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

John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 196 posts

Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack

#171

Post by Sven7 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #164
Sven7 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not awareness of privacy and financial sec issues. The problem is how do you prevent the next Boston Bombing or Paris. Since we don't have a good answer to that, what else do expect them to do?

We have an answer, but it's a political no-go. The answer is: you can't, really. You can do the obvious things like stop bombing the living shit out of Middle East, etc. but that would only reduce the amount of radicalized people. The best you can do is to push it down below the "crazy noise floor" - because you ultimately can't prevent random people with a particularly destructive mental condition or an axe to grind…

You are saying what I am saying. There are no good answers. Doesn't mean we stop looking for answers. Which is what the focus of these debates should be.

It's easy when there are no good answers, to take a dump on the decisions people in positions of responsibility take. It just distracts and complicates the story.

Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack

#172

Post by duaneb »

dogma1138 wrote: post #28
an_account wrote: post #4

I love how Republicans believe that outlawing guns won't stop criminals from having guns while at the same time believing that outlawing encryption will keep criminals from using encryption. Encryption methods are far easier to transport and spread illegally than gun are.

>Encryption methods are far easier to transport and spread illegally than gun are. I won't go that far, I would say that getting a Gun in the US or even in Europe (especially since the eastern European and Balkan states have joined (officially or unofficially Schengen) is by far easier than setting up your own secure crypto from scratch. This isn't an argument in favor of banning crypto, just a hard simple truth that…

> I won't go that far, I would say that getting a Gun in the US or even in Europe (especially since the eastern European and Balkan states have joined (officially or unofficially Schengen) is by far easier than setting up your own secure crypto from scratch.

This is laughable. Getting a gun legally or illegally is harder than downloading a basic Tails live cd.

Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack

#173

Post by akshatpradhan »

ecdavis wrote: post #36

Is it really worth leaving a thoughtful comment about such an ignorant statement? It's clear to me that these people have no idea what encryption actually is and only have a cursory understanding of what it does. They're aware that criminals and terrorists can use encryption to communicate covertly. That's why they want to ban it. Are they also aware that the exact same technology is used to protect their online bank…

What is encryption for? Why even have it at all? Devil's advocate.

Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack

#174

Post by tn13 »

Frondo wrote: post #92
tn13 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hillay clinton is probably pro-hide-that-hardisk. Rand Paul is libertarian and mostly anti-gov. We need more people like him in Washington.

Nah, what we need is fewer rich people and more women and people of color--a closer match to the actual demographics of the people of the country. I would no sooner put a anti-gov politician in charge than hire a manager who's opposed to the existence of the team he's managing.

I am not sure why and how that helps anyone. Japanese Americans and Indian Americans are least politically influential and extremely better off than every other group. On other hand look at Blacks And Irish Americans. Opposite case.

Groups do well when they enjoy freedom, chase opportunities freely, compete and drink less. Not when someone from their community is elected.

You are completely wrong about the manager aspect. A good manager will always keep the team lean, less red tape and maximize the freedom of the team members as well as the customers they are serving. managers on other hand will always claim their more resources which they will spend on their own lavish lifestyle and problems that did not need solving in first place. Obama is a good example.

Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack

#175

Post by joering2 »

Swizec wrote: post #128
joering2 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are they also aware that the exact same technology is used to protect their online banking? Yes they are -- that's why it's not a matter of passing a one-page bill overnight, but rather a more complex piece of legislation that in order to be done right, need time and bi-partisan involvement. And I found it hard to believe you don't see a difference between encrypting your bank transaction, and encrypting your onlin…

> don't see a difference between encrypting your bank transaction, and encrypting your online conversation. How is my online conversation with the bank any different than my other online conversations? Sure the content is different, but it's all the same medium, using the same sort of technology.

> How is my online conversation with the bank any different than my other online conversations?

It happened between you and your legitimate bank. Its definitely not like 2 terrorist exchanging information online. Unless of course your are HSBC bank.

Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack

#176

Post by TeMPOraL »

plonh wrote: post #170
techdragon wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put more simply. If the terrorist wants to stay safe they would exploit any loophole. If conversation is backdoored but banking is not, they could use online banking and code word type messages in transaction descriptions that move trivial amounts of money back and forth between multiple accounts.

You are ignoring the bandwidth differences between protocols.

You don't need much bandwidth. The Internet is creating a false sense of data size because nowadays even a simple hello world seems to require a multi-megabyte download. But actual communication for practical purposes can be done in just bytes. There's more than enough space in transfer title to communicate a lot of stuff, even without a pre-arranged set of shortcuts, and in planning stages, you don't need real-time communication anyway.

(Note, this comment would fit in one or two bank tranfers).

Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack

#177

Post by tn13 »

Rusky wrote: post #143
c0achmcguirk wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nah, what we need is fewer rich people and more women and people of color Please no sexism, classism, and racism in choosing people. Best people for the job regardless of their income tax bracket or their skin color. Just put people in office that understand how to run a country and limit the powers of government.

This is a common and frustrating sentiment when people try to counter sexism/classism/racism. The real question is this: Is it really true that rich white males are generally more competent? If they aren't, what can we do to remove that bias and get what you ask for? If they are, what's preventing other groups from gaining competence?

Japanese Americans do much better than white males in many professions including higher education does that mean system is biased towards them? How come those politicians who talk non-stop about minorities never mention Jews, Indian Americans, Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans as minorities and extend the same benefits to them ?

The reality is that different cultures value different things and pursue different dreams. Only politicians benefit by peddling the agenda that some other group is keeping another group down. As an Indian education was extremely valued in the family, education not only ensured prosperity but status and excellent marriage opportunities. Automatically academic and intellectual success is something I have pursued and probably my children would do the same. My parents sold many items to put me through colleges and I would do the same for my kids. White Americans on other hand have different concepts of status, a football player is considered as cool where as smart boy is considered nerd. Guess who gets more dates ?

USA was founded on the principle that people should be free to pursue their own values. What we do not want is politicians forcing needless values on us.

Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack

#179

Post by Spivak »

stanleydrew wrote: post #45
serge2k wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that relevant? I disagree with him too, but this is a lousy argument.

It's a bit of a reducto-ad-absurdum simplification, but the argument is pointing out the fact that most people wouldn't ever consider valid a law that would prevent simpler mathematical operations, so why should we consider the validity of a law that would try to outlaw complicated mathematical operations. How would it even be possible to enforce it?

>How would it even be possible to enforce it?

Mass surveillance + "if we cant understand your data and isn't in one of the prescribed formats then you are a criminal and can be charged on that fact alone."

Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack

#180

Post by zurn »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #167
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a political party. The whole point of one is to get people behind a general platform. Even keeping in mind that two-party systems tend to be extremely factional by practical necessity, the view that the GOP is the "party of limited government" is nothing but propaganda.

Somebody please explain to me how political parties aren't the dumbest idea ever, because I'm having trouble seeing it. I find the concept of buying into political beliefs wholesale - instead of considering them on a case-by-case basis - to be plain insanity.

Some pretty big advantages: They are voting blocs that are long lived enough for reputation to work. It makes representatives much easier to follow and predict (for media and citizens). They become much more efficient in wielding power and less vulnerable to divide-and-conquer adversaries.

Relatively few people can keep track of what a handful of parties did in the last couple of years, imagine how short the public memory would be if it was single representatives.

Also, ideas in politics are interrelated. A big core value or strategic objective will pretty naturally lead to a bunch of other related ideas. You can view this as "buying into political beliefs wholesale" but it's a pretty natural thing to happen.

Post reply on HN