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

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 222 posts

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

#91

Post by Canada »

jakeogh wrote: post #68
wl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Universal background check" is code for registration: http://cqrcengage.com/azcdl/UBC Hand your rifle to a friend in Washington state? That's a (unconstitutional) felony.

This is how it is in Canada, and it sucks.

Some rifles are classified as unrestricted don't have to be registered, while other rifles which accept the exact same rounds and magazines are classified restricted. Licenses must be obtained to even move them, let alone lend, give, or sell to someone else.

At least advances in manufacturing technology will make this nonsense impractical eventually.

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

#92

Post by Nrsolis »

oconnore wrote: post #59
wl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

"Psychological and temperament[sic] screening?"

Unless you have a foolproof method of determining criminal behavior a-priori OR you're fromthe department of pre-crime, how exactly do you expect this to work in practice?

I think many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of the enumerated rights of the amended Constitution. I don't need permission to exercise any of those rights and they AREN'T granted by the government, only recognized by it.

I don't need a First Amendment license. Why would I need a Second Amendment license?

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

#93

Post by michaelt »

mc808 wrote: post #37

"Michael S. Rogers, the director of the N.S.A., has proposed that technology companies be required to create a digital key that could unlock encrypted communications, but divide and secure the key into pieces so that no one person or government agency could use it alone." Conveniently, Microsoft has a patent on just that. http://www.google.com/patents/US8891772 Michael S. Rogers should disclose any financial interest…

Shamir's Secret Sharing was published in 1979. I would be surprised if Microsoft has a monopoly on it, given that patent was published in 2011.

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

#94

Post by jackgavigan »

mc808 wrote: post #37

"Michael S. Rogers, the director of the N.S.A., has proposed that technology companies be required to create a digital key that could unlock encrypted communications, but divide and secure the key into pieces so that no one person or government agency could use it alone." Conveniently, Microsoft has a patent on just that. http://www.google.com/patents/US8891772 Michael S. Rogers should disclose any financial interest…

There are other ways of achieving this, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir%27s_Secret_Sharing

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

#95

Post by saiya-jin »

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…

I am not american either, so what? you completely disregard that any handgun, including these mythical "assault rifles" (which is stupid term by definition, it's usage which defines purpose, so why there aren't any assault pistols?) is just a tool, needing a trained hand to be used. as described below, automatic weapons are not purchasable for civilians, only their modified versions that allow single shot per trigger pull, thus making them effectively small caliber hunting rifles. If you need those, only with special hard-to-get permits, or you need to join the army (and kill few poor people for free)

if you want to stop some crazy people killing with these "assault guns" (why not called home defense guns?), you should focus on removing given dangerous individual from society, and not trying remove their access to weapons. Anything can be used to kill, including scissors, saw, pipe, baseball, knife or just good old pure hands. with current logic, all these things should get outlawed too. No statistics in hand, but I am damn sure the amount of people killed by legally purchased "assault rifles" compared to say hit & run with cars is neglible. with similar logic I say ban cars! (and it would do so much good in other ways...)

P.S. one last thing - pro-gun-ban people completely disregard gun shooting as a means for hunting and as a fun activity at range. Many weapons, including mentioned AR-15 (civilian version of popular M16) will never be shot outside shooting range. Why use higher caliber guns instead of some puny .22? Because it's more fun!

Ah wait, we're talking maybe to same people that banned almost harmless marihuana and happily kept tobacco and alcohol roaming free on markets...

DISCLAIMER: I never owned any handgun that would require any form of registration, yet before having strong statements about what should/shouldn't be banned, I at least educate myself. Gun ban laws are, apart for some corner cases, just pure crowd idiocy and hypocrisy.

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

#96

Post by delinka »

EGreg wrote: post #87

How would they feel if China and Russia was given the same backdoors? What would they legislate then? It's not as if internet traffic can be quarantined.

Can't it? The Great Firewall is a shining example.

(all irony intended.)

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

#97

Post by dpeck »

jessaustin wrote: post #72
JupiterMoon wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

(It's my experience that people are more worried about their money than their dick pics.) For one thing, most people have at least some money, while the desire to photograph one's genitals (and especially, after having done so, to keep the results private) is relatively rare.

honestly, with the economy as it is today and the growth of social media based image/sexting/hookup services I'd argue the opposite is true.

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

#98

Post by pjc50 »

freehunter wrote: post #89
pjc50 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!)

Other countries don't have that right enshrined in their Constitution. America does, so of course they wouldn't be hit with terrorism charges, Race doesn't matter here. You can show up to the airport with a gun, and as long as you don't threaten anyone or try to get through the security checkpoint, you won't be arrested. If you are arrested, the arrest will be thrown out of the court. Americans have the explicit righ…

My oblique point was that "not-overtly-threatening manner" is very subject to racist interpretation. There have been a number of well publicised incidents of black Americans being shot dead due to being wrongly percieved as threats, such as http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/cops-shoot-and-kill-man-holding-t...

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

#99

Post by girmad »

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…

Legislators job is to legislate, so this makes sense. Making laws IS the only tool at their disposal.

Of course when you're dealing with a hammer, everything will look like a nail.

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

#100

Post by pjc50 »

Crito wrote: post #63
pjc50 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!)

> "What jail sentences for terrorism offences did they recieve? Or were they shot by police?" I think you know the answer to that. The answer is kind of my point, isn't it? These people are dangerous to push around because they have guns. They realize this. They are not going to relinquish that leverage without a fight.

These people are dangerous to push around because they have guns

This works until a politically opposing group shows up with guns as well.

Would you argue that the group most subject to being pushed around by the state in the US - young black men - would be better off arming themselves?

Post reply on HN