Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Five Eyes and Japan call for Facebook backdoor to monitor crime

asia.nikkei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 281 posts

Re: Five Eyes and Japan call for Facebook backdoor to monitor crime

#41

Post by saagarjha »

ekianjo wrote: post #17
bmarquez wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Using Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, etc. is optional. Nobody has to use these platforms. Nobody has to use these platforms, unless everyone else is using these platforms. Have you ever been that one person who is being regularly invited to an event but you aren't in a Messenger or Whatsapp group to receive it? Pretty soon you stop receiving invitations. This is actually worse in the case of Whatsapp outside America,…

> Nobody has to use these platforms, unless everyone else is using these platforms. No, even if everybody else is using those platforms, it does not force you in anyway to use them. It's still always up to you.

And you just replied to a comment explaining what happens if you don’t do those things, so you haven’t really added anything new to the conversation but a trite “nobody is forcing you” which was already the premise when the parent comment started.

Re: Five Eyes and Japan call for Facebook backdoor to monitor crime

#42

Post by jimbob45 »

ios14 wrote: post #27

Frictionless E2EE at scale is cancerous on society and the FYEV/JP alliance know this all too well. As this subject has been iterated over many times, will keep this comment short. * FB deploying frictionless, unbreakable encryption at scale makes the job of law enforcement harder, and makes it easier for less sophisticated criminals to get away with conspiracies (a word which, by the way, simply refers to two or mor…

Face-to-face talking is also unbreakably encrypted. Is that a threat vector we need to address? Really, we should start sewing mouths closed to close that vector permanently, am I right?

Re: Five Eyes and Japan call for Facebook backdoor to monitor crime

#43

Post by saagarjha »

ios14 wrote: post #36
0xy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law enforcement can't even prevent a mass shooting when the shooter is repeatedly reported to federal law enforcement (Pulse nightclub shooter). How do you think this level of access will allow them to solve crimes?

Bananas and bowling balls. Based on your description, the situation you described is a shame and a failure of law enforcement to keep us safe. Not an encryption issue.

Law enforcement isn’t perfect; this is exactly why we would like privacy.

Re: Five Eyes and Japan call for Facebook backdoor to monitor crime

#45

Post by bccdee »

ios14 wrote: post #27

Frictionless E2EE at scale is cancerous on society and the FYEV/JP alliance know this all too well. As this subject has been iterated over many times, will keep this comment short. * FB deploying frictionless, unbreakable encryption at scale makes the job of law enforcement harder, and makes it easier for less sophisticated criminals to get away with conspiracies (a word which, by the way, simply refers to two or mor…

If by "less sophisticated criminals," you mean "anyone too stupid to google 'encrypted chat app'," then I doubt they were ever much of a threat, especially for any kind of serious criminal conspiracy beyond selling a few baggies of drugs.

Re: Five Eyes and Japan call for Facebook backdoor to monitor crime

#47

Post by mrtksn »

SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #6

1. How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc? 2. What’s the endgame here? Open-source encrypted messaging software is widely available. The cat is out of the bag. Every country on Earth could outlaw the technology and it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it. Do the people behind these proposals not see that?

> How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc?

The difference is that the infrastructure is in place and can be turned on at will so it feels within the reach of the people who think they deserved to do that.

They think that deserve it because they believe that the job they do is the most important thing in the world and they can suddenly gain access to an amazing tool that will make their job much more easier and potentially more effective. They believe that the risks are overblown, can be contained with proper measures and well worth it.

If you are a pro-nuclear energy, you can draw an analogy with you desperately wanting nuclear power all over the place.

“So what if a really bad accident can cause an irreparable damage? The new designs would not allow this to happen and the positive aspects are huge. Coal kills much more people. Yes we had chernobyl and fukushima but this time is different”

is very similar to “So what if the surveillance can be used to create a dystopian state? The measures we put in place will prevent it from ever happening and the positives are huge. Terrorist and other criminals cause huge damages and not that many are killed by repressive government. Yes we had the stasi and kgb but this is different”

After all, it is true that it would have been great to a have a power that watch us an protect us, right? The concept is the bedrock of many religions anyway. It’s something that a lot of people want.

Re: Five Eyes and Japan call for Facebook backdoor to monitor crime

#48

Post by bccdee »

ios14 wrote: post #40
MaikuMori wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's quite extreme view. Apps should protect users and police should seek to end crime. Only when these two needs cross we get something fair. If one side gives in we all lose.

Offering lawful access to widely deployed encryption is hardly an extreme view. Our IC and their partners, as well as our bureaucrats, are mostly in agreement. An extreme view might entail banning certain forms of math on the internet entirely, rather than simply regulating the widely deployed frictionless math.

Legally mandating government wiretaps in every major method of online communication, subjecting every citizen to having their private life potentially scrutinized with no trial, is fairly extreme, yes.

Re: Five Eyes and Japan call for Facebook backdoor to monitor crime

#49

Post by ekianjo »

redis_mlc wrote: post #28
ekianjo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think NOT having a facebook account has ever prevented anyone from getting a job. Rather the opposite, actually.

> I don't think NOT having a facebook account has ever prevented anyone from getting a job. Rather the opposite, actually. Well, you're wrong. I've had interviewers ask why I host my own blog instead of using Facebook, and said it was very unusual that they couldn't check out my social background. And Craiglist rental ads often screen applicants using social media, usually Facebook.

> Well, you're wrong. I've had interviewers ask why I host my own blog instead of using Facebook, and said it was very unusual that they couldn't check out my social background.

Well, why would an employer need to check your social background? They should care about your skills more than anything else.

Re: Five Eyes and Japan call for Facebook backdoor to monitor crime

#50

Post by m3at »

SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #6

1. How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc? 2. What’s the endgame here? Open-source encrypted messaging software is widely available. The cat is out of the bag. Every country on Earth could outlaw the technology and it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it. Do the people behind these proposals not see that?

> it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it

Maybe it's not about the criminals? Governments have a tendency to seek to increase control of citizens, surveillance being part of it. Saying it's about "tools for terrorists and child traffickers" is the traditional rethorical ploy no-one can argue against. You wouldn't want to protect child traffickers would you?

Post reply on HN