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

151–160 of 282 posts

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

#151

Post by jbarham »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #133
hyperliner wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

These countries have negligible numbers of Muslims.

There have been multiple Islamic terrorist attacks in Tanzania (which borders Zambia) and Kenya, both of which have significant Muslim minorities. Not to mention the frequent attacks by Boko Haram et al in Nigeria and the perpetual civil war in Somalia, which is overwhelmingly Muslim.

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

#153

Post by awakeasleep »

rnovak wrote: post #135
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…

Sort of the invisible unicorn argument. I can't really say how many invisible unicorns are in the room with me right now. Could be dozens, if they're small, quiet, and quick to get out of the way.

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

#155

Post by dionidium »

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...

You want to remove the terrorist impulse from all of humanity forever? That's...ambitious.

But let's take at face value that that's possible, you'd still have to assume that all terrorists have a) some rational set of demands; and b) even if they did, that we'd be willing to meet those demands.

What ISIS believes is incompatible with Western democracy. There is nothing we could do to eliminate their desire to attack us that wouldn't mean our own destruction, anyway.

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

#156

Post by dionidium »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #133
hyperliner wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why do you think you know more about why Al Qaeda and ISIS attack the West than Al Qaeda and ISIS? They have explicitly and repeatedly stated other reasons for their attacks on the West than those you claim. Why don't you believe them?

To put it more simply: when Danish cartoonists are threatened for offending Islam, is that also because of imperialism?

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

#157

Post by thomasrossi »

vacri wrote: post #126
Spearchucker wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are indeed plenty of third-generation Algerians in France. The ones I know are happy being in France though, I am not sure it is home-grown, it has been planned with local help, but the source was tracked in Turkey, then lost. I think they have a good protocol to handle communication outside internet.

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

#158

Post by [deleted] »

caskance wrote: post #81
Karunamon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A logical inference. Given: Things like mass phone surveillance, passively breaking legitimate encryption used by non criminals, introducing vulnerabilities, and other plainly illegal behavior is being deployed against citizens ..with no recourse.. ..which are answered with outright lies when challenged (c.f. Snowden, Clapper's lies before Congress).. ..and the methods are of dubious actual effectiveness when it come…

Never heard of Hanlon's razor?

[deleted]

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

#159

Post by Retra »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #125
Retra wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Yet, most democracies aren't being massively targeted by terrorists. Largely just those involved in imperialism or regions contested by imperialists.

You know who is involved in these regions? Countries with money. Because without money, you can't do anything but let dictators and mass-murderers trample around like vicious kings. Turning a blind eye to your abused neighbors isn't a way to prevent terrorism, either. You might reduce anti-US terrorism by ignoring the rest of the world, but a lot of people will die, and you're still going to have enemies. It's a factor, not a solution.

Though I suppose if the US were poor as dirt, we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism. Just civil war and invasion.

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

#160

Post by richdougherty »

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…

I don't think non-proliferation would be a good idea for encryption technology:

1. Depriving the the public of decent encryption does a lot of harm. If you let some people in through the backdoor you're going to let bad people in too.

This is different from nuclear bombs. It doesn't harm the public to deprive them of nuclear weapons. I like having my financial information encrypted, but I don't want a personal nuclear bomb.

2. Non-proliferation of encryption wouldn't work. The algorithms and ideas are already widespread. Every university teaches it. Millions of computers have the code already. The code and ideas can be proliferated anonymously, instantly, undetectably and cheaply.

This is different from nuclear bombs. Nuclear bombs are much more complex and expensive to transport, manufacture and hide.

(I haven't mentioned AK47s, but I'd say they fall somewhere between between encryption and nuclear bombs in benefit vs harm to the public and in ease vs difficulty of non-proliferation, which is why there are more of them around than there are nuclear bombs.)

Post reply on HN