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

A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 282 posts

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#121

Post by hyperliner »

privacy101 wrote: post #115
jacquesm wrote: post #101

So, here's my take on all this 'surveillance is good for you'. It more or less proves (to me at least) that the government(s) and the various secret services have absolutely no idea who to monitor specifically. So instead of targeting their operations they want to monitor all of us, just in case something of interest pops out that then allows them to focus their attention. It's a pretty scary thought: just imagine, a…

they would be better off trying to stop what causes these terrorists from wanting to attack us...

They want to attack you because you are an infidel and therefore not a human. It's just rational in their caveman minds.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#122

Post by nickpsecurity »

jacquesm wrote: post #101

So, here's my take on all this 'surveillance is good for you'. It more or less proves (to me at least) that the government(s) and the various secret services have absolutely no idea who to monitor specifically. So instead of targeting their operations they want to monitor all of us, just in case something of interest pops out that then allows them to focus their attention. It's a pretty scary thought: just imagine, a…

Great writeup. On top of it, the terror attacks are extremely rare because most people have no interest committing mass-murder and the few that do rarely have motive/opportunity. So, refusing to be terrorized remains the best bet.

Far as intelligence agencies, they've not just failed: they've often tried to cover it up, mislead other authorities, or even destroy evidence. The result of incompetent organizations not capitalizing on what they have even when it's obvious should be a net reduction of power and increase of accountability. Instead, they always ask for and often get the opposite.

The technically literate of us following the details should just keep reiterating to anyone that will listen the key detail: almost everyone whose launched an attack did it while already being under surveillance. It doesn't work. End of story.

Note: If it did, they just go back to doing what pro's already are in using human go-betweens and other low-to-no-tech methods like Osama did for years to dodge NSA. They didn't get him until someone tipped them off for the bounty per Hersh.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#123

Post by fweespeech »

alkonaut wrote: post #100
fweespeech wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So politicians and intelligence services calling for encryption want, institutionally, to keep people safe. How can tech companies do that without breaking or backdooring encryption? That's the real problem to solve, and the first person to figure out how to do that will be way ahead. Its not a tech problem or a solvable problem in the way you imply. It sounds reasonable but it is like solving lightning strikes. Yo…

I don't think it's entirely irrational to throw money at counterterrorism that could have saved more lives elsewhere. However I do think that the money is better spent on prevention (integration, aid, ...) than on war. People aren't scared of dying in traffic or by a preventable medical error. Maybe they should, but they aren't. Those risks are real, but they don't affect how people go about their lives. Terrorism is…

> People aren't scared of dying in traffic or by a preventable medical error. Maybe they should, but they aren't. Those risks are real, but they don't affect how people go about their lives. Terrorism is a tiny risk of death but an enormous cost in terms of percieved safety.

The perception stems from the difference in media coverage and political grandstanding imho.

At least you have a legitimate objection, I just don't agree with it.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#124

Post by mc32 »

woah wrote: post #102
mc32 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea, it's an opinion, however, many nations have suppressed many other nations and it's historically atypical for the aggrieved to lash out to others of indirect involvement. Have Congolese (after the conflict ended) gone and bombed Belgium, or why not Albania, who had no relation to Belgium's involvement?

It's not about some abstract historical notion of right and wrong. The US has created an environment that fosters terrorism. Whether this is wronger or righter than any historical colonialism by other countries is completely irrelevant. We've created "the YC for terrorists" in the countries we have smashed in the Middle East, and now there is a lot of terrorism.

Ok, so what makes the ME react differently to meddling compared to SE Asia?

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#125

Post by nickpsecurity »

Retra wrote: post #79
iamsohungry wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So politicians and intelligence services calling for encryption want, institutionally, to keep people safe. How can tech companies do that without breaking or backdooring encryption? That's the real problem to solve, and the first person to figure out how to do that will be way ahead. I don't think this is a technical problem, and I don't think it's our responsibility to solve it. If the US wants to stop terrorism…

The US doesn't have to be harming countries to be the target of terrorists, it only has to be thought to. So unless your alternative is for the US to go out there and forcibly quell all dissenting speech... People are good at having enemies, whether they deserve them or not. There are people who would kill me right now having done nothing particularly wrong. There are even places where it is legal and encouraged to d…

Yet, most democracies aren't being massively targeted by terrorists. Largely just those involved in imperialism or regions contested by imperialists. jacquesm's comment is spot on.

Additionally, notice that what jacquesm said is never brought up in these debates much like what U.S. did in Operation Ajax or sanctions that followed wasn't factored into recent Iran debates. Much easier to pretend all this stuff happens in a vacuum that requires a surveillance or police state. Which doesn't work anyway:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591617

https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_b...

