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

Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

lavabit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 321 posts

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#211

Post by Zigurd »

dllthomas wrote: post #203
Zigurd wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But surely we can all agree there exist circumstances under which some lawful intercepts are justified Perhaps, but there are means of communication that are impervious to interception, and that cannot be compromised the way Lavabit might have been. Should such technologies be outlawed?

Impervious?

Sure: Strong encryption and ephemeral keys.

The only thing to do in that situation is to compromise one of the communicating parties. If the communicating parties have arranged a safeword to signal they have been compromised, even that technique is useless.

In the case of Snowden and Greenwald, that wasn't going to happen.

It is possible to make storage and communication immune to surveillance. So I ask: should that be illegal?

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#212

Post by jervisfm »

When I viewed this page running Chrome (Version 30.0.1599.88 beta) on a ChromeOS device I did not get any warnings.

Interestingly, when I used chrome on my Win8 PC (version 29.0.1547.76 m), I did see the warning pop up.

Doing some quick searching online revealed that chrome does not appear to do online revocation checks any longer by default[1]. You can still manually turn it back on with the "Check for server certificate revocation"[2] option which is what I did.

[1] - http://www.macworld.com/article/1165273/google_chrome_will_n...

[2] - chrome://settings/search#revocation

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#213

Post by rtpg »

pyre wrote: post #164
trippy_biscuits wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you defend yourself against a rogue government? Furthermore, who gets to define when a government becomes rogue? All definitions aside, how do you defend yourself from a large, well-funded organization that's determined to do what ever it wants to you? Fair laws? The fact that someone else decides what's right and wrong means we've already lost.

Surely we've found that using technical means to thwart a large, well-funded organization that is targeting you is useless.

Sorry, but is this sarcasm?

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#214

Post by balabaster »

MustBeAShill wrote: post #156
lettergram wrote: post #83

I've read quite a few complaints about the government on this post. My suggestion is to simply do something. You have (a) the ability to vote, so stop voting in Republicans OR Democrats (both equally as bad) OR even run yourselves. (b) send a letter to your representative, they occasionally will read the mail, plus you at least can vent your frustration at someone who CAN do something.

Or run for office yourself. I would vote for a centrist candidate that offered a bill that declared email as sacrosanct as a telephone call or postal mail.

The only issue with running yourself is that you need enough funding to generate more propaganda and PR than the cartel you're up against... and you forget that lobbyists run your country anyway. Don't delude yourself into thinking that your vote actually means anything. That "democracy" you think you live in is theatre designed to make you feel cosy and warm, just like the TSA does when they "protect" your air travel. It's all just a sham to keep you and everyone else from rocking the boat too much.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#216

Post by Zigurd »

jasonlotito wrote: post #181
mburns wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His argument is clearly that people have a right to privacy. It says so in his next sentence. The 'no, sorry' is him discarding the emotional plea that often justifies invading a person's privacy in the first place ("please, won't somebody think of the children!").

> His argument is clearly that people have a right to privacy. Except there is no right to engage in total privacy. There is a right against unreasonable search and seizure. But that's hardly a right of total privacy. Maybe his argument is that he thinks people should have a right to total privacy?

> Except there is no right to engage in total privacy.

There is, in practice, an absolute right to privacy. If you combine strong encryption with plausible deniability, you can reliably secure information from law enforcement. There is nothing anyone can do to access it against your will. You can always make the plausible claim the information does not exist and/or is inaccessible to you.

So, should strong encryption be outlawed?

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#217

Post by jasonlotito »

jlgreco wrote: post #204
jasonlotito wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. He's making an assumption. He's assuming I think privacy should be restricted to select mediums, which is not the point of my comment. It would be the same thing as me asking you or him why you want to assist child rapists or people killing other people? And yes, it might be a bit pedantic, but I'm tired of these childish games on HN.

You could have just answered "I don't think that." Or, you know, given me the exact response you just typed.... It really was not my intention to ask you a loaded question. Instead of calling my question childish, you should consider the possibility that your comment is not nearly as clear as you seem to think.

I explained exactly why wasn't going to answer your question in my response.

