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

Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 148 posts

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#111

Post by judk »

datashovel wrote: post #109
nsnick wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you are saying is that Obama is supporting surveillance in the hopes that we will oppose it because he supports it? I think you are giving him too much credit. There aren't many policies that all politicians can agree on, but spying on citizens seems to be one of them. This is a great example of how Obama can do no wrong.

Time will tell, but my previous comments are my initial reactions in a nutshell :) The scary thing will be if he actually acts on this.

Obama has run the NSA for 6 years, shielding them from prosecution or even censure for their crimes.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#112

Post by judk »

pakled_engineer wrote: post #54
SixSigma wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who exploded the first car bomb in front of J.P.Morgan didn't use encryption. Timothy McVeigh didn't use encryption. 9/11 Hijackers didn't use encryption. 7/7 Bombers didn't use encryption. Boston Bombers didn't use encryption. Can you see where this is going ?

The Charlie Hebdo attackers used regular cell phones, and they were on security watch lists, and Algerian officials claimed to had sent warnings about them. The gunman in Canada who tried to shoot up Parliament openly posted his plans and talked to jihadi sympathizer accounts on Twitter in the open. He was also on watch lists and had his passport pulled for trying to go to Syria. One of the Boston bombers was on a wa…

The 9/11 hijackers were on watch lists and immigration violations.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#113

Post by judk »

16bytes wrote: post #50
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…

Technology marches inexorably forward. These algorithms already exist in unbroken form. What the government is doing is mandating that Apple and Google make user's data less secure. The government will claim that any such backdoor will only be openable by them and only in cases of great need (read terrorism). What will happen is that non-governmental organizations will find these keys and get the same ability. What w…

Please stop the silly argument that encryption is just math. Shooting a gun is just physics, and killing someone is just biology. That is no defense.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#114

Post by judk »

jrs235 wrote: post #22
prawn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically, one adversary was someone now honoured with a US public holiday, right?

First thought was Columbus. That didn't seem to fit. Then came Martin Luther Kng Jr. Is that who you had in mind?

Correct. The FBI's original mission was to investigate citizens who opposed the politics of the individuals in executive office.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#115

Post by woodman »

datashovel wrote: post #71
datashovel wrote: post #68

This is absolutely terrifying. You can't use "the way things currently are" to argue for giving governments access to personal data. You have to think about, and protect "the way things might end up". How easy do you want to make it for corrupt government leaders to suppress opposition?

with regard to snuffing out terrorist plots, this (in my mind) needs to be a collective effort. Government is not the only entity that should be responsible for preventing terrorism. The way I see it, it's the only way to keep governments from becoming the omniscient creatures they strive to be. By making it a world-wide collective effort to work to prevent terrorism. The moment you make it entirely the government's…

That statement is wrong regardless of how you feel about the state, which is an impressive achievement. If you are of the "consent of the governed" mindset, then the government is the "collective effort". If you recognize the fact that your consent is not asked or required for governance, than you also likely recognize the fact that the state will continue to expand - as that is the nature of bureaucracies.

I can only think of one area that the state leaves alone, religion, it has its finger in every other pie. What are you actually suggesting, that companies should voluntarily be backdooring software and handing over keys to the government? Or are you suggesting that they should be monitoring all their customers and informing on them, in the attempt to preserve privacy?

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#116

Post by PostOnce »

yuubi wrote: post #76
nlh wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent points. Thanks. First let me clarify that I agree the notion of "banning encryption" is misguided and wrong. I'm looking at Obama's position (perhaps incorrectly) as "we need to be able to have backdoors", not "ban encryption". I think the government's argument would be that yes, the most sophisticated adversaries will always find a way around monitoring. But I think they'd argue that 95% of adversaries are…

> "we need to be able to have backdoors", not "ban encryption" They can't reliably have backdoors without banning crypto that lacks it.

Yes they can. Not a crypto backdoor, an OS backdoor. It's easier.

If I install a keylogger on your computer, it doesnt matter what encryption you're using, I can just type in your password. That kind of backdoor.

Go for the weakest link in the chain.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#117

Post by datashovel »

woodman wrote: post #115
datashovel wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

with regard to snuffing out terrorist plots, this (in my mind) needs to be a collective effort. Government is not the only entity that should be responsible for preventing terrorism. The way I see it, it's the only way to keep governments from becoming the omniscient creatures they strive to be. By making it a world-wide collective effort to work to prevent terrorism. The moment you make it entirely the government's…

That statement is wrong regardless of how you feel about the state, which is an impressive achievement. If you are of the "consent of the governed" mindset, then the government is the "collective effort". If you recognize the fact that your consent is not asked or required for governance, than you also likely recognize the fact that the state will continue to expand - as that is the nature of bureaucracies. I can onl…

I definitely wouldn't say I am certain I have a foolproof answer, otherwise the solution would probably already be apparent. What I am saying is, certainly, the problem is a difficult one.

