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

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#271

Post by Zigurd » Fri, Apr 15, 2016, 11:56 PM UTC

mangeletti wrote: post #214

rayiner wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> force me to tell a court what you said Incorrect. Government can attempt to legally compel you, but they cannot actually "force" you to do something. Even torture cannot actually "force" you to do something. What can force you to "tell a court what you said" is making it impossible for you to keep a secret; like mind-reading technology. > ...legal system is built on being able to get whatever evidence is relevant w…

You are taking a literalist view of the word "force" there. You can be compelled to testify, and the people asking the questions need to do their homework so they can catch you in a lie if you try that. That's how things were before every communication was electronic.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#272

Post by studentrob » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 8:19 AM UTC

a_imho wrote: post #260

callcallcall wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree voting from your IOT device is something that should happen. We will get there some day.

To get to that point sooner, we should elect more people who are knowledgeable about technology. If you disagree or feel that is an impossible route, you may be able to find others who feel similarly. Personally I think people who feel this way are part of a minority and that limiting your interactions to a certain group is isolating and not productive. I am always looking for ways to engage people with different ideas, both to learn and to share what I've learned.

Ultimately, I reject vox_mollis comment that participation in the democratic process is worthless or powerless. Just listen to This American Life's episode on "Take the Money and Run for Office" [1],

> Barney Frank: If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district. [2]

Or look at how Lindsey Graham changed his mind in the encryption case [3]. Our representatives are not entirely useless. Similar to your day job or at your school, some people are good at what they do, and some are bad at it. That's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. We have the longest running democratic republic in the world. We should study it, contribute improvements by speaking up and voting, and be proud of it. Much of the rest of the world faces strict repercussions when they even speak against their government.

[1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...

[2] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...

[3] https://youtu.be/zsjZ2r9Ygzw?t=14m30s

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#273

Post by studentrob » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 8:27 AM UTC

coroutines wrote: post #264

studentrob wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point being, the anti-encryption side has the support of nearly everyone who isn't informed about encryption and computing, which is a whole lot of people. That just means there is more of a chance for technologists to take a leading role in this discussion through activism. It's an easy win if you can keep a cool head while explaining the issues.

I hate that because we understand we have a responsibility. I just wanted to share cat pictures discretely with my friends.

Haha. It's an opportunity, not a responsibility. At some point in your life you may feel more inclined to contribute in that way. Or you may not. Both are fine =).

Ultimately you shouldn't feel pressured by what other people ask of you. The choice of what to do and how to feel about it is always yours. When other people say it's your responsibility, like even if I had said that, that would just be me trying to convince you. That means nothing when you choose how to feel about it.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#274

Post by hellbanner » Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 12:30 AM UTC

NoGravitas wrote: post #122

hellbanner wrote: post #120

This is requiring tech companies to provide decrypted data, yes. I want a private key that is only creatable by N separate individuals, who will only release their part of the key when they can ascertain I am not under coercion. Is there a system that does this?

Do you mean something like [Shamir's Secret Sharing][0]? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir's_Secret_Sharing

Thank you, reading up on this! Any modern clients you use for this?

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#275

Post by studentrob » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 11:06 AM UTC

spdustin wrote: post #128

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…

I think most of the elected officials are technologically illiterate, and bills such as this are driven by the fear that's been instilled in those officials by the appointed or hired intelligence community. Because they're the ones, what I'll colloquially call the "citizen conformance enforcement branch" of the government, that are most interested in the data and are most empowered by it. Investigate the motive and t…

Yes of course it's the FBI and others who are asking for such laws. This is known.

The people and Congress have the power to put a stop to bad ideas coming out of law enforcement agencies. Speak up about it.