6 ms·

It's pretty clear that the UK government doesn't have the power to ban encryption. This is just a distraction so that we are happy to accept whatever "less bad"

It's pretty clear that the UK government doesn't have the power to ban encryption. This is just a distraction so that we are happy to accept whatever "less bad" proposals they come up with to increase their surveillance powers. I can't help but feel that peoples dislike of Cameron is a pointless distraction too. This is not Cameron. This is government. We will still be having this same discussion in 50 years, unless some miracle technical advancement makes it moot.

tonyedgecombe 11y ago
It's not really the elected government, it's the security services asking for an expanded remit and being granted one by uncritical politicians and an apathetic media.
- chao- 11y ago
  Who are the security services employed by? I certainly wouldn't call them private industry! Did you mean to say it's not elected government officials? Just curious, because I definitely consider a country's intelligence apparatus to be completely and wholly part of its "government", and would be surprised to find someone who didn't.
  - northernmonkey 11y ago
    But a Country's intelligence apparatus doesn't 'govern'. I'm not trying to be deliberately argumentative but it seems to me that there is a clear and obvious distinction between a government and the organisations tasked by it to provide intelligence.
    - pjc50 11y ago
      See discussion of "permanent state" passim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9902497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9902497 The security services have a large amount of operational discretion and privileged access to ministers. They have the ability to present secret "evidence" which cannot be publicly challenged. Let's not forget that the CIA effectively ran the governments of several Latin American countries, and in the UK Northern Ireland was effectively governed by the police Special Branch.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    Read about the Dulles brothers. They forged very strong connections between overt and covert foreign policy and industry.
    - joshuapants 11y ago
      I'm actually reading the book Brothers by David Talbot right now. It covers the relationship between John and Bobby Kennedy and includes a pretty good section about how in the 50s the Dulles brothers basically dictated foreign policy. There was a lot of friction when JFK came into office because, especially after the Bay of Pigs, he didn't let them get away with things. The book does veer somewhat into unfounded conspiracy territory, but I think it's an interesting read so far and the author doesn't come across as crazy so much as skeptical.
      - lifeisstillgood 11y ago
        > There was a lot of friction when JFK came into office because, especially after the Bay of Pigs, he didn't let them get away with things. And there is the essence of why we want transparency, oversight, restricted privacy etc. I generally feel that if everything the security services did was publically available (at least on level with civilian police) there would be a lot of friction but they would get immersurably better.
    - gorgak 11y ago
      they sacrificed >100k guatemalans on the false pretence that they had to 'stop a communist state in their hemisphere' - we later found out it was all made up rubbish (this was after the people were dead) and the actual reason was because their mates were in united fruit company.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      I don't see why gorgak's comment got flagged unto death. The Dulles brothers caused the term "banana republic" to be coined by O. Henry because the US government was toppling governments and killing large numbers of people on behalf of United Fruit. It is also generally accepted that the Communism scare they put up was bunk.
  - tonyedgecombe 11y ago
    I was thinking of government as the elected officials, the rest is the civil service and departments including the security services. I was trying to say the security services will always press for more powers and it's the job of politicians to know when to resist those requests.
  - Luc 11y ago
    'The government' refers to something different in the US than in (most of?) Europe. My American friends were mightily amused and amazed when Belgium spent >500 days without government a couple of years ago, but of course they were interpreting the word in a much more encompassing way than it is done in Belgium. 'The goverment' is really just a couple of dozen people (with perhaps a couple of dozen assistants each).
    - mariuolo 11y ago
      Gouvernement/regering translate to administration or cabinet or whatever each country designates its executive branch.
  - gorgak 11y ago
    i call them the black government, ruining everything for everyone behind the scenes. these politicians have no control over them! they must be stopped.
  - sacado2 11y ago
    In France, government only refers to the ministers. Prime minister is chief of the government, meaning only the other ministers. But the president is the "chef d'état", (chief of state), and I guess what you call government, we call it "the state". So, for a French citizen at least, a country's intelligence is not part of the government but part of "the state".
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    gorgak you've been hell-banned.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- 7952 11y ago
  The politicians decide what to fund. The police and border forces want more funding but are forced to make endless cuts. I guess spying is something they can ask for that is relatively cheap compared to traditional police work.
glomph 11y ago
I think the sane thing to do is assume they are going to ask for legislation to force large companies that do online communication (facebook, whatsapp, twitter, apple, etc) to keep their system potentially and practically back door capable. That is something that would be possible to implement. It is also something with a historical precedent (look into how they responded to the BBM situation after the London riots). If we don't want that to happen then the smart thing to do would be act as if that is what they are proposing. If they propose something even worse it isn't like it will have been wasted effort.
pcrh 11y ago
So... how close are we to tech that will make encryption universal and surveillance impossible, if so desired?
- kordless 11y ago
  You are running on it right now, so pretty damn close. :)
  - pcrh 11y ago
    Do you mean https? Many common websites don't use/facilitate it.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - filsmick 11y ago
      Hacker News does.
    - kordless 11y ago
      I actually meant the reality we appear to exist in. https will eventually be broken and surveillance possible. :)

tonyedgecombe 11y ago

It's not really the elected government, it's the security services asking for an expanded remit and being granted one by uncritical politicians and an apathetic media.

