Hacker News Reader

Comment by null0pointer | Hacker News Reader

1. Trivial to bypass: Check

2. Further degrades the privacy of the general public: Check

Just another day in internet legislation.

This often makes me think, what would happen if the authorities suddenly instituted something that actually wasn't trivial to bypass?

There are smart people working for them, why do they keep bringing in this stuff that doesn't actually have an effect against the baddies?

Is it possible that they are self-sabotaging because they actually realize they don't want to live in the world they are rushing headlong towards? Or is that giving them too much credit?

I think it is supposed to be a slow erosion of our rights over time so that each generation that follows every thing seems par to the course.

Those trying to communicate will always have the advantage thanks to cryptography. It gives you many way to secure and obfuscate communications, even in plain view.

I disagree. Surveillance isn’t limited to breaking encryption — the Stasi would put cameras in water cans to spy on funerals, drill holes in walls while you were out to spy on you in your own apartment, etc. — and the tech for meatspace surveillance has only gotten smaller and cheaper since the fall of the Wall. Laser microphones in particular are something a high school student could reasonably make with a pocket-money budget.

https://f-droid.org/packages/hans.b.skewy1_0/ for the eavesdropping microphones :)

> It works best with a small hardware extension (a small speaker/headphone) to focus the sound on the mic, making it silent its surroundings. An idea how to build it is found in the Menu.

Great when you know where the microphone is but can’t leave the area for a private chat; not so useful when the microphone is any nearby substance that reflects some wavelength and which vibrates enough when exposed to sound that the reflected light can be decoded.

They won't, for quite a while because it's good strategy. Don't let your opponent know they're trapped until the very end.

Had the government gone all-in trying to stop piracy, or drugs, back in the day they'd have kicked off this privacy awareness years ago, when they were much less ready. Now they've had a chance to gear up and get behind the terrorist attacks as they happen with stories about the chat clients they use, or how their iphones kept police from reading their texts, etc. With a little more of this by the time they do crack down not only will the tech be much more refined but there'll be a properly trained group of people who defend the censorship on safety, or moral, or whatever grounds, to keep the heat away from those who made the decisions.

The idea that the powers aren't actually useful is a completely false meme that techies tell each other because they imagine criminals to behave in a particular way, which is incorrect.

Police powers are routinely shown to be useful in actual criminal investigations.

> Trivial to bypass: Check

For you and me, yes. For Joe Public no. I think it's fair for people to expect a modicum of privacy inside their own home.

Is constant surveillance of a nation's citizens OK? I don't think so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com