Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication • Hacker News Board

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#51

Post by istvan__ » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:04 PM UTC

idlewords wrote: post #33

phkahler wrote: post #12

This debate seems like a manifestation of a problem with governments: They think they can legislate anything they want. Need access to some communications - green light for massive data collection. Some of it is encrypted - just mandate a back door. School shooting - new gun laws. Any problem activity - we'll just make it illegal. Something not getting done - we'll just mandate someone take care of it. They really do…

A gun ban is a reasonable and effective way of reducing the number of school shootings, as any European on here will confirm. Not sure why you brought guns into this argument other than it being a pet issue.

Any proof? There are several countries in Europe with relaxed gun laws and we don't have too many shootings. While in Germany ("Gun legislation in Germany is considered among the strictest gun control in the world") we have seen some school shootings...

Could you back your statement with any data?

THe only thing I got proves otherwise:

http://41.media.tumblr.com/4b2648afd425728c741b77cef3ed793e/...

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#52

Post by mikeash » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:05 PM UTC

cmdkeen wrote: post #36

phkahler wrote: post #12

This debate seems like a manifestation of a problem with governments: They think they can legislate anything they want. Need access to some communications - green light for massive data collection. Some of it is encrypted - just mandate a back door. School shooting - new gun laws. Any problem activity - we'll just make it illegal. Something not getting done - we'll just mandate someone take care of it. They really do…

The problem isn't that they aren't changing anything they couldn't do before, namely reading communications, post, telephones etc have always been accessible to the state. The problem is that technology has allowed two things: a) Secure communications channels the government can't read b) The state to monitor mass communication in a way even the Stasi couldn't using humans The notion that you should be able to commun…

I don't know about this. Yes, in the past, if the government wanted to read your letters or listen to your phone calls, they usually could... if they already knew enough about what was going on.

Today, if you want to securely plan some crime, you set up PGP or whatever and use cryptography. In years past, you might have used a pay phone, or mailed a letter to a neighbor or relative. You could come up with a relatively simple code based on some book you both owned that would be effectively impossible to crack. There were lots of things you could do to avoid spying, if you wanted to.

Historically the government has not been able to automatically monitor everybody's communications if they wanted to, with just resource restrictions preventing it from happening en masse. Historically, the government has always been able to monitor communications only if the targets didn't take adequate precautions. What's changing is that the necessary precautions are simultaneously becoming much more difficult (planning your crimes on a pay phone won't save you anymore) and much easier (the crazy math needed to protect yourself is largely automated).

Really, though, I think the police should suck it up and work with it. Used to be if you wanted to tap someone's phone you'd actually go out and mess with their wires to add a physical tap. The same idea still works! Get a warrant and add a keylogger to their PC, or a microphone to their car, or whatever you need to get the info. Historically, spying on people always took legwork.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#53

Post by mikeash » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:11 PM UTC

venomsnake wrote: post #13

conover wrote: post #4

Despite the political element, there is a poor history of keeping these kind of keys/methods secret. See the AACS encryption fiasco, the cable card hacking wars over the last decade, Clipper chip mentioned in the article, etc.

I am also not sure that I want to entrust the keys to the internet to the same government that kept its nukes with launch codes of "00000000"

I don't see the connection. The all-zeroes launch code wasn't an instance of idiocy, it was a deliberate choice by military commanders who felt that codes would make things less safe, not more, because they saw the Soviets as a far greater threat than a rogue launch by their own men, whom they trusted completely. It's not like the code could be entered by random people on the street, if only they had known the power they held. You still needed physical access to the launch control rooms, which had a great deal of physical security and were always staffed by at least two people at any given moment.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#54

Post by xenophonf » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:17 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #28

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen Ghost in the Shell, although I'm not clear at what you're getting at.

One thing that stands out in my mind is the ability for someone to make himself invisible or unidentifiable to you by hacking your eyes. If someone can take control of your sensory inputs, they can put you into the "dark dream" to test, model, and eventually control your behavior. When your eyes are hackable, you cannot take the VR headset off. Even closing your eyelids won't help. Would you want anyone besides yours…

  Would you want anyone besides yourself having
  authorized access to your sensory bus?

Banks' Culture novels touch on similar topics. In Excession, a Culture warship comments how the brain-computer interface (in-universe called a "neural lace") is the most effective torture device ever devised. And in Surface Detail, a firefight turns on the fact that Culture warships write their own completely-customized operating systems, with this heterogeneity making hacking attempts more difficult and consequently less successful.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#55

Post by JupiterMoon » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:20 PM UTC

wl wrote: post #43

de_Selby wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> School shooting - new gun laws. I agree with the sentiment of your post, but as a non-American this one jumps out at me. I don't think it fits the rest of your argument, adding more control and checks for something as dangerous as gun ownership is a good thing.. in particular, it would take a lot to convince me that private ownership of assault rifles is anything but bad news. I have read some arguments about priva…

Civilians haven't been allowed to buy new assault rifles in the US since 1986. As a result of the severely restricted supply, they're very expensive and rather rare. But even before the registry was closed to civilians, registered machineguns were only used in a handful of crimes since they were regulated in 1934. In the US, there is a pattern of politicians pushing for their pet gun control measures after some mass…

NOTE I don't want to get into the politics of gun ownership. Just fact seeking.

I was under the impression that the AR-15 is very readily available? Do these not count as assault rifles?

