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

How not to report on the encryption ‘debate’

cjr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: How not to report on the encryption ‘debate’

#31

Post by aczerepinski »

If the government forces the big American tech companies to adopt weaker encryption technologies, what's to stop terrorists from rolling their own communication app? Or new tech companies from deploying apps from countries where strong encryption is still legal? Would developers need to become familiar with government approved algorithms?

Separate from the debate on whether this is a good idea, I'd love to see a proposal for how a global encryption ban could actually be implemented.

Re: How not to report on the encryption ‘debate’

#32

Post by hellodolly »

jacquesm wrote: post #20
yeukhon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do know HN is hosted on the U.S. soil, so HN can totally report you to FBI for a criminal investigation, right?

Where a website is hosted has very little to do with what you can and can not report to the FBI and whether or not they decide to turn something into a criminal investigation would require that there is a crime first. Posting dumb comments in a forum is not a crime (and it probably should not be or youtube.com will be out of an audience).

For anybody curious, the guy perpetrating this "hack" is Robert Brooks Authement (https://www.facebook.com/broox.authement.8), a heroin user and domestic abuser, who lives in Fort Collins, CO, runs a Facebook group (https://m.facebook.com/groups/cybrpunk) and who has an arrest record, as well as an estranged wife/daughter.

He's stolen money from Gagnon's various accounts as "seed money" for some bizarre purpose, and is now spamming Gagnon's Facebook, Twitter, and Medium accounts.

Feel free to report all of those. Authement's not related to ISIS in the least, other than his obsession with hashtag-ing them.

No doubt the twit will be shut out of these accounts within a day or so. Kindly report to whatever services you like.

Re: How not to report on the encryption ‘debate’

#33

Post by cgm616 »

effie wrote: post #28
cgm616 wrote: post #9

"We kill people based on metadata." - former head of the National Security Agency Gen. Michael Hayden “metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life. If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.” - NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker

Could you post a citation, please?

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-based...

Re: How not to report on the encryption ‘debate’

#34

Post by jacquesm »

hellodolly wrote: post #32
jacquesm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where a website is hosted has very little to do with what you can and can not report to the FBI and whether or not they decide to turn something into a criminal investigation would require that there is a crime first. Posting dumb comments in a forum is not a crime (and it probably should not be or youtube.com will be out of an audience).

For anybody curious, the guy perpetrating this "hack" is Robert Brooks Authement ( https://www.facebook.com/broox.authement.8 ), a heroin user and domestic abuser, who lives in Fort Collins, CO, runs a Facebook group ( https://m.facebook.com/groups/cybrpunk ) and who has an arrest record, as well as an estranged wife/daughter. He's stolen money from Gagnon's various accounts as "seed money" for some bizarre purpose,…

Doxxing is expressly not allowed here (and should not be allowed anywhere).

Re: How not to report on the encryption ‘debate’

#35

Post by [deleted] »

Zigurd wrote: post #27
meowface wrote: post #13

I think this article is great, but something did stand out for me. I'm a huge supporter of universal end-to-end encryption, but Feinstein's point is making me feel some cognitive dissonance: >"I think with a court order, with good justification, all of that can be prevented." There are cases where I would want law enforcement to be able to read encrypted communications in an emergency situation, with a valid court or…

The right way to handle it is to enforce laws in meatspace. To create CP, for example, you need to abduct and exploit children, and produce content. This leaves a trail of money, places, and witnesses. Bear down on that instead of snooping. It could improve the effectiveness of law enforcement to force them to focus on meatspace crime rather than playing with their shiny computer toys.

[deleted]

Re: How not to report on the encryption ‘debate’

#36

Post by csandreasen »

aczerepinski wrote: post #31

If the government forces the big American tech companies to adopt weaker encryption technologies, what's to stop terrorists from rolling their own communication app? Or new tech companies from deploying apps from countries where strong encryption is still legal? Would developers need to become familiar with government approved algorithms? Separate from the debate on whether this is a good idea, I'd love to see a prop…

Forcing the terrorists/criminals to roll their own encryption would be a huge win for both law enforcement/foreign intelligence agencies and the general public. When non-cryptographers write their encryption software the likelihood that it's insecure goes up, and if they're off using Mujahideen Secrets v5.0 instead of WhatsApp their communications would stick out like a sore thumb instead of blending in with regular users. When the terrorists/etc. don't blend in, the FBI/NSA/etc. don't have to sift through mainstream communications channels to figure out which people are bad guys and which are just regular people.

