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

Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 592 posts

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#471

Post by CJefferson »

drawkbox wrote: post #376

It is amazing to me that people that are supposedly "pro-business" and "pro-market" are against encryption. Mostly encryption protects privacy and business information. Corporate espionage is bigger than state espionage or terrorism my many multiples, and directly threatens national security as well as markets. Encryption is pro-business and pro-privacy for business and individuals. Without encryption or with backdoo…

The problem with your metaphor is that at the moment, without warning, the government can enter my house with a warrant. I don't believe anyone is seriously suggesting for "privacy" reasons we should forbid police, with a warrant, from entering private property?

If you tried to set up a "super protection" around your house, which (for example) electrocuted people who entered by breaking the door down, and this hurt a police officer you would go to jail.

So to me, the real world seems to line up with having encryption with a "back door" only the government has access to.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#472

Post by rocqua »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #181
Kinnard wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Second Great CryptoWar: https://reason.com/2013/03/12/the-second-great-crypto-war/ > "The proponents of this process use fear tactics to win support, what the four cypherpunks dub "The Four Horsemen of the Info-pocalypse: child pornography, terrorism, money laundering, and the War on Some Drugs." In other words, laws passed to go after child pornographers, terrorists, money launderers, and drug dealers end up chi…

I'm not entirely sure how those four examples are supposedly invalidated by giving them a clever nickname. I'll take the privacy side in most any discussion of privacy-vs-security, but categorically denying the possibility that some crimes could be aided by encryption seems a step to far. It's also bad PR strategy: anybody not already on your side will be put off by your apparent lack of reasoning skills. Instead, ac…

What about the 4 Trojan horse of the apocalypse?

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#473

Post by plmu »

What happens if someone distributes an OSS toolkit that enables everyone to easily setup an encrypted ad-hoc peer to peer network?

If you want to prevent criminals from communicating safely in the long run, you would have to prohibit open internet access and/or mathematics.

Prohibiting platforms will lead to some delay at best. The collateral damage, taking away privacy from the population at large, is proably the real goal.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#474

Post by tadasZ »

I don't want to give up my privacy just because some bad actors are using (or will use) OTHER end to end encrypted messaging apps. Bans won't solve the problem of child abuse and etc., when i'll want to live in a dictatorship i'll move to china or some similar place.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#475

Post by asjw »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #181
Kinnard wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Second Great CryptoWar: https://reason.com/2013/03/12/the-second-great-crypto-war/ > "The proponents of this process use fear tactics to win support, what the four cypherpunks dub "The Four Horsemen of the Info-pocalypse: child pornography, terrorism, money laundering, and the War on Some Drugs." In other words, laws passed to go after child pornographers, terrorists, money launderers, and drug dealers end up chi…

I'm not entirely sure how those four examples are supposedly invalidated by giving them a clever nickname. I'll take the privacy side in most any discussion of privacy-vs-security, but categorically denying the possibility that some crimes could be aided by encryption seems a step to far. It's also bad PR strategy: anybody not already on your side will be put off by your apparent lack of reasoning skills. Instead, ac…

They are already using it and not on Facebook.

It's silly to think that terrorists use Facebook

Very silly

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#476

Post by stefek99 »

> Our understanding is that much of this activity, which is critical to protecting children and fighting terrorism, will no longer be possible if Facebook implements its proposals as planned.

Here is some legislation from 2000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Po...

> Critics claim that the spectres of terrorism, internet crime and paedophilia were used to push the act through and that there was little substantive debate in the House of Commons.

20 years in life of internet is a lot. Same arguments. Remarkable.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#477

Post by ekianjo »

stefek99 wrote: post #476

> Our understanding is that much of this activity, which is critical to protecting children and fighting terrorism, will no longer be possible if Facebook implements its proposals as planned. Here is some legislation from 2000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Po... > Critics claim that the spectres of terrorism, internet crime and paedophilia were used to push the act through and that there…

This predates the age of the Internet by millenia. Almost every politician in History appeals to children to drive their policies or block their opponents'.

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#478

Post by jacobush »

wastedhours wrote: post #135
zelon88 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Assuming that they know that they're missing 1% of cases insinuates that they know enough about the 1% they're missing to quantify it.

Isn't that right based on the statement though? The implication is 99% of the identified cases on Facebook are caught by Facebook's systems, the 1% not caught by Facebook's systems are tracked by other means. 100% of identified cases, not 100% of all cases.

Still very misleading if that is the case, what other means are there realistically to catch something if not by FBs systems, on FB? Self-reporting in the groups? Is that counted towards the FBs 99% or the 1%?

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#479

Post by throwawaylolx »

ekianjo wrote: post #477
stefek99 wrote: post #476

> Our understanding is that much of this activity, which is critical to protecting children and fighting terrorism, will no longer be possible if Facebook implements its proposals as planned. Here is some legislation from 2000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Po... > Critics claim that the spectres of terrorism, internet crime and paedophilia were used to push the act through and that there…

This predates the age of the Internet by millenia. Almost every politician in History appeals to children to drive their policies or block their opponents'.

How? Childhood is a rather modern concept and child labour exploitation peaked just a few centuries ago during the Industrial Revolution.

What historical events and periods are you referring to in the past millenia?

Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption

#480

Post by gtyras2mrs »

CJefferson wrote: post #471
drawkbox wrote: post #376

It is amazing to me that people that are supposedly "pro-business" and "pro-market" are against encryption. Mostly encryption protects privacy and business information. Corporate espionage is bigger than state espionage or terrorism my many multiples, and directly threatens national security as well as markets. Encryption is pro-business and pro-privacy for business and individuals. Without encryption or with backdoo…

The problem with your metaphor is that at the moment, without warning, the government can enter my house with a warrant. I don't believe anyone is seriously suggesting for "privacy" reasons we should forbid police, with a warrant, from entering private property? If you tried to set up a "super protection" around your house, which (for example) electrocuted people who entered by breaking the door down, and this hurt a…

>So to me, the real world seems to line up with having encryption with a "back door" only the government has access to.

Physical access is easier to control as getting access has a cost. Digital access is effectively free.

The problem with this is that physical access has a cost and limiting it behind approvals and procedures - can deter improper access. (Not always - if a cop really wanted into your house - they will get in)

Digital access is effectively free. It doesn’t cost very much to use a backdoor on millions of devices across the globe. There isn’t much that can be done if the backdoor is leaked.

Police officers use a battering ram or force to get into a house. We know how it works. But knowing it doesn’t increase chances of burglaries.

Post reply on HN