"That's a loaded question and I'm not going to play that game"

I picked the words carefully and precisely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

> you should consider the possibility that your comment is not nearly as clear as you seem to think.

I realize that people might not be native english speakers. I make the assumption people will ask if they are unsure or not clear. You made no indication you were either. Another commenter was not clear, and so I clarified.

If you didn't find it clear, why didn't you ask for clarification on why I thought it was a loaded question? Or, what I meant by calling it a loaded question?

> It really was not my intention to ask you a loaded question.

But you did. And I explained as much, and left it at that.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#218

Post by joe_the_user »

MustBeAShill wrote: post #155
joe_the_user wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" It's a shame the government didn't work with Levison to either allow Levison to add the requested intercept himself (which, yes, would have required Uncle Sam to trust him) or to allow a third-party (or even a third party requested from both sides) to audit the proposed interception code. " No - it is a plan that the government doesn't work with service provider and instead demands data and intercepts that "just ha…

> No - it is a plan that the government doesn't work with service provider and instead demands data and intercepts that "just happen" to let them spy on an entire network. It's interesting that you attack the FBI when you hear them make an unsubstantiated claim, but you have no problem repeating claims you heard on internet forums. When you make claims like this with certainty, it weakens your position and reveals th…

Wow, just wow,

Mr. "Shill".

I hope that any careful reader notices your entire post actual has no relation at all to the text my post above it (FBI unmentioned, while I'm sure they make unsubstantiated claims, I'm not commenting on the state's claim above, those "Internet forum" apparently exist in your imagination only too, etc). Such a reader might also notice your post follows a rather predicable rhetorical strategy. Perhaps there is an experiment going on.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#219

Post by kordless »

polarix wrote: post #191
jasonlotito wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a loaded question and I'm not going to play that game.

That's a perfectly reasonable question, actually. One possible answer is that communicating on the internet requires the use of a physical commons, which one could reasonably argue carries either innate restrictions or restrictions legitimately imposed by the owners of said infrastructure.

Nobody owns the Internet. If company X stops running their part of it, it will continue to exist. You point is still valid if you consider an entity needs to govern the commons and apply restrictions where it's deemed in the interest of the greater good. I'm just not 100% that's the government.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#220

Post by abalone »

mburns wrote: post #190
abalone wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, what about the children? Serious question. I say it's an incomplete argument because there is no mention of how we should go about prosecuting child pornographers and terrorists, rescuing missing persons when phone/email records are our only clue, and so on. There's just "no, sorry", the right to privacy trumps these things under all possible circumstances. The question remains.. why? Why is a world with ideall…

We should prosecute crimes the way we always have: presumed innocence until proven otherwise with evidence. A right to be able to communicate privately doesn't make Plain Old Telephone calls not be easily traced, or make the police useless. How about this example, to clarify the issue: However pedophiles (or terrorists) get their content, be it a darknet site or the sneakernet, under the 5th amendment a person can re…

> presumed innocence until proven otherwise with evidence.

That's exactly the problem. Lawful surveillance is one of the most fundamental means of gathering evidence. If you take away that, then in a lot of cases you take away the ability to prove guilt.

You offer no support for the claim that police would be useful in a world where all telecommunications are impenetrably encrypted with no means for lawful intercept. If "Plain Old Telephone calls" are the only interceptable means of communication by police, then you might as well rename them the "Plain Old Police", since they would be largely ineffective.

I have not argued for rescinding any rights whatsoever. It is you, I would argue, who is arguing for rescinding the police, which are an essential part of a lawful society.

The flaw in your reasoning is that while individuals are protected from self-incrimination, no such right extends to third parties. Nor should it. The 5th amendment does make it harder for police to prosecute people, but with the power to compel other people to testify, to have service providers turn over records and surveil with proper judicial oversight, and so forth, it has been judged over the centuries to be a fair balance of powers.

To block all police power to surveil under any circumstances would substantially cripple their ability to gather evidence.

And so the question remains: If you feel lawful intercept of communications is never justified, how would one go about gathering evidence of a largely communications-based crime such as child pornography or plotting a murder?

Post reply on HN