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

221–230 of 347 posts

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

#221

Post by hippich »

heartbeats wrote: post #170
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.

Freedom isn't free. I think people have just ought to realize that. People have this idea that free countries are more efficient, which is probably true in the long run, but it's a cop-out to just call it a day there. Once I was in Belarus. It's a heavily authoritarian country, make no mistake. When they had protests against their rigged elections, they traced the phones of everyone who went, then brought them in for…

I actually lived in Belarus for most of my life. I would never leave a bag in a restaurant unless I have a clear view of it while ordering something. (I would not do it here in the USA as well). Also, even in the capital of Belarus, some neighborhoods are still quite dangerous to walk around at night.

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

#222

Post by dropoutcoder »

tbyehl wrote: post #202
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.

Why should Law Enforcement have a seat at the table in the design of anything? Should my sneakers be made more uncomfortable so I can't run away too fast? Should they be able to remotely disable my car? Remotely open the blinds to my home's windows? Should I not be able to install a front door that resists attempts at forced entry? What's the line where Law Enforcement's wants merit consideration?

If it comes to pass that the department of justice insists on implementation of Exceptional access it would be who’ve the civil libertarians to work towards a better compromise. Hedge your bets.

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

#223

Post by d1zzy »

heartbeats wrote: post #170
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.

Freedom isn't free. I think people have just ought to realize that. People have this idea that free countries are more efficient, which is probably true in the long run, but it's a cop-out to just call it a day there. Once I was in Belarus. It's a heavily authoritarian country, make no mistake. When they had protests against their rigged elections, they traced the phones of everyone who went, then brought them in for…

You better not have left your stuff unattended in authoritarian communist Romania... I get what you're implying but authoritarian regime doesn't always imply harsh and effective enforcement of the law for petty crimes. Sometimes it does but the two aren't necessarily correlated although one probably requires the other.

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

#224

Post by sabas123 »

lostcolony wrote: post #187
SkyBelow wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That doesn't seem like a very enlightened ethics discussion. That is an apt summary of my college ethics discussions. Even in cases where the professor was doing their best to encourage discussion, the majority of the class couldn't think beyond first order effects and hypotheticals would quickly get emotional and devolve into character attacks.

Yeah. I was shocked at how many -CS MAJORS- were pro-DRM.

What does being a CS major having to do with being pro-DRM? Isn't it mainly an economic/philosophical standpoint on copyright?

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

#225

Post by KorematsuFred »

heartbeats wrote: post #170
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.

Freedom isn't free. I think people have just ought to realize that. People have this idea that free countries are more efficient, which is probably true in the long run, but it's a cop-out to just call it a day there. Once I was in Belarus. It's a heavily authoritarian country, make no mistake. When they had protests against their rigged elections, they traced the phones of everyone who went, then brought them in for…

> This was in the capital of one of the poorest countries in Europe, but it was still one of the safest places I've ever been.

Obviously if you put all people in jail they will be very safe there. But then you have less people working and producing more useful stuff than rotting in jail.

The best example I give of this trade off between freedom and safety is that of women in saudi arabia. They have the least amount of sexual violence in the world.

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

#226

Post by mokus »

scarface74 wrote: post #195
skybrian wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For that matter, do you trust the courts not to misuse that access themselves? Or sell government keys for hundreds of millions plus free emigration for their entire family to wherever they want? Because I have a feeling the going rate would be on that order of magnitude.

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

#227

Post by Ididntdothis »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #208
Ididntdothis wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s right to reject something outright. You should always give people the opportunity to show what they have. Then take a look at it and decide whether it’s good. A strong indicator for a scam is that they won’t show anything when asked for details. Then things should get rejected.

I'm not suggesting a refusal to listen to the question. I'm observing that it's dangerous to accept the premise of a question that may move the goalposts, without first noticing the implicit premise or differing definition, and explaining why the premise or definition is faulty. Accepting the faulty premise moves the line to "so you just need to come up with the right technology", which then moves to "what's the most…

"so you just need to come up with the right technology"

That line is not OK. If somebody wants something and you say you are not able to do it then it should be on them to prove you wrong.

Reminds me of work BS. You say “it can’t be done in the timeframe”. VP response: “you are just not working hard enough”. It’s a nice way to manipulate the conversation.

Technologists definitely should get better at messaging and arguing with bad faith actors.

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

#228

Post by lozaning »

scarface74 wrote: post #198
lozaning wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

The point Im trying to make is even if we did trust the government and had full faith that they'd never abuse this power, whatever technical mechanism they'd use to 'rightfully' decrypt things would surely be attempted to be misused by people that are explicitly and exclusively bad actors.

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

#229

Post by banads »

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?

This is like asking how to design a type of water that isn't wet, fire that doesn't burn, or a gun that only kills bad guys.

The inherent nature of encryption is to keep information secret.

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

#230

Post by dropoutcoder »

natch wrote: post #213
dropoutcoder wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for responding. Which part was factually inaccurate?

The part about tech geniuses being able to solve a problem that can't be solved without violating principles of mathematics. You probably don't think you said that though, because you missed the point yourself. It's a common mistake. You're in good company, plenty of smart politicians and national leaders have the same misconception. It's often stated in terms like "if we could put a man on the moon, all the smart pe…

I’m suggesting to rethink the problem fundamentally. Minimize abuses of an exceptional access system. The problem with purely technical folks is often an inability to socially transcend from their techno libertarian ideals

And my statement wasn’t entirely wrong. You can legally prevent large entities from using strong E2EE thus “stopping” the math to some degree - or minimize/isolate the usage of those munitions.

It might be more accurate to say “you can’t stop everyone from trying to use the known math”. And this is likely an acceptable compromise to LE. Reduce the entropy.

Still not clear what I’ve said that’s false.

And, as per another comment, you can claim that the problem isn’t solvable when a compromise aims to minimize the abuses not necessarily eliminate them (although that would also be acceptable).

As it’s possible this will be legally required it makes sense to work towards a compromise instead of arguing on principles that may be strictly true (3>2, how to trust the 3rd wheel, for instance)

Post reply on HN