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

Encryption Is Not a Crime

privacyguides.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 222 posts

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#131

Post by 15155 »

loftsy wrote: post #25
ivl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The arguments are mostly that they dislike what can be accomplished via math. “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia” isn't exactly an 'argument' so much as an insistence. The article does address the flaws in some of their arguments (encryption inconveniences law enforcement, think of the children) by pointing out that the average person and…

You can make gun fairly easily with what can be accomplished with a CNC machine. It is still illegal.

> It is still illegal.

Not in the vast majority of the United States.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#132

Post by wulfstan »

ziddoap wrote: post #100
wulfstan wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then setup the system to be more analogous. Make the publication of key issuance under this mechanism public after a period of time. Again, I see us falling back into an "all or nothing" view of privacy and I just don't think those are the only options.

> Then setup the system to be more analogous. Make the publication of key issuance under this mechanism public after a period of time. That (somewhat, barely) addresses one of ~dozen issues with the proposal. > Again, I see us falling back into an "all or nothing" view of privacy Not to be too pedantic, but I think the distinction between privacy and encryption is incredibly important: almost everyone agrees that pri…

I get the hostility towards it - as I've said elsewhere, it's practically an article of faith in our community that strong encryption == unalloyed good. And clearly it needs a lot of thinking to address potential abuse. But we've done it for other things.

> Not to be too pedantic, but I think the distinction between privacy and encryption is incredibly important: almost everyone agrees that privacy is a gradient. The disagreement is whether or not encryption can be a gradient. Most people do not think it can reasonably be without undermining ~everything relying on it.

That is a fair criticism. I would answer that by saying that encryption is just a technology, and you can employ it in very flexible ways (including e.g. n-of-m style keys) which if thought through well and legislated carefully could give the authorities more reasonable access to data when it is legally warranted.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#133

Post by markhahn »

socalgal2 wrote: post #73
9rx wrote: post #14

> It's not a crime to lock your home's door for protection, why would it be a crime to lock your digital door? A locked home's door is still trivially opened. You can pick the lock or even apply simple brute force, neither of which all that difficult, and open happily it will. Similarly, I don't suppose anyone would be concerned about you using rot13 encryption. If a home could be sealed to the same degree as strong…

That analogy breaks because a home's locked door as the constaint that it can effectively only be visited by someone coming to that door physically. On the internet, multiple crimimals can attack all doors at all times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPBH1eW28mo

This!

Scalability is the crux of why encryptions must not be infringed.

The claim that LEOs need to break encryption is based on laziness: they want to easily obtain access to communication, and at scale. They've always been able to obtain communication the hard way, and one-at-a-time - encryption doesn't change that.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#134

Post by giantg2 »

hilbert42 wrote: post #75
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Americans still believed in American freedoms Encryption is free association and free speech. Talking to someone about what I like without eavesdroppers Transitioning gender is also free speech, freedom of expression. Presenting how I like and not how some wannabe king wants me to

"I wish Americans still believed in American freedoms" Yeah, as someone who's viewed America from the outside for decades tragically it's no longer the country I once knew.

I think this is a perception formed by media biases. Pretty much any right or freedom evaluated on an individual basis will show that rights and freedoms have expanded (at least up to a few months ago). Many of the negative things being done today have been done in one form or another for a generation or two. I'm not saying that they're right or shouldn't change, just that the perspective of eroding freedoms or right is generally not true outside of business regulations.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#135

Post by kortex »

15155 wrote: post #120
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Americans still believed in American freedoms Encryption is free association and free speech. Talking to someone about what I like without eavesdroppers Transitioning gender is also free speech, freedom of expression. Presenting how I like and not how some wannabe king wants me to

> Transitioning gender is also free speech, freedom of expression. Is a legal requirement for others to affirm this expression also "free speech?"

Has there been a single instance where someone faced legal repercussions for not affirming someone's gender?

