More encryption means less privacy • Hacker News Board

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#151

Post by djsumdog » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 7:49 PM UTC

ori_b wrote: post #103

Retric wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until very recently 99.99% of conversations where completely private and society functioned just fine. Even with crypto everywhere the governments have far more access to what people say and do than they had for thousands of years. People with power pretend if they just had more power everything would be better. But, reality is if everything on a computer where private not much would change.

> Until very recently 99.99% of conversations where completely private and society functioned just fine. Until very recently, most conversations were plausibly deniable, and off the record. The internet and cryptography changes that. Edit: [Both plausibly deniable in the formal/cryptographic sense, and in the informal "You're misremembering, there's no record in writing of me saying that" sense]

> The internet and cryptography changes that.

By Internet, I think you mean phonographs, magnetic tapes and pocket recorders.

Cryptography brings some of that back.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#152

Post by djsumdog » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

kefka wrote: post #69

stinkytaco wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, two things: 1. I've always maintained that privacy is a political and social problem, not just a technological one. Nothing stops a more powerful actor from breaking encryption with a rubber hose if they really want to. Technological solutions are still needed since there's a variety of actors involved, only some of which will obey the political doctrine. 2. I often wonder if encryption will make us think of pr…

How does a rubber hose work when the people are talking via Tox or via .onion sites?

I think OP was talking about torture in order to obtain keys.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#153

Post by JoeAltmaier » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 7:55 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #139

Retric wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until very recently 99.99% of conversations where completely private and society functioned just fine. Even with crypto everywhere the governments have far more access to what people say and do than they had for thousands of years. People with power pretend if they just had more power everything would be better. But, reality is if everything on a computer where private not much would change.

> Until very recently 99.99% of conversations where completely private and society functioned just fine. In fairness, until very recently it was also extremely difficult for two people to privately plot to murder hundreds. Technology has changed the balances on a lot of scales. To be clear, I'm not advocating for government back doors in encryption here. But I am saying we should not pretend that encryption just puts…

Mandela spent 20 years in jail for plotting to blow up a hotel, I believe? And that was nearly a century ago.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#154

Post by Grishnakh » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 7:59 PM UTC

theandrewbailey wrote: post #4

codemac wrote: post #2

> Slapping unbreakable crypto onto more and more packets is just going to make matters worse. The only way to retain any amount of electronic privacy is through political engagement. While political engagement is an alternative to "slapping unbreakable crypto" onto things, this article establishes no precedent for political engagement actually helping! I see the technical as political, direct action as engagement. An…

SOPA's defeat was a big win. There is almost no political engagement from the technology sector, as compared to others (like pharmaceuticals, finance, telecoms, entertainment). If there had, the DMCA might not be so onerous, the CFAA would be gone, and SOPA would never have gotten as far as it did.

>There is almost no political engagement from the technology sector, as compared to others

That's because the tech sector is busy actually doing useful stuff and inventing world-changing technologies. Pharma only does some of that (their pace of innovation is quite lackluster, and they spend more on marketing than on R&D, the real medical innovation is being done by other entities), finance is figuring out how to make money from a bad economy with hedge funds, telecoms are just exploiting their monopolies and screwing customers over, and entertainment is just rehashing old stuff with never-ending low-quality remakes, reboots, sequels, and prequels.

Instead of trying to use politics to make more money by screwing people over (which is how other industries mostly work), the tech sector makes money by creating new technologies. It's a fundamentally different mindset.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#155

Post by posterboy » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 8:13 PM UTC

kefka wrote: post #69

stinkytaco wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, two things: 1. I've always maintained that privacy is a political and social problem, not just a technological one. Nothing stops a more powerful actor from breaking encryption with a rubber hose if they really want to. Technological solutions are still needed since there's a variety of actors involved, only some of which will obey the political doctrine. 2. I often wonder if encryption will make us think of pr…

How does a rubber hose work when the people are talking via Tox or via .onion sites?

