Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors • Hacker News Board

Re: Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors

#51

Post by quaunaut » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 8:09 PM UTC

johnsea wrote: post #28

quaunaut wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've agreed as a country that the ability to get a warrant in the case of probable cause is a good thing. How is this not just maintaining that? I find it hilarious how often privacy advocates manage to forget that we've had this conversation before, and while the government can and has overstepped in many ways, lets not throw out the ability to investigate at all along the way.

I'd say: first throw out the ability for NSA to spy without letting the persons concerned speak about it. Then we can talk about 'warrants in the case of probable cause'. US as a country has lost a lot of goodwill and trust. And don't forget: - number of deaths from acts of domestic terrorism: 36 - number of deaths–homicide, suicide, and accidental–caused by firearms: 316,545 (in a decade, link: http://magazine.good.…

You think this stuff is just anti-terrorism? The whole reason I even MENTIONED the idea of a warrant is specifically for normal policework. It's the same as searching someone's house after a murder's taken place- just now, instead of reading their files, it's all in a secure place in their computer.

Having a reasonable way to read that stuff(WITHOUT USING A BACKDOOR. I don't want weaker crypto just for this- but businesses hosting this stuff always have their proprietary ways of handling things) is just a continuation of previous law.

Re: Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors

#52

Post by quaunaut » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 8:10 PM UTC

cryoshon wrote: post #37

quaunaut wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've agreed as a country that the ability to get a warrant in the case of probable cause is a good thing. How is this not just maintaining that? I find it hilarious how often privacy advocates manage to forget that we've had this conversation before, and while the government can and has overstepped in many ways, lets not throw out the ability to investigate at all along the way.

They're investigating us, who are not suspected of any crime. Let's throw out their ability to investigate. Traditional policework goes a very, very long way, and it's time to admit that the terrorism angle is too overblown and intentionally abused to take seriously anymore. Ultra-narrowly targeted, ultra limited duration, warrant-required wiretaps which are disclosed as evidence in full during court trial are what i…

But wiretaps over SSL are worthless unless you want to spend a year letting the computer run, which isn't possible thanks to that provision in the law requiring a speedy trial.

Re: Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors

#53

Post by quaunaut » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 8:11 PM UTC

drcube wrote: post #23

quaunaut wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've agreed as a country that the ability to get a warrant in the case of probable cause is a good thing. How is this not just maintaining that? I find it hilarious how often privacy advocates manage to forget that we've had this conversation before, and while the government can and has overstepped in many ways, lets not throw out the ability to investigate at all along the way.

Because breaking encryption breaks it for everyone. If the cops can get your data, so can a hacker. There is simply no way to compromise. You either are encrypted, in which case nobody but you can decrypt your data, or you're not encrypted at all. Remember the "TSA locks" we're all required to use on our luggage at the airport? Nobody but the government was supposed to be able to unlock them. But now anyone who wants…

I'm not arguing to break encryption. And neither is the white house. They want ways around this stuff- ways that don't break encryption, but if the information is available, then the ability to get to it if necessary.

Backdoors don't work because yeah, it breaks the whole system. But not everything is encrypted with these companies, that's just plain.

Re: Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors

#54

Post by bcoates » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 8:14 PM UTC

late2part wrote: post #46

happyscrappy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it is. How is it in the interest of TPTB to have weed legalized? Yet it is happening.

I'll be your Huckleberry. Why are we seeing advances in drug legalization and LGBT rights, but erosion in others?

Because the drug legalizers first disobeyed, then circumvented, and finally ignored the law, and the LGBT groups cheerfully use personal intimidation and group shaming rather than wasting their time putting their faith in politicians?

The status quo can be improved but it's a process of beating the system and the people in it until they stop resisting, not choosing better ones or convincing them you're in the right.

Re: Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors

#55

Post by obastani » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 8:21 PM UTC

drcube wrote: post #23

quaunaut wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've agreed as a country that the ability to get a warrant in the case of probable cause is a good thing. How is this not just maintaining that? I find it hilarious how often privacy advocates manage to forget that we've had this conversation before, and while the government can and has overstepped in many ways, lets not throw out the ability to investigate at all along the way.

Because breaking encryption breaks it for everyone. If the cops can get your data, so can a hacker. There is simply no way to compromise. You either are encrypted, in which case nobody but you can decrypt your data, or you're not encrypted at all. Remember the "TSA locks" we're all required to use on our luggage at the airport? Nobody but the government was supposed to be able to unlock them. But now anyone who wants…

What if there was a way to give only the US government access to the data? For example, somehow have a shared encryption scheme where the user holds a decryption key to decrypt her data, but the government and the company can somehow use their keys in conjunction to decrypt the data as well. (This means company must be complicit in releasing the data, so they have the opportunity to verify/fight the warrant.) If someone came up with such a secure encryption scheme, would that be a palatable approach?

