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

171–180 of 282 posts

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

#171

Post by bobdole1234 »

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…

No, they want to collect everything to find something to hang you with after the fact.

There is way too much volume and noise to find threats in the hurricane of hay flying past to find the needles in real time.

But if you have someone specific to start targeting, you can quite easily take their whole life apart and find their friends and make all these connections after the fact.

The goal isn't to stop attacks, it's to ensure that nobody goes unpunished.

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

#172

Post by reddytowns »

RankingMember wrote: post #31
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.

It's inevitable only with an attitude of "it's inevitable".

If you believe it, it will come true!

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

#173

Post by Futurebot »

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…

I'd love to see what a detailed version of security policies and infrastructure look like in a world of backdoor-less strong encryption from Schneier, the EFF, the Hopkins crew, etc. Something that can be used to persuade, or at least influence policymakers by allowing them to see that another way is possible, one that allows security services to do their job in a way that allows them to feel that their work isn't futile, while simultaneously respecting privacy rights.

I think the need for strong encryption and no backdoors (which has Schneier explains, are always a double-edged sword) are very important and I support them, but that those on the side of it who also have in-depth knowledge about the finer details don't deign to articulate just what exactly the policy looks like without resorting to just a list of what we shouldn't do and vague allusions to "just go old-school" or "utilize human assets more."

A coherently articulated, normative counterfactual security platform would be a better place to argue from.

It's a cousin to the negative liberty arguments: they only list what not to do to in order to avoid hurting people, rather than what we can do to help them (positive liberty.)

Maybe we could frame the question as "If we let the EFF and Bruce Schneier redesign the United States security apparatus from scratch, what would it look like?"

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

#174

Post by afarrell »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #122
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 c…

How do you convince someone to refuse to be terrorized though? If I know someone who feels genuine fear when they hear about these sorts of attacks, what do I say to them? "You're an idiot", "here is some math", and "you're giving them power over you" are not effective approaches.

How do I convince someone they should try to not feel fear if they strongly believe their fear is valid and that attempts to invalidate their fear are an insult.

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

#175

Post by vacri »

thomasrossi wrote: post #157
vacri wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When I say European home-grown terrorism, I'm not thinking of recently arrived demographics, but groups like Irish and Basque separatists.

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

#176

Post by simplify »

afarrell wrote: post #174
nickpsecurity wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

How do you convince someone to refuse to be terrorized though? If I know someone who feels genuine fear when they hear about these sorts of attacks, what do I say to them? "You're an idiot", "here is some math", and "you're giving them power over you" are not effective approaches. How do I convince someone they should try to not feel fear if they strongly believe their fear is valid and that attempts to invalidate th…

You could try telling them that police kill more people than terrorist do https://reason.com/blog/2014/12/09/more-than-1000-people-hav...

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

#177

Post by zaroth »

enraged_camel wrote: post #164
dionidium wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>>ou want to remove the terrorist impulse from all of humanity forever? That's... ambitious. No, the goal should be to improve the living conditions, infrastructure, access to education, etc of impoverished regions where terrorist sentiment typically appears and festers. To give an extreme example, there is a reason the Saudi royalty aren't walking into the middle of a marketplace and blowing themselves up: they alre…

Ah yes, the good old 'if only they could all be treated like Saudi royalty, they wouldn't blow themselves up in the middle of a marketplace' argument!

Standard of living is a continuous curve which has absolutely nothing to do with mass murder. There is a binary switch which occurs separately from any experience which is measured in terms of 'standard of living'. Now maybe there are some experiences which can drive a person to commit terrorism, but I think more likely, this terrorism is not a consequence of some action, but rather, these are a group of people who use terrorism as a tool to wage war. Why are they at war with the West? It's not because of standard of living, I'm pretty sure it's because they hate everything the West stands for and wants it to burn.

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

#178

Post by nickpsecurity »

Retra wrote: post #170
nickpsecurity wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The organization currently targeting the U.S. is largely the result of their unnecessary invasion of Iraq that smashed the country and left plenty of weapons over there. The organization that did it before was funded and trained by the U.S. for proxy war with the Soviets with a lot more alleged in between. Same for Saddam for use against Iran. Iran hit in Mossadegh days to steal their oil and control the area. And so…

Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Your comment isn't necessary, and it isn't making a friend of me. Does this mean that it's your fault if I attack you? That you should have backed out and minded your own business? That's a stupid and suicidal policy. >Far from a mere "factor," it's been the single most consistent and driving force behind all terrorism against us. So you say. But…

"Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean we shouldn't do it."

So you're saying we should have committed mass murder and armed terror groups throughout the Middle East in the name of stealing resources or manipulating politics? Did you do any research to back this or are you writing up some far-fetched, sophist comment since you can't counter my points?

"And I really don't see how people committing acts of terrorism are making good decisions that we should support by giving them what they want for doing so."

Last I checked, the U.S. was still trying to screw with and control much of the Middle East instead of support them. The regions where we have the most meddling are among the least stable. Doing good over there instead of evil might actually accomplish something. Further, areas with groups like ISIS aren't terrorism vs Some Good Government rather than a group of competing evil groups all set on controlling and oppressing the area. So, fighting one isn't fighting terrorism so much as fighting one group while putting another into power.

You won't see the U.S. truly fight oppression over there because it's not in power-players financial and political interests. There's benefits to be had from continued partnerships with dictators and theocracies. Just ask Saudi Arabia.

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

#179

Post by nickpsecurity »

simplify wrote: post #176
afarrell wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you convince someone to refuse to be terrorized though? If I know someone who feels genuine fear when they hear about these sorts of attacks, what do I say to them? "You're an idiot", "here is some math", and "you're giving them power over you" are not effective approaches. How do I convince someone they should try to not feel fear if they strongly believe their fear is valid and that attempts to invalidate th…

You could try telling them that police kill more people than terrorist do https://reason.com/blog/2014/12/09/more-than-1000-people-hav...

Do NOT do that. You're just putting them against you in debate.

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

#180

Post by zaroth »

I think this article misses the most obvious point. Encryption is widely available for free and in the open. It's not about listing the devices or code they might not trust, if there's even one that they do trust, then you can backdoor everything else and it won't matter.

Why do they think they can put the Genie back in the bottle? The answer is they know that they can't, the backdoor only effects the people who don't care they are being tracked. It's not for terrorists, it's for people who carry smartphones. Which is almost everyone, so good enough for them. But the argument is absolutely nothing to do with "preventing terrorism".

Post reply on HN