How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages • Hacker News Board

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#101

Post by dang » Sun, Jun 11, 2017, 8:33 PM UTC

diego_moita wrote: post #45

bitJericho wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't want guns, maybe you should repeal the second amendment instead of ignoring it. Same goes for the first.

This made me laugh: as a non-American I am so happy that my country is civilized enough to not to have a "second amendment".

Insulting other nations as uncivilized is one of the worst things you can do in an internet flamewar, where by 'worse' I mean 'producing more of the same, only more so'. We ban accounts that comment like this, so please don't do it again.

More generally, please don't post unsubstantive comments. The combination of uncivil+informationless is particularly toxic.

Upvoters: if you upvote this kind of thing, eventually your upvotes will not count.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#102

Post by justinclift » Sun, Jun 11, 2017, 9:34 PM UTC

One thing that seems to be left out of most discussions around this, is "proof of sender" would likely be compromised.

For example with PGP/GPG, if some "magical" approach was added so messages could be intercepted and then decrypted and read by intelligence/law-enforcement/(etc), it seems feasible those same people may be able to spoof the sender's signature.

eg create falsely signed, encrypted messages that verify as being from the real sender. Extremely good for blackmail/framing/similar. :(

It would depend upon the capabilities of the "magical" implementation approach of course, but it fits the scenario. PGP/GPG is regarded as pretty strong, but SSL/TLS certs already aren't so seem like they'd be much more prone to this.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#103

Post by Thiez » Sun, Jun 11, 2017, 10:04 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #101

diego_moita wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This made me laugh: as a non-American I am so happy that my country is civilized enough to not to have a "second amendment".

Insulting other nations as uncivilized is one of the worst things you can do in an internet flamewar, where by 'worse' I mean 'producing more of the same, only more so'. We ban accounts that comment like this, so please don't do it again. More generally, please don't post unsubstantive comments. The combination of uncivil+informationless is particularly toxic. Upvoters: if you upvote this kind of thing, eventually yo…

> Upvoters: if you upvote this kind of thing, eventually your upvotes will not count.

Wait, how does that work? Does HN track upvotes for posts disliked by the mods, and somehow penalize the associated accounts?

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#104

Post by Thiez » Sun, Jun 11, 2017, 10:57 PM UTC

roughcoat wrote: post #68

Thiez wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's about having a monopoly on security and force, so the populace will be less independent and easier to manage. Having an entity with a monopoly on violence is like half the point of a government. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

Uh huh. Have you studied the genocides of the 20th century? How does a disarmed and helpless populace look in those circumstances? And since you think the government should be trusted to mete out all force, I'm certain you'll have no trouble handing the government all your passwords and keys, right? Maybe mail them a copy of your car keys and house keys too, since they're so trustworthy? You trust them to protect you…

> And since you think the government should be trusted to mete out all force, I'm certain you'll have no trouble handing the government all your passwords and keys, right? Maybe mail them a copy of your car keys and house keys too, since they're so trustworthy?

> You trust them to protect your physical safety, to protect your life, if you're willing to hand over your right to self protection. Surely you then trust them with your data and property?

I don't think that's the same thing at all. I trust my parents with my life, but I wouldn't want them to read my online conversations. They don't have a key to my house, nor the passwords to my computer and various accounts, and I'd like to keep it that way. I see no contradiction here.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#105

Post by badminton1 » Sun, Jun 11, 2017, 11:38 PM UTC

bitJericho wrote: post #82

badminton1 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that this time the difference between a regular army and a militia would be far beyond just the color of their coat. Having weapons at home can barely counter law enforcement, let alone a professional military force. This time there's more technology supporting each area of warfare: logistics, reconnaissance, equipment, vehicles... A militia, however organized, has everything to lose against an regular army in…

Guerilla warfare... without guns? You're exactly right, "Your only chance to win would be insurgency or guerrilla warfare." but I'll add "with guns."

Good luck shooting at an Apache helicopter with a mounted minigun with your semi-automatic gun.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#106

Post by bitJericho » Mon, Jun 12, 2017, 1:06 PM UTC

badminton1 wrote: post #105

bitJericho wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guerilla warfare... without guns? You're exactly right, "Your only chance to win would be insurgency or guerrilla warfare." but I'll add "with guns."

Good luck shooting at an Apache helicopter with a mounted minigun with your semi-automatic gun.

That argument would be much more effective if we didn't have groups like ISIS taking the piss out of the US.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#107

Post by gleenn » Wed, Jun 14, 2017, 5:12 PM UTC

angry_octet wrote: post #24

ENGNR wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's saying they'll use warrants... issued by Brandis. Which is the same as no warrants from a 'judicial vs government' point of view.

Yep, Brandi's is as slimy as they come.

Sad to hear. Do you think he's actually going to hand-approve all the warrants? Hopefully it's still better than what the USA had with all the warrantless phone data aggregation.