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

111–120 of 215 posts

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

#111

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

hifier wrote: post #77
beeboop wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know what the accepted jurisprudence is on this, but there are interpretations of the 5th amendment saying that the protection only extends to the authorities being unable to legally compel you to reveal that you can decrypt the data (and, by extension, that you have some level of knowledge of or responsibility for it). That is, if they can somehow prove that the data is yours, a court can order you to decrypt it.

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

#112

Post by dragonwriter »

barney54 wrote: post #70
chongli wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not really. The Republicans were for pervasive surveillance and for the national security state for a long time before Obama, and they remain that way now. They may use details of the present controversy to take partisan political shots at the Obama Administration, but, as a party, there's probably more support for government power in this area in the Republican Party than in the Democratic Party.

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

#113

Post by lsc »

robertfw wrote: post #101
statictype wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original intent of the right to bear arms was to enable protection against an intrusive government. It's very similar to crypto in that sense.

and as the original intent went, it made sense. but owning a gun doesn't really protect one from a modern intrusive government, but it does raise the risk of gun related death to those around you by a significant margin

> but it does raise the risk of gun related death to those around you by a significant margin

Needs citation.

Unless, of course, you mean having access to a gun increases your chances of successfully committing suicide, which is fairly well established... but I think that this is rather different, at least in terms of connotation, than what you said. My impression was that you were implying that having a gun in the house makes you significantly more likely to be the victim of an accidental shooting, which while technically true, really isn't worth worrying about compared to, say, car accidents (or even airplane accidents) accidental gun deaths are very rare.

That's what is interesting to me in this whole gun debate. The majority of gun deaths are intentionally self-inflicted.

Interestingly, it seems to me that the people who support gun ownership more often than not oppose physician-assisted suicide, and vis-a-vis.

If you accept my assertion that the gun debate is actually about suicide, "From my cold, dead hands" takes on a whole new meaning.

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

#114

Post by deciplex »

statictype wrote: post #92
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is a very good point. As someone who has been anti-gun and pro-encryption, I'm now wondering how I reconcile these two stances that are at conflict with each other.

Maybe you're having trouble reconciling them because they are irreconcilable. It sounds to me like you're awfully close to a "decide what I want first and rationalize it later" style of pondering, or perhaps have crossed that line already.

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

#115

Post by mirimir »

danieltillett wrote: post #49
fiatmoney wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing so would be a good way to start a civil war.

Yes, but one fought with clubs not bullets :)

Not really. In any real civil war, some police forces would side with the rebels. That's already happened in connection with Public Lands issues in the Southwest. Also, at least some National Guard armories would be liberated. It could get very messy.

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

#116

Post by cgriswald »

danieltillett wrote: post #99
krapp wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Admittedly, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but the Second Amendment was written at a time when the fledgling country wanted to ensure a distributed defense against potential threats like Spain and England, and Native American tribes. My naive reading of it leads me to believe that the part where the bullets can kill people is kind of non-negotiable.

My understanding is the second amendment has been “interpreted” quite a bit over the years - after all the original intent of the law was that people could own arms (i.e. military grade weapons), not just handguns and the like.

I interpret the first amendment to mean we have a right to make sounds come out of our mouths. The content of those sounds, however, is not protected. Since there are an infinite number of combinations of sounds, banning political statements does not impact that right. You are still free to make infinite sounds. The amendment also does not cover the right to record that sound or to write thoughts down on paper. And while the amendment does preserve the right to petition the government for grievances, it does not specify what form that petition must take or for the government to act on such grievances. Therefore, a law which requires all such grievances to be voiced at lowest point of the Atlantic Ocean is constitutional as well.

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

#117

Post by deciplex »

lsc wrote: post #113
robertfw wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and as the original intent went, it made sense. but owning a gun doesn't really protect one from a modern intrusive government, but it does raise the risk of gun related death to those around you by a significant margin

> but it does raise the risk of gun related death to those around you by a significant margin Needs citation. Unless, of course, you mean having access to a gun increases your chances of successfully committing suicide, which is fairly well established... but I think that this is rather different, at least in terms of connotation, than what you said. My impression was that you were implying that having a gun in the h…

> My impression was that you were implying that having a gun in the house makes you significantly more likely to be the victim of an accidental shooting, which while technically true, really isn't worth worrying about compared to, say, car accidents (or even airplane accidents) accidental gun deaths are very rare.

Are you sure about the airplane accidents part? Do you have data to back it up? I know that traffic fatalities in the US are about even with gun fatalities overall [1], but if you can show that accidental gun deaths attributable to gun ownership at home are roughly equal to deaths from plane crashes, I'd be very interested in seeing that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

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

#118

Post by AnthonyMouse »

robertfw wrote: post #101
statictype wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original intent of the right to bear arms was to enable protection against an intrusive government. It's very similar to crypto in that sense.

and as the original intent went, it made sense. but owning a gun doesn't really protect one from a modern intrusive government, but it does raise the risk of gun related death to those around you by a significant margin

> owning a gun doesn't really protect one from a modern intrusive government

At an individual level it doesn't. At a population level there is an argument that it makes a guerrilla civil war potentially winnable by the rebels, which has a deterrent effect on extreme totalitarianism.

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

#119

Post by sesutton »

rsync wrote: post #110

All computer code can be rephrased in common written (english, perhaps) language. I'm not talking about pseudocode, I mean an actual translation layer from, say, C to english phrasing that specifically describes the computer code to be written. And at that point it's just speech. I don't mean "like speech", or "something sophisticated people should recognize as speech", or "code is speech" ... I mean, it's just plain…

The source code for PGP 5 was made legally available outside the US in a similar method though without translating it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_i...

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

#120

Post by mirkules »

shmerl wrote: post #46
awqrre wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama might outlaw it on his way out...

What would be the point for him to make a mess on his way out? Just to be nasty?

Further the agenda of his political donors and pave the way for the successor. Or make it difficult for an adversarial successor to pass opposite laws.
Post reply on HN