The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by gpvos » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 8:20 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #128

dragonwriter wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not all the Republicans. Cruz has actively opposed the surveillance state: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/10/ted-cruz-nsa-...

He's an outlier, if not an extremist (seen from the standpoint of the average Republican politician).

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

#142

Post by Oletros » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 8:34 AM UTC

ibejoeb wrote: post #76

axihack wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is almost irrelevant?

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

#143

Post by krylon » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 8:53 AM UTC

I find it disturbing how the intelligence and law enforcement community seem to think there is some kind of natural right for them to snoop on people.

In case of the good old phone system, the very way that worked maked wiretapping very easy. The same was true for physical mail (one major reason why most states created and held on to the monopoly on mail for so long).

With email and IM this is - again due to the way this works - a lot more difficult. Artificially restricting encryption just so they can keep on doing things the way they're used to is a bad idea, and kind of naive, too.

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

#144

Post by danieltillett » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 8:55 AM UTC

mdpopescu wrote: post #139

danieltillett wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never understood why the USA anti-gun lobby doesn't go after ammunition rather than guns. Just ban ammunition and a gun just becomes a not so dangerous club.

You mean like this? http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/02/07/why-not-tax-... or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/murray-rosenbaum/bullet-not-gu...

The problem with trying to tax ammunition out of existence is this has previously been found to be constitutional invalid.

My idea is to not try to get rid of ammunition by banning or taxing, but just degrade it's killing power via regulation to the point that it is harmless. You could still buy arms and ammunition, but you would not be able to kill anyone.

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

#145

Post by siscia » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 8:56 AM UTC

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #10

jessegreathouse wrote: post #5

If 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?

Gun and encryption are two completely different beast.

With guns you can execute a crime, with encryption you cannot.

It is true that you can plan a crime with the use of encryption, but we don't punish on intentions but only on facts.

It is not illegal to plan how to kill someone, while it is illegal to actually kill somebody or to try to do it.

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

#146

Post by lostlogin » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 8:59 AM UTC

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #10

jessegreathouse wrote: post #5

If 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?

No great insight here, and however insane I find many US state gun laws, the encryption debate is more worrying by far. As a non-US citizen there isn't many ways US gun laws can affect me. However the encryption debate has far broader consequences and will change things for the rest of the world - but we don't get a say.

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

#147

Post by shkkmo » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 9:15 AM UTC

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…

> “Bringing a gun into the home substantially increases the risk for suicide for all family members and the risk for women being murdered in the home,”

> “Impulsiveness may be a catalyst in using a firearm to commit suicide and may also play a role in firearm-related homicide.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns-in-home-increase-suic...

I grew up with guns in the home, but these guns were for hunting / bear protection, not "self defense" and were stored unloaded and locked. I support the right to own guns but I find the willfully ignorant, cavalier and dismissive attitudes that many pro-gun advocates have towards the risks of gun ownership to be a shame.

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

#148

Post by XorNot » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 9:32 AM UTC

1024core wrote: post #53

If the USG can force Apple/Whatsapp to decrypt some communication, what prevents the PRC from doing the same? Will we see Tim Cook arrested the next time he goes to China?

What stops them now?

I don't understand why people think this is an issue. While you could certainly imagine the PRC being emboldened, it's not like their history of human rights abuses has kept them in check. The only thing which does is how much they love trade with the west, but it would be entertaining the amount of blowback making a move against Foxconn would create (also worth considering: China, land of fake electronics components and seizing memory cards at the border, is where all your iPhones are being made...)

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

#149

Post by jsmcgd » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 9:34 AM UTC

siscia wrote: post #145

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?

Gun and encryption are two completely different beast. With guns you can execute a crime, with encryption you cannot. It is true that you can plan a crime with the use of encryption, but we don't punish on intentions but only on facts. It is not illegal to plan how to kill someone, while it is illegal to actually kill somebody or to try to do it.

If you use encryption to tell someone to kill, you have executed a crime using encryption.

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

#150

Post by XorNot » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 9:38 AM UTC

jessegreathouse wrote: post #5

If 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…

This is the slippery slope fallacy: the current Apple court battle is so limited in scope that it cannot possibly create precedent for such broadranging actions, and those it might speak to would be subject to court oversight (i.e. you would require a separate writ for another phone, which would be equally subject to court challenge - it would not be a rubber stamp process, it would not be able to demand substantially different actions yet cite precedent).

Unless there is a current lawsuit where an affirmative ruling would imply a general order to introduce backdoored encryption in an entire line of products, then it is not "a matter of time" - and thus is also the classic slippery slope fallacy - decision A does not decide decisions B, C and D without further consideration.