical illiteracy leads politicians to believe that they'll be the only ones with access to this backdoor, which isn't true.
  - ninalanyon 2y ago
    It isn't necessarily the case that they all care if criminals can get in to the average person's data so long as the authorities also can.
  - trinsic2 2y ago
    Yeah. Not buying it. They know, or someone smart enough told them that backdoors can be accessed by anyone with enough skill. They just don't care because the people that are asking for this are criminals already and wanting profit off of other people's data.
  - yubblegum 2y ago
    The comment's clarity was not questioned. You are passing around the same tired line that because politicians do not understand technology and how it can be used against anyone. Sure computers are new but communication technology is not. All a politician needs to understand is "capability". That is it. "We can read their communications", no degree in CS required. Also, they have power geeks advising them left and right. They know "capabilities" can be misused. They know this. Is this clear?
smsm42 2y ago
It's not literacy. They don't care. They need control, and if establishing control means increased risks for you, it's not something they see as a negative factor. It's your problem, not theirs.
- ben_w 2y ago
  The government put in restrictions against using certain powers in the Investigatory Powers Act to spy on members of parliament (unless the Prime Minister says so, section 26), so I think they're just oblivious to the risk model of "when hackers are involved, the computer isn't capable of knowing the order wasn't legal". https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/section/26 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/section/26
  - lozenge 2y ago
    That actually shows they understand and care because they don't want the law to apply to them. They don't care about its effects on other people.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      No, it shows they're thinking of computers like they think of police officers. Computer literacy 101: to err is human, to really foul up requires a computer. They don't understand that by requiring the capability for going after domestic criminals, they've given a huge gift to their international adversaries' intelligence agencies. (And given this is about a computer vulnerability, "international adversaries" includes terrorists, and possibly disgruntled teenagers, not just governments).
      - newdee 2y ago
        I think it could be for both reasons
      - soulofmischief 2y ago
        They understand. Signal Foundation's president, Meredith Whittaker, among many other tech leaders, have made it abundantly clear to both the UK and the EU. https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/21/meredith-whittaker-reaffirms-that-signal-would-leave-u-k-if-forced-by-privacy-bill/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/21/meredith-whittaker-reaffir... If politicians don't understand after such campaigning, it's a choice in willful ignorance, not bad computer literacy.
EchoReflection 2y ago
"it's hardly likely that pedo rings or rape gangs will be top of the list of priorities".... is this not one of the most disturbing, disgusting, psychologically troubling and damning ideas ever to be put to words/brought to awareness? . Right up there "let's meticulously plan out this horrific, atrocious, dehumanizing act and meditate upon the consequences, and then choose the most brutal and villainous option". Dear Lord....
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  People are extremely opposed to pedos, so they're a primary rationalization for oppressive technology. But then you have two problems. First, pedos know everybody hates them, so they take measures normal people wouldn't in order to avoid detection, and then backdooring the tech used by everybody else doesn't work against them because they'll use something else. But it does impair the security of normal people. Second, there aren't actually that many pedos and the easy to catch ones get caught regardless and the hard to catch ones get away with it regardless, which leaves the intersection of "easy enough to catch but wouldn't have been caught without this" as a set plausibly containing zero suspects. Not that they won't use it against the ones who would have been caught anyway and then declare victory, but it's the sort of thing that's pretty useless against the ones it's claimed to exist in order to catch, and therefore not something it can be used effectively in order to do. Whereas industrial espionage or LOVEINT or draining grandma's retirement account or manipulating ordinary people who don't realize they should be taking countermeasures -- the abuses of the system -- those are the things it's effective at bringing about, because ordinary people don't expect themselves to be targets.
- dsign 2y ago
  > is this not one of the most disturbing, disgusting, psychologically troubling and damning ideas ever to be put to words/brought to awareness? . Hmm? Hell has depths. Your yard might be a little too short to measure them? In that case, just think about this: rape is probably most common in prisons, where you will send innocents the moment this dragnet thing glitches.
gerdesj 2y ago
"Especially in the UK which operates as a paternalistic state and enjoys authoritarian support across all parties." What is a "paternalistic state". I studied Latin so obviously I understand pater == father but what is a father-like state? What on earth is: "authoritarian support across all parties". The UK has one Parliament, four Executives (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales) and a Monarch (he's actually quite a few Monarchs). Anyway, I do agree with you that destroying routine encryption is a bloody daft idea. It's a bit sad that Apple sold it as an extra add on. It does not cost much to run openssl - its proper open source.
- switch007 2y ago
  Are you trying to disagree with them by pretending that they're speaking rubbish? As a Brit, their comment made complete sense to me. By the way, there is no 'England' executive; it's the government of the United Kingdom, which handles all matters not devolved, in England and the rest of the UK.
- catlikesshrimp 2y ago
  In medicine, a paternalistic attitude towards the patient from a point of authority (like a father) The doctor acts as if he knows more and knows what is better. The patient has his own preferences and priorities, but they don't necessarily match with what the doctor does. I suppose a paternalistic state functions to satisfy the needs of the people, and to define those needs. The people get what the state says is best for them.
- walthamstow 2y ago
  Paternalism, unless I'm mistaken, is a belief among those in power that they what's best for you, better than you do, and will exercise power on your behalf in that manner. Just like your parents do when you're a child.
- ljm 2y ago
  Government knows what’s best for the people (colloquially we call it the nanny state). All our main political parties have an authoritarian slant so these policies have rarely received long-lasting opposition. Literally every government in office for the past 30-odd years has presented legislation like this.

