Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack • Hacker News Board

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#41

Post by hobs » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:01 PM UTC

golergka wrote: post #30

mtgx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if you think unproven hearsay in NYT that we all ought to take for granted is "reasonable". If the authorities believe it was the encryption to blame, then they should come out and say it outright - with details, of course. They shouldn't hide under the "anonymous officials" tag which "believe" it was encryption the culprit that stopped them from learning about the attacks, and nothing else. It could've been ju…

What's wrong with newspaper reporting hearsay, while describing it as hearsay? NYT didn't seem to pass it as anything else than it is. What's your logic here? Should all anonymous sources be banned? Or only the sources with opinions that you don't like?

Probably sources that have a political bone to pick with no evidence should be banned.

Should the NYT report that a UFO passed over because some official told them so? No.

When you receive an anonymous tip, its your job as a journalist to try and confirm it, not report it directly.

Additionally, when a paper reports something with no evidence and screws up, they usually publish a retraction, not change the article and direct you to a new copy.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#42

Post by bluesilver07 » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:02 PM UTC

golergka wrote: post #30

mtgx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if you think unproven hearsay in NYT that we all ought to take for granted is "reasonable". If the authorities believe it was the encryption to blame, then they should come out and say it outright - with details, of course. They shouldn't hide under the "anonymous officials" tag which "believe" it was encryption the culprit that stopped them from learning about the attacks, and nothing else. It could've been ju…

What's wrong with newspaper reporting hearsay, while describing it as hearsay? NYT didn't seem to pass it as anything else than it is. What's your logic here? Should all anonymous sources be banned? Or only the sources with opinions that you don't like?

Because, with anonymous sources you can sway public opinion, saying pretty much anything you want without the possibility of being held accountable for it.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#43

Post by rlonstein » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:03 PM UTC

I read that unsubstantiated assertion in the print edition (I know, dinosaur. I like a morning paper) and called it out to my family. I'm saddened and amused at how the press is led around by the nose.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#44

Post by vezzy-fnord » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:06 PM UTC

ndm00 wrote: post #31

This issue brings up a larger point that many in the tech world have ignored for awhile. Now that end to end encryption is easily accessible by everyone, how do the authorities figure out beforehand when a terrorist attack will take place? The answer is not banning encryption technologies or giving authorities a 'key' as the FBI director has proposed. But now authorities have a very difficult problem on their hands.…

That's interesting, I don't remember the jobs of law enforcement and intelligence ever having supposed to been easy. In fact, we nominally have plenty of safeguards meant to make their job difficult. That's the point. If they don't feel like devoting effort to get past barriers, then the case is not worthwhile to pursue.

Catching the bad guys is easier than ever, encryption or not.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#45

Post by simonh » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:12 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #18

donkeyd wrote: post #4

Even without having encryption in main stream applications, like WhatsApp, it's child's play to communicate secretly. There are so many open source applications that allow you to do this, it wouldn't even be a speed bump for criminals. Targeting main stream applications only hurts main stream users. NYT should write an article about that.

You seem to be overlooking the obvious argument that if a small group of people use encryption, then you greatly reduce the number of messages that you need to flag. Furthermore, if someone on a Watch List starts using encryption then perhaps you have an imminent problem. I'm not on the side of reading messages but you missed the real argument being made. Typical HN. How about someone answering the argument that will…

I work for a Bank and we use encrypted external email all the time. We have to for regulatory reasons. I'm sure it's the same for defence contractors, and it's a prudent precaution for governments and many other businesses and in many parts of the world.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#46

Post by AndyMcConachie » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:16 PM UTC

madmulita wrote: post #13

I blame prime numbers, even co-primes should be banned. Please contact your representative and help us free the world from evil math.

I blame it on unicode. Without unicode these terrorists would not be able to communicate with impunity.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#47

Post by post_break » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:18 PM UTC

Could it not be that what the article said was wrong, but that someone twisted their arm for correctly exposing how they were communicating?

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#48

Post by err4nt » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:20 PM UTC

ndm00 wrote: post #31

This issue brings up a larger point that many in the tech world have ignored for awhile. Now that end to end encryption is easily accessible by everyone, how do the authorities figure out beforehand when a terrorist attack will take place? The answer is not banning encryption technologies or giving authorities a 'key' as the FBI director has proposed. But now authorities have a very difficult problem on their hands.…

It takes what it has always taken: good police work.

Encryption is like envelopes for the mail. They can be broken into with enough force, but their purpose it to shield the contents of the message from those handling it in transit. A post card offers no such protection.

So suppose the banned encryption (envelopes). Im sure the government would still reauire envelopes. As would anybody dealing with health records. Or banking, financial stuff has a legitimate need for secrecy. So they ned envelopes.

Pretty soon what you have is a class of people allowed to USE envelopes and a class of people not allowed it use them.

Like envelopes, encryption is an idea, not an inplementation. They may block you from using this tool or that tool, just like a government could make selling pre-made envelopes illegal - but the IDEA of encryption is simple just like the idea of an envelope. Anybody with paper, scissors, and glue can fashion their own envelope. Encyption is the same, one person can dream up an build their own encoder and you can never ban or prevent that idea from being used.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#49

Post by fukusa » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:21 PM UTC

GrinningFool wrote: post #37

Increasingly we're seeing 'encryption' discussed in mainstream media as a tool that can only be used for nefarious ends. Kind of like how they talked about "cookies" in the late 90s and early 00s. It's unfortunate that there's no way [without a lot of money] to launch a campaign that highlights the fact that most sensitive online transactions rely on encryption - banking, purchasing, etc - to protect you from The Bad…

We have to get rid of this narrative of bad versus good people while we're at it. It removes every bit of nuance from the discussion.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#50

Post by pfg » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:21 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #18

donkeyd wrote: post #4

Even without having encryption in main stream applications, like WhatsApp, it's child's play to communicate secretly. There are so many open source applications that allow you to do this, it wouldn't even be a speed bump for criminals. Targeting main stream applications only hurts main stream users. NYT should write an article about that.

You seem to be overlooking the obvious argument that if a small group of people use encryption, then you greatly reduce the number of messages that you need to flag. Furthermore, if someone on a Watch List starts using encryption then perhaps you have an imminent problem. I'm not on the side of reading messages but you missed the real argument being made. Typical HN. How about someone answering the argument that will…

> You can downvote me but you don't get a downvote in governments around the world when they outlaw real encryption.

I'm pretty sure you can downvote them by voting for representatives that do not support such laws. At least if you're in some kind of democracy.