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

131–140 of 282 posts

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

#131

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. :)

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

#132

Post by nickpsecurity »

kobayashi wrote: post #98
coldtea wrote: post #15

How about this: we assume terrorists can fucking talk covertly whenever they like (since there are myriads of channels and codes that they can use) and that mass surveillance is not the way to catch them plotting their next act. And from then on, ONLY use surveillance on specific targets under investigation. And while at it, maybe even have a limit on the number of targets each agency can investigate, so they chose t…

>And while at it, maybe even have a limit on the number of targets each agency can investigate, so they chose them wisely. This is an insanely bad idea. I understand where you're coming from, but think about how that would play out in real life. I was going to write it out, but I really think that you can probably figure it out if you do think it through. From the perspective of the intel/policing agency, and from a…

How about actively at one time if not in general? I think if you think through it you can figure it out. Just start with all the terrorists and crooks they already had red flags on but did nothing. Then, look at what excuse they make about connecting the dots in so much data. Then look at the two obvious solutions:

(a) Magic, AI, pixie dust tech that spots the evil, relationships, and all key information in nearly unlimited, streaming data.

(b) Eliminating bulk collection (except maybe metadata) while forcing them to focus on the results of targeted investigations on accounts or individuals. Also, forcing them to follow-up on solid, red flags rather than BS around trying to find reasons everyone else might be guilty.

I think pushing for option B is a rational choice. Also, ensuring the greatest accountability possible given all the main players have a history of using their police and intelligence for matters that have nothing to do with protecting citizens.

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

#133

Post by semi-extrinsic »

hyperliner wrote: post #121
privacy101 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that was it, why are these terrorists not attacking Armenia? Or Zambia? Or Mexico? Or pretty much anywhere in Central and South America?

All those have a higher percentage of Christians in their populations than the US or anywhere in Western Europe, and they don't have the same level of anti-terrorism focus so are presumably easier targets.

Could it simply be that those countries haven't been bombing and invading places in the Middle East?

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

#134

Post by tareqak »

mc32 wrote: post #124
woah wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My first attempt at an answer would be the breadth and depth of the meddling involved.

That being said, could you provide examples as to how the Middle East has reacted to meddling as opposed to South East Asia?

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

#135

Post by rnovak »

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…

The only thing that can prove or disprove anything is the abundance of information, which we don't have.

We have no idea how many attacks have been prevented (everyone likes to claim this is zero....but they do so without any evidence to support that, as relevant information is surely classified beyond Top Secret).

We have only the slightest, tiniest, smallest idea of what the NSA and other intelligence organizations are capable of.

British intelligence took how long to tell people that they cracked enigma? 50 years?

Out of the THOUSANDS of documents that Edward Snowden leaked to reporters, the public has access to what? on the order of 50?

Yeah....we know nothing...so saying one way or the other is kind of ridiculous at this point.

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

#136

Post by nickpsecurity »

coldtea wrote: post #15

How about this: we assume terrorists can fucking talk covertly whenever they like (since there are myriads of channels and codes that they can use) and that mass surveillance is not the way to catch them plotting their next act. And from then on, ONLY use surveillance on specific targets under investigation. And while at it, maybe even have a limit on the number of targets each agency can investigate, so they chose t…

That's the kind of shit you'd expect a group of intellectuals to put on parchment or something. Maybe even found a country bound to such principles in some covenant between the people and its government. Maybe we need to look into creating something like that given I haven't noticed one around in North America lately.

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

#137

Post by serge2k »

slg wrote: post #83
lholden wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best backdoor to encryption has always been social. Talk the right way to the right people... and it doesn't matter what type of security you have. Isn't that the entire purpose of agencies like the CIA? It just bothers me when privacy is treated as a negative thing, for the greater good or not. Encryption is a tool to create privacy. The ability to create privacy should be a point of pride as not everyone has th…

Except encryption provides a level of privacy that has never before been possible. Could you imagine a physical padlock that was unable to be cracked, cut, or circumvented in any way? It is easy to see how that would scare law enforcement. Imagine your job is to keep people safe. Now envision a kid strapped to a bomb inside a shack and the only thing preventing you from breaking in and saving that kid's life is that…

>Except encryption provides a level of privacy that has never before been possible

Not really. It secures long distance communication, but I've always had the option of just talking to someone privately if I want something to be secret.

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

#138

Post by privacy101 »

jacquesm wrote: post #118
privacy101 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's a long term plan. People are clamoring for action 'now' and want this to end preferably next week. To tell them that there is no 7 day solution to this is going to be a very tough sell.

perhaps it would be hard to sell it, unless it is being sold as the only way to truly put the brakes to the trend (if there is actually an upward trend).

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

#139

Post by serge2k »

jacquesm wrote: post #92
refurb wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who exactly enforces the UN's Declaration of Human Rights? Without power to back it up it means nothing.

Technically, each and every one of the UN member states should back these up.

Didn't they put the Saudi's in charge of that?

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

#140

Post by jdoliner »

pera wrote: post #4

> but debates about whether the technology should have a "back door" for intelligence services are heating up again What "debates"? there is absolutely nothing they can do to enforce terrorists to use backdoored encryption, any debate is just a waste of time, money, and maybe even lives. What are they thinking??

This is the thing I don't get at all about this debate, non backdoored open source encryption tools already exist and have for a while... you can't backdoor them because it'd be obvious from looking at the source that something fishy is going on. Are we just hoping that terrorists won't find out about these technologies?
Post reply on HN