by ljm 2y ago

elAhmo 2y ago

> the government has the mistaken belief that their back door will know the difference between the good guys (presumably them) and the bad guys This is a very good point, and in the recent months we have been witnessing that people in government, or aiming to become the government, are definitely not the good guys. So, even if what they are asking would be limited to just governments (which it wouldn't), they can't claim they are the good guys anymore.

kmeisthax 2y ago

What the politicians want is partial security: something they can crack but criminals can't. That is achievable in physical security, but not in cybersecurity. I have a feeling the politicians already know partial cybersecurity isn't an option, and don't care. Certainly, the intelligence community advising them absolutely does know. We don't even have to be conspiratorial about it: their jobs are easier in the world where secrets are illegal than in the world where hackers actually get stopped.

joncp 2y ago
> That is achievable in physical security, but not in cybersecurity. Not with physical security either, I'm afraid.
- kmeisthax 2y ago
  Any physical lock can be manipulated, even the particularly high-security ones. But in practice, most locks are not even challenged because doing so requires actually walking up to the lock and trying. You can't try every physical lock in existence; but you can try every digital lock. So the effects of, say, an encryption backdoor key compromise would be far greater and far more immediate than, say, the compromise of the Travel Sentry master keys.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  With physical security the state apparatus can provide physical security in the form of police and what not, as well as deterrence and punishment. In the world of cryptography it's... a bit harder to do something similar. In the best case they can come up with a key escrow system that doesn't suck too much, force you to use it, and hopefully they don't ever get the master keys hacked and stolen or leaked. But they're not asking for key escrow. They're asking for providers to be the escrow agents or whatever worse thing they come up with.
eterm 2y ago
> That is achievable in physical security, but not in cybersecurity This isn't accurate though, and leads us down the path of trying to prevent these bad laws from a technical perspective when we should be fighting the principle of the bad law not just decrying it for being "unworkable". It is possible to construct encryption schemes with a "backdoor key" while still being provably secure against anyone else. This creates precisely the "partial security" you describe: Criminals can't crack the encryption, but the government can use their backdoor-key. But like those who argue online age-consent schemes can't work, it doesn't help to argue against the technical aspects of such bad laws. The law, particularly UK law, doesn't care for what's technically possible. The bad laws can sit on the books regardless of the technical feasibility of enforcement. Eventually technology can catch up, or the law can simply be applied on a best endeavours / selective enforcement approach.

kingkongjaffa 2y ago

> Especially in the UK which operates as a paternalistic state and enjoys authoritarian support across all parties. This seemed strange to point out. It’s not really any more or less “paternalistic” than most western nations including the US.

gleenn 2y ago
If you see a red car driving down the street do you not call it red because there are many other red cars? They're adding color (pun intended) to their description of the general bias of the UK government. What you're doing is called Whataboutism - the argument that others are doing something similar or as bad in different contexts. It doesn't make what the UK is doing any less bad for citizens (and non-citizens) privacy or data sovereignty.
- polshaw 2y ago
  You don't say it's "especially" red then do you. The comparison was started by the GP.
15155 2y ago
Folks in the United States aren't routinely arrested for Facebook posts.
- 4ndrewl 2y ago
  They're not arrested for posting on Facebook. They're arrested for _what_ they're posting on Facebook.
  - pb7 2y ago
    Yes, people in the US don't get arrested for that.
    - maccard 2y ago
      Yes, they do. https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/page-man-charged-threatening-burn-page-magistrate-court https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/page-man-charged-threaten... https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/30/us/georgia-woman-facebook-antipolice-post/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/30/us/georgia-woman-facebook... https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/10/19/influencer-gets-months-in-prison-for-2016-voter-interference-scheme.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/10/19/influencer-gets-months-i... https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndal/pr/birmingham-man-sentenced-one-year-prison-tweeting-threat-against-president https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndal/pr/birmingham-man-sentence...

exe34 2y ago

> that having nothing to hide means you have nothing to fear hopefully the US turning from leader of the free world to Russia's tool will give them the kick they need to realise that just because you trust the government now doesn't mean you trust the next government or the one after it.

