3 ms·

> They weren't forced to close down per se... That's the crux of the issue. They weren't forced to close down, they chose to. End of discussion. EDIT: Actual

> They weren't forced to close down per se... That's the crux of the issue. They weren't forced to close down, they chose to. End of discussion. EDIT: Actually, why don't we see what the CEO of CertiVox has to say on the matter? "The headline strongly infers our friends at GCHQ “forced” us to take PrivateSky down. That’s hogwash." Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6894316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6894316

RobAley 13y ago
Nope, the beginning of one. Life is never black and white like that.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
kintamanimatt 13y ago
End of discussion? No, sir, it is not! Your interpretation is extremely naïve. I could hold a gun to your head, for example. You wouldn't be forced per se to meet my demands, but you probably would because it would be extremely unreasonable not to. In the same way, the consequences for not complying are: an extremely expensive and possibly unaffordable rewrite, going to jail for a few years, or giving up their customers data in violation of their principles. The GHCQ order effectively put a gun to their head.
- lttlrck 13y ago
  Why is it extremely unreasonable to not comply when there is a gun at your head but not in this case?
  - kintamanimatt 13y ago
    I think you've misread what I wrote.
- jackgavigan 13y ago
  > I could hold a gun to your head, for example. You wouldn't be forced per se to meet my demands, but you probably would because it would be extremely unreasonable not to. GCHQ never demanded that CertiVox shut down their service. That is the bottom line and, no matter what sort of ridiculous "gun against your head" rationale you come up with or how firmly you plug your ears while shouting "LALALA!" at the top of your voice; you cannot refute that fact. EDIT: Actually, why don't we see what the CEO of CertiVox has to say on the matter? "The headline strongly infers our friends at GCHQ “forced” us to take PrivateSky down. That’s hogwash." Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6894316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6894316
  - kintamanimatt 13y ago
    I think you should direct your fingers-in-ears comment towards yourself. In any event, I can't make a further argument without being repetitive.
  - teamgb 13y ago
    Sir Ian, nice try, but we know it's you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Lobban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Lobban
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Sounds like these services actually shutting down is a good thing for the end users, since they aren't actually securely designed in the first place! They even admit in the article they'd have to properly design their system to make email unreadable by their staff, and they chose to shutter their service vs trying to figure out how to make that work and still make money.
  - bribriinlondon2 13y ago
    No, re-read the article, your wrong. We made our system's data unreadable by staff, that's the first thing we did. Making it readable by GCHQ would have incurred the cost.
alan_cx 13y ago
So if I put a gun to your head, and you give me money, you haven't been forced to, right? Are you PG? No? Then who are you to decide when a discussion ends round here?
- jackgavigan 13y ago
  > So if I put a gun to your head, and you give me money, you haven't been forced to, right? Wrong. I HAVE been forced. You have threatened me with death if I don't comply with your demand. GCHQ never demanded that CertiVox shut down their service. They (or, rather, the Home Secretary) demanded that they hand over the key(s) required to decrypt one (or more) of CertiVox's customer's data. If CertiVox took it upon themselves to then shut down the PrivateSky service, that is their choice. But it is a lie to claim that GCHQ forced them to. CertiVox could claim that they "felt they had no option but to shut down the service" or that they "could no longer, in all conscience, continue to offer and market a service that" blah blah blah but, the fact is that they always knew that PrivateSky was vulnerable to section 49 notices. RIPA's been on the statute books for over a decade and section 49 has been in force since 2007. CertiVox launched PrivateSky in 2011, which means that they either built a service that they knew was vulnerable to RIPA disclosure requirements or they didn't know about RIPA. I don't believe that they didn't know about RIPA. It doesn't matter what special snowflake rationale you come up with about what's reasonable or unreasonable. The simple fact of the matter is that the headline is misleading. GCHQ did not force PrivateSky to shut down. EDIT: Even the CEO of CertiVox refutes the claim that GCHQ forced the closure of PrivateSky! "The headline strongly infers our friends at GCHQ “forced” us to take PrivateSky down. That’s hogwash." Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6894316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6894316
  - teamgb 13y ago
    Theresa, is that you?! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]

