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

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#181

Post by mistermann » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 2:00 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.

This seems to me like an uncharitable interpretation of what he said. If one part of it "works", then saying it doesn't work at all is a false statement. The correct question is, to what degree does democracy "work", in 2019 - I believe the year is an important component of the question, because most people's conception of democracy is abstract theory, and disregards the increasing complexity of the world.

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

The degree to which democracy "works".

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#182

Post by bboygravity » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 2:06 PM UTC

scandox wrote: post #173

bboygravity wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> I'm more afraid of direct democracy than anything.

Any substantiation? My fear is the exact opposite (anything decided by "not us" is "not for us").

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#183

Post by specialist » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 2:07 PM UTC

I'm unclear how this could help law enforcement deter or solve crimes.

eg Why does the FBI need to unlock a spree shooter's iPhone AFTER the mass killing? What new information could they possibly learn? That the now dead murderer had mac & cheese for dinner beforehand?

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#184

Post by zozbot234 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 2:07 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #167

zozbot234 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, my guess is that child predators, by and large, are basically criminal psychopaths. I wonder how many of them only prey on kids because they're such a convenient, vulnerable target.

Here is one particularly shocking example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_sex_crimes_case

It's interesting to note that this abuser was caught precisely because people looked at the images of the abuse and figured out that they had to be from the Netherlands. I suspect that this describes a non-trivial portion of successful prosecutions - especially of those responsible for a lot of abuse, as with this case.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#185

Post by specialist » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

saint_fiasco wrote: post #138

andy_ppp wrote: post #38

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.

The idea is that if only criminals use encryption, they can go after every user of encryption and do some enhanced interrogation on them, since they are obviously up to no good. But I also don't understand what they plan to do for online shopping and so on.

Yes, and the criminals just go out of band, further evading detection.

Law enforcement's over reliance (obsession) on SIGINT at the expense of HUMINT is self-defeating.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#186

Post by matz1 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC

atq2119 wrote: post #99

notduncansmith wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said this in an earlier comment: for both encryption and guns, they will always come at a cost to society, but that cost is the price of democracy. They will always cost something, and we will always need them, but we can work to create environments that need less of them and environments that make them less costly.

Encryption also provides immense benefits to society. Modern commerce couldn't work without encryption. Companies wouldn't be able to protect their trade secrets. And so on. Plenty of non-technical people think that they can have their cake and eat it by giving a backdoor to "the government". Which government though? The one of Burkina Faso? The fact is that backdoored encryption is broken encryption.

That's also depends on the society. Obviously it wouldn't benefit the interpol in this case.

For companies, they would have to change their business model that is not relying on trade secret, I would even argue that not having to spend time, money or effort to protect trade secret is a benefit.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#187

Post by mistermann » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 2:12 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #80

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…

It's framed as child protection precisely because it shuts down any debate on the matter. Everyone sees through the terrorists excuse but child exploitation causes such rage in the population they agree to anything the government says will make it stop. Discussion of any news related to this child abuse will pretty much always be full of people advocating for execution, torture and rape for the perpetrators. Encrypti…

> Everyone sees through the terrorists excuse but child exploitation causes such rage in the population

I agree, but this is what seems so interesting about the Epstein case. In the age of #MeToo, you would think this story would be getting 24x7 media coverage, especially with Prince Andrew's "interesting" interview the other day - a fairly big deal one would think, but I saw no mention of it on the first 3 pages of /r/all. Yet, there seems to be something about the story that severely psychologically disinterests people, and not just the average person, but relatively smart people as well.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#188

Post by DarkWiiPlayer » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 2:12 PM UTC

coldcode wrote: post #160

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.

Next time someone tells me "Why would you need encryption if you have nothing to hide?" I'mma just answer with "Why do you need clothes then?"

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#189

Post by octosphere » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

Recycled comment from an article a few weeks back about Former FBI General Counsel Jim Baker Choosing Encryption over Backdoors[0]

[0] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/10/former_fbi_ge...

You can read the discussion on HN here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21377093

_________________________

This is why Tor and onionland is a lawless wild west. All so that journalists can report and trade documents, and so that repressive regimes can't easily censor access to news and information. This is the cost of encryption: you get all sorts of scoundrels in the mix in the name of privacy and security for the masses. Some might say this cost is too high: that scoundrels are running rampant and won't stop their criminal actions. But without this we get a broken backdoored Internet where no such privacy/security exists and could actually cause more damage to society since spying would be rampant.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#190

Post by LeftHandPath » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

Banning encryption is like requiring that all your walls be made of glass and that the police can search your home at any time, for any reason, without warrant.

A personal electronic device, and the connections made with it, are extensions of the person and their respective home. A literal ban on encryption is probably the single largest step any government could take towards becoming a dystopic, tyrannic, borderline-criminal entity.

(I originally posted this comment under my reddit account, /u/lovecars.)