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#136

Post by procaryote »

wulfstan wrote: post #29

Playing devil's advocate here... What is wrong with: * an expiring certificate * issued by the device manufacturer or application creator * to law enforcement * once a competent court of law has given approval * that would allow a specific user's content to be decrypted prior to expiry There are a million gradations of privacy from "completely open" to "e2e encrypted". Governments (good ones!) are rightly complaining…

This requires the device manufacturer to have the capability to decrypt the data (to be able to do so when all this process is properly observed)

If they have the capability to decrypt the data, a court can compel them to do so, disregarding the process you suggest. A cyberattack could achieve it without a court order.

This can't be solved technically.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#137

Post by 1970-01-01 »

ziddoap wrote: post #30
loftsy wrote: post #15

Something is a crime if society determines that it should be so. Nothing more. Clearly the pressure on government to write these laws is coming from somewhere. You should engage with the arguments the other side makes.

> You should engage with the arguments the other side makes. The arguments are "Protect the children.", "Catch terrorists.", "Catch criminals.". Those arguments have been engaged with for decades. They are purely emotional arguments. Anyone who still pushes those arguments forth is most likely doing so with ulterior motives and cannot be reasonably "engaged" with.

Let's not ignore the full history here. That is a bad faith argument. It was a crime to use expensive encryption 30 years ago, but a lot of decisions were made to allow it. Today, every single one of those old caveats about child porn, drugs, money laundering, terrorism, (both domestic and international) and criminal acts in general all have stories where weaker encryption would have saved hundreds and hundreds of lives. We have to recognize this or we're just arguing past each other.

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/encryption-techno...

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#138

Post by wulfstan »

inglor_cz wrote: post #83
wulfstan wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every system of authority carries with it the risk of abuse; but we still accept legitimate authorities carrying out breaches of personal privacy for the sake of law enforcement - the warrant system being the obvious one. That's part of the compromise we make in society. Good governments ensure that a breach of personal privacy has to travel through a legitimate process with an independent judiciary to limit the risk…

Do you think that this can be done without introducing massive security weaknesses into systems that cannot have them? Also, there is a question if you believe the authorities that without decrypting data, they can't investigate crimes. Imagine an analogical assertion that without torturing suspects, law enforcement is stymied. Someone might assert that, but we still say no, for all sorts of fundamental reasons. Same…

> Do you think that this can be done without introducing massive security weaknesses into systems that cannot have them?

Yes, I do - or rather, that is the point of the discussion. We currently allow central authorities to indicate our permission to do or be something in the root certificate system. Why can't something similar be designed to allow controlled decryption?

> Also, there is a question if you believe the authorities that without decrypting data, they can't investigate crimes.

Clearly there are circumstances in which being able to decrypt the data of a criminal would assist in prosecuting crime. See EncroChat for an example of how this has worked.

> Imagine an analogical assertion that without torturing suspects, law enforcement is stymied. Someone might assert that, but we still say no, for all sorts of fundamental reasons. Same with American Miranda rights and others.

Yes. Clearly there are reasonable limits that need to be applied before we can allow controlled decryption of data. I am not arguing for issuance of a master key. See my original post.

> Myself, I don't believe in that assertion at all. Most crimes leave a massive real world trace that cannot be encrypted. The ones that don't, maybe should not be crimes in the first place.

Some do, and some don't. Things like e.g. cryptocurrency heists have profound effects, and are propping up North Korea. Those are definitely crimes...

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#139

Post by 15155 »

jaxn wrote: post #90

I believe encryption is the most important 2nd Amendment issue of our time, but I never see it framed that way.

Because SF-dwelling tech bros demand free speech but can perform the necessary mental gymnastics to overlook the right to manufacture and possess technology that has existed for over a century.

See also: the ACLU.

Re: Encryption Is Not a Crime

#140

Post by Retr0id »

markhahn wrote: post #112
Retr0id wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also, unfortunately, not literally/universally true. There are plenty of jurisdictions and contexts in which it is a crime.

Which were you thinking of? I can imagine Iran has some effort to discourage use of VPNs, though of course everyone does. I thought China simply made it easy to stay within the Great Firewall, and moderately difficult to get out.

There's a decent overview here: https://www.gp-digital.org/world-map-of-encryption/
Post reply on HN