Illegal Math • Hacker News Board

Re: Illegal Math

#91

Post by debacle » Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 2:31 PM UTC

jimworm wrote: post #80

CJefferson wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, the law is about "reasonable doubt", and has been dealing with this kind of thing for hundreds of years. This isn't new magic. By a similar argument, any phrase someone says to someone else might have been code for "kill that guy". Except usually it's not, and unless there is convincing evidence you did mean to kill that guy, you'll be set free. Conversely, if you have previously agreed a code where "2+2=4" m…

You're talking about reasonable doubt on an order to murder, I'm talking about reasonable doubt on the possession of encrypted data. Strongly encrypted data looks random and the only way to tell the difference is to have the decryption key. So is withholding the key sufficient for reasonable doubt? If it is, the law is useless; if it isn't, any random data is evidence of guilt.

The law isn't cut and dry. That's a fantasy that a lot of people, especially in tech, seem to have.

Re: Illegal Math

#92

Post by krylon » Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 2:50 PM UTC

antxxxx wrote: post #81

Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman did not invent public-private-key-encryption. It was invented in secret by mathematicians working at GCHQ before Diffie and Hellman but not publicly acknowledged until 1997 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Ellis

Well, technically yes. But a) the invention of asymmetric encryption at GHCQ was kept secret, so Diffie and Hellman did not know about it; they invented it independently, it happens from time to time. And b) AFAIK, GHCQ did not develop asymmetric encryption into anything practically usable, they did come up with the basic concept, but stopped there (again: AFAIK - I am happy to be corrected if I have been misinformed there).

Re: Illegal Math

#93

Post by jonwachob91 » Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 3:07 PM UTC

cmdrfred wrote: post #83

pif wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But now they can have the next-best thing... I think the discussion will get more useful when we'll stop talking about them and instead will talk about us . In civilized countries, the government represents the people. Law-enforcing organisms are mandated by people. The question is not whether some stranger wants to be able to enforce the law: the problem is whether we want to be able to enforce the law.

It has been empirically proven[1] that the United States is not a democracy. At least not in any meaningful way. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us...

You are 100% correct, the US is not a Democracy. IT'S A REPUBLIC.

The same citizens complaining that the rich control our country are the same citizens who don't register to vote because their opinion doesn't matter. The person who screams the loudest is the person heard. And the voice of America takes a sad me me me view that their voice doesn't matter, thus the rich get the power.

I'm far from a Sanders supporter, but his way of running this campaign has given America their Voice back. Ban super PACS, and limit corporate contributions to the same dollar amount that you and I are limited to donating, $2700.

Re: Illegal Math

#94

Post by CWuestefeld » Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 3:33 PM UTC

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.

That's mostly true, but not completely. There are a number of doors that have always been barred:

- Self-incrimination

- Incrimination of a spouse

- Attorney-client relationship

- Minister/priest - parishioner relationship

- Doctor - patient relationship (?)

The doctor simply cannot force you to bear witness against yourself. Nor can they force your attorney to reveal what you said to him.

Some of these examples have a sort of exception, where a doctor or an attorney must give warning it they know that the subject person is going to commit murder, for example. But that's not the same as saying that the government can go back and look at past communications.

Re: Illegal Math

#95

Post by milesftl » Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 4:58 PM UTC

samatman wrote: post #44

Any time the "math cannot be illegal" argument is raised, it's time for a re-reading of "What colour are your bits?": http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

i have never seen this article, thanks for reposting it. This articulated a bunch of things I have a very difficult time explaining to other non cs people. very well put.

Re: Illegal Math

#96

Post by theandrewbailey » Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 5:16 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #90

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.

Hum, no, math and chemistry are simply different on that. Math can not harm anybody because math isn't real, it's speech (yes, maybe except for psychological harm). Chemistry is quite real. Anyway, I don't see merit on the author's argument. It's true, but useless. The discussion is about protected speech and evidence gathering, nobody is claiming cryptography directly harms people.

I can assure you that math is most certainly real. Just because you can't hit a head with it doesn't mean something isn't real.

Re: Illegal Math

#97

Post by RockyMcNuts » Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 6:13 PM UTC

dingusoo wrote: post #29

programmer_dude wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Doing physics or chemistry can directly harm people. Doing math or drawing pictures can't. Like the article said analogies are no fun. I agree with your premise but not with your conclusion. You will perhaps agree that encryption has the potential to directly harm people just as physics or chemistry?

> You will perhaps agree that encryption has the potential to directly harm people just as physics or chemistry? I would not agree. Encryption can only indirectly harm people, in the same vein as speech.

All kinds of speech is regulated... talking about a murder is conspiracy, financial transactions are just bits moving around and they are highly regulated, talking about transactions incorrectly is fraud, yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater is a crime... as soon as there's a nexus between speech and action the speech is regulated.

Re: Illegal Math

#98

Post by pdonis » Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

rtpg wrote: post #50

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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'…

> people can already be compelled through legal means to unlock things.

Things that they own, yes. But Apple doesn't own the iPhone that the FBI wants to unlock.

> There is a reading of the Apple case that they are being compelled to unlock something for which they have the key.

No, they don't have the key. What the FBI is asking Apple to do is to redesign the lock so that the FBI can try as many different keys as it wants until they find one that unlocks it.

Re: Illegal Math

#99

Post by mc808 » Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 6:33 PM UTC

pif wrote: post #77

mc808 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now that information is all locked away behind encryption. Moreover, more and more of that persistent information is casual communication that historically would have been securely erased by the whispering winds of time. No judge can grant investigators a time machine to travel back and spy on thousands of conversations over the last 5 years to fish for evidence. But now they can have the next-best thing (and getti…

> But now they can have the next-best thing... I think the discussion will get more useful when we'll stop talking about them and instead will talk about us . In civilized countries, the government represents the people. Law-enforcing organisms are mandated by people. The question is not whether some stranger wants to be able to enforce the law: the problem is whether we want to be able to enforce the law.

Naturally we want to be able to enforce the law. We should also remember the 20th century and how quickly "they" seized control of Germany, Italy, Japan, China, Korea, the Soviet republics, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, Cuba, the list goes on. All of that without the benefit of universal surveillance and time scrying technology.

In pursuit of enforcing the law, we need to be vigilant in maintaining the rule of law, which has proved difficult over the last century, with dire consequences.

Re: Illegal Math

#100

Post by CamperBob2 » Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 8:59 PM UTC

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #97

dingusoo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You will perhaps agree that encryption has the potential to directly harm people just as physics or chemistry? I would not agree. Encryption can only indirectly harm people, in the same vein as speech.

All kinds of speech is regulated... talking about a murder is conspiracy, financial transactions are just bits moving around and they are highly regulated, talking about transactions incorrectly is fraud, yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater is a crime... as soon as there's a nexus between speech and action the speech is regulated.

And this is why we have the term mens rea.

Obviously there is much more to conspiracy than "talking about a murder," or Stephen King would be locked up in Supermax. It's as if Comey is asking for the right to review every murder mystery or horror novel before it hits the shelves. If he wants his job to be that easy, he should send his resume to North Korea.