Re: How not to report on the encryption ‘debate’

#37

Post by yeukhon »

jacquesm wrote: post #20
yeukhon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do know HN is hosted on the U.S. soil, so HN can totally report you to FBI for a criminal investigation, right?

Where a website is hosted has very little to do with what you can and can not report to the FBI and whether or not they decide to turn something into a criminal investigation would require that there is a crime first. Posting dumb comments in a forum is not a crime (and it probably should not be or youtube.com will be out of an audience).

Associating oneself with a terrorist group is not a dumb comment, the claim is considered national security concern, which ultimately turns into a crime. Spreading hate messages is a crime. Spreading false information about cyber attack is a crime.

HN is responsible to report crimes if there's crime. Because HN is hosted on the U.S. soil, given this is a "dumb" claim supporting ISIS, when HN report to authority, the report would go to FBI.

We cannot take dumb cyber crime dumb. You do not know who is the next attacker. We have had US citizen fleeting to Syria to join ISIS, and give the recent attack in Cali, the fear of domestic attack is not imaginary.

Re: How not to report on the encryption ‘debate’

#38

Post by hellodolly »

jacquesm wrote: post #34
hellodolly wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anybody curious, the guy perpetrating this "hack" is Robert Brooks Authement ( https://www.facebook.com/broox.authement.8 ), a heroin user and domestic abuser, who lives in Fort Collins, CO, runs a Facebook group ( https://m.facebook.com/groups/cybrpunk ) and who has an arrest record, as well as an estranged wife/daughter. He's stolen money from Gagnon's various accounts as "seed money" for some bizarre purpose,…

Doxxing is expressly not allowed here (and should not be allowed anywhere).

OK, I'll just report him to the police. Thanks

Re: How not to report on the encryption ‘debate’

#39

Post by hellodolly »

yeukhon wrote: post #37
jacquesm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where a website is hosted has very little to do with what you can and can not report to the FBI and whether or not they decide to turn something into a criminal investigation would require that there is a crime first. Posting dumb comments in a forum is not a crime (and it probably should not be or youtube.com will be out of an audience).

Associating oneself with a terrorist group is not a dumb comment, the claim is considered national security concern, which ultimately turns into a crime. Spreading hate messages is a crime. Spreading false information about cyber attack is a crime. HN is responsible to report crimes if there's crime. Because HN is hosted on the U.S. soil, given this is a "dumb" claim supporting ISIS, when HN report to authority, the…

The guy who did this is posting all over Facebook about how he's dumped hundreds of dollars from someone's PayPal account into buying a new server. I'm pretty sure that encompasses larceny, fraud, online impersonation, and all sorts of things at the same time.

On the other hand, HN has no moral obligation to report to the FBI about anything, least of all some heroin-addicted guy in CO rampaging across the internet. Why am I not surprised, given the attitudes of some people around here?

Re: How not to report on the encryption ‘debate’

#40

Post by meowface »

Zigurd wrote: post #27
meowface wrote: post #13

I think this article is great, but something did stand out for me. I'm a huge supporter of universal end-to-end encryption, but Feinstein's point is making me feel some cognitive dissonance: >"I think with a court order, with good justification, all of that can be prevented." There are cases where I would want law enforcement to be able to read encrypted communications in an emergency situation, with a valid court or…

The right way to handle it is to enforce laws in meatspace. To create CP, for example, you need to abduct and exploit children, and produce content. This leaves a trail of money, places, and witnesses. Bear down on that instead of snooping. It could improve the effectiveness of law enforcement to force them to focus on meatspace crime rather than playing with their shiny computer toys.

True, but that's not the same for downloading or distributing CP. You can do that 100% online with no "physical" laws violated or money exchanged.
Post reply on HN