GeekyBear 2y ago
You probably don't want to look up which US President tried to force Apple to insert an encryption back door into iPhones back in 2015. However, Google did only start moving to protect location data from subpoenas after people started to worry that location data could be used as a legal weapon against women who went to an abortion clinic, so your larger point stands.
- jshier 2y ago
  That would be none, as it was the FBI, operating independently (as it's supposed to), which tried to force the issue. They even tried to go to Congress but found little support for their stunt. I'm not even sure Obama ever spoke in support of the backdoor, much less used any political power to make it a reality.
  - GeekyBear 2y ago
    Sorry, but the FBI is part of the executive branch. This is exactly like saying that President Trump has nothing to do with the actions of the executive branch agencies today.
    - exe34 2y ago
      it's true that the honour system only works when there's honour in the people in charge. when a clown moves into a palace, the clown doesn't become the king - the palace becomes a circus.
      - GeekyBear 2y ago

miohtama 2y ago

Furthermore, one UK head of state call everyone supporting encryption pedophiles https://x.com/BenWallace70/status/1892972120818299199 https://x.com/BenWallace70/status/1892972120818299199

scott_w 2y ago
Just to be clear: Wallace is not a head of state, or even an MP any more. At one point, he was Secretary of State for Defence, a Cabinet position, however he resigned this in 2023. This doesn’t justify his position (it’s stupid) but he doesn’t speak for the current government.
- onei 2y ago
  To clarify a bit further, the UK head of state is King Charles III, as he is for a bunch of other countries in the Commonwealth. Head of state in the UK is a bit weird compared to countries that abolished or never had a monarchy.
  - scott_w 2y ago
    You’re correct, however I gave GP the benefit of the doubt and assumed they meant Secretary of State ;-) And, to be fair, while I’m generally a small r republican, I’m seeing benefits of having a non politically aligned head of state after J6. While the monarch has limited power, booting out a PM that can’t command the confidence of Parliament is one of them. The question of whether Johnson would accept being dethroned a la Trump was always silly given his consent was never needed.
    - onei 2y ago
      The UK monarch's power is largely based on convention more than active decision making. For example, a government is formed at the invitation of the monarch, but that's long reflected the results of an election. Getting rid of a PM generally happens when they run out of luck. That sometimes coincides with the ruling party/coalition imploding. The next PM is then shortlisted by MPs and selected by a minority of the electorate. I guess the US equivalent is the leader of the house being unable to hold their majority together. In some ways the presidential election feels more democratic if a relative outsider (like Trump was) can win. But a 2 year lead up is crazy.

yubblegum 2y ago

> technical literacy amongst the political establishment who consistently rely on the fallacy that having nothing to hide means you have nothing to fear. That's an awfully generous assessment on your part. Kindly explain just what "technical literacy" has to do with the formulation you note. From here it reads like you are misdirecting and clouding the -intent- by the powerful here. Also does ERIC SCHMIDT an accomplished geek (who is an official member of MIC since (during?) his departure from Sun Microsystems) suffers from "technical literacy" issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=983717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=983717 Thank you in advance for clarifying your thought process here. Tech illiteracy -> what you got to hide there buddy?

stavros 2y ago
I feel like the comment was clear, technical illiteracy leads politicians to believe that they'll be the only ones with access to this backdoor, which isn't true.
- ninalanyon 2y ago
  It isn't necessarily the case that they all care if criminals can get in to the average person's data so long as the authorities also can.
- trinsic2 2y ago
  Yeah. Not buying it. They know, or someone smart enough told them that backdoors can be accessed by anyone with enough skill. They just don't care because the people that are asking for this are criminals already and wanting profit off of other people's data.
- yubblegum 2y ago
  The comment's clarity was not questioned. You are passing around the same tired line that because politicians do not understand technology and how it can be used against anyone. Sure computers are new but communication technology is not. All a politician needs to understand is "capability". That is it. "We can read their communications", no degree in CS required. Also, they have power geeks advising them left and right. They know "capabilities" can be misused. They know this. Is this clear?

