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

191–200 of 347 posts

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

#191

Post by dropoutcoder »

unionpivo wrote: post #172
dropoutcoder wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As someone from ex comunist/socialist state, I am completely fine with LE not having too much power. I think them being able to break all encryption in use is way too much power. Its not if, it's when it will be abused, and how many people die for it. And LE's can do a lot more damage than all terrorist combined.

Thanks for that. The goal is to design a system that prevents abuses. A technological solution to the ape problem would be helpful.

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

#192

Post by scarface74 »

mindslight wrote: post #58
scarface74 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 individua…

So generically, who should I be more worried about having my information and having more power? Google to advertise to me better or the government who can take my stuff based on a vague suspicion via civil forfeiture and has the power to send me to jail?

More personally, as a Black guy living in the mostly White burbs in the south - ie looking suspicious for living my life - who should I worry more about big tech (that indirectly provides for my livelihood) or the “justice system”?

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

#193

Post by refurb »

Goronmon wrote: post #18
scarface74 wrote: post #10

I’ve posted plenty of times on HN about the danger of the government being overly involved in tech and the last thing you should want if you value your liberty is more government involvement. I’ve also warned that giving government more power to “protect” people from big tech would come back to bite the very people who for some strange reason trust government. Every time I’ve been downvoted to oblivion. Now the chick…

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.

Trusting the government is solvable - simply don't give them any more power than you're willing to let them abuse.

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

#194

Post by SomaticPirate »

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…

I find it hilarious that RSA Security campaigned against the Clipper chip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip#Backlash) when they were subsequently found to also be compromised.

Seems like open-source and peer review is the only way to ensure that crypto is not being hijacked.

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

#195

Post by scarface74 »

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…

And you trust the courts not to rubber stamp police requests?

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

#196

Post by TooKool4This »

hitpointdrew wrote: post #167
dkdk8283 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watching old movies from 60s/70s sometimes have scenes where the characters are worried about calls being recorded or otherwise having no privacy. The typical response is “What is this, Russia?” or something similar. Privacy is really important. I will always error on the side of privacy even if that means not everyone bad is caught.

> I will always error on the side of privacy even if that means not everyone bad is caught. Reminds me of something my dad always told me, "I'd rather see 10 guilty people walk free, than have 1 innocent person in jail."

Blackstone’s ratio is where that principle originally comes from, at least in modern law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

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

#197

Post by solotronics »

Karunamon wrote: post #164
solotronics wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

I don't mean this to sound snippy, but where would you go? Most non-US countries I'm aware of have even worse restrictions around speech, encryption, and so forth.

I have a US and UK passport. I would probably end up in Singapore or a Nordic country? I always figured I would evaluate my options if that time ever came.

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

#198

Post by scarface74 »

lozaning wrote: post #76
gist wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You can safeguard the process the government needs to go through to get approval to decrypt things all you want. That doesn't stop bad actors separate from the government from finding and taking advantages of the vulnerabilities introduced by enabling the government to forcibly decrypt things. Cant fix technology problems with people processes.

You act as if the government isn’t the “bad actor”.

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

#199

Post by lostcolony »

jedberg wrote: post #60
74ls00 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not really. Because strong encryption is like having everything in envelopes only you can open, and weak encryption is like everything passing without an envelope, because you don't know who has compromised the keys (and just like it traveling without an envelope, you have no idea who is seeing and meddling with it).

There is no "only the government can remove the envelope, if they get permission". If we had the capability for that, we wouldn't be having the argument; the problem is people think this exists and it's technical company intransigence that is preventing it from being used.

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

#200

Post by brian-armstrong »

whytaka wrote: post #21

Questions to the public should be phrased: “Do you want Chinese style surveillance to be advanced in the United States?”

People do want that, though they might not admit to it. I think this would backfire. In general Western democracy is inconvenient for most people today.
Post reply on HN