I ask this because I'm curious whether you (and people in general) believe that hackability is the only obstacle to giving government access to personal data (with a warrant, of course), or if people would still be uncomfortable with such a system.

Personally, I think such a scheme would be a good compromise, but I'm not a crypto expert so I don't know if it's in any way feasible.

Re: Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors

#56

Post by Zombieball » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 8:23 PM UTC

quaunaut wrote: post #53

drcube wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because breaking encryption breaks it for everyone. If the cops can get your data, so can a hacker. There is simply no way to compromise. You either are encrypted, in which case nobody but you can decrypt your data, or you're not encrypted at all. Remember the "TSA locks" we're all required to use on our luggage at the airport? Nobody but the government was supposed to be able to unlock them. But now anyone who wants…

I'm not arguing to break encryption. And neither is the white house. They want ways around this stuff- ways that don't break encryption, but if the information is available, then the ability to get to it if necessary. Backdoors don't work because yeah, it breaks the whole system. But not everything is encrypted with these companies, that's just plain.

Perhaps I am not versed well enough in the subject, but I have a hard time envisioning any kind of system that allows government officials to get around the encryption and peer into the contents but not hackers.

There will always be some sort of secret only the government has access to, and once that secret is leaked it's game over.

Re: Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors

#57

Post by sdenton4 » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 8:24 PM UTC

drcube wrote: post #23

quaunaut wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've agreed as a country that the ability to get a warrant in the case of probable cause is a good thing. How is this not just maintaining that? I find it hilarious how often privacy advocates manage to forget that we've had this conversation before, and while the government can and has overstepped in many ways, lets not throw out the ability to investigate at all along the way.

Because breaking encryption breaks it for everyone. If the cops can get your data, so can a hacker. There is simply no way to compromise. You either are encrypted, in which case nobody but you can decrypt your data, or you're not encrypted at all. Remember the "TSA locks" we're all required to use on our luggage at the airport? Nobody but the government was supposed to be able to unlock them. But now anyone who wants…

to obstani's sibling comment: It's not possible to make a secure encryption scheme only accessible by the government. That's the point.

Re: Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors

#58

Post by coldpie » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 8:32 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #49

coldpie wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when (not if) the FBI/Interpol/whoever private keys leak?

Note: That kind of leak is extremely rare, so if that turns out to be the biggest weakness in this system then I think it has achieved my goal of showing that the only options are not completely secure and wide open. If we are using the secret sharing variant, then it means that during the time between the leak and the time the device manufacturers push out an update to replace that key and re-encrypt the appropriate…

Not all that rare (see: OPM leak, any of the other leaks that happen daily) especially with such an incredibly high value target. If it's a symmetric key style system, then wouldn't all previously encrypted communications be vulnerable if they've been recorded someplace? Email, ecommerce, server logs, everything.

Re: Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors

#59

Post by jimktrains2 » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 8:35 PM UTC

drcube wrote: post #23

quaunaut wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've agreed as a country that the ability to get a warrant in the case of probable cause is a good thing. How is this not just maintaining that? I find it hilarious how often privacy advocates manage to forget that we've had this conversation before, and while the government can and has overstepped in many ways, lets not throw out the ability to investigate at all along the way.

Because breaking encryption breaks it for everyone. If the cops can get your data, so can a hacker. There is simply no way to compromise. You either are encrypted, in which case nobody but you can decrypt your data, or you're not encrypted at all. Remember the "TSA locks" we're all required to use on our luggage at the airport? Nobody but the government was supposed to be able to unlock them. But now anyone who wants…

I've always been curious, what's the rationale for opening luggage? If there is an issue, should the person be summoned before the plane is loaded and boarded? If they think it's explosive, shouldn't the NOT TOUCH IT?

Re: Obama Encryption Policy Rejects Laws Mandating Backdoors

#60

Post by pixl97 » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 8:51 PM UTC

jimktrains2 wrote: post #59

drcube wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because breaking encryption breaks it for everyone. If the cops can get your data, so can a hacker. There is simply no way to compromise. You either are encrypted, in which case nobody but you can decrypt your data, or you're not encrypted at all. Remember the "TSA locks" we're all required to use on our luggage at the airport? Nobody but the government was supposed to be able to unlock them. But now anyone who wants…

I've always been curious, what's the rationale for opening luggage? If there is an issue, should the person be summoned before the plane is loaded and boarded? If they think it's explosive, shouldn't the NOT TOUCH IT?

Not just bombs but every other type of contraband. Guns and drugs are the ones you commonly think of, but animals and plants can be a bigger problem, especially when you look at it in the international level.