An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT • Hacker News Board

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#221

Post by chungus_khan » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:11 PM UTC

uptown wrote: post #143

stilley2 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not in favor of the bill, but a warrant is still required (at least for domestic stuff).

Which is why the U.S. government routes a copy of the traffic through servers hosted in a friendly ally's country, then do whatever you want with it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYNXVgYhPOc&feature=emb_logo General Alexander was very precise in his choice of words when he repeatedly stated "in the United States". What went unasked was whether these operations take-place against U.S. citizens outside of the border…

Plus even when they do need a warrant, it doesn't do much good when there is literally a closed-access secret court specifically for handling surveillance requests which very rarely denies said requests and has a known history of enabling abuse.

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#222

Post by Ivoah » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:12 PM UTC

sailfast wrote: post #160

Crypto is classified as an armament for export control. I’m keeping mine under the second amendment, since the folks who wrote this bill seem to care about that one. As an aside: does that mean US DoD will get a back door as well? As a secure provider with over 1M users that required encryption at rest and in transit I think they should be the first to give up the keys to law enforcement.

https://xkcd.com/504/

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#223

Post by hedora » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:16 PM UTC

jimmar wrote: post #193

Have any smart people in tech come up with a solution that would satisfy the 4th amendment while preserving secure communications? It seems that to lawmakers, tech people are proclaiming that they've done such a good job building secure systems that the 4th amendment cannot apply to them. Personally, I'd rather let some criminals go free than to break encryption. I don't see lawmakers being willing to make the same t…

The US is more of a surveillance state now than it ever has been before. Police have unprecedented surveillance capabilities, and still would even if everyone used unbreakable encryption.

Credit cards, surveillance cameras, cell network tracking logs, targeted advertising, and the rise of social media have all but killed privacy on their own. The police already have access to all that data, and more.

The idea that we need to add more surveillance capabilities to protect historical law enforcement capabilities is laughable.

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#224

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:17 PM UTC

lowdose wrote: post #213

javajosh wrote: post #206

I was under the impression that a certain GOP Presidential candidate served the same purpose, and that did not turn out well.

Could you tell me more about that?

He means Trump.

As seen in the leaked Podesta emails (Hillary’s campaign manager that was phished and has a password of “Pa$$w0rd” or such), Hillary Co asked their media contacts to put emphasis on Trump. To give him more coverage than the others running. They literally called him their “pied piper” candidate. They were so confident they could beat Trump that they helped prop him up.

How Hillary skated by with many people not knowing or not caring that in more ways than one she is responsible for the president they hate so much, I have no idea.

Edit: you know the emails are on Wikileaks HN, the chain starts with “Friday Strategy”

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#225

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:19 PM UTC

lvs wrote: post #86

desmondw wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think ironically a bill like this passing would lead to more decentralization of services -- making their goals of monitoring information even harder.

Probably need to move toward maximizing decentralization regardless.

Agreed. These are bad bills - but - perhaps they further the eventual necessity of a decentralized Internet?

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#226

Post by 83uy2982983r80 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:23 PM UTC

They are pushing the overton window of public opinion by introducing extreme legislation which is so obviously bad it is certainly rejected. Then they incrementally introduce "a fair compromise" and in either case: YOU LOSE!

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#227

Post by dhx » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:23 PM UTC

Encryption is only one overrepresented technological technique to achieve communication security.

al-Qaeda reportedly favoured communicating in the clear with obfuscated messages, attempting to make their communications become a needle in a haystack of mundaneness that no one would raise an eyebrow to[1].

In World War 2, the United States hired native American speakers to communicate in the clear, knowing that the Nazis would have no comprehension of the languages spoken[2]. Use of obscure languages, local dialects and local euphemisms has been widely used by drug cartels[3], parties to violent conflicts, etc.

Criminals have been known to join and communicate via obscure online multiplayer games under the assumption that no one has gone to the effort of reverse engineering a proprietary game protocol and the developer hasn't gone to the effort of implementing recording of or monitoring of in-game activities that could be used for communication, including painting words on a surface in-game, naming objects in-game, etc. Online multiplayer games also provide a plausible reason (cover story) for two people to communicate with each other and yet claim they don't know each other in real life--a feature most encrypted messaging protocols can't guarantee.

Encryption backdoors are unlikely to be a concern to adversaries we should be most worried about. History shows they have tended to assume that backdoors exist and that use of encryption tends to draw unwanted attention.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation#Secure_communicati...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker

[3] https://publicintelligence.net/dea-drug-slang-code-words-201...

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#228

Post by hedora » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:24 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #66

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #50

Perhaps conservatives will find compelling a comparison to the second amendment. When crypto was outlawed, only outlaws will have crypto. The letter I sent to my senators is as follows: I care deeply about the safety and security of my fellow Americans. I understand the challenges that strong encryption poses for law enforcement. I don’t want the terrorists and pederasts to win. Yet, I strongly oppose Senate bill 405…

Conservatives don't care about rights and they certainly don't care about your values. They literally just want your money and if you don't have enough to get them re-elected they don't give a damn.

s/conservatives/moderates/

The Democratic and Republican party establishments have been eroding our rights for years.

Populist libertarians (1) and progressives have been fighting it for just as long.

(1) “the government has no right to levy an income tax” types, not “the courts have no right to inconvenience my monopoly” types.

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#229

Post by chungus_khan » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:26 PM UTC

jimmar wrote: post #193

Have any smart people in tech come up with a solution that would satisfy the 4th amendment while preserving secure communications? It seems that to lawmakers, tech people are proclaiming that they've done such a good job building secure systems that the 4th amendment cannot apply to them. Personally, I'd rather let some criminals go free than to break encryption. I don't see lawmakers being willing to make the same t…

> Personally, I'd rather let some criminals go free than to break encryption. I don't see lawmakers being willing to make the same trade-off.

That's not even the real trade-off. Serious criminals who were already actively using end-to-end encrypted services will continue using them or services like them, regardless of whether they have permission. The US can try to block and shut them down as much as they like, but ultimately there's no stopping them. The only kind of criminals this would affect are the ones that were already not taking security precautions. This is a massive hit to privacy and digital security with no actual meaningful upside.

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#230

Post by non-entity » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:28 PM UTC

cs702 wrote: post #186

bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We (HNers) might not fall for it but the proven technologically illiterate Representatives and their staff just might. This is why citizen's lobbying is so important. If the lawmakers are willfully ignorant - or in this case willfully arrogant about attacking encryption - the only thing that will get them to vote the right way is to hear from enough real constituents that the lawmakers feel like their reelection will…

I agree with lunchbreak's comment that this new bill seems "engineered" to make EARN IT look like a reasonable compromise. FYI, there's a long history of politicians attempting to regulate mathematical truths they don't understand. My favorite example is probably the infamous Indiana Pi Bill, via which local politicians wanted to regulate the value of Pi to be exactly 3.2, according a "proof" published by some crank.…

I... what? I dont even understand the point. Surely if politicians want to scam people for money there are better ways.