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

Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 299 posts

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#31

Post by pixelpoet »

Gatsky wrote: post #29

Lots of criticism here, fair enough, it’s very worrying to give non-transparent institutions this kind of power, not to mention the technical feasibility. But... what should be done about child pornography, then? The ability to disseminate it with impunity is a problem we can’t just pretend doesn’t exist. Using online platforms pedophiles can monetize and go full time professional in countries where children are easi…

If we're going to throw out anything and everything to win that unwinnable battle, first goes encryption, then cameras, then computers, and then finally all humans after puberty.

Obviously there must be some reasonable limit, and making all encryption illegal (or just for civilians, and then shady stuff will start happening under govt and corporate encryption) is truly throwing the baby out with the bathwater, in that digital society can no longer function.

We don't stop selling knives because some people get stabbed with them, they still sell AR-15s in America despite ridiculously frequent mass shootings, so I can't see where the logic is coming from for making encryption illegal.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#32

Post by jrockway »

Gatsky wrote: post #29

Lots of criticism here, fair enough, it’s very worrying to give non-transparent institutions this kind of power, not to mention the technical feasibility. But... what should be done about child pornography, then? The ability to disseminate it with impunity is a problem we can’t just pretend doesn’t exist. Using online platforms pedophiles can monetize and go full time professional in countries where children are easi…

> it’s very worrying to give non-transparent institutions this kind of power

What power do they have? They issued a statement. Anyone can issue a statement.

Here's jrockway's statement denouncing the color orange: it's bad. With the color orange in the wild, people will be confused about orange the color and orange the fruit! Wow it's bad!

All this shows is that I'm a crackpot, not that I have too much power.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#33

Post by alfiedotwtf »

snowwrestler wrote: post #8

This is a good time to remember that police forces work for governments and not the other way around. Of course it would be easier for the police to catch bad guys if they had full-text search access to all conversations and content, worldwide. That doesn’t mean it is a good idea. They’re asking for something to make their job easier... can’t blame them for trying, and of course who doesn’t want to catch people who h…

Wouldn't it be easier if they just banned crime?

/s

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#34

Post by alfiedotwtf »

m0dest wrote: post #23
etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #13

Imagine for a moment that ssh became illegal. Is it even possible for the tech economy to continue? What would that look like? My head hurts. Actually, think of what Attorney General Barr said: Corporations should have access to strong encryption, just not little people. In that horrifying sort of world, there would be encryption licenses perhaps. And general purpose computing would be under a large threat. It is so…

It’d probably be some new PKI on top of SSH where your private key would be held in escrow by an identity provider. e.g. Your username is your email address, and your email provider retains your key pair. It’d probably be portrayed as an improved key management solution that allows more frequent key rotations and revocations. Might even start with being required for government projects, resulting in supported impleme…

Given the trade wars, would the US be ok if China were to hold onto American company private keys so they can "monitor for lawful activity" of Chinese users?

Let that sink in and show that the government arguments are not workable in the slightest.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#35

Post by emptybits »

protomyth wrote: post #17

Encryption is math, and not even hard math at that. You have as much chance of stopping evil people from using encryption as you have of stopping them from doing multiplication. Make every politician who opposes encryption feel like an idiot for thinking they can stop people from adding and multiplying.

Indeed. It would appear all the necessary components for encryption are impossible to ban, by simple common sense if not by guarantees of very basic constitutional or charter rights.

1. public and private keys (criminalize the possession of large integers?)

2. transmission and reception (criminalize freedom to speak or write or read or hear large numbers or random-appearing text?)

3. encryption and decryption (criminalize, as you say, some relatively simple math operations?)

Anti-encryption governments and law enforcement don't want this simple breakdown understood by voters. They'll emphasize fear () and shame/virtue ("what do innocent people have to hide?") Weak arguments but they seem to press stronger emotional buttons than the more principled (IMO) philosophical math and speech arguments that should guarantee freedom to encrypt forever.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#36

Post by etaioinshrdlu »

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #34
m0dest wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’d probably be some new PKI on top of SSH where your private key would be held in escrow by an identity provider. e.g. Your username is your email address, and your email provider retains your key pair. It’d probably be portrayed as an improved key management solution that allows more frequent key rotations and revocations. Might even start with being required for government projects, resulting in supported impleme…

Given the trade wars, would the US be ok if China were to hold onto American company private keys so they can "monitor for lawful activity" of Chinese users? Let that sink in and show that the government arguments are not workable in the slightest.

It could happen that the US blocks services from China the same way China blocks services from the US.

Oh well, the Internet was cool I guess.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#37

Post by wruza »

EGreg wrote: post #20
snowwrestler wrote: post #8

This is a good time to remember that police forces work for governments and not the other way around. Of course it would be easier for the police to catch bad guys if they had full-text search access to all conversations and content, worldwide. That doesn’t mean it is a good idea. They’re asking for something to make their job easier... can’t blame them for trying, and of course who doesn’t want to catch people who h…

Many years of reading on HN, I used to just accept that encryption is the best thing. And from a point of view of what will happen, that’s what will happen. But should we as a society want this? I would argue these days that it is far better to be able to reconstruct a conversation and prove someone said something. In case things go wrong, we have to have a way to establish truth, and prove things, so we can have fai…

>the answer is to fix the government and the laws, and not to sneak around

It would be nice if someone “fixed” some governments (and some crimes as a side quest), but 1) condemning privacy only makes this harder than de-facto almost impossible. 2) “prove someone said something” is not how our earth-wide culture works. We are basically based on the fact that conversations are private to some extent.

Did you find yourself in a situation when your opponent knows your every step and thought and you don’t? Play any game that way and see where it goes.

>We need more immutability and also work hard to make governments not punish people for victimless crimes.

That’s cool, but something hints me you’re not living in one of these countries where hard work is required. Swap with one of its citizens, make a change, then we talk.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#38

Post by andy_ppp »

The weirdest part of this argument is that law abiding people get no encryption while people who break the law will still have access to encryption, so how does it help you catch pedophiles?

I don’t really understand how this will work in reality for things like SSL or ssh.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#39

Post by andy_ppp »

emptybits wrote: post #35
protomyth wrote: post #17

Encryption is math, and not even hard math at that. You have as much chance of stopping evil people from using encryption as you have of stopping them from doing multiplication. Make every politician who opposes encryption feel like an idiot for thinking they can stop people from adding and multiplying.

Indeed. It would appear all the necessary components for encryption are impossible to ban, by simple common sense if not by guarantees of very basic constitutional or charter rights. 1. public and private keys (criminalize the possession of large integers?) 2. transmission and reception (criminalize freedom to speak or write or read or hear large numbers or random-appearing text?) 3. encryption and decryption (crimin…

The weirdest part of this is criminals making child porn already break the law, why would the law stop them using encryption? It doesn’t actually make sense.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#40

Post by notelonmusk »

goblin89 wrote: post #21
noobermin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is close to saying child rapists rape children behind closed doors so you shouldn't have locks, ignoring that well locked doors benefit everyone who has a house. It's disingenuous.

While I support the sentiment that privacy is important, comparing encryption to locks in this ghastly context is self-defeating. Recall that there were more than one instance where critical evidence against a wealthy person, required for the prosecution to make a compelling case in court, was obtained by force with a police raid. At least one such instance happened in the US in 2019 and was well-publicized. Now imag…

An invisibility cloak makes a much better analogy for encryption.
Post reply on HN