Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight • Hacker News Board

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#81

Post by xnull1guest » Sun, Jan 18, 2015, 3:48 AM UTC

ibejoeb wrote: post #79

"If we find evidence of a terrorist plot…" Have I missed something important? Is there a case, or even evidence of one, wherein encryption was a factor in a plot coming to fruition? If there had been, I would have expected the Obama, Cameron, et al., to trot it out. Are we legislating this just in case? Strong encryption is already out there. I suppose if we make it illegal, the terrorists will just have to make do w…

It is not about terrorism - it is that technology like this threatens the current level of the capability of the state to enforce its laws. Imagine instead the use of encryption among the financial elite to conspire to defraud speculation markets or manipulate stock prices. Or enemy states using encryption to thwart espionage attempts. Or insurgents and soldiers engaged with US troops around the world to organize efforts to put up resistance.

Remember that Julius Caesar famously sought to make pen and paper illegal because he saw such low barriers to fast potentially secret communication a threat to Rome's security.

I know of no case reasonably called terrorism where encryption played a role in thwarting intelligence efforts.

> I suppose if we make it illegal, the terrorists will just have to make do with weak encryption.

When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#82

Post by spiralpolitik » Sun, Jan 18, 2015, 3:48 AM UTC

0942v8653 wrote: post #55

alextgordon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BBC isn't run by the government, it's run by the state.

U.S. citizen here—what's the difference?

In the past the BBC has been somewhat anti-establishment especially during the Thatcher years. Recently its been a bit more pro-establishment especially as the BBC's charter is to be renewed in 2016 and during which issue of funding will come up.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#83

Post by icelancer » Sun, Jan 18, 2015, 3:50 AM UTC

How can people still side with major party candidates after Obama's power grabs? So frustrating.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#84

Post by diminoten » Sun, Jan 18, 2015, 3:52 AM UTC

Well what he actually said was that if the US government has a warrant, they shouldn't be stopped by encryption.

And if the company is a US company, who would disagree with that?

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#85

Post by icelancer » Sun, Jan 18, 2015, 3:55 AM UTC

andreasvc wrote: post #67

imaginenore wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will force them to create a backdoor. Just like they did with Microsoft's products.

They have offices in other country, e.g., Switzerland. Couldn't they avoid having to create backdoors by running the service in question from there?

Absolutely not. No first world country would host it, especially one that has strong ties to the US like Switzerland now does. This isn't the 1960s.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#86

Post by snowwrestler » Sun, Jan 18, 2015, 4:05 AM UTC

ibejoeb wrote: post #79

"If we find evidence of a terrorist plot…" Have I missed something important? Is there a case, or even evidence of one, wherein encryption was a factor in a plot coming to fruition? If there had been, I would have expected the Obama, Cameron, et al., to trot it out. Are we legislating this just in case? Strong encryption is already out there. I suppose if we make it illegal, the terrorists will just have to make do w…

Terrorist plots in general are not talked about publicly. As frustrating as that might be, the absence of mention from top government officials is no indication at all of whether something was or was not involved in a plot (terrorist, criminal, etc.)

Typically the only terrorist plots you'll hear about publicly are the ones that have to be public--either because of a public warning (even then, typically extremely vague), or because the break-up happened in a public way.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#87

Post by spiralpolitik » Sun, Jan 18, 2015, 4:07 AM UTC

So its Crypto Wars 2. There are two possible ways this will play out:

a) Obama is just being polite given that "Call me Dave" is in town and has an election to fight so he can't been seen as being soft on terrorism. He knows that its highly likely that Cameron will be out of a job in six months time so is just stringing him along.

OR:

b) The fix is in, a tame lawmaker will drop a bill that they just happened to have prepared that was sitting in their drawer for a rainy day. Given the Republican's have never met a national security bill that they didn't like expect it to pass through the house and senate with the usual added pork and pardons for the NSA/CIA to make sure nobody goes to jail for recent revelations (Democrats being too chicken to filibuster).

If we don't see a huge outcry from the tech industry pointing out what an insanely bad idea this is on Tuesday then I fear for the future.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#88

Post by snowwrestler » Sun, Jan 18, 2015, 4:14 AM UTC

smtddr wrote: post #46

nlh wrote: post #10

Allow me to ask what I'm certain is an incredibly naive question, so please bear with me. But it's a question that the average / non-tech folks ARE asking, and I'm not looking to be attacked, I'm looking for an intelligent answer (or corrections if my assumptions are wrong.) Base scenario: We have adversaries. Our adversaries are plotting something objectively bad - to blow up things and kill innocent people. They ar…

I find it works best to use something the "Average/non-tech" person will surely understand: "What if there were cameras in your house that recorded everything you did & said, but the government promised you the footage would only be reviewed in the case that they suspect you committed a crime. How would you feel about that?" I've gotten a lot of mileage from this metaphor myself. The response is usually silence while…

This metaphor has worked well for me too, to show people that they already expect there to be limits on what the government can do to keep people safe--even though they might have not have realized it.

So it's good as a throwaway metaphor for illustrating that concept, but it's not great for arguing against surveillance, because Internet traffic is not the same thing as getting dressed every morning. Most people get a lot less worked up about email and web surfing than being naked.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#89

Post by smtddr » Sun, Jan 18, 2015, 4:18 AM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #88

smtddr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it works best to use something the "Average/non-tech" person will surely understand: "What if there were cameras in your house that recorded everything you did & said, but the government promised you the footage would only be reviewed in the case that they suspect you committed a crime. How would you feel about that?" I've gotten a lot of mileage from this metaphor myself. The response is usually silence while…

This metaphor has worked well for me too, to show people that they already expect there to be limits on what the government can do to keep people safe--even though they might have not have realized it. So it's good as a throwaway metaphor for illustrating that concept, but it's not great for arguing against surveillance, because Internet traffic is not the same thing as getting dressed every morning. Most people get…

Cool, a counter. Perhaps I'll modify it to only be multiple microphones.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#90

Post by snowwrestler » Sun, Jan 18, 2015, 4:23 AM UTC

spiralpolitik wrote: post #87

So its Crypto Wars 2. There are two possible ways this will play out: a) Obama is just being polite given that "Call me Dave" is in town and has an election to fight so he can't been seen as being soft on terrorism. He knows that its highly likely that Cameron will be out of a job in six months time so is just stringing him along. OR: b) The fix is in, a tame lawmaker will drop a bill that they just happened to have…

There are a fair number of Republicans who would oppose this sort of thing (as many did last time). The most prominent might be Rand Paul, who is a serious prospect for the GOP presidential nomination.

But look at what just happened with civil forfeiture; pressure on the administration came from Republicans and Democrats alike. Republicans like to feel privacy from the government too. It just needs to be framed correctly; "imagine if someone like Lois Lerner had a backdoor to every conservative group's email server," or something like that.

And there are other routes they could take with legislation besides global key escrow. They could pass a law that mandates stiff penalties for people who decline to provide their encryption password in the face of a warrant.