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

141–150 of 347 posts

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

#141

Post by u801e »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #127
u801e wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then again, given speeding is so widely accepted, radar detectors are legal to use in 49 out of 50 states. It would be nice if encryption was viewed the same way.

No, we absolutely don't want strong encryption viewed as "illegal but accepted", we want it viewed as "absolute necessity for day-to-day life and personal safety, unacceptable to ever weaken".

I think it comes down to popular vote versus government policy. While things like speeding and marijuana are illegal, popular votes have made these things legal (or quasi legal) in their respective jurisdictions. For example, votes to remove speed cameras or make them illegal, or votes to decriminalize marijuana.

But you are correct in that we really should make it completely legal so that the government doesn't have an excuse to target individuals for engaging in a practice that is generally widely accepted.

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

#142

Post by JoshTriplett »

dropoutcoder wrote: post #93

If you were forced to design an exceptional access system that minimized abuses and risks of compromise, how would you do it?

Leave whatever jurisdiction was attempting to force me to build something unethical, and after being safely out of that jurisdiction, disclose absolutely everything I can about the attempted coercion.

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

#143

Post by saber6 »

wrboyce wrote: post #114
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They provided the DOJ backdoor access. If you're thinking of PRISM, no, at least not in the voluntary, intentional sense of the word "provided". Many of the major tech companies had non-public backbone fiber, and links across that fiber were unencrypted. The NSA tapped this dark fiber to read unencrypted traffic. This famously hit Google, which subsequently moved to encrypt all internal traffic, even traffic that w…

Wouldn’t tapping dark fibre be a bit useless? Or were the links tapped while dark waiting for the target to start using them?

Dark fiber refers to the fact that you have the entire wave spectrum to use. It’s in use. It’s not dark.

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

#144

Post by sjy »

misiti3780 wrote: post #118

Seriously question, how are they going to stop me from downloading signal from source, building it locally, and installing it on my and everyone i knows cell phones?

Why would they try to stop you, when they could just order Apple or Google to push out a backdoored update to the OS?

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

#145

Post by sjy »

portmanteur wrote: post #91

Is this news or is this a blog post? I understand it's very informed, and I don't necessarily mind opinionated journalism, but this seems to be speculating as to the motives of the FBI. To me, this seems like only one very passionate side of an important debate. A big question I have is, "how likely is this legislation to actually become law?" UK and Australia passed similar laws, sure, but they also banned guns and…

It’s a blog post, as stated in the URL and at the top of the page.

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

#146

Post by JoshTriplett »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #137
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Offer" is perhaps an overly positive term. The DOJ has issued a number of speeches, letters, etc. insisting that tech companies must build a backdoor to let the government decrypt messages as required.

I know but I have never heard any details especially how they want to keep the backdoor secret. Cracking the backdoor would be such a high value target that a lot of people would spend insane amounts of money and energy on it.

Do not under any circumstances let the discussion move from "whether" to "how". Reject the premise of the question. Such a system cannot be built; the requirements are broken. Treat it as though someone asked you to build a system that solves the halting problem, or factors products of large primes in linear time: the correct direct response is patient explanation of impossibility, and the correct indirect response is good PR from real security experts who understand how to do good PR.

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

#147

Post by elithrar »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #123
wrboyce wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t tapping dark fibre be a bit useless? Or were the links tapped while dark waiting for the target to start using them?

(Context: the original comment mentioned dark fiber, but I changed it to be more precise to avoid exactly this confusion.) Dark fiber is a bit of a misnomer and term of art, IIUC. The way I've had it explained to me, dark fiber is not necessarily dark. It's just not on the public internet. When you lease dark fiber, you presumably do so to put your own signal on it, making it no longer dark. But folks still call it "…

You’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s a “technically wrong” term that conveys enough meaning: unlit fibre you buy and light up yourself (usually).

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

#148

Post by misiti3780 »

sjy wrote: post #144
misiti3780 wrote: post #118

Seriously question, how are they going to stop me from downloading signal from source, building it locally, and installing it on my and everyone i knows cell phones?

Why would they try to stop you, when they could just order Apple or Google to push out a backdoored update to the OS?

i guess i didnt think about it that way -- good point.

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

#149

Post by dropoutcoder »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #142
dropoutcoder wrote: post #93

If you were forced to design an exceptional access system that minimized abuses and risks of compromise, how would you do it?

Leave whatever jurisdiction was attempting to force me to build something unethical, and after being safely out of that jurisdiction, disclose absolutely everything I can about the attempted coercion.

In that case you would not be forced, at least in a more extreme application of the word.

Regarding ethics, my opinion is that it’s unethical to offer strong E2EE to the masses at scale, without considering the needs of LE.

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

#150

Post by [deleted] »

jsn wrote: post #133
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They provided the DOJ backdoor access. If you're thinking of PRISM, no, at least not in the voluntary, intentional sense of the word "provided". Many of the major tech companies had non-public backbone fiber, and links across that fiber were unencrypted. The NSA tapped this dark fiber to read unencrypted traffic. This famously hit Google, which subsequently moved to encrypt all internal traffic, even traffic that w…

You are mistaken. PRISM is specifically a program that "collects stored internet communications based on demands made to internet companies" [em. mine]. NSA wiretapping the non-public links of Google et ol was not PRISM (I'm not even sure that the name of that program was ever disclosed).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN