Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill • Hacker News Board

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#241

Post by WhoBeI » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 5:47 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #181

mc32 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it's convenient to paint this as "the government," many people, the ones who elect most officials, are also of the opinion that if authorized (by some manner) that encrypted data should be made available in plaintext. For the common people this comes in the form "I believe my dead relative's phone has information which will expose their killer, I want the carrier or manufacturer to make that data available, it'…

Yes, exactly, it's the same thinking that lets the government search people's houses when authorized, or detail and question them when authorized. We already have this concept of "the government can go through your stuff" in the form of search warrants. It's not a leap at all to apply that to encryption, too, even if some specific law gets it wrong at first. I'm sure if pocket enigma machines were around when these l…

This is not the same thing.

The problem is that your government wants to break all forms of encryption regardless of where or how they are used. Either they want something like a skeleton key or a method of bypassing the security altogether.

So they're not requesting a search warrant. They are requiring that you hand over the keys to your home or install a special door for them that is always kept unlocked.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#242

Post by cb18 » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #151

mangeletti wrote: post #74

Government is trying to make it illegal for one person to keep secrets and whisper them into another's ear. We can argue all day about how the law doesn't prevent criminals from using technologies (it doesn't, which makes the law idiotic, from a logic perspective), but that's not the important part. The important part is that this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to h…

While it's convenient to paint this as "the government," many people, the ones who elect most officials, are also of the opinion that if authorized (by some manner) that encrypted data should be made available in plaintext. For the common people this comes in the form "I believe my dead relative's phone has information which will expose their killer, I want the carrier or manufacturer to make that data available, it'…

(Speaking not necessarily to what you said, but more generally.)

This is a relatively new area, so we must careful to be precise with the terms we are working with. Like naming variables.

>encrypted data should be made available in plaintext

'Encrypted' data that can be rendered as 'plain text' or any other interpretable form of data upon certain conditions being met outside the scope of the initial encrypter is not 'encrypted data.' But could rather be referred to as something like 'concealed data.'

Encrypted data is data that is only accessible to those who have been authorized to access it by the initial encrypter.(setting aside human error in encryption techniques)

This definition follows exactly from the use of modern encryption algorithms. Therefore, encrypted data accessible to anyone other than 'Alice' or 'Bob,' is not in fact encrypted.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#243

Post by nxzero » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 5:56 PM UTC

For anyone that thinks either the government, or that matter the general public, doesn't understand the intent of the bill, you are wrong.

Government clearly understands what is going on and has every reason to support laws like this.

What may not be clear, is that in my opinion, average person understands what is going on, but is afraid. Understanding this fear, and how to counter it is the key, not figuring out how to help people understand how the bill would function in the real world.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#244

Post by ocschwar » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 6:01 PM UTC

ipsin wrote: post #54

The plain-spoken language of the bill is irritating, because it hides how much assistance it provides to the existing surveillance machinery. For example, it doesn't exempt the FISA court, as far as I can tell, and seems to embrace that use. I'm having a little trouble with the paradoxes... "Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any government officer to require or prohibit any specific design". Is this a…

It means "unlike with the Clipper Chip, we take no responsibility for finding the miraculous back door that will only work for US law enforcement. YOU do it. YOU face the embarrassment when it turns out to be usable by Vladimir Putin."

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#245

Post by ocschwar » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 6:21 PM UTC

mceachen wrote: post #227

ocschwar wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yet? She was singing this tune 20 years ago.

Sources please. I did a research on her legislation and voting record back then, expecting to find horrible things, and found her work to be thoughtful and helpful to the populous. Things have dramatically changed since then, unfortunately. It'd be fascinating to uncover what caused this marked phase change.

And from RISKS 29.46:

Incidentally, my testimony in the second session that day is at http://www.csl.sri.com/neumann/judiciary.html, along with my answers to subsequent written questions from Senators Thurmond, Grassley, Leahy, and Feinstein. At the end of the first session. Senator Feinstein excused herself to go to another hearing, but remarked that if FBI Director Freeh said he needed access to essentially everything, we'd better give it to him.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#246

Post by Lawtonfogle » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 6:25 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #232

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just look at gun control arguments to see why people think outlawing activity will stop criminals.