They might own a significant share of Tor relays and exit points, likewise for Bitcoin.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#156

Post by phkamp » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 8:13 PM UTC

Grishnakh wrote: post #154

theandrewbailey wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SOPA's defeat was a big win. There is almost no political engagement from the technology sector, as compared to others (like pharmaceuticals, finance, telecoms, entertainment). If there had, the DMCA might not be so onerous, the CFAA would be gone, and SOPA would never have gotten as far as it did.

>There is almost no political engagement from the technology sector, as compared to others That's because the tech sector is busy actually doing useful stuff and inventing world-changing technologies. Pharma only does some of that (their pace of innovation is quite lackluster, and they spend more on marketing than on R&D, the real medical innovation is being done by other entities), finance is figuring out how to mak…

No, that is not why.

The reason why the tech sector does not engage in politics, is that people feel they are above politics and "don't want to get dirty".

Further more, they're sure the laws doesn't matter on the Internet anyway, right ?

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#157

Post by Retric » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 8:14 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #139

Retric wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until very recently 99.99% of conversations where completely private and society functioned just fine. Even with crypto everywhere the governments have far more access to what people say and do than they had for thousands of years. People with power pretend if they just had more power everything would be better. But, reality is if everything on a computer where private not much would change.

> Until very recently 99.99% of conversations where completely private and society functioned just fine. In fairness, until very recently it was also extremely difficult for two people to privately plot to murder hundreds. Technology has changed the balances on a lot of scales. To be clear, I'm not advocating for government back doors in encryption here. But I am saying we should not pretend that encryption just puts…

Gunpowder plot of 1605 is a rather famous counter example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#158

Post by throw2016 » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 8:16 PM UTC

This doesn't follow. All it shows that it increases transparency and a goverment can't pretend to be a democracy while running a total surveillance operation against public interest and funded by the public on the side.

Non democratic governments are not the benchmarks for democratic behavior by definition. Governments in countries like Kazakstan and China have already made it clear they are not interested in privacy and its for their citizens and social structures to respond.

Countries like the US and UK claim to the defenders of democracy but are running equally intensive surveillance operations on the side, and in this case without outliers like Snowden we won't even know. So let this debate happen in the open so citizens and the state can reach an acceptable consensus on checks and balances.

It would also be a good idea to remove the emotional threats of terrorism that are used to manipulate and manufacture outcomes from this debate. There is a long history of government abuse of power that citizens cannot ignore. There needs to be more accountability of US and UK relations with Saudi Arabia and its 30 year funding of wahhabism globally. The effects of this and geopolitical games cannout be brushed aside as they are fundamental to terrorism today. Without terrorism there is essentially no debate and citizens will not give up their rights for day-to-day law and order problems.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#159

Post by nullc » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 8:22 PM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #102

Confusion wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Client-to-server encryption with central message routing [..] will be abused by the NSA and anyone else that can get their hands on access. And no amount of politicking is going to change that, as it hasn't changed anything about their blatant disregard of the law thus far. BTW, 'anyone else that can get their hands on access' will include foreign nations and criminals. [..] can easily be given a backdoor [..] that m…

How many of the NSA's backdoors have ended up in the hands of foreign nations and criminals, again?

At least one major one, it appears-- in the form of substituting the backdoor parameters with attacker selected ones.

http://dualec.org/DualECJuniper-draft.pdf

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#160

Post by theandrewbailey » Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 8:22 PM UTC

phkamp wrote: post #138

forgotpwtomain wrote: post #23

I think this point of view isn't just wrong it's actively harmful . It completely ignores what happened - which is that various government agencies skirted around constitutional law, subverted public discussion of the matter [0] and have still not been brought into adequate compliance (Since it's incredibly hard to demonstrate standing and not have the case squashed [1]). And after all this the author is saying the p…

To "backwards nations" you can add the following, all of which have floated laws to weaken/backdoor/ban crypto: France UK USA Russia

Put USA at the top. Clipper chip says "Hi".