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#126

Post by vacri »

Spearchucker wrote: post #112
jacquesm wrote: post #101

So, here's my take on all this 'surveillance is good for you'. It more or less proves (to me at least) that the government(s) and the various secret services have absolutely no idea who to monitor specifically. So instead of targeting their operations they want to monitor all of us, just in case something of interest pops out that then allows them to focus their attention. It's a pretty scary thought: just imagine, a…

You nailed it, I think. If surveillance works, then Paris, Beirut, Bagdad et al wouldn't have happed. Realizing it's a pipe dream, I'd love to see a world accept that we the west have done so much damage that nothing will stop terrorism. Accepting that means we can throw those wasted resources at things that have a better chance of working - throw the tech that detects copyright infringements at detecting pro-ISIL si…

It's not that "we have done so much damage", it's just that terrorism exists, full stop. Europe has a long history of home-grown terrorism - Paris in particular had a lot of various groups attacking it in the 80s, for example. The US has it's own home-grown terrorism as well, the stereotype being the KKK.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#127

Post by dplgk »

slg wrote: post #120
richdougherty wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good analogy, but the padlock has already bolted! Information about the uncrackable padlock is widely available. Bad guys will always be able to get these padlocks from the black market. The question is whether we want the good guys (i.e. us) to have the padlocks too.

This is a fair counter, but I feel like we already have examples of how the government would respond there. We might have to switch analogies, but wouldn't encryption then be like a weapon. The goal would then shift to being about deproliferation. The fact that nuclear weapons or AK47s already exist doesn't prevent the government from preventing regular people from acquiring or using them. Maybe preventing new produc…

The terrorists will use encrypted, unbreakable methods no matter that Google or Apple use is their OS. That's really the only point that matters.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#128

Post by nickpsecurity »

russnewcomer wrote: post #8

Encryption backdoors are a lightning-rod topic on HN, but instead of repeating all the common-talking points, I'd suggest the following: Think through something like this, outside of your expertise, that you think the powers-that-be should just do. Maybe it's something with your local municipality's approach to road resurfacing, maybe it's the quarterback on your favorite football team, maybe it's your local zoning b…

"So politicians and intelligence services calling for encryption want, institutionally, to keep people safe. How can tech companies do that without breaking or backdooring encryption? That's the real problem to solve, and the first person to figure out how to do that will be way ahead."

That's the problem: they can't. The tech just moves information around in ways that are visible and can be invisible. Even the subtle timing of the signal can be used to communicate. What you're asking is that tech companies do two things:

(a) Ensure every tech with communication mechanisms can only work in a way known perfectly ahead of time and controlled to prevent all leaks.

(b) Ensure that every message, regardless of its words or properties, isn't aiding evil somewhere.

(c) Ensure that it's impossible for a user to put obstacles between their identity and a communication tech so we know exactly who the evil-doer was.

That's simply impossible. It can't be done at all. Talking about lay terms, North Korea has the most totally controlled Internet and country locked down by both technology and terror. Possession of a cell phone can get you locked up and leaving can get them after your family. Yet, there's regularly communication from small numbers of courageous people coming out of that country. If that ideal surveillance setup won't work, how on Earth could any tech accomplish the same thing with the diversity of sites, language, interactions, and tech that exist in Western countries like America?

It just can't because it can see bits and read the minds/hearts of those that create them. That's what the government wants. It's not possible. Otherwise, they'd probably have eliminated most crime already looking at people's homework in school or text messages divining their character. ;)

Also, the problem's been known so long there's even a meme for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#129

Post by sliverstorm »

oppositelock wrote: post #26

Back doors are very useful to tracking down tax evaders, political opponents or dissenters, or any other number of things which increase government revenue or power. Terrorism is just one excuse used to justify the rest of it. Crypto backdoors will be mandatory one day, it's inevitable.

I like how we are lumping together tax evaders and political opponents, as if it was equally wrong to apprehend both.

Re: A Back Door to Encryption Won't Stop Terrorists

#130

Post by nickpsecurity »

mike_hearn wrote: post #66
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is extremely unlikely to be only "keeping people safe". Why do you say this? It seems you are accusing parent of making a big leap in logic and then doing the same type of leap yourself. Do you have any evidence that they want to do more than keeping people safe? I've worked with and talked to many who work in the DoD space and while there were some who didn't seem to understand how technology worked I never met…

There is certainly such evidence, you don't even need it really as it's literally in the mission statement of some of these intelligence agencies: they do anything that is "in the national interest". Yes, keeping people safe is clearly in the national interest, but many other things are too, hence the fact that GCHQ has spied on climate change talks, trade deals, attempted to influence online discussions, the NSA has…

Exactly. Remembering all their extra goals and schemes they've used to achieve them helps keep things in perspective. I've had success presenting it to lay people as a bait and switch showing all the crap they do then what they say. Hardliners swallowing tons of propaganda will usually disagree and back their media's claims no matter what. Yet, many people are receptive to this technique.

Bonus points if you show the risk to them personally: makes them most likely to act against it politically. :)

Post reply on HN