Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators • Hacker News Board

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#171

Post by bboygravity » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 1:34 PM UTC

scandox wrote: post #158

bboygravity wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> So you don't reckon representative democracy works at all.

What do you mean by "works"? A violent dictatorship with a genocide here and there works perfectly fine, depending on your definition of "works".

> In which case what is there to talk about here?

Priorities. Should the priority be to discuss the importance of encryption. Or should the priority be to discuss the importance of means to influence decisions about encryption?

> You should be out attending to the business of revolution, not yakking on forums about incremental change right?

You mean literally losing a hand or an eye as a yellow vest? Or something like that? Nah. Meh, thanks. Not the best option I would say.

> Personally at present I think representative democracy is working,

Yeah. Again. I agree that it's "working". But without a definition of "working" or a benchmark that's an information-less statement.

> but that people are very dishonest about what they really want.

And you have hope that this will change?

People can't know what they want, if they aren't honestly informed about what's going on around them.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#172

Post by _bspline » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 1:35 PM UTC

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…

> That’s our responsibility, as citizens who are in charge of our governments.

As much as I want this statement to be true, I feel like it is less and less the case in todays society. Correct me if I am wrong.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#173

Post by scandox » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 1:44 PM UTC

bboygravity wrote: post #171

scandox wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> So you don't reckon representative democracy works at all. What do you mean by "works"? A violent dictatorship with a genocide here and there works perfectly fine, depending on your definition of "works". > In which case what is there to talk about here? Priorities. Should the priority be to discuss the importance of encryption. Or should the priority be to discuss the importance of means to influence decisions abo…

Well I admit working is a poor term. Perhaps framing it as "working for me" or "least scary for me" is more honest.

I'm more afraid of direct democracy than anything. I basically think I'll be dead within a few months of that emerging. Authoritarianism is my next greatest fear.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#174

Post by GhettoMaestro » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 1:46 PM UTC

This is nothing more than an extension of technology enabling both good actors and bad actors. I refuse to penalize/water-down technology solutions available to good actors because there are a handful of bad actors that make some of us clutch our pearls.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#175

Post by mistermann » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 1:51 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #169

miracle2k wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With respect, which part of this article do you find interesting? In fact, it totally confirms my expectation going in, that the whole thing is empty PR phrases and bullshit numbers. I mean, take the very first line: "The Philippines has become a top global source of child pornography with around 80% of Filipino kids at risk of online sexual abuse or bullying, a global Unicef report said Tuesday, December 12." That's…

The article quotes a Unicef report that I can't find a good source for, and the Phillipines being problematic in this respect is something that is not exactly a secret, it is where a lot of 'production' happens. I'm sure if you dig around a bit you'll find lots of corroboration for that datum. Anyway, I'm on the clock and only look at HN during breaks right now, if not for that I'd be more than happy to find better r…

> The article quotes a Unicef report that I can't find a good source for,

And what does this Unicef report say?

> and the Phillipines being problematic in this respect is something that is not exactly a secret

Terms like "problematic" are excellent for persuasion, as they exclude any quantitative component as they invoke fear.

> I'm sure if you dig around a bit you'll find lots of corroboration for that datum.

Like the fear mongering article you linked?

Look, I'm not advocating for the abuse of children, but when I'm being encouraged to worry about something, I prefer the warnings to have some basis in fact.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#176

Post by Koshkin » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 1:55 PM UTC

n0rbwah wrote: post #73

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Child protection should be treated much more as a "local" than "global" issue. If it's "scale" they want, to really protect children, then local boots on the ground is still the best defense. Rather than talking about encryption, Interpol should be espousing the benefits of local investigation and intervention based on mandatory reporting. Removing child abuse content from the Internet is a digital issue. Protecting…

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.

But they want to look under the lamppost - it's brighter there.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#177

Post by DarkWiiPlayer » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 1:56 PM UTC

You know what else protects criminals? Walls. Seriously, wouldn't it all be much easier if the police could just look into your home from the outside without those pesky walls around it?

This constant war on encryption is getting so absurd lately. The kind of people who are pushing this should just be fired if not thrown into prison. It's just a blatant attack against human rights and the public should finally start viewing it as such.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#178

Post by lidHanteyk » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

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…

There is no encryption that is 100% immune. All encryption can have its key guessed, if the key is expressible in bits. This ensures that classical encryption schemes, even post-quantum ones, have a guessability or hardness in terms of the number of bits that must be correctly guessed at once in order to forge credentials.

This reasoning leads to export-grade cryptography, a bane of our praactice that nonetheless was an acceptable compromise for many years. It seems that that era of compromise is coming to an end, though.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#179

Post by Nasrudith » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

danielrpa wrote: post #149

glangdale wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It is much easier for police in authoritarian countries to prevent crimes and find perpetrators." Is this actually true? This sounds like one of those bits of received wisdom (like the trains supposedly running on time under Mussolini) that turns out to be bogus. I'm not sure that the expansion of police powers under authoritarian regimes has anything to do with making them more efficient at preventing or solving cr…

Authoritarian states tend to be not as advanced technologically (one consequence of authoritarianism!), thus their police forces should be less efficient in general despite the increased powers. But controlling for other factors, why wouldn't enhanced surveillance help catch criminals? It's a pretty logical claim. Perhaps you should look for the evidence and bring back to us. For now, it is reasonable to accept the c…

Given the needle in a haystack effect? Common sense has proven itself wrong repeatedly It was "common sense" that merchants had to be frauds because the value of goods was universal and they had transport labor.

Besides just because they can doesn't mean they will. Authoritarians are also infamous for both corruption and finding rooting out dissidents a higher priority than what most would call actual crime. All other things /aren't/ equal.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#180

Post by saagarjha » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 2:00 PM UTC

newguy1234 wrote: post #59

skokage wrote: post #51

Any time these topics around weakening privacy or removing encryption comes up, it's nearly always presented with a save the children type of argument. I mean, who doesn't want to protect children from child abuse and predators? The problem however, is that most children that are abused are done so by family members or people already close to them (like maybe their priests), so with that in mind I don't really unders…

That's because there is a deeper agenda than just "protecting children". If you read the Edward Snowden book (permanent record) then you'll note that he talks about what the NSA/CIA is actually doing with their signals intelligence programs. It isn't about national security, it is about espionage on a global scale. They want information on what foreign governments, journalists, domestic organizations (not just terror…

> Instead of having a massive data collection system, you now have to go back to more traditional methods that require much more effort to implement - like hacking a target's computer directly.

Which is more amenable to accountability. Usually this requires a warrant or approval of some kind.

> If that happens then the USA will lose its edge in terms of obtaining critical information and that will be a treat to their global dominance

How does the US banning encryption help it on the global stage where other countries continue to encrypt their messages?