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

81–90 of 347 posts

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

#81

Post by modeless »

gist wrote: post #52
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…

> Why would it not be possible to create a system that required several manual and offline steps

No matter what "offline" and "manual" steps you propose, they can be made online and automatic after a one-time compromise of the system. And if a single system is protecting the secrets of literally everyone, the incentive for compromising that system is unlimited. There's no attack too impractical when the stakes are so high.

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

#82

Post by vuldin »

caleb-allen wrote: post #9

A small anecdote. A few years ago in an undergrad business class, we were having some discussion and the topic of encryption came up during one of my presentations. A student asked a question related to the ethics of encryption (I don't recall exactly what), and I was clearly confused by the question. To clear up confusion, the professor asked those who thought encryption was "bad" to raise their hand, and at least 6…

Similar but different anecdote. I installed i2p the other day to see what had changed/improved over the last year, and mentioned to my 12yo son that I had done this. He asked what i2p was, and I said it was the dark web. He immediately thought he knew what this is, and asked "aren't you worried about getting in trouble because it's illegal?"

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

#83

Post by Ididntdothis »

wyldfire wrote: post #33
Ididntdothis wrote: post #25

Are there any concrete proposals on the table that can be looked at? This feels to me like one of the typical debates where people are shooting at each other but nobody understands what they really are talking about.

I think you're mistaken. Virtually any proposal that the government might offer will be a key escrow. We already know it's bad and why it's bad, because it's been debated for decades. I don't think there are any more novel solutions that should revitalize the argument. The problem isn't that there aren't enough oversight mechanisms or checks to prevent abuse. The problem is that the design has unfixable security defe…

You say “might offer”. Have they offered anything?

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

#84

Post by dropoutcoder »

isthisserious wrote: post #74
dropoutcoder wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it’s serious (in response to your handle). I don’t think it’s necessary to create a throwaway to respond and is also against hn policy. I’ve been downvoted to oblivion simply for stating my view; also not necessary. Secret police worked when criminals were put away with parallel reconstruction, for instance. (This being borne of limitations with the anachronistic constitutional notions of civil liberties in the…

> Yes, it’s serious (in response to your handle). I don’t think it’s necessary to create a throwaway to respond and is also against hn policy. Not a throwaway. I'm a lurker who was stunned into commenting. As for E2E2EE, this doesn't solve the bad actors problem. Here is exactly why this wont work: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/technology/twitter-saudi-...

The article you linked is an example of why offering access to employees who aren’t properly vetted, don’t have security clearances is a bad idea. Further, a proper exceptional access system, in my view, will aim to reduce abuses as described in the article you’ve linked, perhaps even using a design that offers technologically enforced checks and balances against abuses.

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

#85

Post by reaperducer »

westmeal wrote: post #15
caleb-allen wrote: post #9

A small anecdote. A few years ago in an undergrad business class, we were having some discussion and the topic of encryption came up during one of my presentations. A student asked a question related to the ethics of encryption (I don't recall exactly what), and I was clearly confused by the question. To clear up confusion, the professor asked those who thought encryption was "bad" to raise their hand, and at least 6…

It sounds like a majority of the students had no idea what encryption was and because the authority figure (the professor) asked them whether or not it was bad they just went with it? I'm having trouble understanding why people would say mathematical functions are bad.

I'm having trouble understanding why people would say mathematical functions are bad.

Because the vast majority of people don't know that encryption is mathematical formulas. They only know what they see from Hollywood, which is that it's a thing that bad guys use.

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

#87

Post by pirate_dev »

This is genuinely threatening to too many interests in the US, will not pass. Much smoke, but no heat, just like the last few times its been proposed. They will not get a master key to everything lol, nobody trusts DOJ like this. The people in power have dirt to hide too, just like you and me.

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

#88

Post by busterarm »

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…

That didn't really change enforcement elsewhere and choosing Biden for his VP, who is basically the legal architect of the entire War on Drugs, sent a huge signal.

The Obama administration did exactly nothing for prison reform, which coincidentally is probably going to be a big part of Trump's legacy (he's done more on this than any other President), and nothing for situations where marijuana possession suddenly makes other things criminal (like owning a firearm _and_ marijuana).

For as poor as Trump's record with women is, it's pretty shameful for everyone else that he's the president that made sure tampons are widely available in women's prisons.

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

#89

Post by mindslight »

skybrian wrote: post #75
btilly wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shamir secret sharing allows for that on paper. The problem is that to be useful for law enforcement, any local police department has to be able to go to any local judge and get a warrant and then get access. There are approximately 30,000 state judges with fairly high turnover in that list. If you can compromise one, or successfully get yourself added to that list, you can then get access to whatever you want. That'…

This is basically what happens when law enforcement uses a search warrant to get access to user data from a tech company. While this process does have weaknesses, it is still the difference between a legal process overseen by the courts and one based on espionage where agents do whatever they want without oversight. Note that strong network encryption is essential for ensuring that they have to get a warrant. I don't…

> that still allows law enforcement to do their job?

Do libraries not keeping records of who has read what books not allow law enforcement to do their job?

Do prohibitions against arbitrary searches not allow law enforcement to do their job?

Does having to make a plausible argument in front of a judge not allow law enforcement to do their job?

Do individuals not having a number tattooed on their forehead not allow law enforcement to do their job?

Law enforcement continually frames any pereceived difficulty as if it is prevents them, which is utterly disingenuous. Law enforcement's "job" is to operate within the constraints of a free society composed of innocent people, in spite of the extra work from not being able to just shoot the bad guy like in the movies. When they don't respect this, they're merely another criminal element.

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

#90

Post by solotronics »

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…

For me at least this is the thing that will push me to leave and renounce citizenship. I am sure I represent an insignificant minority to them, but I can't live somewhere without my own security on my data and cryptocurrency. Over the last few years I moved basically all my assets into Bitcoin and have left the legacy banking systems behind. With a few keystrokes they can lock you totally out of all your funds and you can do nothing about it except complain. This is totally unacceptable to me. I still pay taxes and have a salary job of course. But I don't trust the banks at all.
Post reply on HN