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

151–160 of 299 posts

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#151

Post by AdrianB1 »

Gatsky wrote: post #117
AdrianB1 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are manipulating: if there is a problem and the solution that is proposed is excessive, rejecting the proposed solutions does not move the burden of finding a solutions on the people rejecting it. For example, I propose to stop everyone from breathing, it will stop pedophiles; if you don't agree, you have to provide a solution for pedophilia. Not a logically sound argument, is it?

I’m genuinely interested if anyone else feels uneasy about just leaving things the way they are, and if they have any thoughts about what could be done instead of compromising cryptographic integrity. Sorry if that came across as an attempt at manipulation, not my intention at all.

It is not our responsibility to find a solution for pedophilia. For example, I am an IT manager, not a policeman and not a law maker. Yes, I would like to know a solution exists and it will be implemented like I would like to know there is a cure for cancer, but it is not my expertise to find it and I have no expectation that a discussion about encryption will find the solution for pedophilia.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#152

Post by mikece »

jacquesm wrote: post #113
n0rbwah wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, giving access to all communications worldwide to the cops still won't help them catch the abusers that don't record and post their abuse online. Which I assume is the majority of child abuse cases.

The bigger problem the police have is not that they don't have enough cases go after, it is that they already are overwhelmed by the cases they do have and the fact that those departments are typically understaffed and overworked. It takes a special kind of person to be exposed to this crap on a daily basis and still be able to function, employee turnover is - not surprisingly - high and the effectiveness is relative…

This cannot be emphasized enough. Normal humans can’t imagine the depravity to which child predators descend. I’ve heard stories from the teams who review content uploaded to YouTube to remove this filth and people who were just looking for a paying job end up alcoholic, suicidal and psychologically messed up for life after Only a few weeks of encountering this this stuff as part of the flagged content review process for places like YouTube and Facebook. I can only imagine the counseling required for law enforcement agents working these crimes is intense... as well as the temptation to shoot all suspects they arrest merely out of disgust.

That said: banning encryption is not the answer to this.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#153

Post by bboygravity »

scandox wrote: post #132
bboygravity wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it’s not their responsibility to account for negative side effects. That’s our responsibility, as citizens who are in charge of our governments. Wait, what? We have a saying in the actions and decisions of our governments (context: EU and US)? No we don't. We don't live in direct democracies. If Interpol or any police force wants to ban encryption and if that benefits who ever is in government, then that ban wi…

> This is nothing new. What we as citizens think of that is completely irrelevant. Unless the majority of the population would really care about encryption and it would influence the 4-yearly vote-thing (elections). You are contradicting yourself. Effectively you're saying unless a majority of people agree with you then it is non-democratic. As parent poster said we have the responsibility: it is to communicate this…

> Effectively you're saying unless a majority of people agree with you then it is non-democratic.

No, I'm not. My point is that we (citizens) are not in charge of government. It's misleading to claim that we are.

It doesn't matter whether "the people" are for or against encryption. It's irrelevant for political decision making (unless popular opinion on encryption threatens to influence elections, which right now it doesn't and probably won't ever).

> it is to communicate this argument to people and also to be part of our own government.

"We" (as in the majority of citizens) can't be part of our government. "We" can't even significantly influence government at all other than through elections. Popular political influence through elections only works for very limited very broad subjects that happen to be in fashion by the time an election takes place. Subjects unlike relatively specific things such as encryption.

> we have the responsibility

With the above in mind I don't agree. At all. You could try to explain the point of the parent poster to 1000's of people and convince them to agree. This would be a tremendous task and would politically change: nothing. At all.

You could also try to convince them of the opposite. And this would also have 0 political effect.

Even if everybody on HN did it. Even if everyone on here had the exact same opinion, arguments and same amazing sales skills.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#154

Post by balfirevic »

tqi wrote: post #16
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…

I also this is a good time to remember that not every citizen has to have the same values on this. Some people might think the tradeoff in terms of freedoms vs security is worth it. It seems everyone is so eager to paint the other side as objectively wrong / motivated by bad intentions, when in reality I don't believe this is an objectively right answer. As a society we have to decide how much freedom and security we…

> Some people might think the tradeoff in terms of freedoms vs security is worth it.

That's fine, they can make the trade-off. I mean they can give up their own freedom for whatever security that gets them. What many people want is to make the same trade-off for others.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#155

Post by lolc »

hellotomyrars wrote: post #122
lolc wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow this argument. Compromising commonly used encryption means less people will use hard encryption. That goes for criminals too. They won't all just switch to a hardened scheme. Some will switch, some will go with the compromised version, and some might even stop the criminal things they are doing for fear of detection. The question is whether this means it's worth compromising encryption.