I think the idea behind '1984', the book, (before I understood what terrorism was) only seemed a flippant idea propositioned as the plot of a fictional book. Surely no human being would ever consciously choose to govern the world (or their nation) in such a way, and even so they would likely be cut off early in the process if they tried.

Now with more life experience and knowledge of the current state of the world, I can only reason that '1984' makes complete and total sense once the concept of "terrorism" is understood to be the catalyst of such a movement.

Here are some basic scenarios:

1) Terrorism scares citizens and thus, as a knee-jerk reaction, wish to empower their government with omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent powers. The kinds of powers that any subsequent (corrupt) government could easily take advantage of.

2) Terrorism scares citizens, and as such citizens decide to be proactive to collaborate with their government to help prevent terrorists from causing harm to their nation and to make them as effective as they can possibly be, while at the same time working to preserve basic human rights such as the right to privacy.

3) Terrorism scares citizens. Knowing that entrusting their government with the kinds of powers they would need in order to act against terrorism would be overreaching, as such citizens decide their government should have no such powers and decide not to give their government God-like powers, while also deciding not to collaborate and blaming all failures on their government, and so citizens continue to live in a world of constant alertness and fear worrying that their next trip to the city could be their last...

Just like the Goldilocks fairy tale, I think the world is not looking for a solution that is "too hot" or "too cold". Rather we're all looking for the solution that is "just right". The specific solution I can't say I have the answer, but with continuous iteration and improvement I'm certain smart people can come to a sane (but more than likely imperfect) solution that does not violate any single group and their goals / objectives / rights. And at the same time does not necessarily handicap future generations with rules and regulations that are almost insurmountable should they find themselves ruled by a corrupt / power-hungry government.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#118

Post by quintinoliver »

SixSigma wrote: post #24
tuna-piano wrote: post #19

My biggest issue with all this is that when you give them the power to take away rights to prevent terrorism or protect children, the government will use their powers wherever convenient. For example, the patriot act has been used in 1,618 drug cases and only 15 terrorism cases[1]. It has also been used for everything from copyright violations to Las Vegas money issues[2]. 1. (2011) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blog…

B.B.C. used Anti terror Laws to catch license fee dodgers http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northe...

I have a question to anyone living in the UK: how much do you pay per month/year for this license fee?

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#119

Post by runeks »

snowwrestler wrote: post #90
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 corre…

> They could pass a law that mandates stiff penalties for people who decline to provide their encryption password in the face of a warrant.

It's interesting though -- or scary, even -- that this would mean forgetting the password to an encrypted volume could land you in jail. You don't have the means to prove you're innocent (by providing the password and revealing the data), and because of this you're thrown in jail.

It doesn't seem fair to me. Basically, the authorities are saying "we claim you have illegal encrypted data on that disk". If you cannot prove to us that you don't, you're going to jail. The outcome of this is that even a suspicion can land you in jail. It's on you to prove you're innocent, not on the authorities to prove you're guilty.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#120

Post by runeks »

skuhn wrote: post #107
andrewflnr wrote: post #60

“We expect companies to be able to help with this,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that you always have to write bad cryptography.” Yes, actually, that's exactly what it means. What in the world is this author doing giving the NSA the last word? What's really sick is that it sounds reasonable, like he's exposing a false dichotomy. But is it so hard to see that it's actually a real choice?

The former NSA lawyer sort of has a point, but he is over simplifying in order to mislead. The first option is to use provably broken cryptography, like 512-bit export grade RSA, that the government can just bust whenever they feel like it. Of course, so can pretty much anyone else, so this offers almost no protection. The second option is to use secure cryptography, like 2048-bit RSA, that is thought to be difficult…

> A good example is iMessage's use of device keys for parties of a conversation, without the use of a central key that lives on Apple's servers. They cannot be compelled to turn over the master key, and no one can steal the key either.

I'm not intimately familiar with the security of iMessage, but Apple controls the key server, as far as I understand. Can't law enforcement just compel Apple to make their key server respond with a public key owned by the NSA, instead of the public key of whichever device wants to receive the secret information?

Post reply on HN