RobAley 13y ago

Nope, the beginning of one. Life is never black and white like that.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

kintamanimatt 13y ago

End of discussion? No, sir, it is not! Your interpretation is extremely naïve. I could hold a gun to your head, for example. You wouldn't be forced per se to meet my demands, but you probably would because it would be extremely unreasonable not to. In the same way, the consequences for not complying are: an extremely expensive and possibly unaffordable rewrite, going to jail for a few years, or giving up their customers data in violation of their principles. The GHCQ order effectively put a gun to their head.

lttlrck 13y ago
Why is it extremely unreasonable to not comply when there is a gun at your head but not in this case?
- kintamanimatt 13y ago
  I think you've misread what I wrote.
jackgavigan 13y ago
> I could hold a gun to your head, for example. You wouldn't be forced per se to meet my demands, but you probably would because it would be extremely unreasonable not to. GCHQ never demanded that CertiVox shut down their service. That is the bottom line and, no matter what sort of ridiculous "gun against your head" rationale you come up with or how firmly you plug your ears while shouting "LALALA!" at the top of your voice; you cannot refute that fact. EDIT: Actually, why don't we see what the CEO of CertiVox has to say on the matter? "The headline strongly infers our friends at GCHQ “forced” us to take PrivateSky down. That’s hogwash." Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6894316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6894316
- kintamanimatt 13y ago
  I think you should direct your fingers-in-ears comment towards yourself. In any event, I can't make a further argument without being repetitive.
- teamgb 13y ago
  Sir Ian, nice try, but we know it's you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Lobban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Lobban
res0nat0r 13y ago
Sounds like these services actually shutting down is a good thing for the end users, since they aren't actually securely designed in the first place! They even admit in the article they'd have to properly design their system to make email unreadable by their staff, and they chose to shutter their service vs trying to figure out how to make that work and still make money.
- bribriinlondon2 13y ago
  No, re-read the article, your wrong. We made our system's data unreadable by staff, that's the first thing we did. Making it readable by GCHQ would have incurred the cost.

alan_cx 13y ago

So if I put a gun to your head, and you give me money, you haven't been forced to, right? Are you PG? No? Then who are you to decide when a discussion ends round here?

jackgavigan 13y ago
> So if I put a gun to your head, and you give me money, you haven't been forced to, right? Wrong. I HAVE been forced. You have threatened me with death if I don't comply with your demand. GCHQ never demanded that CertiVox shut down their service. They (or, rather, the Home Secretary) demanded that they hand over the key(s) required to decrypt one (or more) of CertiVox's customer's data. If CertiVox took it upon themselves to then shut down the PrivateSky service, that is their choice. But it is a lie to claim that GCHQ forced them to. CertiVox could claim that they "felt they had no option but to shut down the service" or that they "could no longer, in all conscience, continue to offer and market a service that" blah blah blah but, the fact is that they always knew that PrivateSky was vulnerable to section 49 notices. RIPA's been on the statute books for over a decade and section 49 has been in force since 2007. CertiVox launched PrivateSky in 2011, which means that they either built a service that they knew was vulnerable to RIPA disclosure requirements or they didn't know about RIPA. I don't believe that they didn't know about RIPA. It doesn't matter what special snowflake rationale you come up with about what's reasonable or unreasonable. The simple fact of the matter is that the headline is misleading. GCHQ did not force PrivateSky to shut down. EDIT: Even the CEO of CertiVox refutes the claim that GCHQ forced the closure of PrivateSky! "The headline strongly infers our friends at GCHQ “forced” us to take PrivateSky down. That’s hogwash." Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6894316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6894316
- teamgb 13y ago
  Theresa, is that you?! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]