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

FBI Wants It to Be Impractical to Deploy Strong Encryption Without Key Escrow

rietta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 184 posts

Re: FBI Wants It to Be Impractical to Deploy Strong Encryption Without Key Escrow

#51

Post by Zigurd »

mc32 wrote: post #28
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #12

Sort of a bummer that lawmakers don't have a better understanding of encryption in general and what it protects. They'd condemn hackers breaking into phones/accounts and stealing important notes/pictures, but turn around and condemn the very technology preventing that from happening to _everybody_ Anybody here want to run for office and be a voice for tech rights?

It's only a dichotomy if you see it from the angle where data is sacrosanct and its beset on all sides by evil trying to do it in. The better way to approach this issue, long term, is from a legal point of view with an interim state where encryption holds us over. That is the law decides who may or may not own or access a certain type of data with penalties upon tort or criminality. And we develop civil protocols for…

Because the government hasn't already discredited itself regarding spying on us?

Re: FBI Wants It to Be Impractical to Deploy Strong Encryption Without Key Escrow

#52

Post by ethbro »

f00b4r123 wrote: post #38
Benjammer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And everyone with legitimate access to the warehouse will be 100% trustworthy no matter what for the entire span of time they are granted access, and nobody without legitimate access will ever be allowed in, even someone like a co-worker of someone with access, and even under the full supervision of someone with legitimate access.

An even stronger guarantee: That the definition of trustworthy and "good guy" are unchanging, and even in a dystopian future where a rogue actor is in control of government, those keys are safe because they understand the morality of the people who created them.

I'd say something to invoke Godwin's law, but it seems pretty clear that genocidal governments that sweep into power love having access to copious amounts of detailed records.

Re: FBI Wants It to Be Impractical to Deploy Strong Encryption Without Key Escrow

#53

Post by kbenson »

slg wrote: post #48
taf2 wrote: post #4

So... the FBI is essentially arguing we should all keep our doors unlocked because they have had to do some investigations in the past where they came to a home that was locked and it was hard for them to enter the home.

The FBI already has access to pretty much any locked door they want if they get a warrant. Their problem is that warrants don't work against encryption.

The front door is a less useful metaphor than your safe. We have safes in addition to locked front doors because it's accepted getting into the house is generally not that hard, whether you be law enforcement or a criminal.

Re: FBI Wants It to Be Impractical to Deploy Strong Encryption Without Key Escrow

#54

Post by gr3yh47 »

Domenic_S wrote: post #26
Aelinsaar wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced that a lack of understanding isn't borne from a lack of giving a rat's ass to begin with. Why learn about something when your vote and influence are already bought and paid for?

> a lack of giving a rat's ass to begin with. Agreed... > your vote and influence are already bought and paid for? Overly cynical. The standard whipping boy for 'buying politicians' is Big Business, and Apple certainly qualifies as that. In fact, this is an affront to essentially every big business in the world with IP to protect.

>In fact, this is an affront to essentially every big business in the world with IP to protect.

it really isn't, because many of the biggest business want a greater degree of population control, and having access to all of every individuals info is a means to that end.

Re: FBI Wants It to Be Impractical to Deploy Strong Encryption Without Key Escrow

#55

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mc32 wrote: post #45
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thieves can't traditionally steal your stuff on a mass scale without you ever knowing about it and then cost effectively use it to economically and psychologically manipulate entire populations. Once someone has your data, you don't know what they're doing with it and neither does the government. Which means they have to be prevented from getting it in the first place, which means encryption and laws that encourage a…

Then the problem is putting so much meaning to data. Why should my ID (or SSN) have so much value? Why should my medical records have so much value? Medical records have value mainly because it can lead to discrimination, so the solution to that is remove the value of discrimination (job, medical care costs, etc.) based on medical conditions.

> Why should my ID (or SSN) have so much value?

Because it existed before the invention of public key cryptography and is now permanently entrenched. If you think you can fix that, go do it and then make this argument after nobody is using SSNs anymore. Also, your argument for not deploying cryptography is "we should solve that problem cryptography would solve if it was more widely deployed"?

> Why should my medical records have so much value? Medical records have value mainly because it can lead to discrimination, so the solution to that is remove the value of discrimination (job, medical care costs, etc.) based on medical conditions.

