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

Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

jonathanmh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 337 posts

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#61

Post by arkem »

arkem wrote: post #13
tehwebguy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communications are already being monitored by random government employees with no judicial review. The FISA court is already a rubber stamp. Encryption is one of the only ways to non-passively protest. Edit: Can't reply to my replies, likely because of the down votes on my parent's comment. Re: FISA, yes to both. That anecdote may be truth but I am still hung up on NSA employee looking up ex-girlfriends' emails the d…

I hear this a lot, what is the basis of considering the FISA court merely a rubber stamp? Is it the approval rate? Is it the lack of transparency? If it's the approval rate, in my experience the reason why court warrant approvals are so high is because intelligence / law enforcement are very risk adverse and will not submit requests that are likely to be rejected. Anecdotally, the officers I talked to considered it c…

tehwebguy: I'd prefer if you replied to me in a separate post rather than editing in a reply to your post. It makes it hard for me to respond.

In a way I'm heartened by stories about NSA employees acting inappropriately, it means that they're being caught and disciplined and the Office of the Inspector General is doing its job. If it was routine and accepted it wouldn't be a newsworthy story and the inspector general.

That said, I don't think employee abuses have much bearing on the effectiveness of the FISA court as a source of judicial oversight for intelligence operations inside the United States.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#62

Post by mozumder »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #34
mozumder wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, which is why we have Judicial review of communications monitoring, since we don't trust the executive branch (a political entity) with that power alone.

So you're suggesting that the sole legitimate check on governmental power is the government itself? And that anyone outside the government attempting to challenge abuses of power is by definition unfit for society?

The ultimate oversight is the voter.

And the voters have decided that the courts should be trusted.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#63

Post by noir_lord »

mozumder wrote: post #12
tehwebguy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communications are already being monitored by random government employees with no judicial review. The FISA court is already a rubber stamp. Encryption is one of the only ways to non-passively protest. Edit: Can't reply to my replies, likely because of the down votes on my parent's comment. Re: FISA, yes to both. That anecdote may be truth but I am still hung up on NSA employee looking up ex-girlfriends' emails the d…

Again, good luck building your own army. My army can beat your army. As a citizen, you are expected to trust the FISA court.

> As a citizen, you are expected to trust the FISA court.

Not only must justice be done but justice must be seen to be done.

If we can't audit or inspect the courts then there is zero assurance they are acting in a lawful or moral manner.

The whole point of courts is so that people can't make shady deals in back rooms.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#64

Post by api »

tomlongson wrote: post #42

A key promise of Obama's campaign for the presidency was to run the “most transparent” government- however the only person to really deliver on that promise was a whistleblower. Secret courts, secret domestic spying, and now calls for weakening of the digital equivalent of the safe shows that he either was not honest about transparency, or has radically changed his opinion since becoming POTUS. Maybe it's that he dec…

Policy wise Obama is close to a Rockefeller Republican. What people say during elections is entirely disposable.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#65

Post by JoshTriplett »

an_account wrote: post #50
JoshTriplett wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, it doesn't matter what process governments (plural) have in place to protect backdoor access mechanisms or escrowed keys. That those mechanisms exist at all means they can and will be abused by people who do not go through those mechanisms. Beyond that: > If government is monitoring your communications, then there's a pretty dammed good reason, as determined by a judge. Not even close to true. We have document…

That those mechanisms exist at all means they can and will be abused by people who do not go through those mechanisms. Isn't this true about traditional wiretaps as well? Yeah, a corrupt agent could illegally wiretap anyone's phone, but that certainly won't hold up in court.

Yes, that's true. And anyone who cares about the security of their phonecalls should be using encryption rather than POTS; for example, you could use Signal for encrypted phonecalls and SMSes. Warrant or not, unless there's a bug in the implementation, the only way you can tap that communication would be to compromise the endpoints (either electronically, or via a physical bug/tap on the device).

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#66

Post by harryh »

andrewfromx wrote: post #37
harryh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's wrong. The government isn't saying that no one should be able to encrypt data. They just thing that, in some cases, it should be done in such a way that certain data can be read by use of a centralized master key. This, of course, presents certain problems. What if that master key leaks? But it's not binary. Data secured this way is absolutely safer than not encrypting something at all. "Is it safe enough?" is…

wow, when you put it that way it's like saying "either I have the right to own a gun or I do not." So I guess if people except limits on gun ownership they should accept limits on encryption cuz it's just as dangerous?

Actually no. What I'm saying is that you do have the right to own a gun, but there are limits on gun ownership.

  * Minors cannot buy guns.
  * Convicted felons cannot buy guns in most circumstances.
  * There are numerous locations in which it is illegal to bring a gun.
  * There are numerous types of guns that you are not allowed to own.
It's not binary.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#67

Post by noir_lord »

mozumder wrote: post #8
mythz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing is being missed other than the premise that you can only create a back door that just compromises your privacy and security to the FBI/NSA. A backdoor available to the US Govt, is a backdoor available for everyone.

This is more fundamental than any "back door". The question here is: do you place any trust in government? If not, then you really can't function in a normal society. Good luck building your own army. And my army can beat your army.

> do you place any trust in government?

Trust but verify, for the record I don't place any trust in any part of government I and others can't audit in some way.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#68

Post by mikerichards »

mozumder wrote: post #12
tehwebguy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communications are already being monitored by random government employees with no judicial review. The FISA court is already a rubber stamp. Encryption is one of the only ways to non-passively protest. Edit: Can't reply to my replies, likely because of the down votes on my parent's comment. Re: FISA, yes to both. That anecdote may be truth but I am still hung up on NSA employee looking up ex-girlfriends' emails the d…

Again, good luck building your own army. My army can beat your army. As a citizen, you are expected to trust the FISA court.

My army can beat your army.

That army that you keep on claiming is yours is closer politically to libertarian than you are to the army.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#70

Post by harryh »

boomlinde wrote: post #56
harryh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's wrong. The government isn't saying that no one should be able to encrypt data. They just thing that, in some cases, it should be done in such a way that certain data can be read by use of a centralized master key. This, of course, presents certain problems. What if that master key leaks? But it's not binary. Data secured this way is absolutely safer than not encrypting something at all. "Is it safe enough?" is…

Encryption is a measure that prevents unauthorized parties from taking part of what is encrypted. If it fails that on such a basic level that a specific unauthorized party can trivially access it, it's not effective encryption. Whether or not it is effective, then, is just a matter of whether you agree that who ever holds the master key is authorized to access whatever it is that you encrypted. It's still not broken…

I don't think that's true at all. If you use gmail your data is pretty safe. Unless you tell me your password I'm going to have a pretty hard time reading your mail. It's encrypted at rest on Google's disks. It's encrypted in transmission over the internet. Google's network is protected with various forms of encryption and security that makes it hard for an unauthorized party to get into.

But Google itself can access and read your email. It does so in an automated fashion to target ads at you.

So is your gmail encrypted? Well...kind of.

It's not binary.

Post reply on HN