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#56

Post by adventured » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:20 PM UTC

mattrad wrote: post #21

jebblue wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The united States isn't an empire, that's what it was formed to get away from. It's a collection of people, living in different communities called states that strive to stay united to form a more perfect union. It isn't a perfect experiment because people are not perfect but it's the best effort history has seen so far.

I suggest you read Robert Kagan's "Dangerous Nation". It skewers the idea that America is not an empire, and demonstrates that America has always been aggressively expansionist. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dangerous-Nation-Americas-Earliest-T...

The US clearly hasn't always been aggressively expansionist. It isn't today.

America has had the most powerful military on earth for 70 years, along with a large population. List all of the vast amounts of territory it has annexed using that extraordinary military power. There are endless opportunities to do so, and the US is the sole military with global projection.

Some people point to military bases. Which doesn't work in any regard. A few critical differences being: taxing power on the local population, or vast plunder. Neither of which America is known for. And US military bases around the globe overwhelmingly exist by permission.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#57

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:21 PM UTC

Crito wrote: post #41

idlewords wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A gun ban is a reasonable and effective way of reducing the number of school shootings, as any European on here will confirm. Not sure why you brought guns into this argument other than it being a pet issue.

A gun ban would not work in America, which is why he brought it up. The American public is already armed, really likes being armed, for the most part is not registered as being armed, actually truly believes that being disarmed is a prelude to genocide, and openly admit that they would use their arms against anyone who tried to take them. Remember what happened when the Federal government tried to get some farmer to…

People [from] several states away showed up with rifles

What jail sentences for terrorism offences did they recieve? Or were they shot by police? Or were they white people?

(In other countries, you can't just show up to political protests with weapons!)

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#58

Post by microcolonel » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:21 PM UTC

de_Selby wrote: post #27

phkahler wrote: post #12

This debate seems like a manifestation of a problem with governments: They think they can legislate anything they want. Need access to some communications - green light for massive data collection. Some of it is encrypted - just mandate a back door. School shooting - new gun laws. Any problem activity - we'll just make it illegal. Something not getting done - we'll just mandate someone take care of it. They really do…

> School shooting - new gun laws. I agree with the sentiment of your post, but as a non-American this one jumps out at me. I don't think it fits the rest of your argument, adding more control and checks for something as dangerous as gun ownership is a good thing.. in particular, it would take a lot to convince me that private ownership of assault rifles is anything but bad news. I have read some arguments about priva…

First of all, assault rifles are not on the open market in the U.S. and haven't been for quite some time.

U.S. armed violence has a lot more to it than the availability of weapons; statistics are easy to misinterpret as well, since they're really just the proportion of violent crimes that are committed with one particular tool.

Here in Canada, we have higher instance of violence with knives, but unsurprisingly almost the same proportion of violence with guns, despite fairly hefty controls.

The U.S. really just seems to have more violent crime in general than many other countries, and my understanding is that this has been true since well before anyone else had harsh restrictions on the legal ownership and use of firearms.

> I have read some arguments about private protection against excessive government excesses, but I don't really buy it.

The theme of the article is these excesses; if you're not making the connection here, you're never going to make it. Also, incidentally, that's the reason it's in the constitution; I hear that it's an important document over there, but what would I know?

The other good reason for widespread private ownership of firearms is protection against occupation by an invading force, which history has shown to be an unpopular tactic; though perhaps this is not comparable. IIRC the imperial Japanese even stated this as why they weren't interested in occupying U.S. soil.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#59

Post by oconnore » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:22 PM UTC

wl wrote: post #43

de_Selby wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> School shooting - new gun laws. I agree with the sentiment of your post, but as a non-American this one jumps out at me. I don't think it fits the rest of your argument, adding more control and checks for something as dangerous as gun ownership is a good thing.. in particular, it would take a lot to convince me that private ownership of assault rifles is anything but bad news. I have read some arguments about priva…

Civilians haven't been allowed to buy new assault rifles in the US since 1986. As a result of the severely restricted supply, they're very expensive and rather rare. But even before the registry was closed to civilians, registered machineguns were only used in a handful of crimes since they were regulated in 1934. In the US, there is a pattern of politicians pushing for their pet gun control measures after some mass…

Yeah, I wish we would stop pushing for assault weapons bans and instead push for a similar sort of safety and usage training, psychological and temperament screening, waiting period, and background checks that a police officer might go through before they are presented with a gun and a badge (that may even be an opportunity to re-think the sort of training we give our police!).

It would be costly, but that sort of licensing, even if done rather clumsily, would make it far more difficult for the wrong people to acquire weapons, while staying in line with the 2nd amendment and preserving gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

Oddly, the NRA seems more even more opposed to licensing than they are on restricting magazine capacity. Maybe they agree that it would be [too] effective!

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#60

Post by JupiterMoon » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #35

de_Selby wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> School shooting - new gun laws. I agree with the sentiment of your post, but as a non-American this one jumps out at me. I don't think it fits the rest of your argument, adding more control and checks for something as dangerous as gun ownership is a good thing.. in particular, it would take a lot to convince me that private ownership of assault rifles is anything but bad news. I have read some arguments about priva…

I think this comes down to the difference between banning things that nobody really wants (lead in paint) versus things that people really want (drugs, alcohol). In America, guns are in the second category. Politicians think encryption is in the first category. Edit: given how this discussion is going, I think we're back to the idea that encryption should be classified as a weapon in the US and subject to second amen…

> Politicians think encryption is in the first category.

This -- until people realise that their online banking is not secure without encryption. That puts it firmly into the second category for many people.

(It's my experience that people are more worried about their money than their dick pics.)