Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More encryption means less privacy

queue.acm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 221 posts

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#171

Post by kefka »

posterboy wrote: post #155
kefka wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've also worked on quite a few methods of using Tor and Hidden Services, where my whole network is in .onion .

I can send data to .onion addresses natively via DNS ( https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/LinuxDNSre... ). I can also receive data from Onions as well.

Right now, I have Node-Red communicating data from my IoT infrastructure, publishing data to my MQTT broker elsewhere (my server onion). I have my 3d printers in another place, and part of the MQTT data is pictures and GCode readouts from them.

It sounds complicated, but Hidden Services allows me to treat a network of disjointed machines (all behind NATs) to be thought of as being on one huge ethernet hub. And I can code against an [hash].onion and know that my data will reach that machine, no matter the IP.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#172

Post by hansjorg »

phkamp wrote: post #115
Kenji wrote: post #55

This argument is like saying that if you build a castle to protect yourself from the attacker, you are responsible for the enemy's construction of trebuchets that siege the castle. Yeah, the castle builders are at fault. Nevermind that they protect so many innocent with their work. Of course we need political involvement, but we also need encryption everywhere, literally everywhere.

You should study the history of anti-ballistic-missile defense systems, and you will find that for the longest time nobody wanted them, because that would force the enemy to attack before they were completed. Never build more formidable weapons or defenses than you are willing to lay your life down for.

You're describing a reluctant, cautious and rational adversary.

There never was any effective political opposition to "Star Wars" in the US.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#173

Post by dpark »

woah wrote: post #150
dpark wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What are you talking about? There have been plenty on bombings and shootings for hundreds of years.

200 years ago there were "plenty" of bombings and mass shootings orchestrated by groups of 1 or 2 people that resulted in hundreds of lives lost? Can you provide a few examples of this?

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#174

Post by CaptSpify »

clock_tower wrote: post #164
serge2k wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Was what McVeigh did highly technical?

It was dependent on having modern technology, like a truck and cheap fertilizer; it's a lot harder to kill 168 people (and wound almost 700) with an oxcart and a crossbow. Even with a carriage and black powder you need a _lot_ of people to be in on the plot. (Black powder was not cheap, not deniable, and not easily transported or concealed.)

What about poison? or fires? I'm sure there's other means I can't think of right now

Modern tech has made it a bit easier, but it was still fairly easy throughout most of history.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#175

Post by dpark »

Retric wrote: post #157
dpark wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

That's really not a counterexample to my point. This was a conspiracy involving over a dozen people. It's a plot that unraveled because someone leaked the details.

This is why technology has changed the balance. You don't need dozens of people to gather enough explosive material to pull this off today. And with fewer people involved, traditional detective work is harder, and those involved are less likely to leak details.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#176

Post by flashdance »

dpark wrote: post #173
woah wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? There have been plenty on bombings and shootings for hundreds of years.

200 years ago there were "plenty" of bombings and mass shootings orchestrated by groups of 1 or 2 people that resulted in hundreds of lives lost? Can you provide a few examples of this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#177

Post by dpark »

CaptSpify wrote: post #174
clock_tower wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was dependent on having modern technology, like a truck and cheap fertilizer; it's a lot harder to kill 168 people (and wound almost 700) with an oxcart and a crossbow. Even with a carriage and black powder you need a _lot_ of people to be in on the plot. (Black powder was not cheap, not deniable, and not easily transported or concealed.)

What about poison? or fires? I'm sure there's other means I can't think of right now Modern tech has made it a bit easier, but it was still fairly easy throughout most of history.

It was not easy to get enough poison to kill hundreds. You get some hemlock, dump it in a well, and it dilutes enough that a dozen people get stomach aches and one elderly person dies. It's feasible to pull this off on a larger scale, but you'd need a lot of poison, and therefore a lot of resources.

Fires? I'm not sure it was that easy to set an out of control fire that would consume enough of a town to kill hundreds. Does everyone just fail to notice as you splash pitch on buildings all day leading up to the final act of starting the fire at night?

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#178

Post by superuser2 »

icebraining wrote: post #53
sliverstorm wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the way the legal system deals with fraud is by recovering money (where possible). With bitcoin, unless the destination wallet can be obtained, that is not possible. With cash, you seize the cash. Bank accounts can be frozen, Credit card transactions canceled, wire transfers flagged ( http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/01/29/464859624/episo... ).

With cash, unless the wallet in which it resides can be obtained, that is not possible. I fail to see the difference.

Law enforcement has well-developed capabilities to surreptitiously follow the movement of people and objects through the physical world and wield whatever force necessary to sieze them where desired.

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#179

Post by dpark »

flashdance wrote: post #176
dpark wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

200 years ago there were "plenty" of bombings and mass shootings orchestrated by groups of 1 or 2 people that resulted in hundreds of lives lost? Can you provide a few examples of this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot

Over a dozen involved, zero lives lost (excepting the conspirators).

Re: More encryption means less privacy

#180

Post by infodroid »

This reminds me of a 2013 blog post by Albert Wenger where he argues that treating the problem of mass surveillance as a technical problem is futile:

We cannot and should not be living in digital fortresses any more than we are living in physical fortresses at home. Our homes are safe from thieves and from government not because they couldn’t get in if they wanted to but because the law and its enforcement prevents them from doing so. All we have to do is minimal physical security (lock the doors when you are out)...

Surveillance is a political and legal problem, not a technical problem. We have to all become outraged and start a big and public online and offline campaign to take back the law into the hands of the people and their representatives and away from secret organizations “overseen” by secret courts in a system that goes beyond Kafka’s worst nightmares.

http://continuations.com/post/60444129080/disagreeing-with-b...

Post reply on HN