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

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#251

Post by lostapathy » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 7:05 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #187

abfan1127 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

except for all of these demonstrable ways: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/...

That sounds like a totally unbiased source! PS: I have actually been paid to look into crime statistics. Guns are bad, really really bad. But, you can twist statistics to say the sky is orange if you want to.

Try reading the book. The author is a journalist who set out to build a case against guns and this book holds the facts he found.

He came into it with a bias but still ended up with the opposite book from his intentions, due to honest research.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#252

Post by zipwitch » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 7:12 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…

>I'm sure if pocket enigma machines were around They were. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_disk

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#253

Post by callcallcall » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 7:19 PM UTC

dohwjhehe wrote: post #249

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…

Having worked in several of these offices, I can assure you there is no "government shit list" for those who call their reps.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#254

Post by callcallcall » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 7:27 PM UTC

a_imho wrote: post #238

vox_mollis wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am gobsmacked by the tenor of comments here. At what point will HN posters finally realize that participation in the democratic process does precisely nothing against naked power?

I think you have a very valid point and seeing it downvoted instead of debated shows most of us are not bothered by that status quo. You can call your representative every time you think a legislation tries to overreach and hope your voice is heard, or instead of the symptoms you can treat the root cause. I believe the easier problem is to design a more just system which inherently advocates freedom and self regulate…

This sounds like a great idea. How do you propose we design a new system that is just?

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#255

Post by Floegipoky » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 7:28 PM UTC

mangeletti wrote: post #250

KMag wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd argue that the US Constitution was written with the implicit assertion that government is a boogeyman. Why else would we need the bill of rights?

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#256

Post by EdHominem » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

thwarted wrote: post #106

studentrob wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, agree to disagree. I don't think our elected officials are bumbling idiots. But they aren't informed about everything either. It's impossible to be an expert across all fields. As technologists, we think this issue is so straightforward that you must either be evil or a complete idiot if you support this law. We'd do well to take a step back and observe our thought process. We often think things about computers…

As technologists, we think this issue is so straightforward that you must either be evil or a complete idiot if you support this law I don't think it is either. More likely it is the "something must be done, this is something" kind of thinking. You don't need to be absolutely evil or absolutely idiotic to subscribe to this philosophy. The problem is that we end debating the right side of that claim (because that's wh…

> "something must be done, this is something" kind of thinking. You don't need to be absolutely evil or absolutely idiotic to subscribe to this philosophy.

To fall into it without warning, no. Like all fallacies, it's a local maxima.

But to stick with it after it's pointed out... At best that's stupidity, at worst it's deceit and treachery.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#257

Post by omginternets » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 7:55 PM UTC

abfan1127 wrote: post #116

chx wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When guns are outlawed, only lawmen and outlaws will have guns. Good. That's the state of affairs in every developed country except one and it's demonstrably better in every way.

except for all of these demonstrable ways: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/...

Don't pretend like that's a peer-reviewed source.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#258

Post by comex » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 8:06 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #174

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…

> Government is trying to make it illegal for one person to keep secrets and whisper them into another's ear. That is already the case. If you whisper a secret into my ear, the government can subpoena me and force me to tell a court what you said. They can force you to tell a court what you said so long as it's not incriminating to you, and even then they can do it if they give you immunity. We can debate about what…

> Pervasive, unbreakable encryption is a game-changer that requires rethinking the existing framework.

It is. But - I'm sure you've heard this better stated before, but - the first game-changer was the massive volume of everyday conversation and chatter that has moved from ephemeral speech to various digital forms, such as SMS, Facebook, messaging apps, or this very site, and thereby (usually inadvertently) preserved indefinitely, along with a ton of metadata such as location information. Digital message records are in theory the same type of information as, say, the result of a subpoena asking someone what they heard in a not particularly important conversation in a private space three years ago, but the former's volume and precision creates a significant qualitative difference. Using encryption to take that information out of the government's reach is in large part a return to the status quo.

Of course, for the case of stored information on a phone, an alternative to encrypting such data is just periodically wiping it - something which, if Snapchat is any indication, appeals to people at some level and should be more widespread.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#259

Post by EdHominem » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 8:24 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'…

> That's not "the government" and to think so kind of misses the mark.

The difference is that when it's not the government we're free to disagree. We're only concerned with people wanting to force it on us which these civilians with their personal concerns would not be doing.

> You may disagree with a perhaps naive perspective like that, but that interpretation does not make it any less real.

You may honestly hold a view but that does not make it any more real or sensical.

People want the comfort you describe (easy unlock) and perfect security. They believe it's possible but they resist thinking critically about it.

> 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's legally my phone, not Apple's or Samsung's, I want that data."

And if the data was in a safe you'd be saying "It's legally my paperwork, not American Safe Co's paperwork. I want that paperwork." If you hadn't planned ahead they wouldn't be able to help you either.

If you don't have anything super-secret or valuable in the safe you can take advantage of bricks-and-mortar key escrow like putting the key/combo in a safe-deposit box, or trusting the manufacturer to hold it such as with restricted keyways and encrypted bitting patterns.

And similarly, you (or rather, the relative who might be killed) could buy a phone with some family unlock option on the cloud backup or they could put their unlock code on a piece of paper, put it in their safe-deposit box, and will it to you in event of their suspicious death.

We're all worse off if unlocking a phone or safe is easy to do without these measures. It's better that a few people lose their paperwork than that none of us are ever secure in ours.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#260

Post by a_imho » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 8:37 PM UTC

callcallcall wrote: post #254

a_imho wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have a very valid point and seeing it downvoted instead of debated shows most of us are not bothered by that status quo. You can call your representative every time you think a legislation tries to overreach and hope your voice is heard, or instead of the symptoms you can treat the root cause. I believe the easier problem is to design a more just system which inherently advocates freedom and self regulate…

This sounds like a great idea. How do you propose we design a new system that is just?

Keyword is more just. I don't pretend I have an answer, there are people far more knowledgeable on these matters. IMO the key points would be something like decreasing the overall power of the government (and red tape) and moving towards more self representation. Voting from your IOT device is technically pretty feasible at this point (maybe check the link in my profile). Also, I feel nepotism and corruption might be reduced if positions of power (even potus) would be selected from the general citizen pool randomly (~like a jury) instead of campaigning for them. I'm not American but following the election I could not pick a candidate from any of the parties who I would trust to represent my views. I guess these points are easily debatable according to personal taste, but I'm sure there are many better ideas around.