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

Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 130 posts

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#41

Post by the_watcher »

dx87 wrote: post #18

It'd be nice is encryption fell under the 2nd amendment. It's been classified as a munition before, and with the creation of USCYBERCOM, the govt has a vested interest in ensuring that it's citizens have experience using encryption software.

That's an interesting argument, but only the most extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment argues that it covers _all_ munitions. And I'm having trouble finding a contemporary example of someone making this claim.

On top of that, we now have years of SCOTUS jurisprudence that "arms" are absolutely subject to _some_ regulations, with the debate focusing on what "some" actually means.

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#43

Post by jschwartzi »

linsomniac wrote: post #29

Is this the same Bill Barr who blacked out entire pages of the Muller Report? Why is transparency so important for the citizens but so prized by the politicians?

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#44

Post by the_watcher »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #28

This was briefly confusing, as AG Barr is the soft drinks company which manufactures Irn Bru in Scotland, and I was surprised to see they had an opinion. But I'm interested in what the constructive path forward is on the rather more important issue of ubiquitous encryption. I think most people generally accept that well-regulated wiretapping (and other forms of interception of communication) are a useful and importan…

> as AG Barr is the soft drinks company which manufactures Irn Bru in Scotland, and I was surprised to see they had an opinion.

An irreverent marketer could generate a ton of earned media out of this.

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#45

Post by helen___keller »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #28

This was briefly confusing, as AG Barr is the soft drinks company which manufactures Irn Bru in Scotland, and I was surprised to see they had an opinion. But I'm interested in what the constructive path forward is on the rather more important issue of ubiquitous encryption. I think most people generally accept that well-regulated wiretapping (and other forms of interception of communication) are a useful and importan…

I don't agree that encryption should be illegal, but also I don't think it's feasible to try and make it illegal without going all the way with our own version of the great firewall

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#46

Post by coolspot »

Topgamer7 wrote: post #6

I challenge him to describe what an encryption backdoor actually is. Its like putting a hidden switch behind a brick in a wall. The brick looks the same, but if you take the time to knock on every brick, you'll eventually find the button. Every moderately powerful nations will have someone out there knocking on the bricks.

Probably something like this: https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2018/04/26/a-few-th...

I believe this is how Australia is going to have their backdoors.

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#47

Post by homonculus1 »

the_watcher wrote: post #41
dx87 wrote: post #18

It'd be nice is encryption fell under the 2nd amendment. It's been classified as a munition before, and with the creation of USCYBERCOM, the govt has a vested interest in ensuring that it's citizens have experience using encryption software.

That's an interesting argument, but only the most extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment argues that it covers _all_ munitions. And I'm having trouble finding a contemporary example of someone making this claim. On top of that, we now have years of SCOTUS jurisprudence that "arms" are absolutely subject to _some_ regulations, with the debate focusing on what "some" actually means.

>And I'm having trouble finding a contemporary example of someone making this claim.

Maybe you were looking for someone notable, but I'll make it for you right now.

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#48

Post by crispyporkbites »

Topgamer7 wrote: post #6

I challenge him to describe what an encryption backdoor actually is. Its like putting a hidden switch behind a brick in a wall. The brick looks the same, but if you take the time to knock on every brick, you'll eventually find the button. Every moderately powerful nations will have someone out there knocking on the bricks.

That's a nice analogy, but it's still an analogy. It's easy for someone to come along and modify the analogy to fit their purpose e.g. "we'll have someone watch the wall of bricks so no one can knock on them!"

We simply can't let people legislate on issues they fundamentally don't understand. And understanding a backdoor is actually not that difficult - a smart, motivated person could literally learn the theory of this with some practical examples in a few hours of study.

Re: Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG Barr says

#49

Post by wool_gather »

pwinnski wrote: post #35
yibg wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a failure of the tech community that most people don’t understand the ramifications of backdoors. People can also point to the example of China where there are indeed government backdoors and things are fine (from the government can get access but others can’t point of view). Clearly we don’t want to be like China in this regard but it does give an example of a “working” backdoor setup.

If I tell a child that 2 + 2 = 4, and show them four blocks in groups of two, and have them draw pictures demonstrating that 2+2=4, and sing songs about 2+2=4, and yet they persist in believing that 2+2=5, is that my failure? The tech community has repeatedly and thoroughly explained the impossibility of secure backdoors, but it is apparently a more difficult thing to grasp than 2+2=4, especially when one does not wi…

> especially when one does not wish to grasp it.

This is the key point. Borrowing from Upton Sinclair,

It is difficult to get an authoritarian government functionary to understand something, when his pursuit of power depends on his not understanding it.

Post reply on HN