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

Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 272 posts

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#201

Post by jjdin14 »

munk-a wrote: post #191
kortilla wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Society collapses and we become a failed state - but states fail all the time, universal suffrage appears to minimize the number of states that need to fail. Curious claim. Has there been any research that shows states are less likely to fail with universal suffrage? > When it comes to voting for president, my vote as a Vermonter is objectively worth 2.63 times as much as my friend from Washington See, that’s the c…

Regarding research - hrm, not seeing super much out there but societies have evolved (or devolved if you care) into democracies pretty reliably and democratization seems to be a general government trend. I don't disagree on the point of voting - it's not technically a direct election of the president. But we're still voting to impact the presidential election and my vote counts more toward that decision than my frien…

I don't follow how states evolving/devolving into democracies being a general trend supports the initial claim that universal suffrage minimizes the number of failed states?

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#202

Post by jjdin14 »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #129
autosharp wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who designs the test?

I was going to ask the same thing. "The issues" vary between people. How many do you include? Are they just the basic stuff the news covers? Do you need to know federal, state, and local issues? If you vote in a federal election, do you need to know issues in different parts of the country? Wouldn't the test show the biases of the test makers?

Parties write the test together and it must have x% approval from both parties in order to pass and be amended in the future. It is short and simple, covering only basic topics at the federal level that are relevant to the whole population regardless of location. E.g. What person currently holds position A, who was the first B, what is the purpose department C, etc. These can be multiple choice with fairly clear answers. Test would be released 1 year before each election, can be re-taken as many times as you'd like, and you need y% to pass. This seems like it would be a good start that would weed out people who are completely uninformed and unwilling to do the bare minimum to vote.

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#203

Post by jjdin14 »

outworlder wrote: post #148
worker767424 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only 60% of Americans had some idea of who Snowden was It's things like this and people who believe the moon landing was faked that convinced me universal suffrage isn't a good thing, and we need some sort of poll test to make sure people are educated on issues before voting. I realize the US has a bad history with "literacy" tests, but it's clear that most people have no business voting.

> we need some sort of poll test to make sure people are educated on issues before voting In principle, that's a great idea. I mean, we do have to take driving tests before we are allowed to operate dangerous machinery. We should be required to take tests before we are allowed to affect the lives of millions of people. You can have a similar argument for parenthood. Require classes before people are allowed to bring…

> these tests/lectures are defined by other humans

Are driving tests not designed by other humans? Drivers test writer could already design the tests in such a way that would have them favour certain groups. They ensure a minimum level of competency, which seems reasonable to expect from those who are voting or raising children.

> Next thing you know, you now have a handpicked elite eligible to vote

This seems like the slippery slope fallacy.

> not yet very universal in a few countries, US included

Who isn't allowed to vote?

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#204

Post by boomboomsubban »

542354234235 wrote: post #132
mindslight wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they were actually shut down, what would the people who worked there do? Prison time, like any other criminal enterprise.

This is kind of ridiculous. These are high level conflicts between equally valid government entities about how they should operate as well as nebulous questions on how constitutional law applies. I would assume there are legal memos, signed authorizations, etc. for what is going on. We could argue that secret authorizations for these kinds of things shouldn’t exist, but the fact is they do. If the president authorize…

The only reason the law is so complicated is so they can justify their clearly illegal actions.

If you took the NSA's "incidentals records" database and said you were purposely tracking Americans, it would obviously be unconstitutional. So they created a loophole to claim the obviously illegal act is allowed.

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#205

Post by Spooky23 »

Jon_Lowtek wrote: post #200
Spooky23 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are 100% correct. It’s legal fetishism, which allows legislators to abrogate their responsibilities and keeps the moneyed stakeholders happy. The notion that my papers inside of my rented apartment have dramatically more protection than my data inside of a rented server is absurd.

I should read up on that cloud act some time. Is it true your government can search any data you store in a rented netspace without telling you? Edit: or more precise the "Stored Communications Act" - Cloud Act seems to deal with offshore servers in particular.

We have something called the third party doctrine, which stems from Supreme Court cases in the 1960s and 70s.

Basically you have “no reasonable expectation of privacy” with respect to any information that you provide to a third party who is not an attorney providing counsel or a doctor. Your bank records for example, do not require a warrant to access under this principle.

All of this put in place by the courts. Stranger still, this sort of thing has become something that “conservative” judges are champions of.

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#206

Post by opportune »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #131
SauciestGNU wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is. There can be a duty to resist. People get killed based solely on data collected from signals intercepts. More people and companies should take the brave stand Lavabit did, rather than be complicit in oppression and state-sponsored killings.

While I dislike the NSA as much as practically everyone else here, I’m not aware of any state-sponsored killings done by the NSA. Sure, the executive branch has ordered killings, but the branch is so large, lumping it all together makes no sense. The NSA, FCC, FTC, EPA, etc. don’t kill. Now, you should resist, yes, but most people don’t. It takes a very brave soul to resist and hope the Supreme Court will side with y…

Ah so they aren't killing anyone, they are just gathering the intel which uniquely enables other agencies to kill people, that's very different, got it

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#207

Post by aaron695 »

> The starkest example of the risks inherent in the NSA’s approach involved an encryption-system component known as Dual Elliptic Curve

Only example perhaps.

What other back doors have they done?

Literal secret rooms where they tap data, these are not conventionally called backdoors. Nor are unpatched zero days the supplier originally didn't know about.

I don't think any country can install literal backdoors on products without getting caught. Backdoors seem like a Hollywood thing straight out of WarGames.

Why attack the Chinese or visa versa when you'd be basically working for them by damaging your own companies when you get caught.

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#208

Post by ReactiveJelly »

bdamm wrote: post #163
nostoc wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's 10 year old now...

Frankly I expect basically all computers are compromised at this point.

And I expect all food is unhealthy, so all I eat is pancakes.

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#209

Post by secfirstmd »

aaron695 wrote: post #207

> The starkest example of the risks inherent in the NSA’s approach involved an encryption-system component known as Dual Elliptic Curve Only example perhaps. What other back doors have they done? Literal secret rooms where they tap data, these are not conventionally called backdoors. Nor are unpatched zero days the supplier originally didn't know about. I don't think any country can install literal backdoors on produ…

Crypto AG and paying RSA come to mind.

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#210

Post by appleflaxen »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #9

>Three former senior intelligence agency figures told Reuters that the NSA now requires that before a back door is sought, the agency must weigh the potential fallout and arrange for some kind of warning if the back door gets discovered and manipulated by adversaries. Meaning that before, they were free to plant as many back doors as they pleased without any concern for the consequences. And even now, they just need…

and it's not consideration of how many rights are violated; it's a consideration of the PR fallout.

The NSA needs to be disbanded.

Post reply on HN