The important aspect of this and the Apple scenario is that the encryption requires a benevolent third party. Encryption that relies on Eve...well, she has three faces.
The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp
71–80 of 215 posts
Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Did the Congress authorize all that uncostitutional surveillance for example? I thought it was a secret court interpreting the law in secret on behalf of the executive power. So "passing laws" in such context is not a far fetched claim.
Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the level of simple firearms, arms are arms. You're going to have to argue 2A regardless.
I don't understand this response. Why wouldn't banning the sale of ammunition and ammunition components not work to stop most of the bad problems of guns? A gun is still arms even if it does not have ammunition so this avoids the constitutional problems, but it makes them much safer. I should add that I am not arguing for the banning of ammunition, just why has this not been used as an attack vector on the gun lobby?
Because it wouldn't work. You're purposefully trying to work around the intent of things. Judges tend to take ill view of cute things like that.
Besides, ok you ban the sale of ammunition. Now are you going to ban reloaders and selling of ammunition components too? How far are you willing to go down that rabbit hole? Noting that it isn't that hard to make ammunition are you going to ban the knowledge of that as well? It would be pretty easy for a lawyer to point out the whole idea is an end run around the spirit of owning armaments. For that reason alone its not any better of an idea than trying to ban guns outright.
Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Did the Congress authorize all that uncostitutional surveillance for example? I thought it was a secret court interpreting the law in secret on behalf of the executive power. So "passing laws" in such context is not a far fetched claim.
That wouldn't require Obama to wait until just before leaving office. Anything done in secret has already been implemented. What the FBI is asking for could likely be done by the NSA already. The Feds want a publicly known law or ruling they can use as a club over private companies, so they don't have to break any more encryption; they want it all handed to them. And they're too shortsighted and pigheaded to see/admit the folly of what they're asking.
Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp
#75If the government wins any of these court battles, it's only a matter of time until one-way encryption is outlawed. It follows logically that if criminals/terrorists can't use iPhones to securely communicate, then they'll just move on to the next convenient encryption app. The government will continue to order companies to break their one-way encryption until the government realizes they're playing musical chairs and…
No sophisticated actor will use an app. Sophisticated actors being those who are unwilling to let Eve choose the encryption algorithm.
Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never seen any official confirmation, but Wired reported that it had been enabled between Android devices: http://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/ . The implementations is reportedly based on TextSecure/Signal. Moxie says WhatsApp "is implementing" which is certainly distinct from "has implemented."
Agree, "is implementing" could last forever or have a very limited scope by design. I think I am going to assume there is no E2E encryption until a proper confirmation from WhatsApp.
Yeah, that and it's almost irrelevant since it's only Android-to-Android.
Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp
#77No 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 cha…
Not until they change the 5th amendment.
Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this response. Why wouldn't banning the sale of ammunition and ammunition components not work to stop most of the bad problems of guns? A gun is still arms even if it does not have ammunition so this avoids the constitutional problems, but it makes them much safer. I should add that I am not arguing for the banning of ammunition, just why has this not been used as an attack vector on the gun lobby?
Because it wouldn't work. You're purposefully trying to work around the intent of things. Judges tend to take ill view of cute things like that. Besides, ok you ban the sale of ammunition. Now are you going to ban reloaders and selling of ammunition components too? How far are you willing to go down that rabbit hole? Noting that it isn't that hard to make ammunition are you going to ban the knowledge of that as well?…
I thought a lot of laws were cute intents to work around the constitution.
Any such law would work its way up the legal chain until it got to the supreme court (assuming they chose to take it up the case). As the federal law on armor piercing bullets shows [1] there does not seem to be anything stopping congress passing a law regulating or banning ammunition. Instead of just limiting the ban to armour piercing it could be extended to a ban on ammunition that can pierce the skin.
If you are able to ban ammunition you could certainly ban the sale of the components to make ammunition. Sure there might be some individuals that choose to break these laws, but it would be pretty effective.
Ultimately the choice to do something like this would be politically, not constitutionally constrained. If you oppose the widespread availability of guns [2] why not try to think around the problem rather than bashing your head against the constitutional rock?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet
2. I am actually not personally opposed to gun ownership.
Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp
#79If the government wins any of these court battles, it's only a matter of time until one-way encryption is outlawed. It follows logically that if criminals/terrorists can't use iPhones to securely communicate, then they'll just move on to the next convenient encryption app. The government will continue to order companies to break their one-way encryption until the government realizes they're playing musical chairs and…
Anyone have any insights into why the commonly used guns argument is not good enough for encryption? If we ban guns(encryption), only the criminals will have it. The only thing I can think of is that the majority of people who advocate for encryption are anti-gun, and don't want to give strength to that argument?
the argument isn't only criminals -- it's criminals, and the government.
basically, the private law-abiding citizen is the only one left out of the power loop. everyone else is armed to the teeth.
for those of you who are pro-crypto but anti-gun, the government considers crypto a weapon, plain and simple. they don't share your divided sensibilities. it's real easy -- they want to take both away from the populace, a little bit at a time. and of course the oldest trick in the book is divide and conquer. they know you don't want to apply the same arguments to both fights because of your feelings on firearms, and they are taking advantage of it.
that uneasy feeling you get when you consider a world without private access to crypto is the same uneasy feeling gun owners get when you talk about taking away their access to firearms.
Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was under the impression that certain types of ammunition are able to be banned without any constitutional issues arising [1]. If you wanted to be really clever you could still allow ammunition, but limit the materials the bullet could be made from or limit the powder load. Attacking ammunition has got to be a more workable strategy than trying to restrict gun ownership without consitutional change. 1. https://en.w…
Sure, but I think a strategy like that only avoids constitutional issues because it's not a general attack on the efficacy of firearms. Anything that has the effect of making guns less effective en masse would probably run afoul of the Second Amendment.
Banning armor-piecing bullets certainly makes firearms much less effective - after all this is why the law was brought in as it made guns too effective against the authorities (the infamous “cop killer bullets”). Why has this law [1] not fallen afoul of the second amendment?