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

The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 215 posts

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#61

Post by CiPHPerCoder »

throwaway0209 wrote: post #57
CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://github.com/nylira/prism-break/issues/249#issuecommen... https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/32hexp/a_secret_... Don't use Wickr. Proprietary crypto + an interesting target for NSA because of its popularity among ISIS = probably snake oil and at the very least makes you a target "Career criminals recommend it" isn't a good indicator of security. Two things to consider: 1. Confidential informants exist…

Thanks a lot for the detailed answer. I will be sure the take the discussion on RSA encryption with PKCS1v1.5 padding the next time I see those guys. Probably without mentioning ISIS..

I can almost guarantee their response will be, "WTF? Stop making words up, mate."

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#62

Post by mirimir »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #9
thavalai wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like it means that the encryption cannot be reverse-engineered: http://help.penzu.com/pro/what-is-one-way-encryption/

I thought that was just called encryption.

Right. With decent end-to-end encryption, third parties can't circumvent without compromising devices or software. Systems where providers can secretly push compromised software aren't secure. Obviously. There are many eyes on the GnuPG code, for example. But even with Apple and Facebook, PR and financial consequences for backdoors would arguably be huge. Consider how much global business US providers have already lost, just over suspicion raised by Snowden's stuff.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#63

Post by eru »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #55
eru wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have good hashing, you can build encryption, though.

And if you have a good block cipher you can build a hash function. Encryption is a reversible, keyed transformation of a message. If you cannot reverse it, it is not encryption. Calling it encryption just introduces confusion.

I concur.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#64

Post by beeboop »

trulyWasteful wrote: post #52

No one can stop me and my peers from sending meaningless garbage data to each other. So, if it simply looks encrypted, but acctually contains randomized meaningless shit, how can anyone prevent me from bahaving in this manner, and claim that I've done harm? I've paid for the service, and I can spam it with trash as I see fit.

This is unfortunately not true in many places. In the UK you can be thrown in prison for failing to decrypt any data in your possession. This means someone can encrypt garbage on a USB drive and slip it in your pocket and make you rot in prison for years.

In the US, you will be held in contempt for failing to decrypt data when ordered if they can show that you "probably" have access to it and it's relevant to the charges against you. This also means prison for many years for failure to decrypt, even if you can't.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#65

Post by CapitalistCartr »

awqrre wrote: post #45
shmerl wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't be outlawed as long as public will be against it. It will be a political suicide for opponents of encryption. But only if public will be against it. Time will tell.

Obama might outlaw it on his way out...

In the United States, the President doesn't pass laws. Obama has taken executive power to extremes during his term, but he can't do that.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#66

Post by intrasight »

chongli wrote: post #34
ickwabe wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are we to make of these sorts of comments from Obama and Feinstein? It seems like there is strong backing by certain political interests to make it impossible for the average phone user to encrypt their own devices in such a way that the providers cannot access certain data. This dove-tails nicely with what some consider a war on general computing... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-obama-idU..…

The Obama Administration simply will not throw their own (the FBI) under the bus. Fortunately for us the Democrats do not control congress so Obama is unlikely to get his wish here.

Nor is Obama's position that of the larger Democrat party.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#67

Post by mtgx »

steve19 wrote: post #47
schoen wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lobby groups like the eff need more members and crucially need members to vote for who they recommend EFF is a 501(c)(3) organization and is forbidden to endorse or oppose political candidates. That is different from NRA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Org...

They could easily spin off an entity to handle that, like the NRA does with NRA-IL. Maybe they should, or maybe another group should. The federal government once classified encryption as a weapon, maybe we have 2nd amendments rights to it.

I think they should do something like that. The EFF fights political battles all the time, but can't recommend a "best" candidate for the issues they care about?

Because they aren't doing that is probably the reason why privacy/data protection is such a neglected issue during elections, and if it does get brought up is mainly from the perspective of "what other rights should Americans give away freely so the government can protect you".

The only reason it's been brought-up now is because of Apple, and even that is mostly spun in the government's favor in the media.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#68

Post by toomanybeersies »

steve19 wrote: post #26
newjersey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, my perception of the gun lobby is that a big part of the effort is centralized. At least that's my impression after reading the nytimes article. I don't have any insight into the gun lobby so I can't tell whether it is any accurate. http://nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-qu... I fear the gun argument is further weakened by the fact that civilians can't have big anti-aircraft guns in their bac…

Your perception is wrong. The gun lobby is crazyily grassroots. The NRA is demonized, but their spending in lobbying is low (their income is relatively low and they have a lot of other elements such as training and certification) and less than the gun control lobby since Bloomberg (and some silicon Valley VCs) began to lobby. There is only one reason the NRA has influence: members and sympathizers will vote on thier…

The problem is that guns are tangible. I can have a gun, and then have the gun taken away or banned by the government. This is easy for anyone to understand.

Encryption isn't so tangible. If certain forms of encryption were banned, we'd still have our computers and phones, and to the average end user, they'd be no different in their perception.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#70

Post by barney54 »

chongli wrote: post #34
ickwabe wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are we to make of these sorts of comments from Obama and Feinstein? It seems like there is strong backing by certain political interests to make it impossible for the average phone user to encrypt their own devices in such a way that the providers cannot access certain data. This dove-tails nicely with what some consider a war on general computing... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-obama-idU..…

The Obama Administration simply will not throw their own (the FBI) under the bus. Fortunately for us the Democrats do not control congress so Obama is unlikely to get his wish here.

The Republicans aren't necessarily better, but they are anti-Obama which helps on this issue.
Post reply on HN