Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones • Hacker News Board

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#101

Post by thoughtsimple » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 11:21 PM UTC

This is akin to the politicians that don't want to believe the science around global warming. They believe that if they just deny it, they will turn out to be correct. Obama is doing the same with "golden key" encryption. It is not that the experts are correct and know what they are talking about, it is just that they are disengaged and being stubborn.

"I'm the President of the United States of America and if I say that there must be math that gives me what I want. If you don't invent it, you are disengaged."

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#102

Post by eigenvector » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 11:24 PM UTC

> So if your argument is strong encryption, no matter what, and we can and should, in fact, create black boxes, then that I think does not strike the kind of balance that we have lived with for 200, 300 years.

Mr. Obama, you are the one who upset the balance with secret, dragnet surveillance of nearly all communications. That's not the bargain the public has had with law enforcement for the last 300 years. Widespread, end-to-end encryption is simply the natural reaction to the arms race you started. We would have never come to this point if the government had kept surveillance within court-supervised bounds.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#103

Post by revscat » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 11:25 PM UTC

tudorw wrote: post #21

One strong point that comes out is reference to the transitory nature of governments, just because you trust yours now (!), does not mean you can trust future incarnations, don't give this kind of power to an unknown.

This is well known and, for the most part, internalized by the people. Governments, however, seem to believe the opposite: that the fundamental goodness of their pursuit of protecting the governed justifies almost all tactics.

This is short-sighted and blatantly wrong.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#104

Post by pearle » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 11:25 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #85

api wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm giving Bernie Sanders one last chance. But if he is elected and also reneges on his promises, I will probably stop caring about politics permanently. edit: Whoops! Shouldn't have revealed I'm a Bernie supporter. Forgot that HN is a libertarian paradise!

I think people put too much importance on the role of the president with regards to domestic policy. You can't expect the president to effect change if congress opposes the president 100% of the time.

Electing Bernie won't make a huge difference if the republicans still control congress.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#105

Post by StavrosK » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 11:25 PM UTC

jordanb wrote: post #86

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…

I think Washington has changed Obama more than Obama changed Washington. He's spent seven years in the craziest bubble in America surrounded by people being paid millions to distort his worldview one way or another. A while back he advised some kids in College to never type anything into a computer if they want it to remain private. For him, it probably seems completely reasonable. I doubt he's touched a keyboard sin…

If the president can't speak for online privacy because it's not a part of his world, poor people in the US are just fucked.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#106

Post by brudgers » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 11:26 PM UTC

This has been the default position of US government across administrations at least since the 1976 Arms Export Control Act. Nothing has changed except that "the terrorists" have replaced "the communists".

It doesn't matter who says it.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#107

Post by andrewfromx » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 11:26 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #98

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…

The fundamental issue is that any back door accessible to "the good guys" will also be accessible to sufficiently-technically-advanced "bad guys". And from the perspective of securing the United States' defense infrastructure, major corporations, etc., there are multiple sufficiently-technically-advanced "bad guys" in the world already (i.e., certain major foreign governments and their intelligence/defense complexes)…

wow, that's the best writing on this whole thing I've read. well done. I tweeted it https://twitter.com/andrewarrow/status/709158302127509504

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#108

Post by rayiner » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 11:26 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #85

api wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm giving Bernie Sanders one last chance. But if he is elected and also reneges on his promises, I will probably stop caring about politics permanently. edit: Whoops! Shouldn't have revealed I'm a Bernie supporter. Forgot that HN is a libertarian paradise!

If Sander's doesn't reneg on his promises he'll be a one-term president (which of course assumes he gets elected which would never happen). I mean, think of how much people hate Carter.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#109

Post by over » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 11:26 PM UTC

eigenvector wrote: post #102

> So if your argument is strong encryption, no matter what, and we can and should, in fact, create black boxes, then that I think does not strike the kind of balance that we have lived with for 200, 300 years. Mr. Obama, you are the one who upset the balance with secret, dragnet surveillance of nearly all communications. That's not the bargain the public has had with law enforcement for the last 300 years. Widespread…

That's a really good point, it's like provoking someone until they scream at you and then accusing them of being unreasonable.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#110

Post by beeboop » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 11:27 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #91

In the end, they are going to introduce laws that make it illegal to implement end-to-end encryption. This sucks, but it's going to happen. France is already moving to do it [1], and in the US, John McCain and others are also calling for similar laws [2]. They will all start off saying that it will be controlled carefully etc., as Obama keeps saying, and then it will be used with reckless abandonment. What this essen…

I cannot fathom end to end encryption ever being made illegal. I tremendously doubt this will ever happen in any effective manner. At worst, they will pass from vaguely worded bill that makes it illegal in the sense that you are required to decrypt data on demand for any government agency. But since we are already seeing the trend of service providers being unable to decrypt user data, I doubt that will be much of an issue either.

We will probably start seeing a lot more people getting locked up for decades for "contempt of court" by refusing or being unable to decrypt their personal data for a judge. Current record for contempt is 14 years - with no conviction and no jury.