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

Illegal Math

blog.prakashvenkat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 106 posts

Re: Illegal Math

#41

Post by im3w1l »

slg wrote: post #14

>Various government agencies are crooning that they should be able to knock down whichever doors they please because they're the government. I think this analogy is apt but it actually works against the author's point. Our government has legally been allowed to knock down whichever door it has wanted to for centuries assuming it has received the proper warrants. An encryption door cannot be knocked down. That is a ve…

You talk about centuries, in the mid 19th century only 10% of the world could even read or write. The vast majority of what governments want to access would have previously been said face to face without any records.

Re: Illegal Math

#42

Post by Johnny555 »

bfstein wrote: post #3

Disclaimer: I agree with the author on the encryption debate. However, it's a slippery slope to say that encryption can't be illegal because in is math, and math can't be illegal. It's equivalent to say that making bombs is chemistry, and chemistry can't be illegal. It's an oversimplification. Presenting the practical consequences of a backdoor produces a far more sound argument.

The difference is that math is an abstract concept with no physical manifestation. I can encrypt something in my head, but I can't make a physical bomb in my head.

Even when an encryption algorithm is implemented on a computer, it's still not a physical object, it's just a mathematical algorithm.

A computer simulation of explosive chemical reaction is not going to get you arrested, why should an encryption algorithm?

Re: Illegal Math

#43

Post by ajmurmann »

dingusoo wrote: post #10
kawsper wrote: post #6

Poul-Henning Kamp (bsdphk) known from FreeBSD and Varnish, have speculated that the future will bring certification for using cryptography, where decryption keys will need be placed on government servers. He says that to avoid this to happen the citizens need to demand access to strong cryptography. [0] He writes about it here (danish to english): https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=da&tl=en&js=y&prev...

If this were ever to happen, the only people using secure (deniable) cryptography would be be the bad actors. Everyone else would be screwed.

You and I understand that, but how many politicians understand that? We constantly ban stuff that's futile to ban and make things worse I the process.

Re: Illegal Math

#45

Post by mehwoot »

Various government agencies are crooning that they should be able to knock down whichever doors they please because they're the government. Not really a sound argument but… they're the government after all.

Various government agencies are crooning that they should be able to knock down whichever doors they please because the interests of being able to have somebody find out what people are doing under certain scenarios is preferable to never being able to do it.

The fact you misrepresent the argument as simply "because they're the government" means you either don't understand the opposing side or you're willfully misrepresenting them. In either case, why would anyone who doesn't already agree with you take what you said seriously?

Re: Illegal Math

#46

Post by thetruthseeker1 »

Even though the contents of iPhone is encrypted, the government agencies have been able to get that out of iCloud with the help of Apple in the past. So it is not entirely true that the whole encrypted content is off limits in all cases. May be that is all that is needed. And may be we shouldn't need to do anything more which I think is a valid argument. However, lets also not paint the ones who request such a feature as "morons"

Re: Illegal Math

#47

Post by pfarnsworth »

The more things change...

This is a similar debate we had 20 years ago, when people were fighting against the government who wanted to limit encryption to 56-bit DES. Stronger algorithms were not allowed (and then they acquiesced and allowed stronger keys to be used within the US only, unless you applied for special licenses). But you could print out the same encryption algorithms as a book or even a t-shirt and it would be totally legal and exportable. The government was saying that they were protecting us, but really it did nothing.

It was ridiculous and we had a few years of relative peace on the encryption front until this whole faux-terrorist debacle.

Re: Illegal Math

#48

Post by tn13 »

jimworm wrote: post #34

One of the problems with outlawing encryption is that it takes nothing to prove the crime, and therefore it is impossible to prove one's innocence. Would it be possible to outlaw the possession or transfer of data that appears random? Nearly all data is random data, and nearly all processes randomize data. All data could be "proven" to contain information under at least one encryption scheme. It is the ultimate guilt…

Good point. It might also be a crime to lose key to encrypted data under these sort of laws.

Re: Illegal Math

#49

Post by guelo »

slg wrote: post #14

>Various government agencies are crooning that they should be able to knock down whichever doors they please because they're the government. I think this analogy is apt but it actually works against the author's point. Our government has legally been allowed to knock down whichever door it has wanted to for centuries assuming it has received the proper warrants. An encryption door cannot be knocked down. That is a ve…

A smartphone and the network services that power it have way more information then any personal journal ever did. It has every one you're associated with, every topic you're interested in, everywhere you've been, etc. Society did not fall apart back when the government did not have access to the complete life record of every potential criminal.

Re: Illegal Math

#50

Post by rtpg »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #31
slg wrote: post #14

>Various government agencies are crooning that they should be able to knock down whichever doors they please because they're the government. I think this analogy is apt but it actually works against the author's point. Our government has legally been allowed to knock down whichever door it has wanted to for centuries assuming it has received the proper warrants. An encryption door cannot be knocked down. That is a ve…

>Our government has legally been allowed to knock down whichever door it has wanted to for centuries assuming it has received the proper warrants. But it hasn't been able to trawl for evidence mechanically and automatically. Now it has the technology to do that. The default has always been privacy, for practical reasons. Encryption simply continues that tradition by continuing to make evidence gathering non-trivial.

The mechanical and automatic nature of evidence gathering is a real difference, and goes well to argue against NSA-style warrantless crawling.

I think for warrants, though, we're looking at a different beast. By their nature they are targeted. And people have been compelled to provide passwords in the court of law(See [0]). The right against self-incrimination is relatively narrow, so as to not hinder the government's discoverability powers too much.

I think the one thing about this, though, is that people can already be compelled through legal means to unlock things. There is a reading of the Apple case that they are being compelled to unlock something for which they have the key.

Generally, it feels like outlawing encryption isn't necessary for the gov't to pursue the discovery phase of an arrest. There are already a good amount of legal means to compel people to unlock the doors.

[0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Stat...

Post reply on HN