I can’t imagine that a significant number of criminals who are involved in sexual exploitation of children would suddenly be unmasked due to any government imposed rules about encryption. At best you’d have a small wave of folks caught off guard. The "question” is a false premise. You can’t stop people form using encryption. The people who are strongly motivated to use it to cover their criminal activity (the more he…

> You can’t stop people form using encryption.

This is repeated often but that doesn't make it any truer. Legislation can make people use ineffective encryption, or prevent the use of it. Remember when SSL certificates had 48 bits effective key length? It was legislation that caused this. People used bad encryption because of the legislation. Remember when PGP was the only end-to-end messaging scheme widely available? Only very few people used it. Its reach was hampered by legislation. (In part; let's not forget bad usability.)

Most people are unaware how the services they use are protecting them from eavesdropping. Sure some are careful and research the failure modes in the security of their communications. And some would go to any length to keep their communications encrypted. But the less mainstream it is, the easier it is for them to fuck it up. Suppose due to legislation no apps in the Google Play store can do reliable end-to-end: Suddenly you have these "privacy conscious" people downloading an App binary from some random site because they heard it was "good". Yeah right we know how that story goes.

By all means, argue that ubiquitous encryption increases security for all of us. And I'm your friend. But don't go claiming that compromising mainstream encryption wouldn't hamper security for the bad guys. Because it absolutely would. Like for the rest of us!

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#156

Post by bboygravity »

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #131
bboygravity wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it’s not their responsibility to account for negative side effects. That’s our responsibility, as citizens who are in charge of our governments. Wait, what? We have a saying in the actions and decisions of our governments (context: EU and US)? No we don't. We don't live in direct democracies. If Interpol or any police force wants to ban encryption and if that benefits who ever is in government, then that ban wi…

Maybe go outside, make some friends, join a community of individuals who are interested in claiming their place in the history of the world. Stop waiting for a champion to come and save you, and just be a champion. We're trying to form a voting bloc in my community to turn the local government upside down. If similar movements happened in other communities around the U.S. the legislature would be very different.

That's nice and I truly hope you'll succeed. My strategy is slightly different and more selfish: I'm planning to move to the only country in the world that has direct democracy.

At the same time I try to convince people outside of that country of what should be their political number 1 priority (in my humble opinion); political decisions through popular vote.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#157

Post by hgoel »

ggzgd wrote: post #82
sneak wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privacy is a human right. Encryption backdoors for governments are human rights abuses. It has nothing to do with safety; it is not a debate about “how much safety do we purchase with reduced privacy”. It’s just as firearms rights have nothing to do with hunting, or a militia.

Human rights are man-made and arbitrary. They aren't some kind of holy text that must be protected at all costs. They must be bent and ignored if necessary. You can't just say "this is a human right" to shut down any discussion.

That's a hilariously bad take.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#158

Post by scandox »

bboygravity wrote: post #153
scandox wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is nothing new. What we as citizens think of that is completely irrelevant. Unless the majority of the population would really care about encryption and it would influence the 4-yearly vote-thing (elections). You are contradicting yourself. Effectively you're saying unless a majority of people agree with you then it is non-democratic. As parent poster said we have the responsibility: it is to communicate this…

> Effectively you're saying unless a majority of people agree with you then it is non-democratic. No, I'm not. My point is that we (citizens) are not in charge of government. It's misleading to claim that we are. It doesn't matter whether "the people" are for or against encryption. It's irrelevant for political decision making (unless popular opinion on encryption threatens to influence elections, which right now it…

So you don't reckon representative democracy works at all. In which case what is there to talk about here? You should be out attending to the business of revolution, not yakking on forums about incremental change right?

Personally at present I think representative democracy is working, but that people are very dishonest about what they really want.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#159

Post by saagarjha »

malka wrote: post #135
Freak_NL wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but then we're not talking about the vast majority of digital transgressions are we? That is, the simple (re)distribution of child pornography — ghastly enough as that is — not the few who actively seek out and order new abusive material from those who actually produce the stuff. This debate is about proportionality. How many children can live a marginally better live by giving up strong encryption and privacy…

It's easy. Someone uses encryption? Jail him regardless of the content. You can't hide the existence of the message.

> Someone uses encryption? Jail him regardless of the content.

Right, so by using Hacker News you're falling afoul of your own rules.

> You can't hide the existence of the message.

You totally can: properly encrypted data is indistinguishable from random noise.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#160

Post by coldcode »

cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #22

Sigh. What we can basically tell from this is that the Five Eyes crew have joint legislation ready to go on this and are now going to insert an easy-to-digest and appealing narrative into the mainstream ahead of the release of that legislation. The combination of "But the children! You don't support child predators, do you?!", low general technical understanding and overall apathy to the removal of our rights (in the…

I for one are ready to give up my encryption when the politicians do it first and we see how well that works.
Post reply on HN