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

61–70 of 130 posts

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#61

Post by api »

JasonFruit wrote: post #48

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…

We've massively increased the role of the Federal government vs. what was outlined in the constitution. The most significant reason for this by far is war, particularly WWII and the Cold War.

Other wars before these played a role but I feel like WWII was the turning point after which the US was a different place. We entered more or less a permanent state of war or war-readiness since then, and the Cold War provided a rationale to massively increase the size of our espionage apparatus. Originally the idea was that this spy apparatus would only be aimed outward, but that was always a fantasy. Anything we aim outward will eventually be aimed inward.

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#62

Post by sodality2 »

jrsj wrote: post #53

Just wait until they tell us that encryption back doors are necessary to stop racism and watch as half the population claps excitedly for the total elimination of privacy in the U.S.

I don't believe that is true (and pray it isn't). I don't think the populace is that stupid. Also, unnecessarily political. I could replace "racism" with "immigration" or "socialism" just as easily, that doesn't make it true.

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#63

Post by TeMPOraL »

ISL wrote: post #54
christophilus wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched Citizen of the State recently, and the paranoid old man in that movie looks like a normie today.

I think you mean Enemy of the State? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_State_(film)

>> Citizen of the State

> I think you mean Enemy of the State?

Given the topic of mass surveillance, this doesn't sound like much of a distinction...

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#64

Post by sneak »

alkonaut wrote: post #49
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 crim…

Nah, they just need to issue a wiretap order to the encrypted messenger app's centralized servers.

Even end to end encrypted systems know who is talking to who, and how often, and where those two parties are (due to client IP geolocation).

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#65

Post by sneak »

cies wrote: post #58
garmaine wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think we have any control or say over the situation?

Well, you shout really loud yr a democracy. Basically saying you have no control is saying that the US is no democracy.

The US does not have equal protection under the law, and the laws are enforced arbitrarily to carry out the will of the military and the ownership class.

The thing you reference is just a cover story. It's plain as day to anyone paying attention who runs that country.

There is no party you can vote for that will stop the perpetual war or perpetual ubiquitous surveillance, despite a vast majority of people in the country being against both war and surveillance.

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#66

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

api wrote: post #61
JasonFruit wrote: post #48

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…

We've massively increased the role of the Federal government vs. what was outlined in the constitution. The most significant reason for this by far is war, particularly WWII and the Cold War. Other wars before these played a role but I feel like WWII was the turning point after which the US was a different place. We entered more or less a permanent state of war or war-readiness since then, and the Cold War provided a…

I'd say that an even larger reason for federal-level law enforcement is the mobility that modern means of transportation brought. When the US was founded with its vision of autonomous states, there was not much mobility between states. It is no accident that the boom in the use of US marshals, postal police, and the Secret Service came with the building of the railways, making for crimes that spanned across states, for instance, while the FBI appeared in the automobile age.

Once you get national-level police that inherently see themselves are superior to and unaccountable to state-level bodies, then it is no surprise that they might want to wield that power, and that might have happened even without those foreign wars the US was involved in.

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#67

Post by boomboomsubban »

alkonaut wrote: post #57
cies wrote: post #3

I dont understand why the US people still trust these agencies. FBI, CIA, NSA have all shown to act against the democracy in many cases. If they could be trusted, they could be trusted with a backdoor. Since they cannot be trusted, the backdoor only makes them a more dangerous enemy of the people.

What's the alternative to having law enforcement agencies at any level (whether that is on a regional or national level doesn't really matter?) with democratic oversight? If the democratic oversight fails and transparency suffers, then the outcome will be less than ideal. But the answer is hardly "remove law enforcement authorities from level x", surely it must be improved transparency and oversight? Also, no agency…

>But the answer is hardly "remove law enforcement authorities from level x", surely it must be improved transparency and oversight?

You can use this to argue that the FBI and parts of the DHS should still exist in some form, but the CIA, NSA and military intelligence agencies are not law enforcement.

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#68

Post by tremon »

sneak wrote: post #64
alkonaut wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 crim…

Nah, they just need to issue a wiretap order to the encrypted messenger app's centralized servers. Even end to end encrypted systems know who is talking to who, and how often, and where those two parties are (due to client IP geolocation).

Not really, even at my work we have (well, had) regular swap-meets for supermarket discount trackers. So one week I would shop as badge #1, the next week I would be badge #2. Just knowing the identity of the person who was issued the account doesn't give you any information about who's using it now.

In aggregate, you would still be able to identify which group of people used which endpoints, but aggregate information won't hold up in court.

Yes, geolocation would solve that, but I would expect such people to absolutely disable the GPS, so you'd need to rely on cell tower pings, which are not found on the same servers.

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#69

Post by clankyclanker »

mbg721 wrote: post #45
tw04 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Would it not lead to a horrifying dystopia, it wold be interesting to see how the response changed it the vaccine were marketed as a status symbol.

Re: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

#70

Post by iNate2000 »

sxqnicholas wrote: post #14

The article's title is a little misleading, but I agree with their overarching message. Law enforcement should never be given the easy way out in terms of breaking encryption. Asking for backdoors to be installed in every device is extremely lazy police work. I'm sure there are other ways of breaking encryption like the rubber-hose technique (of course with valid arrest warrant). Arguing that law enforcement should s…

1. researching ways to break encryption is only productive if people are allowed to use the stronger encryption that comes from that research.

2. FBI isn’t arguing for new ways to break encryption, they’re arguing that old ways to cripple encryption should be used on purpose.

Post reply on HN