> Just look at gun control arguments > to see why people think outlawing > activity will stop criminals. Ahem : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#Research

I read it. There seems to have been a bunch of studies that reached the consensus that the laws had little impact on a trend that existed before the laws and continued afterwords.

>The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported

>In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.

>In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[49] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had little to no effect on violence.

One of the only 'wins' seems to be that people who committed suicide were less likely to use guns, but more likely to use other methods.

>As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.

>Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#247

Post by djejjehje » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 6:35 PM UTC

verusfossa wrote: post #237

callcallcall wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2014 Americans made over a million public comments to the FCC in support of net neutrality. The FCC sided in favor of net neutrality. [1] In 2011 Americans made over 8 million phone calls to their representatives in opposition to SOPA/PIPA. The bills were defeated. [2] [1] http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/05/inside-the-fccs-1-1-million... [2] http://www.sopastrike.com/numbers

And then CISA, arguably worse than SOPA, passes both houses in 2015 tucked in a budget bill. [0] http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/18/10582446/congress-passes-...

Not to mention more restrictions to come via the various secret international trade pacts being made.

People must understabd this, to disagree is to be disingenuous on the face of mountains of evidence. The American people have zero say on policy, the laws the government wants the government will get, it may take a few more years but it will happen.

The system cannot be reformed, it's very core is corrupt, those who disagree are for the status quo of the police state and they are our enemy and the enemy of justice.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#248

Post by ewindisch » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 6:37 PM UTC

cesarb wrote: post #233

ewindisch wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would cover your use of SSH/TLS for providing a service, but they can already subpoena those keys under existing law, so it's of limited relevance in a conversation about what this bill introduces. What changes here is that if you deployed SSH/TLS using a HSM (Hardware security module), you'd need to be prepared to provide a plaintext stream upon a court order. Obviously, the alternative is to choose the non-HSM r…

> What changes here is that if you deployed SSH/TLS using a HSM (Hardware security module), you'd need to be prepared to provide a plaintext stream upon a court order. Obviously, the alternative is to choose the non-HSM route which is, and has always been, vulnerable to subpoena. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't SSH always use a Diffie-Hellman key agreement, where the keys are destroyed after their use? No subpoe…

I hadn't considered DH, but if this bill would be used as basis for a court order to decrypt data obtained via a wiretap, then yes, it would be problematic for PFS cryptosystems. :(

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#249

Post by dohwjhehe » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

callcallcall wrote: post #91

Instead of complaining into the echo chamber of comments, here are some things you can do to fight back: Donate to the EFF: https://supporters.eff.org/donate/button Call your Reps: http://TryVoices.com Petition the President: https://savecrypto.org/

Calling the government to complain of their corrupt illegal bills is only a good way to be singled out for increased harassment.

You almost surely will be placed on a list of possible dissidents, your life will be sucked in a government database and your communications more closely watched.

Those things this is crazy have had their head buried in the sand this last decade.

The political process is broken, America is despotic police state ruled by an illegitimate, unaccountable elite.

There of thousands examples of government abuse at every level and officials are never held accountable.

Torure? Pass. Bomb a hospital? Pass. Assisinate children and emergency responders? Pass.

The people on HN live ina fantasy world where they still think calling btheir rep does anything besides putnthem on the government shit list.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#250

Post by mangeletti » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

KMag wrote: post #219

empath75 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think probably the right way to go after this bill is not to tell people that they need to protect their secrets from the government, but that they need to protect their secrets from 'criminals'. Point out all the times that government databases have been hacked, and that if their secrets are swept up in government dragnets, it's only a matter of time before blackmailers and identity thieves get hold of them.

Right. The anti-privacy lobby has their big 3 boogey men: "terrorists", "drug dealers", and "child molesters". The pro-privacy lobby has 2 big boogey men: "criminals" and "the Chinese". What's our third boogeyman? We must close the boogeyman gap! I suppose "crooked LEOs" doesn't have enough of a ring to it.

> third boogeyman?

Um... how about Government.

I'm not suggesting that Government is intrinsically a boogeyman (and I'm not an anarchist), but first and foremost on the list of entities that privacy and weapons protect citizens from is Government.