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

DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 347 posts

Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot

#51

Post by mitchdoogle »

giggles_giggles wrote: post #32
btilly wrote: post #14

Why does this say that the DOJ has been pushing for this since 2016? They have been pushing for some variation on this since basically forever. I first became aware of it back under Clinton with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip . And the debate has been essentially the same since. Law enforcement wants to be able to break security, and promises that their super secret, super safe system will provide eve…

> Why does this say that the DOJ has been pushing for this since 2016? Because that's when Trump came into power and nothing bad ever happened under the Obama admin.

The author gives that date because, as is mentioned in the article, that is when Apple famously declined to help the FBI backdoor its own system, which happened before Trump was elected.

Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot

#52

Post by gist »

btilly wrote: post #14

Why does this say that the DOJ has been pushing for this since 2016? They have been pushing for some variation on this since basically forever. I first became aware of it back under Clinton with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip . And the debate has been essentially the same since. Law enforcement wants to be able to break security, and promises that their super secret, super safe system will provide eve…

> Cryptographers have maintained that when you create a back door, it is a question of time until it is found and publicized.

Why would it not be possible to create a system that required several manual and offline steps in order to break the encryption?

For example (and perhaps similar to offline cold storage of bitcoin) why couldn't a system be designed whereby 3 or more people in geographically diverse areas were in a position to agree that a request for information was legitimate (by court order) and thereby produce what is needed to unlock certain information? So one person would not have the key or access.

After all right now you have a case where a single person (the owner) is able to unlock information. The feeling is a back door can be hacked. What if it's not a back door though?

Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot

#53

Post by isthisserious »

dropoutcoder wrote: post #38

I find it interesting that the hn world is largely unified in beliefs about the trade-offs of exceptional access that aren’t necessarily true. Perhaps this is a cultural top-down tribal mentality borne of an adversarial arrangement between the billionaire oligarchs behind the startup scene and the government which serves to offer counterbalance against unchecked power. I personally find it reprehensible that large tr…

> I’m personally okay with secret police

What? Why are you ok with secret police? Where has this idea ever worked?

> I find it interesting that the hn world is largely unified in beliefs about the trade-offs of exceptional access that aren’t necessarily true.

Which trade-offs are you suggesting aren't true? The base claim is that back door access makes security weaker. Do you disagree?

Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot

#54

Post by strbean »

addicted wrote: post #6

Isn’t the tech lash for the complete opposite reasons? The fact that too many people have too much of our data? Why would people (outside of effective propaganda, which would be true even without the tech lash) support something that makes their problems worse?

It's almost like people think their personal data is zero-sum - if we give it to the government then companies won't have it! Just like if you download a car, someone else loses that car.

Makes me think of the Israeli voter rolls hack[1].

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/11/tech/israel-voters-data-expos...

Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot

#55

Post by Supermancho »

shadowgovt wrote: post #49
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seems to be some kind of intentional ignorance of just how many programs people blame Trump for have been there since Obama or even earlier.

A President (and the priorities of his administration) can make bad programs much worse. Take marijuana enforcement as an inverse example. The federal law around marijuana hasn't changed, and it's as illegal in 2020 to use, grow, and sell as it was in 2004. But the Obama administration made clear to the DEA and FBI that pursuit and enforcement of that law in states that had passed their own laws to legalize it would…

> A President (and the priorities of his administration) can make bad programs much worse.

Ok? So that should counteract the behavior.

> This aspect of the intersection of law and executive enforcement is why the Trump administration is correctly condemned for worsening the situation regarding immigration in the US.

There is an element of "outrage" culture that means to ascribe new fault, in the established pursuit of a "federally safe" cryptography, to the administration as a proxy for other wrongs. This is not relevant to the issue of original fault.

Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot

#56

Post by tick_tock_tick »

shadowgovt wrote: post #49
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seems to be some kind of intentional ignorance of just how many programs people blame Trump for have been there since Obama or even earlier.

A President (and the priorities of his administration) can make bad programs much worse. Take marijuana enforcement as an inverse example. The federal law around marijuana hasn't changed, and it's as illegal in 2020 to use, grow, and sell as it was in 2004. But the Obama administration made clear to the DEA and FBI that pursuit and enforcement of that law in states that had passed their own laws to legalize it would…

While Obama might have been nice to some states in some contexts that passed some laws he was as if not more aggressive on weed than the previous administration.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/obamas-w...

https://swampland.time.com/2012/05/03/what-is-president-obam...

This was a big deal back during his term which I feel like people are already forgetting.

Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot

#57

Post by bob1029 »

blattimwind wrote: post #42
makerofspoons wrote: post #30

So terrorists will use one-time pads and other strong encryption and everyone else will have their information exposed on a massive scale when the backdoors inevitably are exploited.

OTPs are impractical to use for average people, while their use is entirely tractable (and widespread) for covert operations.

Everything technological is impractical to use for average people until people like us go out and build a practical solution.

OTP is not a very complicated scheme. All you need is a good source of entropy, a place to store a big fat array of it all, some XOR operations, and a safe way to hand the codebook to your trusted parties (e.g. phone-to-phone transfer options).

Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot

#58

Post by mindslight »

scarface74 wrote: post #22
Goronmon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you can't trust the government to oversee the tech companies. You can't trust companies to protect privacy. You can't trust voters/users to make good decisions on voting for the government or choosing the "right" companies to support. That doesn't leave a lot of options, unfortunately.

It’s called free will. You can logout of Facebook You can not use Google and use an ad ad blocker. You can buy online from some place besides Amazon You can not buy a mobile phone running an operating system written by an ad company. What you can’t easily do is change your government.

I'm all for protecting oneself in the framework of anarcho-capitalism, as it the default state of nature. But most people agree it is the government's place to prevent aggression between members of society. And pervasive surveillance is aggression.

Suggestions of individual actions are worthwhile, and it behooves everyone to take all of the personal steps they can to protect themselves. But the existence of individual actions culminating in a hypothetical path to opting out does not justify harm being done when people fail to live up to them.

Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot

#59

Post by slg »

strbean wrote: post #48
slg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Encryption allows data to be locked away from the government including law enforcement and prosecutors in a way that was nearly impossible for the average citizen a few decades ago. Warrants can't break encryption like they could doors or locks. As much of life moves to the digital world and becomes encrypted, that can be a drastic change in how the justice system works. Pro-encryption people need to keep this in min…

> in a way that was nearly impossible for the average citizen a few decades ago Ehh, maybe if you are talking about speed and scale. The average citizen could always learn how to use a one-time pad.

Speed, scale, and by default with no initial sharing of keys are super important distinctions.

Re: DOJ plans to strike against encryption while the Techlash iron is hot

#60

Post by jedberg »

74ls00 wrote: post #41
newfeatureok wrote: post #31

I was talking to a layperson about encryption and privacy and they were very much against both interestingly. They compared encryption to wearing a mask in public and said if people don't want to be noticed (w.r.t privacy and encryption) they shouldn't be "participating" (it was unclear what they meant by this). Just goes to show you how the average person thinks about these things. I have to admit I wouldn't like it…

Encryption isn’t like using a mask - we can still see who is communicating with who, we just can’t see what they’re saying. Banning encryption is like banning envelopes.

Ah, but the government already has a backdoor to envelopes, because they can get a warrant to open the envelopes. This analogy only strengthens their position.
Post reply on HN