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

11–20 of 148 posts

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#11

Post by prawn »

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…

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

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#12

Post by duaneb »

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…

> How are we supposed to prevent them from doing these bad things?

Well, we might not be able to. Such is the price of liberty. Personally, I think the thousands that died in the trade centers do not justify the massive loss of civil liberties, and it's STILL not clear we would have been able to do anything about it.

Bad guys are going to use encryption no matter what. Citizens should not be restricted from using it themselves just because it makes it easier on the federal government.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#13

Post by runeks »

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…

> How are we supposed to prevent them from doing these bad things?

Are we necessarily able to prevent these bad things from happening? Right now, we aren't able to entirely stop crime from happening. Why would we necessarily be able to stop these types of crimes from happening?

It's all a question of whether we want to give up certain freedoms in exchange for increased safety (or sense of safety).

It's not very complicated, it's just a balance of one thing (freedom) versus another (safety). Different people will value these two things differently, and I'm not sure I can make an argument that choosing safety over freedom is necessarily a "bad" choice.

That being said, I'm not in favor of the government banning private communication. But I understand that there are people who are, and their reasoning.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#14

Post by pgeorgi »

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…

How are we supposed to prevent adversaries from making their communications impossible to intercept?

It's not like knowledge about cryptography suddenly vanishes. And it's not like those computers aren't annoyingly programmable to do such evil deeds like encrypting data in a way that officials can't access it.

Given that, what's this all about? Governments could mandate key escrow (which is what I guess they're really aiming for) for any system under their control. So adversaries build their own, in Excel using VBA, if necessary.

There is no way to honor that demand by the US and UK governments unless computers become a _much_ different thing than what they're now.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#15

Post by tuna-piano »

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 think that in this case what makes your story incorrect is that banning encryption software will only prevent normal every day people from using it. With the vastness of the internet, there is no way for any government to prevent encrypted communications from any determined individuals.

All they can end up doing is preventing the everyday users of the mass services from using encrypted transmission. So the innocent lose freedoms but the guilty carry on as normal.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#16

Post by d23 »

dllthomas wrote: post #9
bhhaskin wrote: post #5

George Orwell's 1984 should be a required reading for high school students. Not just in the U.S., but world wide. It really highlights just what dangers come from the idea that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, and the sheer amount of power and influence a global, instantaneous, and always on intelligence network can have over the population.

I've started to think that the focus on 1984 is harmful. For one, fiction is not evidence. Using it as such is poor reasoning. For another, I've seen a reaction of "that's just fiction, it wouldn't actually happen" distracting from the important points.

I've started thinking it's harmful because it gets brought up in every damn debate as though just making reference to it is enough to signal that you have thought critically about the issue.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#17

Post by nlh »

duaneb wrote: post #12
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…

> How are we supposed to prevent them from doing these bad things? Well, we might not be able to. Such is the price of liberty. Personally, I think the thousands that died in the trade centers do not justify the massive loss of civil liberties, and it's STILL not clear we would have been able to do anything about it. Bad guys are going to use encryption no matter what. Citizens should not be restricted from using it…

This is a great reply. Thank you.

My thoughts based on it:

1) It's a tough sell to Average Joe. Average Joe wants it both ways - he wants Liberty AND to be protected from bad guys. Obama etc. were effectively hired to protect Average Joe from the bad guys. If Obama were to say "Sorry guys, we can't protect you in the name of Liberty", he's going to be eviscerated.

2) Agreed completely that banning encryption is foolish. I think what they really want is NSA-style backdoors - "encryption for everyone except us." And of course I see the concern with that.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#18

Post by pgeorgi »

bhhaskin wrote: post #5

George Orwell's 1984 should be a required reading for high school students. Not just in the U.S., but world wide. It really highlights just what dangers come from the idea that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, and the sheer amount of power and influence a global, instantaneous, and always on intelligence network can have over the population.

Reality isn't 1984. Reality also isn't Brave New World (and we're amusing ourselves to death). It's bits and pieces of both of these and much more.

So yes, reading 1984 is beneficial. Only reading 1984 is not.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#19

Post by tuna-piano »

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/blogs/worldviews/post/patriot-...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_th...

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#20

Post by flycaliguy »

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'm wondering if your implication that these interceptions are in fact one of our most valuable tools is true.
Post reply on HN