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

Illegal Math

blog.prakashvenkat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–106 of 106 posts

Re: Illegal Math

#101

Post by [deleted] »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #96
marcosdumay wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hum, no, math and chemistry are simply different on that. Math can not harm anybody because math isn't real, it's speech (yes, maybe except for psychological harm). Chemistry is quite real. Anyway, I don't see merit on the author's argument. It's true, but useless. The discussion is about protected speech and evidence gathering, nobody is claiming cryptography directly harms people.

I can assure you that math is most certainly real. Just because you can't hit a head with it doesn't mean something isn't real.

[deleted]

Re: Illegal Math

#102

Post by AnimalMuppet »

natch wrote: post #68
tptacek wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand where the sentiment is coming from, but the point you are making here is incoherent . Your argument is literally this: people need encryption so that they can conceal evidence of crimes . I think next time you pose this argument, you should remove the bit about how your actions might be illegal in some jurisdiction or other. It isn't doing the work for you that you think it is.

Ugh, I have a bad typo in the first line, and unfortunately can no longer edit: "not math" should have been "just math." But that doesn't seem to be what you're remarking on. I'm not sure what you see as the problem with my argument. Some people, if private messages were read by people around them or by their local law enforcement, could be sentenced to death, in certain jurisdictions. For "crimes" like being Christi…

I don't speak for tptacek. But I think his point is that you're making the wrong argument. You're arguing that people should be able to conceal the evidence of crimes, because things that shouldn't be crimes are crimes in some jurisdictions. If you remove the last part (which tptacek said wasn't doing the work for you that you thought it was), then all you're left with is that people should be able to conceal the evidence of crimes. That's... not a convincing argument under current circumstances. Yes, there are people who are being prosecuted for things that, morally, shouldn't be crimes. But the current encryption battle is in the US, and most Americans perceive those "shouldn't be crimes" situations to be in other countries "way over there somewhere". They don't want murderers, rapists, and pedophiles in their neighborhood to get away with crimes due to encryption, and they're more worried about that then they are about homosexuals under ISIS. So it's a bad argument, politically, because it reduces political support for encryption rather than increases it.

Instead, you need to argue that completely innocent people need encryption, and you need to explain why they need it.

Re: Illegal Math

#103

Post by rtpg »

marklgr wrote: post #67
rtpg wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mechanical and automatic nature of evidence gathering is a real difference, and goes well to argue against NSA-style warrantless crawling. I think for warrants, though, we're looking at a different beast. By their nature they are targeted. And people have been compelled to provide passwords in the court of law(See [0]). The right against self-incrimination is relatively narrow, so as to not hinder the government'…

> And people have been compelled to provide passwords in the court of law You can have encrypted data that accept two different passwords, producing different decrypted data of your choice. This is like the 2nd code that mute the home security alarm when you are forced to do it, but still calls the police.

If you do that, and police have any evidence at all that you do this,then its useless from a legal perspective.

The courts will demand for both passwords or you'll get some nice sentencing for contempt of court.

Of course you could not tell anyone but that's a dangerous game.

Re: Illegal Math

#104

Post by tptacek »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #102
natch wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, I have a bad typo in the first line, and unfortunately can no longer edit: "not math" should have been "just math." But that doesn't seem to be what you're remarking on. I'm not sure what you see as the problem with my argument. Some people, if private messages were read by people around them or by their local law enforcement, could be sentenced to death, in certain jurisdictions. For "crimes" like being Christi…

I don't speak for tptacek. But I think his point is that you're making the wrong argument . You're arguing that people should be able to conceal the evidence of crimes, because things that shouldn't be crimes are crimes in some jurisdictions. If you remove the last part (which tptacek said wasn't doing the work for you that you thought it was), then all you're left with is that people should be able to conceal the ev…

You did a better job with that point than I did.

Re: Illegal Math

#105

Post by natch »

tptacek wrote: post #104
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't speak for tptacek. But I think his point is that you're making the wrong argument . You're arguing that people should be able to conceal the evidence of crimes, because things that shouldn't be crimes are crimes in some jurisdictions. If you remove the last part (which tptacek said wasn't doing the work for you that you thought it was), then all you're left with is that people should be able to conceal the ev…

You did a better job with that point than I did.

Thanks to AnimalMuppet and thanks for confirming that this is what you meant.

I understand what you are saying, and it's a good point for the current case, for a discussion with the general (non-techie) public. I'll keep that in mind.

Quoting AnimalMuppet:

>If you remove the last part ... then all you're left with is that people should be able to conceal the evidence of crimes.

OK, that is precisely why I did NOT remove the last part, and it's precisely why the last part is important. The part about other jurisdictions having (sometimes) laws we might not all approve of.

So, what I think I'm getting from you (you two) is that most people will just snip that last part off in their minds, and they'll be left with something they would never agree with. OK, fair enough, and thanks for pointing it out.

Sometimes I think the general public wonders what the hell Apple's problem is, and why would they place SUCH a high value on (what is perceived as simply) privacy.

My point about other jurisdictions is also just my own speculation on what kind of issues Apple is thinking about, in addition to the fundamental insecurity of effectively having a back door. It may not be a large part of their thinking, or maybe it is, I can see it both ways... On the one hand Tim is a corporate man, and on the other hand he's also running a company that goes out on limbs for corporate [edit: and social] responsibility.

Re: Illegal Math

#106

Post by natch »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #102
natch wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, I have a bad typo in the first line, and unfortunately can no longer edit: "not math" should have been "just math." But that doesn't seem to be what you're remarking on. I'm not sure what you see as the problem with my argument. Some people, if private messages were read by people around them or by their local law enforcement, could be sentenced to death, in certain jurisdictions. For "crimes" like being Christi…

I don't speak for tptacek. But I think his point is that you're making the wrong argument . You're arguing that people should be able to conceal the evidence of crimes, because things that shouldn't be crimes are crimes in some jurisdictions. If you remove the last part (which tptacek said wasn't doing the work for you that you thought it was), then all you're left with is that people should be able to conceal the ev…

The word secrets wasn't intended to imply a criminal secret. But then the sentence after that (in my message) made it sound like that's exactly what a secret was. Yeah, I see the problem.

>Instead, you need to argue that completely innocent people need encryption, and you need to explain why they need it.

This makes sense, yes. The obvious answer being safety from bad guys who might gain illicit access to information that allows them to do harm.

Post reply on HN