Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

insidesources.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 312 posts

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#141

Post by jcl »

scotty79 wrote: post #28

> writing messages via in-game functions, like spelling words with dropped items or shooting walls I'm kinda ashamed I haven't thought of that.

I think this may be the most important thing in the article. If the conspirators really were communicating via in-game ephemera, the communication probably wasn't encrypted at all. If so, the hurdle that the security forces faced is not that they couldn't access the communication, but that they couldn't interpret it.

And that just shows how little a mandatory backdoor policy would help: being able to read something doesn't mean you can understand it. It's always possible for someone to come up with a communication scheme that you didn't anticipate or can't interpret, and you can't legislate away that capability.

So a backdoor policy doesn't trade privacy for safety -- instead it trades privacy for a chance at safety, and pretty much just safety from careless, unprepared attackers.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#142

Post by shkkmo »

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…

Encryption is important and is crucial to the security mechanisms that underly the whole internet. I don't think anybody is seriously advocating making encryption illegal. (Which makes your argument pointless.)

What does seem being argued for is to mandate adding a 'backdoor' for the government.

The counter argument to that is that adding a 'backdoor' makes the encryption pretty much worthless.

The weighing of risks of this and the importance for privacy versus the anti-terrorism fighting benefits is the only debate (not) happening.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#143

Post by ikeboy »

nindalf wrote: post #130
ikeboy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devil's advocate, saying "but you can never ban encryption anyway" sets up a false dichotomy. You're right, there are open source projects that will survive no matter what you do. But you can certainly force or convince companies like Apple and Google to prevent those apps from being available in their stores, and you can force large companies like Facebook to give you a backdoor. Sure, someone tech savvy can…

> someone tech savvy can get around that Or someone who has a strong incentive to keep their communication hidden - like a terrorist or a drug enforcer. This leads to a situation where law abiding citizens are punished when their right to privacy is denied, while criminals aren't hindered. "When you outlaw X, X will only be used by outlaws"

My claim is that "criminals aren't hindered" is false. Sure, there are people that will get around it, but as I mentioned, there are plenty of criminals that don't use encryption and have been caught with incriminating emails, so that makes me think that if encryption was made more difficult, some criminals who use encryption now would stop.

Criminals aren't perfect.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#144

Post by ionised »

Natanael_L wrote: post #54
melling wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Assuming the numbers wouldn't go up from people encrypting out of spite

Over the last year or more I've started encrypting everything I can out of spite, just in the hope of creating noise.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#145

Post by colund »

ewzimm wrote: post #120
rbcgerard wrote: post #112

"One key premise here seems to be that prior to the Snowden reporting, The Terrorists helpfully and stupidly used telephones and unencrypted emails to plot, so Western governments were able to track their plotting and disrupt at least large-scale attacks. That would come as a massive surprise to the victims of the attacks of 2002 in Bali, 2004 in Madrid, 2005 in London, 2008 in Mumbai, and April 2013 at the Boston Ma…

It's even more absurd than that. The premise is that we can have a public worldwide debate that emphasizes how important encryption is to successfully carrying out terrorist attacks, convince the world to give up their privacy for the sake of safety, and after the majority of the protestors have been defeated by public awareness that encryption and terrorism go hand-in-hand, the terrorists will go back to using phone…

If (almost) everyone who is not a terrorist were to give up encryption, then it would be much easier to track down/narrow down the terrorists if they keep using it, no?

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#146

Post by ikeboy »

trist wrote: post #133
ikeboy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devil's advocate, saying "but you can never ban encryption anyway" sets up a false dichotomy. You're right, there are open source projects that will survive no matter what you do. But you can certainly force or convince companies like Apple and Google to prevent those apps from being available in their stores, and you can force large companies like Facebook to give you a backdoor. Sure, someone tech savvy can…

Considering some of the largest app markets are not run by US (or EU) based companies (e.g. China), the assumption of control is also a fallacy. "If you make encryption-by-default impossible, the amount of unencrypted messages will increase, and you'll have gained those." Requires you to monitor every message for every form of data, and assuming the false assumption that banning encryption increases the simplicity of…

I'm assuming control over specific companies, and claiming that such control would have greater than zero effectiveness.

Don't we assume the NSA is logging any US traffic anyway? Even if not, they could require a direct line into all messages sent via some apps.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#147

Post by hackuser »

The government and business have built a state of surveillance far beyond anything dreamt of a couple of decades ago, with massive continuing investment.

Yet the tool of surveillance was unable to stop this attack. Now they want more surveillance, but maybe it's the wrong tool for this job.

Surveillance seems to have reached that place on the technology adoption curve where people get a little over-enthusiastic and blindly think it solves every problem, and they haven't yet realized it's a tool which, like all tools, is good for for things but not for others.

(That ignores the massive cost to individuals and to our societies of surveillance.)

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#148

Post by declan »

It's true that the NYT pulled (or dramatically rewrote, close enough) an article claiming: "The attackers are believed to have communicated using encryption technology..." You can see the original version here thanks to Archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20151115191248/http:/www.nytimes...

But then the NYT doubled down on the terrorists-and-encryption angle in a separate story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/europe/encrypted-mes...

Which says in the second sentence: "Obama administration officials say the Islamic State has used a range of encryption technologies over the past year and a half, many of which defy cracking by the National Security Agency..."

HN discussion of that second story is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10579201

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#149

Post by Lawtonfogle »

grhino wrote: post #127
PKop wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are "they"? Many politicians are on the same side of each debate, wanting to restrict the rights of free people in the name of safety and security. I'm curious, do you see a distinction between the two issues? Sounds like you're on opposite sides for each of them.

I think the argument is that if bad guys didn't have guns, then there would be no reason for good guys to have guns except to fend off wildlife. However, even if the bad guys didn't have encryption, we would still want good guys to have encryption to prevent the bad guys from intercepting private and sensitive communications.

>then there would be no reason for good guys to have guns except to fend off wildlife.

Ignoring the issues such as fending off bad guys (so what if they only have a knife, I'd rather bring a gun to a knife fight), hunting wild life, shooting for fun, owning collections, any many other reasons. Outright dismissing all of those is like just dismissing the need to protect private electronic communications.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#150

Post by vmattos »

caoilte wrote: post #73
copperred wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point. What the Paris attackers did makes them bad people. It's not up for debate.

In the spirit of rapprochement, how about we say bad vs bad people?

Depends on what you consider as bad people. One could easily say that both east and west worlds are bad or evil
Post reply on HN