chao- 11y ago
Who are the security services employed by? I certainly wouldn't call them private industry! Did you mean to say it's not elected government officials? Just curious, because I definitely consider a country's intelligence apparatus to be completely and wholly part of its "government", and would be surprised to find someone who didn't.
- northernmonkey 11y ago
  But a Country's intelligence apparatus doesn't 'govern'. I'm not trying to be deliberately argumentative but it seems to me that there is a clear and obvious distinction between a government and the organisations tasked by it to provide intelligence.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    See discussion of "permanent state" passim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9902497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9902497 The security services have a large amount of operational discretion and privileged access to ministers. They have the ability to present secret "evidence" which cannot be publicly challenged. Let's not forget that the CIA effectively ran the governments of several Latin American countries, and in the UK Northern Ireland was effectively governed by the police Special Branch.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  Read about the Dulles brothers. They forged very strong connections between overt and covert foreign policy and industry.
  - joshuapants 11y ago
    I'm actually reading the book Brothers by David Talbot right now. It covers the relationship between John and Bobby Kennedy and includes a pretty good section about how in the 50s the Dulles brothers basically dictated foreign policy. There was a lot of friction when JFK came into office because, especially after the Bay of Pigs, he didn't let them get away with things. The book does veer somewhat into unfounded conspiracy territory, but I think it's an interesting read so far and the author doesn't come across as crazy so much as skeptical.
    - lifeisstillgood 11y ago
      > There was a lot of friction when JFK came into office because, especially after the Bay of Pigs, he didn't let them get away with things. And there is the essence of why we want transparency, oversight, restricted privacy etc. I generally feel that if everything the security services did was publically available (at least on level with civilian police) there would be a lot of friction but they would get immersurably better.
  - gorgak 11y ago
    they sacrificed >100k guatemalans on the false pretence that they had to 'stop a communist state in their hemisphere' - we later found out it was all made up rubbish (this was after the people were dead) and the actual reason was because their mates were in united fruit company.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    I don't see why gorgak's comment got flagged unto death. The Dulles brothers caused the term "banana republic" to be coined by O. Henry because the US government was toppling governments and killing large numbers of people on behalf of United Fruit. It is also generally accepted that the Communism scare they put up was bunk.
- tonyedgecombe 11y ago
  I was thinking of government as the elected officials, the rest is the civil service and departments including the security services. I was trying to say the security services will always press for more powers and it's the job of politicians to know when to resist those requests.
- Luc 11y ago
  'The government' refers to something different in the US than in (most of?) Europe. My American friends were mightily amused and amazed when Belgium spent >500 days without government a couple of years ago, but of course they were interpreting the word in a much more encompassing way than it is done in Belgium. 'The goverment' is really just a couple of dozen people (with perhaps a couple of dozen assistants each).
  - mariuolo 11y ago
    Gouvernement/regering translate to administration or cabinet or whatever each country designates its executive branch.
- gorgak 11y ago
  i call them the black government, ruining everything for everyone behind the scenes. these politicians have no control over them! they must be stopped.
- sacado2 11y ago
  In France, government only refers to the ministers. Prime minister is chief of the government, meaning only the other ministers. But the president is the "chef d'état", (chief of state), and I guess what you call government, we call it "the state". So, for a French citizen at least, a country's intelligence is not part of the government but part of "the state".
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  gorgak you've been hell-banned.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
7952 11y ago
The politicians decide what to fund. The police and border forces want more funding but are forced to make endless cuts. I guess spying is something they can ask for that is relatively cheap compared to traditional police work.

glomph 11y ago

I think the sane thing to do is assume they are going to ask for legislation to force large companies that do online communication (facebook, whatsapp, twitter, apple, etc) to keep their system potentially and practically back door capable. That is something that would be possible to implement. It is also something with a historical precedent (look into how they responded to the BBM situation after the London riots). If we don't want that to happen then the smart thing to do would be act as if that is what they are proposing. If they propose something even worse it isn't like it will have been wasted effort.

pcrh 11y ago

So... how close are we to tech that will make encryption universal and surveillance impossible, if so desired?

kordless 11y ago
You are running on it right now, so pretty damn close. :)
- pcrh 11y ago
  Do you mean https? Many common websites don't use/facilitate it.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - filsmick 11y ago
    Hacker News does.
  - kordless 11y ago
    I actually meant the reality we appear to exist in. https will eventually be broken and surveillance possible. :)