You say "the solution" like all we have to do is snap our fingers and people will stop discriminating based on medical conditions even though doing so is highly profitable. The way the laws against that type of discrimination work is by preventing the discriminating party from obtaining that information.

Also, good luck passing or enforcing a law that says prospective mates can't discriminate against you based on your medical or mental health records. To say nothing of the outright violence that would result if the names of women who get abortions became known to the wrong people.

Re: FBI Wants It to Be Impractical to Deploy Strong Encryption Without Key Escrow

#56

Post by ethbro »

mc32 wrote: post #45
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thieves can't traditionally steal your stuff on a mass scale without you ever knowing about it and then cost effectively use it to economically and psychologically manipulate entire populations. Once someone has your data, you don't know what they're doing with it and neither does the government. Which means they have to be prevented from getting it in the first place, which means encryption and laws that encourage a…

Then the problem is putting so much meaning to data. Why should my ID (or SSN) have so much value? Why should my medical records have so much value? Medical records have value mainly because it can lead to discrimination, so the solution to that is remove the value of discrimination (job, medical care costs, etc.) based on medical conditions.

'Reason change from the world as it is, not from what you would have it be'

If a proposed system requires changing the world to make it feasible. Well, probably not the best starting point.

Re: FBI Wants It to Be Impractical to Deploy Strong Encryption Without Key Escrow

#57

Post by undersuit »

Domenic_S wrote: post #26
Aelinsaar wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced that a lack of understanding isn't borne from a lack of giving a rat's ass to begin with. Why learn about something when your vote and influence are already bought and paid for?

> a lack of giving a rat's ass to begin with. Agreed... > your vote and influence are already bought and paid for? Overly cynical. The standard whipping boy for 'buying politicians' is Big Business, and Apple certainly qualifies as that. In fact, this is an affront to essentially every big business in the world with IP to protect.

And all of those contractors that the NSA and the FBI work with, they are just too poor to even think about lobbying for more work in the shadow of Apple's influence. /s

Big business is on both sides of this conflict.

Re: FBI Wants It to Be Impractical to Deploy Strong Encryption Without Key Escrow

#58

Post by Zigurd »

Keep an eye on the would-be profiteers. Why would VCs like Fred Wilson land on the side of the FBI and parrot their position despite certainly knowing better? Because there are billions of dollars of government investment money being lined up to implement the wishful thinking key escrow and other back-door schemes. Even if back-doored encryption is doomed in the market, co-investors will be rewarded.

Re: FBI Wants It to Be Impractical to Deploy Strong Encryption Without Key Escrow

#59

Post by bowlofstew »

anexprogrammer wrote: post #49
krzrak wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting article. I find amusing this (quite popular) type of argumentation: > "This is a serious security breach," said Councilman Peter Vallone (D-Queens), who heads the Council's Public Safety Committee. "We know terrorists are planning to attack our subways, and the MTA and NYPD better find these magical morons quickly, and then make them disappear for a year in jail." Like the only thing between terrorists an…

But that is so revealing of the mindset. * We can have strong encryption just for the good guys * We can have master keys that only approved staff will use * We can block all the bad things on the internet and it'll be like they don't exist * If we have a back door into an encrypted device, only the good guys will use it It's like no politician ever read about crime. Staff can't be blackmailed or bribed. No one worki…

Yes, the good guys will use it in many ways that were never intended....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/us/politics/edward-snowden...

Re: FBI Wants It to Be Impractical to Deploy Strong Encryption Without Key Escrow

#60

Post by taf2 »

kbenson wrote: post #53
slg wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FBI already has access to pretty much any locked door they want if they get a warrant. Their problem is that warrants don't work against encryption.

The front door is a less useful metaphor than your safe. We have safes in addition to locked front doors because it's accepted getting into the house is generally not that hard, whether you be law enforcement or a criminal.

My parents worked for the NSA before there was an NSA. A guy came in to do a talk about how there is no such thing as security. He had a table with a bunch of common locks and even some safes. He proceeded to unlock each one in a matter of seconds to demonstrate his point.

Modern encryption however is changing the game. It's no longer true that security is just a matter of perception. It's becoming a reality and that makes for an interesting and bold new world we're entering.

Post reply on HN