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

The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 130 posts

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#41

Post by loceng »

cm2187 wrote: post #8

Another argument against the "going dark" claim is that before smartphones and the internet, the only conversations the FBI could monitor was through phonelines and mail. These were known to be easily monitored and I doubt there was much more criminal activity happening through those then than now. I would argue that the conversations that have gone online are the interactions that were previously happening in-person…

Indeed, the internet amplified and accelerate everything - but as we've seen, arguably the largest harm that can come is through mass manipulation via public propaganda that's promoted - and that's not encrypted.

It's arguably different industrial complexes that have lead to mass surveillance, perhaps mostly the military-security industrial complex, that has lead to the current path; fear as a distraction from what's really needed is healing and strengthening the individual to not be brittle and prone to manipulation.

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#43

Post by tw04 »

poink wrote: post #23
_wldu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

15 years ago, if I had said that society would build a tracking system and that most people would happily carry a tracker in their pocket and pay monthly fees to support the tracking networks, I would have been laughed out of the room. But that is what happened, and most people are oblivious to this fact.

I don't think, "Most people are oblivious," they just don't care and/or don't understand the implications. The idea that the government can use your mobile phone to spy on you is so widely understood that even the dumbest popcorn movies make sure to show fugitives ditching their phones and criminals collecting/discarding them before they discuss business without explaining why. Everybody understands the purpose of a…

>I don't think, "Most people are oblivious," they just don't care and/or don't understand the implications.

But they do, that's what's baffling. The number of people I have heard parrot the "Bill Gates put a tracking chip in the vaccine" has me both baffled and worried. These are people who appear to be otherwise completely sane and mostly rational. When I've pointed out that's literally what their phone does, so why would Bill Gates waste any money putting something in a vaccine (ignoring that's not even physically possible) - I get a "well that's different".

They are concerned, but as a non-technical person for some reason they just can't quite wrap their heads around what is happening.

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#44

Post by jtbayly »

cm2187 wrote: post #8

Another argument against the "going dark" claim is that before smartphones and the internet, the only conversations the FBI could monitor was through phonelines and mail. These were known to be easily monitored and I doubt there was much more criminal activity happening through those then than now. I would argue that the conversations that have gone online are the interactions that were previously happening in-person…

But mail and phone were essentially the only methods of long-distance communication. The new methods of long-distance instant communication are not just groundbreaking for organizing legal business.

Something really has fundamentally changed with the introduction of instant encrypted messages. I'm for that change, and against the government attempting to ban it.

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#45

Post by mbg721 »

tw04 wrote: post #43
poink wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think, "Most people are oblivious," they just don't care and/or don't understand the implications. The idea that the government can use your mobile phone to spy on you is so widely understood that even the dumbest popcorn movies make sure to show fugitives ditching their phones and criminals collecting/discarding them before they discuss business without explaining why. Everybody understands the purpose of a…

>I don't think, "Most people are oblivious," they just don't care and/or don't understand the implications. But they do, that's what's baffling. The number of people I have heard parrot the "Bill Gates put a tracking chip in the vaccine" has me both baffled and worried. These are people who appear to be otherwise completely sane and mostly rational. When I've pointed out that's literally what their phone does, so why…

They can, but they wish it weren't true. Cell phones have an obvious huge upside, and society has adjusted itself so that you pretty much have to have one. (Ever asked to use somebody's phone?). Meanwhile, one of these technocrats is pushing a vaccine that might as well be magic, developed in an unusually short time, to cure a disease that people think might occasionally kill somebody else, but probably not them. The response makes complete sense.

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#46

Post by snarf21 »

_wldu wrote: post #20
cm2187 wrote: post #8

Another argument against the "going dark" claim is that before smartphones and the internet, the only conversations the FBI could monitor was through phonelines and mail. These were known to be easily monitored and I doubt there was much more criminal activity happening through those then than now. I would argue that the conversations that have gone online are the interactions that were previously happening in-person…

15 years ago, if I had said that society would build a tracking system and that most people would happily carry a tracker in their pocket and pay monthly fees to support the tracking networks, I would have been laughed out of the room. But that is what happened, and most people are oblivious to this fact.

"Hey wiretap, can bunnies eat pancakes?"

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#47

Post by leetcrew »

jtbayly wrote: post #44
cm2187 wrote: post #8

Another argument against the "going dark" claim is that before smartphones and the internet, the only conversations the FBI could monitor was through phonelines and mail. These were known to be easily monitored and I doubt there was much more criminal activity happening through those then than now. I would argue that the conversations that have gone online are the interactions that were previously happening in-person…

But mail and phone were essentially the only methods of long-distance communication. The new methods of long-distance instant communication are not just groundbreaking for organizing legal business. Something really has fundamentally changed with the introduction of instant encrypted messages. I'm for that change, and against the government attempting to ban it.

it's not like you can't implement encrypted comms over mail and phone in the first place. people with a strong enough incentive (and nerds) have been using symmetric encryption for a long time.

what has changed is, like you say, how trivially easy it is to send instant encrypted messages. what was once the domain of spy agencies and organized crime is now practical for my mom to ask me what I would like for dinner. one wonders why the FBI finds that so concerning.

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#48

Post by JasonFruit »

I've been reading the Constitution, and I noticed an interesting point: the only federal law enforcement authorized by the Constitution was the state militias, which at the time consisted of all the able-bodied men of each state, and was commanded by officers from that State. This provided a check on the government that we have given up: how comfortable could the federal government be asking a non-professional group drawn from the general public, with their primary allegiance not to the federal government, but to a single state, to enforce a law that is inimical to their interests? I wonder if abandoning the state militias has helped cause the out of control federal law enforcement we see now.

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#49

Post by alkonaut »

cm2187 wrote: post #8

Another argument against the "going dark" claim is that before smartphones and the internet, the only conversations the FBI could monitor was through phonelines and mail. These were known to be easily monitored and I doubt there was much more criminal activity happening through those then than now. I would argue that the conversations that have gone online are the interactions that were previously happening in-person…

> I would argue that the conversations that have gone online are the interactions that were previously happening in-person (at least in term of criminal activity), to which the FBI didn't have access before.

Indeed. But those conversations/meetings were visible, risky etc. They were thus possible to monitor/attack and they weren't scalable.

From the perspective of law enforcement, criminals being able to discuss crimes or make payments without there being a phyiscal exchange is a nightmare. In the past, they could monitor meetings between criminals. Now they basically need to look over the shoulder of criminals in order to prove that CriminalA spoke to CriminalB. It must be extremely difficult.

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#50

Post by snarf21 »

cm2187 wrote: post #8

Another argument against the "going dark" claim is that before smartphones and the internet, the only conversations the FBI could monitor was through phonelines and mail. These were known to be easily monitored and I doubt there was much more criminal activity happening through those then than now. I would argue that the conversations that have gone online are the interactions that were previously happening in-person…

Yeah, these things are scary. My test for people who ask for these backdoors is to ask for them to hand me their unlocked mobile. I promise to not share any information I read/see. There is an expression in this area that I love (but I can't remember the exact phrase): If you follow anyone around for some small period of time, you will find them guilty of breaking the law.
Post reply on HN