Live data from Hacker News

Is the FBI dumb, evil, or just incompetent?

techcrunch.com

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: Is the FBI dumb, evil, or just incompetent?

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it IS still pretty hard to factor very large primes, right Depends on what you mean by this... There are no practical systems which will do so. But the reason why quantum computing became interesting was because of Shor's work showing that they can factor large primes quickly (in theory).

>> There are no practical systems which will do so. ... that we know of . The intelligence community has secretly outpaced the rest of the world in computing, cryptography and cryptanalysis before.

I would be surprised to find that the NSA has a quantum computer that can quickly factor large numbers.

There are very hard fundamental physics problems with quantum computing. IANAexpert, but as I understand it, the difficulty lies in closing off the system (cold atoms, what have you) you're using to do the computation from the outside world, while you're doing the computation. Any contact (up to a very, very low limit), and you smear ("decohere") the computation so that the output will be in essence noise---not what we want at all. One can approach this as (in some sense) an engineering/experiment problem and try to limit contact with the outside world, or as a theory problem and try to come up with a system that inherently resists problematic contact with the outside world (topological quantum computation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_quantum_computer), comes to my mind).

So we're dealing with a physics problem: either the gloriously messy, difficult work of experiment, trying to track down and eliminate sources of decoherence, or the theoretical work of finding an appropriate system (and then figuring out how to implement it).

Both of these are far from the core competencies of the NSA, as I understand them (not that I have any real information---just an impression based on way to much time spent reading Hacker News :-) ). As you say, NSA is (perceived as) very, very good and far ahead of the community at computing, cryptography, and cryptanalysis. The problem is, this is not a computing problem, it's a physics problem.

One possibilty, though, is that the NSA has figured out some way to use something like the D-Wave quantum computer (which I am ridiculously far from understanding, but you might recall Scott Aaronson's blog post on the subject not too long ago) to factor large primes---that is to say, to transform prime factorization into the D-Wave problem. At a gut level, I find this much more plausible than that the NSA has independently built a quantum computer: that sort of problem-transformation is much more the kind of math that I feel the NSA would be good at, or be able to become good at very quickly.

Re: Is the FBI dumb, evil, or just incompetent?

#52
post #6

Are there any video chat clients with end-to-end encryption? I was trying to do this by piping the output of my webcam to openssl and then to netcat, which sends the packets to a publicly addressable server (Amazon instance) that relays the encrypted packets to another computer behind a firewall, that decrypts the video stream and plays it in MPlayer. It works, but the latency is about 10 seconds. To reduce the laten…

WebRTC clients should be encrypted and secure, since it's P2P communication.

Re: Is the FBI dumb, evil, or just incompetent?

#54

What happens when the FBI becomes infected with people like Lerner who use their power to persecute political dissidents?

What do you mean "becomes"? J. Edgar Hoover actually did use his power to persecute political dissidents. I say this whole FBI backdoor/legal intercept thing reeks of trying to do that sort of thing again.

I mean, it's pretty easy to monitor Quaker anti-war activists: they do everything publically and invite participation politely. No agency needs wiretap access to monitor them. So, who are they going to monitor with this?

Re: Is the FBI dumb, evil, or just incompetent?

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people are drawn to law enforcement out of the desire to help others and do good for the world. Being an FBI agent is a very honorable and well-respected profession, especially outside of an internet forum. Your comment pisses on every person who ever went to school to study criminal law, many of whom did so for noble or at least neutral reasons.

"Being an FBI agent is a very honorable and well-respected profession" Unless you are doing this: http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/01/secret_government... It is not as though this is some kind of new, unprecedented behavior either: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover So let's say a young man is thinking about joining the FBI; he wants to do good fo…

So all the good guys who could disinfect the system from within should just turn down the chance and ensure only bad guys get into the position of power and authority?

Re: Is the FBI dumb, evil, or just incompetent?

#57

Maybe I'm being naive, but what's preventing Google or Facebook from using their resources to launch a PR campaign against these requests from the FBI, or at the very least be a bit more outspoken about them?

How do you expect these companies to operate in the US while defying US laws?

Re: Is the FBI dumb, evil, or just incompetent?

#58
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was once a time in this country when communications could be anonymous -- when law enforcement agencies did not have easy wiretapping access. Federal authorities always had wiretapping powers pursuant to a warrant. If you mean before that, it was also a time when limited communications forced more visible means of coordination. Consider the difference between planning a crime in a shady corner of a restaurant…

"Consider the difference between planning a crime in a shady corner of a restaurant, with potential witnesses, versus doing the same in an electronic chat room with no ability to capture the communications" I am not sure I see the difference. On the one hand, you have two people who likely have a legitimate reason to meet at a restaurant speaking quietly to each other. On the other, you have two people with a legitim…

The FBI can already do this in restaurants. They can ask the owner to tap a table (or set of tables). How many owners do you think would deny this request? This is essentially what the FBI is requesting.

The post office does allow anonymous senders, but not receivers. Mail can be intercepted, although evidence of tampering maybe harder to conceal.

Re: Is the FBI dumb, evil, or just incompetent?

#59
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was once a time in this country when communications could be anonymous -- when law enforcement agencies did not have easy wiretapping access. Federal authorities always had wiretapping powers pursuant to a warrant. If you mean before that, it was also a time when limited communications forced more visible means of coordination. Consider the difference between planning a crime in a shady corner of a restaurant…

"Consider the difference between planning a crime in a shady corner of a restaurant, with potential witnesses, versus doing the same in an electronic chat room with no ability to capture the communications" I am not sure I see the difference. On the one hand, you have two people who likely have a legitimate reason to meet at a restaurant speaking quietly to each other. On the other, you have two people with a legitim…

The difference is that if you plot a crime in a restaurant, there are potentially dozens of sources of evidence linking you to the meeting: patrons and servers might see you, security cameras might record you, people might see you drive there, a credit card bill might link you to a meeting there, etc. If the same crime is planned in a chat room, the only thing police may have to go on is logs hosted by the intermediate service provider. Technology makes the real-time communication more anonymous and less traceable than was practical in the past. Even postal mail, besides not being real-time, isn't as anonymous as electronic communications without the possibility of obtaining logs via a warrant.

The focus of privacy activists is in my opinion misplaced. People want an internet that's never monitored, never recorded, never wire-tappable. That's never going to happen, nor is it apparent that it's desirable. What we want is something that preserves the scope of investigative powers that have historically existed with the telephone system. That means robust protections against warrantless wiretaps, but also an effective way of getting access to information pursuant to court-authorized warrants.

Re: Is the FBI dumb, evil, or just incompetent?

#60
post #39

Why would the FBI be interested in social networks? I don't think criminals and terrorists communicate using Facebook.

Not true.

Can you cite any sources? I just find it implausible that anything other than petty crime would be discussed over social networks.
Post reply on HN