Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight • Hacker News Board

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#141

Post by 16bytes » Sun, Jan 18, 2015, 10:48 PM UTC

judk wrote: post #113

16bytes wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To take your argument further, it's not the equation of the A-bomb, it's the implementation? That's somewhat compelling.

But, at least in the US, firearms aren't illegal. Using them in a crime is the illegal part. The biological act of moving your arm isn't illegal, but hitting somebody is.

The analog would be making it illegal to form a fist because you might use it to attack something.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#142

Post by skuhn » Mon, Jan 19, 2015, 6:47 AM UTC

runeks wrote: post #120

skuhn wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

Yeah, that is my main worry about their strategy as well. A public key server and visibility into the keys selected for a conversation could solve this, but the usability cost would be gigantic.

I think it's pretty tough to make something elegant and simple without centralization, but hopefully it will happen some day.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#143

Post by dllthomas » Mon, Jan 19, 2015, 7:19 AM UTC

woodman wrote: post #139

dllthomas wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a "consent of the governed" mindset, government is one kind of collective effort. There are collective efforts that are not "a part of government", and certainly there is a difference between individual action and further empowering police or the armed services. From a pure "the government will expand regardless and pay no heed to anything the populace does or says" standpoint, there's not much point in discussi…

> ...government is one kind of collective effort. Why duplicate effort? It isn't as if competition in the effort would improve state service, as it is impossible to compete against the state - it really doesn't like it. > ... privately limiting terrorism might help ... You do know that terrorism is an incredibly rare event, right? I am confident that any sort of effort, either by the state or by private initiative, w…

You seem to be thinking of this as a parallel military/policing effort. I was thinking individual/social. Things of low cost, and hopefully with other benefits - such as keeping community members feeling engaged and included, providing an environment conducive to less violent memes, things of that vein...

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#144

Post by woodman » Mon, Jan 19, 2015, 8:47 AM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #143

woodman wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...government is one kind of collective effort. Why duplicate effort? It isn't as if competition in the effort would improve state service, as it is impossible to compete against the state - it really doesn't like it. > ... privately limiting terrorism might help ... You do know that terrorism is an incredibly rare event, right? I am confident that any sort of effort, either by the state or by private initiative, w…

You seem to be thinking of this as a parallel military/policing effort. I was thinking individual/social. Things of low cost, and hopefully with other benefits - such as keeping community members feeling engaged and included, providing an environment conducive to less violent memes, things of that vein...

No, I've set no constraints on private efforts. Things of low cost quickly become very expensive (in both time and money) when multiplied by the size of the population, or the number of cities, or whatever other base you're imagining. I've not yet heard an actual suggestion though.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#145

Post by dllthomas » Mon, Jan 19, 2015, 6:31 PM UTC

woodman wrote: post #144

dllthomas wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be thinking of this as a parallel military/policing effort. I was thinking individual/social. Things of low cost, and hopefully with other benefits - such as keeping community members feeling engaged and included, providing an environment conducive to less violent memes, things of that vein...

No, I've set no constraints on private efforts. Things of low cost quickly become very expensive (in both time and money) when multiplied by the size of the population, or the number of cities, or whatever other base you're imagining. I've not yet heard an actual suggestion though.

The goal is not, primarily, "reduction of terrorism because terrorism is first-order a significant problem we need to deal with". Terrorism is first-order a tiny problem; reducing it is good, but not worth tremendous expense. But the second-order effects of overreaction to terrorism can be existential threats.

I think a multi-pronged approach is necessary. First, continuing to spread the word that the first-order effects are not so severe - you're helping, there. Second, trying to capture any over-reaction in a non-privileged sphere (and trying to multi-purpose it - medical first-response built in case of terrorism also helps with heart attacks and pandemic). Third, reducing instances of terrorism to be over-reacted to, insofar as it's reasonable.

People will respond more positively to the second point if it credibly has some impact on the third.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#146

Post by woodman » Mon, Jan 19, 2015, 7:07 PM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #145

woodman wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I've set no constraints on private efforts. Things of low cost quickly become very expensive (in both time and money) when multiplied by the size of the population, or the number of cities, or whatever other base you're imagining. I've not yet heard an actual suggestion though.

The goal is not, primarily, "reduction of terrorism because terrorism is first-order a significant problem we need to deal with". Terrorism is first-order a tiny problem; reducing it is good, but not worth tremendous expense. But the second-order effects of overreaction to terrorism can be existential threats. I think a multi-pronged approach is necessary. First, continuing to spread the word that the first-order eff…

lol, imagine what you just described in a state machine. The hypothetical program is billed as an anti-terrorism measure, with a stealth payload to reduce irrational fear of terrorism. Those without the irrational fear will resist program implementation, as will those positively influenced by the program. At best the program would arrive at a fluctuating state of half implementation. This also would only ever be a private effort, as it would completely undermine the goals of the state.

I think the best we can hope for is free, high quality, approachable instruction in propositional logic. Now we only need to get people interested in PL... maybe sponsored product placement of SWI Prolog on daytime TV? :)

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#147

Post by intangible » Mon, Jan 19, 2015, 8:50 PM UTC

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 can only think of one area that the state leaves alone, religion

I actually wouldn't say that... Consider how we've munged together religion and laws relating to Marriage.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#148

Post by dllthomas » Wed, Jan 21, 2015, 3:40 PM UTC

woodman wrote: post #146

dllthomas wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal is not, primarily, "reduction of terrorism because terrorism is first-order a significant problem we need to deal with". Terrorism is first-order a tiny problem; reducing it is good, but not worth tremendous expense. But the second-order effects of overreaction to terrorism can be existential threats. I think a multi-pronged approach is necessary. First, continuing to spread the word that the first-order eff…

lol, imagine what you just described in a state machine. The hypothetical program is billed as an anti-terrorism measure, with a stealth payload to reduce irrational fear of terrorism. Those without the irrational fear will resist program implementation, as will those positively influenced by the program. At best the program would arrive at a fluctuating state of half implementation. This also would only ever be a pr…

Actually, reducing irrational fear of terrorism can reduce incidence of terrorism - as terrorism becomes a less effective tool it will be employed less. "Refuse to be terrorized" isn't a bad meme.

Beyond that, one doesn't need to fear the first-order effects of terrorism in order to support such a program. Fearing damage done by undirected (or maliciously directed) overreaction to terrorism is plenty.

"This also would only ever be a private effort, as it would completely undermine the goals of the state."

I'm not convinced the state is quite that monolithic, but I think this is likely better as a private effort anyway.