Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
cyber.law.harvard.edu
Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
1–10 of 82 posts
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#2The submitted berklett "Don't Panic" article has a "Bruce Schneier" link to his "Security or Surveillance?" article on lawfareblog.com. It's also good reading.
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#3My kneejerk reaction to this is to panic about the opposite of what the concern here seems to be. Seems to me like ubiquitous surveillance via any and all available technology is a bigger threat than "going dark" would be. I know encryption can provide an obstacle for law enforcement but my inclination is to worry about privacy in society over potential lawbreakers.
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#4This fake crisis of "Going Dark" as if we haven't been that way for all of time before the Internet is dangerous. The "scary" notion that the police won't be able to read everything about everyone is being recast by the Feds as if it really is national crisis. Benjamin Wittes suggests on Lawfare we make Common Carrier Immunity conditional on the company being able to make all data available in the clear to the government. This is dangerous ground.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/out-box-approach-going-dark-prob...
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#5To summarize: end-to-end encryption is making online surveillance harder. However, standards for end-to-end encryption are still fragmented and companies have incentives to not adopt it. Besides that, connected sensors, 'the internet of things' and unencrypted metadata give new surveillance possibilities.
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#6"legitimate government interests" should be enough to scare everyone. It's not for criminals, just like gun control is not about criminals. Think the worst, 'cause it don't get any better!
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#7The submitted berklett "Don't Panic" article has a "Bruce Schneier" link to his "Security or Surveillance?" article on lawfareblog.com. It's also good reading. [1] https://lawfareblog.com/security-or-surveillance
This is what the debate is all about. The government wants to have surveillance of its citizens, but wants to call it something else.
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#8If we could only make them understand that forcing the good guys to not encrypt doesn't take encryption away from the bad guys. Legislators don't understand that encryption doesn't have to be made by Apple for the bad guys to have encryption. A shared key and XOR gives you unbreakable encryption. A high school comp sci. kid could implement that.
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#9Related: Apple's patent for "polluting online social networks with fake profiles".. based on variants of the real profile.
http://www.darkreading.com/risk-management/apple-gets-patent...? (Or google for other articles)
Re: Don't Panic: Seeking Points of Agreement on the “Going Dark” Debate
#10This fake crisis of "Going Dark" as if we haven't been that way for all of time before the Internet is dangerous. The "scary" notion that the police won't be able to read everything about everyone is being recast by the Feds as if it really is national crisis. Benjamin Wittes suggests on Lawfare we make Common Carrier Immunity conditional on the company being able to make all data available in the clear to the govern…
I think (most) of us on HN are on the same page here. But we are a minority... many people truly don't care and are not incentivized to care.