smsm42 2y ago

It's not literacy. They don't care. They need control, and if establishing control means increased risks for you, it's not something they see as a negative factor. It's your problem, not theirs.

ben_w 2y ago
The government put in restrictions against using certain powers in the Investigatory Powers Act to spy on members of parliament (unless the Prime Minister says so, section 26), so I think they're just oblivious to the risk model of "when hackers are involved, the computer isn't capable of knowing the order wasn't legal". https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/section/26 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/section/26
- lozenge 2y ago
  That actually shows they understand and care because they don't want the law to apply to them. They don't care about its effects on other people.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    No, it shows they're thinking of computers like they think of police officers. Computer literacy 101: to err is human, to really foul up requires a computer. They don't understand that by requiring the capability for going after domestic criminals, they've given a huge gift to their international adversaries' intelligence agencies. (And given this is about a computer vulnerability, "international adversaries" includes terrorists, and possibly disgruntled teenagers, not just governments).
    - newdee 2y ago
      I think it could be for both reasons
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      They understand. Signal Foundation's president, Meredith Whittaker, among many other tech leaders, have made it abundantly clear to both the UK and the EU. https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/21/meredith-whittaker-reaffirms-that-signal-would-leave-u-k-if-forced-by-privacy-bill/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/21/meredith-whittaker-reaffir... If politicians don't understand after such campaigning, it's a choice in willful ignorance, not bad computer literacy.

EchoReflection 2y ago

"it's hardly likely that pedo rings or rape gangs will be top of the list of priorities".... is this not one of the most disturbing, disgusting, psychologically troubling and damning ideas ever to be put to words/brought to awareness? . Right up there "let's meticulously plan out this horrific, atrocious, dehumanizing act and meditate upon the consequences, and then choose the most brutal and villainous option". Dear Lord....

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
People are extremely opposed to pedos, so they're a primary rationalization for oppressive technology. But then you have two problems. First, pedos know everybody hates them, so they take measures normal people wouldn't in order to avoid detection, and then backdooring the tech used by everybody else doesn't work against them because they'll use something else. But it does impair the security of normal people. Second, there aren't actually that many pedos and the easy to catch ones get caught regardless and the hard to catch ones get away with it regardless, which leaves the intersection of "easy enough to catch but wouldn't have been caught without this" as a set plausibly containing zero suspects. Not that they won't use it against the ones who would have been caught anyway and then declare victory, but it's the sort of thing that's pretty useless against the ones it's claimed to exist in order to catch, and therefore not something it can be used effectively in order to do. Whereas industrial espionage or LOVEINT or draining grandma's retirement account or manipulating ordinary people who don't realize they should be taking countermeasures -- the abuses of the system -- those are the things it's effective at bringing about, because ordinary people don't expect themselves to be targets.
dsign 2y ago
> is this not one of the most disturbing, disgusting, psychologically troubling and damning ideas ever to be put to words/brought to awareness? . Hmm? Hell has depths. Your yard might be a little too short to measure them? In that case, just think about this: rape is probably most common in prisons, where you will send innocents the moment this dragnet thing glitches.

gerdesj 2y ago

"Especially in the UK which operates as a paternalistic state and enjoys authoritarian support across all parties." What is a "paternalistic state". I studied Latin so obviously I understand pater == father but what is a father-like state? What on earth is: "authoritarian support across all parties". The UK has one Parliament, four Executives (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales) and a Monarch (he's actually quite a few Monarchs). Anyway, I do agree with you that destroying routine encryption is a bloody daft idea. It's a bit sad that Apple sold it as an extra add on. It does not cost much to run openssl - its proper open source.

switch007 2y ago
Are you trying to disagree with them by pretending that they're speaking rubbish? As a Brit, their comment made complete sense to me. By the way, there is no 'England' executive; it's the government of the United Kingdom, which handles all matters not devolved, in England and the rest of the UK.
catlikesshrimp 2y ago
In medicine, a paternalistic attitude towards the patient from a point of authority (like a father) The doctor acts as if he knows more and knows what is better. The patient has his own preferences and priorities, but they don't necessarily match with what the doctor does. I suppose a paternalistic state functions to satisfy the needs of the people, and to define those needs. The people get what the state says is best for them.
walthamstow 2y ago
Paternalism, unless I'm mistaken, is a belief among those in power that they what's best for you, better than you do, and will exercise power on your behalf in that manner. Just like your parents do when you're a child.
ljm 2y ago
Government knows what’s best for the people (colloquially we call it the nanny state). All our main political parties have an authoritarian slant so these policies have rarely received long-lasting opposition. Literally every government in office for the past 30-odd years has presented legislation like this.