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

231–240 of 347 posts

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

#231

Post by mindslight »

scarface74 wrote: post #192
mindslight wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (th…

> who should I be more worried about having my information and having more power

Wu. Constructing a "lesser evil" choice is simply a way of justifying evil.

> Google to advertise to me better

It's not mere "advertising". Google's surveillance trove will be exploited for economic gain in unenumerable ways. Sort individuals into classes, market a message of safety, and discriminate to keep the undesirables away - it's the age old playbook. The results of this paradigm will eventually be sold directly to the de jure government, as Experian et al currently do, making the distinction moot.

> big tech (that indirectly provides for my livelihood)

So you've chosen to align yourself with a more-distant oppressive power, hoping that doing so will buy you power to defend against a closer oppressor. Sure that may be prudent, but it is not morally right nor is it sustainable. And backfitting from "what is" to "what should be" is never a good idea.

Less abstractly, yes the US government is corrupt and generally pushes garbage like this EARN act. But that isn't an intrinsic argument against anti-totalitarian regulation akin to the GDPR. Rather the lack of the action on the latter is better seen as further evidence of said corruption.

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

#232

Post by lastres0rt »

KorematsuFred wrote: post #225
heartbeats wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Well of course they do; it's not rape there as long as you marry the 12-year-old first.

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

#233

Post by AWildC182 »

Mirioron wrote: post #180
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…

If the NSA can't keep its employees from abusing their spying tools to spy on their neighbors then what chance does law enforcement have?

I'm starting to get the feeling that a lot of these jobs, both tech and government, are low key treating non public data access as a perk.

For context, I interviewed with a company that had police videos stored on their systems and were using them for entertainment, to the point of showing me one at the beginning of the interview for grins

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

#234

Post by dropoutcoder »

inetknght wrote: post #215
dropoutcoder wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for responding. Which part was factually inaccurate?

> Secret police worked when criminals were put away with parallel reconstruction, for instance. It wasn't the secret police which worked. It was the parallel construction. > “You can’t stop math.” Not true, strictly anyway. You can't stop math. > Backdoors are an antiquated way of implementing exceptional access. The proper way is to provide third party access that is truly exceptional (living up to the name), and no…

It was the secret police with pr

You can stop math. Legally stop fb from using E2EE. You’ve stopped math. You haven’t stopped some people from using it. But you’ve prevented common people from having default usage of that math.

Disagree. Don’t use key escrow. Find a better way. Two parties or three parties; three doesn’t have to be significantly more susceptible than two

Apologies on the wording. Significantly weaker, not measurably. My mistake.

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

#235

Post by skybrian »

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?

Not entirely, but the judicial system's power to oversee law enforcement is an essential underpinning of the rule of law. Without that, laws don't have any power anymore and the executive does whatever it wants.

I guess if you're preparing for the apocalypse you don't count on that, though?

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

#236

Post by foota »

AWildC182 wrote: post #233
Mirioron wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the NSA can't keep its employees from abusing their spying tools to spy on their neighbors then what chance does law enforcement have?

I'm starting to get the feeling that a lot of these jobs, both tech and government, are low key treating non public data access as a perk. For context, I interviewed with a company that had police videos stored on their systems and were using them for entertainment, to the point of showing me one at the beginning of the interview for grins

This is possibly true at smaller companies, but this kind of thing does not fly at larger tech companies.

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

#237

Post by AWildC182 »

foota wrote: post #236
AWildC182 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm starting to get the feeling that a lot of these jobs, both tech and government, are low key treating non public data access as a perk. For context, I interviewed with a company that had police videos stored on their systems and were using them for entertainment, to the point of showing me one at the beginning of the interview for grins

This is possibly true at smaller companies, but this kind of thing does not fly at larger tech companies.

I've worked on both sides of that, I think you'd be surprised. I also suspect that it's worse at the TLAs and any organization with access to FBI, license plate and various criminal databases. Obviously CCard databases and stuff are off limits as their use is outright fraud, but stuff like traffic cameras, imaging systems, etc.

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

#238

Post by frandroid »

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…

It's not because they have been trying to forever that they aren't going for another big push right now. Attorney General William Barr is spearheading an active campaign on this, it was headline news here a few weeks ago. Don't be complacent.

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

#239

Post by dropoutcoder »

banads wrote: post #229
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.

Two parties or three, how can three parties keep a secret versus two
Post reply on HN